Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Are gas prices fueling your pain?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That's what I meant..........
$3.95
I'm going to guess $2.89 by the end of summer.
I suspect that not wearing a seatbelt does not have the impact on our health care resources as being extremely obese. These people can easily be identified. Let's set up surveilance on them like these speeding cameras being advocated. Big fines for every time they go for that Haagen Daaz ice cream. Like you said, the government has not only the right but the obligation to keep us from hurting ourselves.
My point is that judgment is involved with these laws to help us stop hurting ourselves.
It "hurts no one" to have a seatbelt law, whereas the greater good is served to the COLLECTIVE "US."
Anyone who is obese is hurting THEMSELVES and not necessarily directly harming others - but to make them stop being obese is far from as simple as asking someone to Click It Or Ticket.
My bet in the Labor Day pool is assuming at least one big event knocking things crazy during the summer. Could be trouble in the Middle East, a major hurricane or one of any number of things.
Don't most cars have a sweet spot, a rpm where they will be most efficient? If so being in top gear and below that might not be as efficient as being in a gear lower and being closer to that RPM.
From what I have seen in my time with DOT, speed limits affect very little the speeds that people, truckers included, actually drive.
I am going to disagree with that one. When I drove the Interstates at 70 MPH when it was a national 55 MPH SL I had far fewer people pass me than when they raised it to 65 MPH and I stayed at 70 MPH.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You know there's nothing wrong with a little natural selection.
Yes a seatbelt law would be easier to implement than an obesity law. Here's a law that might be even easier to enforce. A helmet law. I'm not talking about motorcycles, I'm talking about automobiles. Don't tell me this wouldn't save lives. "If it could save just one life". One of my alltime favorite mindless rants.
Pollutants are produced by burning fuel, the more fuel you burn the more pollutants you produce. Cars are far more efficient at lower speeds (65 as opposed to 75) hence will burn less fuel for the distance driven. Less fuel burned means less pollution. Is very basic.
Also I find it humorous that people are actually thinking they will solve our energy issues by being wasteful. :confuse:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
True, but that doesn't mean that they produce the same amount of pollutants. The Ferrari may be putting out nearly 100% of what is allowed and the Civic 30%.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yes I think the legal term is tailgating.
if everyone were to do 80mph in a line everyone drafting the next person will save more oil than 60mph.
Your right because once the lead car has to make a quick stop you get a pile up and all the cars get destroyed so they can't use any more gas and most of the drivers will get killed so they can't buy new cars to use more gas. Heck it helps the overpopulation problem too. Good thinking.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Also I find it humorous that people are actually thinking they will solve our energy issues by being wasteful.
It won't in itself solve anything, it will force a solution to occur more quickly. For example, WWII did not invent the atom bomb but it resulted in it's rapid development. Maybe not a good thing but hopefully you get the point. The saying that necessity is the mother of invention is very true. Being wasteful can create the necessity. A better way to go would be solve problems before they reached crisis level. Maybe I'm overly cynical but I don't think we operate that way in this country.
While you're at it have them install those steel cages that are in NASCAR cars and limit speeds to 5 MPH. Then we would eliminate all highway deaths (except those caused by boredom).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The Civic does pretty well in CA, with their low sulfur fuel. In the rest of the country it isn't rated any better than the Ferraris in terms of air pollution despite the fact it gets more than twice the mpg. And these EPA ratings are based upon pollutants per mile. It turns out that these more efficient vehicles actually produce considerably more pollutants per gallon.
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle/all-rank-07.htm
Efficient in that context means the least gas used per unit of gas/air mixture, and you are correct. But in terms of total gas used, it is simply the lower the revs, the better, generally speaking. I do not advocate engine lugging, of course! :-)
"When I drove the Interstates at 70 MPH when it was a national 55 MPH SL I had far fewer people pass me than when they raised it to 65 MPH and I stayed at 70 MPH."
Yes, again I tried to explain that all our studies were in urban areas, not out on the interstates (well, they were on the interstates, but in urban areas where there was a daily rush hour during the week, etc etc, not in rural areas where everyone is just sailing along and the highway patrol hides behind every overpass with their radar guns).
Over studies including millions and millions of passes, we found the traffic flow to be most commonly in the 68-72 speed bracket regardless of speed limit, with outliers in the 55-85 range.
Funny thing is the county where I live has just been officially declared the oldest county in California (highest median age of resident, IOW), and boy can you ever see it out on the freeway! If we could get some of these old folks up past 50 mph in the 65 zone, we would effectively get the third and fourth lanes of our freeway back. It's just ridiculous. They are saving gas like MAD though. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The proposal would be offered as an alternative to a fuel economy measure scheduled to be considered by the full Senate the week of June 11.
The Senate bill calls for a fleetwide average of 35 mpg by 2020 -- about 40 percent higher ... story Published: 5:43 PM, ET, 5/30/07 [REG]
That's pretty simplistic All other things being equal an engine is burning more gas at higher revs, but it is also travelling faster, further. If it only takes a 9% increase in fuel flow to increase your revs by 10% then this is the efficient thing to do. An engine has a certain rpm range where it is producing the most power per unit of fuel. This is where it is most efficient and it won't be just above the lugging point.
On a manual shift car, I'd guess it's whatever speed you can go into top gear, without lugging the engine.
Now with older automatics, in the pre-lockup converter days, I dunno what the "sweet spot" would be. Just about every automatic I've ever owned would go into direct drive (the 1.00:1 ratio) around 25-30 mph under light load. But I'm sure that the sweet spot would be higher.
I remember reading awhile back that cars usually hit their peak fuel economy at a steady speed of 35-45 mph. The article said that this has actually been the case since the 20's or 30's. That may have changed with the advent of 5- and 6-speed automatics, and I have heard that some cars, like the V-8 Aurora, are actually tuned to get their peak economy at around 58 mph.
I think it is very vehicle dependent. And I think an extreme example would be a car like the Corvette, which probably gets its best mileage above 60 mph. One of my cars is a 2003 Honda Accord 6 cyl. The difference between 65 and 75 is 33 mpg versus 31 mpg. Not enough for me to be concerned about. I suspect the difference for the 4 cyl Accord would be considerably more. For a car like the Prius it would be even more dramatic.
The laws should be consistent based on principle and philosophy, and they're not; not even within a state never mind the nation. This country's Constitution was written to given people freedom and choice, not just freedom to make the choice the majority (or the vocal few) thinks is correct.
There have, are and will be many laws passed that are unconstitutional and injust.
you: It's just smart.
me: but there are many things that are smart, which we don't have laws for. Should we force people to go to college? ban cigarettes? ban liquor? ban motorcycles? ban football (too many injuries, for no social gain)? ban recreational snowmobiles and ATV's? ban skydiving? It's a slippery slope society is on when they pick and choose what is smart or too dangerous.
Personally I could care less who wants to do what. Wear pink shoes, paint your house a rainbow, and fly a pirate-flag, it doesn't hurt me 1 bit. Just don't tell me I can't because you don't like it. But I'm a realist and know there are some of you out there who are "missionaries" who are determined to preach to others on following the correct path they see.
me: I agree!! The states could setup stations just like for emissions, and everyone would have to go down with their SS card and get weighed once a month. You get fined $5/Lb for being over your optimum body-fat level. That would be fair as I'm probably paying for uninsured, overweight people who are in and out of the hospital over years with diabetes.
If people are lighter then our vehicles will get slightly better mpg.
That is true, but we can't escape physics. Drag from wind resistance increases exponentially with speed, so going 75 mph will always require more energy than going 65 mph, which will require more energy than going 55 mph, etc. The energy delta at 75 versus 65 will more than wipe out any marginal efficiency improvement from running in an engine's optimal rpm range.
Recently, I have seen at least 4 different cars parked sitting idling with the driver inside. One guy was reading the newspaper, and one lady was applying make-up.
So if that is any indication, people are not yet very worried about gas prices and their effect on their own wallets.
Sad.............
Don't forget the old BAC discussion....let's bring that one back while we're at it...
You are beating a dead monkey larsb.
Just read a press release from your favorite car company Toyota. The new MOST POWERFUL GAS GUZZLING PU TRUCK in the USA is having engine problems. That was not the surprise for me. Toyota states in their press release that 65% of the new Tundras being sold are with the new big 5.7L engine. That leads me to believe that all the buyers of that new super high powered gas guzzling pig of a truck need to tow a 10,000 pound trailer. Or do they just want to be fastest from 0-60 MPH?
No one buying those trucks has any care about the cost of gas or their gas mileage. Which I understand is on average about 9.5 MPG. Even lower than the EPA estimate. A majority opt for power over high mileage.
4.0 V-6: 15/19 (17/20 under old rating system)
4.7 V-8: 14/17 (15/18)
5.7 V-8: 14/18 (16/20)
So going by the EPA rating at least, most people probably just don't see a significant mileage penalty in opting for the 5.7.
Hmmm, I think the Aztek is the ugliest car, how about you?
And has anyone heard about using goats instead of lawnmowers? Sounds like an interesting topic.
Now SUVs, we all love them, so nothing to talk about there.....
Well tie my head to a pig and roll me in the mud. How could I forget that one? The right number is that anything over .0000000000001 is drunk, right?
I KNEW the no seat belt law had to be New Hampshire. Vermont could make a fortune having cops at the state line and just ticket everyone....
I am a little concerned about weighing people at the emissions stations. The vegetarians would pass the weight test but fail emissions.
But just think of what the drop in moving vehicle weight will mean in mpg. If it saves just one hydrocarbon....
My point is, people want more power and MPG is not high on the list of priorities. Remember Toyota is right in there with the other automakers lobbying against any new CAFE laws. The automakers realize they have reached the point of diminishing returns on getting higher MPG out of a gas engine. The only way they can reach the proposed CAFE standards is switching to diesel engines.
I'm sure that if that 5.7 on the Tundra option list was rated at some ridiculously low figure, like 10/15, it would be a much less popular option. But as it stands, its rating is so close to the V-6, that most buyers probably consider it negligible, unless they're on a budget.
I ran into a similar situation a year or so ago, when I was toying with the idea of buying a new Silverado/Sierra pickup. I think the V-6 was rated at 16/20 and the 4.8 was rated at 15/20 (I'm too lazy to look up the actual figures right now :P ). Anyway, the mileage was close enough that it really didn't matter to me. However, the price did. I think the V-8 carried a $900 price premium. I figured that even the 4.3 V-6 is probably more capable than the old 5.0 4-bbl in my '85 Silverado. And my Silverado does most of what I need it to, so I figured that the V-8 would just be a waste of money. It might help with resale value down the road, but if I were to buy a new truck, I'd keep it probably until it fell apart.
I've just read the first paragraph or two but I will comment more on it later.
A 1986 Honda Civic CRX was rated 50 city/57 hwy. Of course it was an unsafe little death trap with little or no comfort and convenience items, but it goes to show what CAN BE DONE with the technology we already have.
And Gary, the auto makers are not lobbying against new CAFE standards because they love pollution and love to make big powerful cars. They are doing it because making cars more fuel efficient cuts into their bottom line. And making money is what car companies want more than anything.
You can't make that assertion without knowing what the wind resistance is. Yes it will increase exponentially. The horsepower to overcome wind resistance at 75 mph will be 53% more than what it was at 65 mph regardless of the vehicle. An aerodynamic vehicle might only use ~20 hp to overcome the wind resistance at 65 mph. Meaning it would need 31 hp to overcome the resistance at 75 mph, an additional 11 hp. But you are going 10 mph faster or 15%. Does producing this additional 11 hp require more than a 15% increase in fuel flow? I say it depends on the engine. Probably in most cases the answer would be yes but often times the difference would be negligible. Certainly not worth spending the extra time on the road.
If your assumption on the automakers building a higher mileage car are true. Why haven't they done it? Do you think Toyota and Honda would have wasted all that money on hybrids if they could have gotten high mileage out of a gas engine alone?
You always like to fall back on the argument of "they like to make money". That should be a given. I say they do not build high mileage vehicles because the American public are more interested in high power than high mileage. They want bigger vehicles not smaller vehicles. The automakers are smart enough to know they cannot give the buyers all they want with a gas engine. So they try hybrids and that satisfies a few techno geeks but not the general population. I just don't think the CAFE 35 MPG will fly. I think it will be shot down. Unless they loosen the strings on the diesel vehicles.
Face it you along with the rest of the buying public want bigger cars. Your current Camry is bigger than our LS400 Lexus. Automakers make money selling what people want.
More mileage should not equal less power. By now I'm sure you've heard of the electric car that wasted a Ferrari in acceleration tests.
As usual, the Asians will lead this technology because US is asleep at the SUV/Crossover wheel.
Same old, same old.
Regards,
OW
As usual, the Asians will lead this technology because US is asleep at the SUV/Crossover wheel.
Americans like SUV/CUVs is the reason. I see more new SUVs in my neighborhood than Yaris or Fit. In fact I have not seen one of those little cracker box cars. In cars bigger is better. Camry is not a small car and it is still number one. Even the CorVIcs are bigger than a 10 year old Camry. Buyers will not give up comfort for mileage. They feel they have earned the right to have a luxury car or SUV. Can't take that away from them. As much as a few would like to legislate us all into a Yugo, it ain't gonna happen.
Goats? Some stuff should stay buried and hidden in the archives. :shades:
Gary, that was most definitely true a few years ago. I don't think the current trends are showing it to be true NOW in 2007.
Small and medium size cars are on the upswing and larger and Big SUVs are on the downswing, according to the most recent sales trends.
I personally could care less how "big" my car is. I wanted more leg and interior cargo room than my HCH had because my kids were growing, and I was in a position financially to upgrade to the TCH.
A good female friend of mine has three kids aged 9, 14 and 17 and she has a 2006 Civic and they all fit just fine in it. And the Civic is one of the safest cars on the road at any size.
So I could have stayed with the Civic but I chose to go with a little more interior room for personal comfort reasons; although the Civic was big enough for me "technically."
gary says, "So they try hybrids and that satisfies a few techno geeks but not the general population."
Once again, keep up with TIMES Gary !! That statement was true a couple or three years ago but not now. Hybrid sales will keep going up, and the geeks and techno freaks are no longer the only customers.
My point is that many American families are feeling the pinch not at the pump but at the grocery store and Wal-Mart or wherever they shop. As the cost of fuel goes up so does the cost of goods and services.
I've had the goat idea myself. We live in the country and I used to mow a big area outside my yard just to keep the place looking nicer. Not this year - Now I makea one or two trips around with my mower just to keep the fence from getting overgrown. I've thought several times how a goat could keep that done for me at a very low cost, and hey, the goat not only mows, he fertilizes too!
And that is why when gas prices drop or the economy gets better, more people are buying what they "want".
It is human nature to want MORE.
20 hp to 31 hp is a 55% increase in horsepower, which will require about that much more fuel to produce. Engine efficiency only increases maybe 1-3% from worst to best in the rpm range. Going faster uses more fuel, period. Decreased travel time doesn't help either, since time decreases linearly with speed while energy use increases exponentially with speed.