By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Bob Lutz: Those darn regulators make it so tough...
The real problem is a lot of people have not gotten decent increases in pay. When I went to work for Ma Bell in 1961 I made about $1.60 per hour. If memory serves me the President of AT&T made less than $100,000 per year. That comparison is totally skewed today. If the ratio had stayed the same as 1961, I would be making about $330,000 per year compared to the CEO of AT&T.
-Rocky
Carb and the EPA have the anti diesel sentiment created over generations to thank. In that sense they have worked very hard to perpetuate that myth by paradoxically NOT regulating the host of UNMITIGATED diesel generators over this time!
I have already demonstrated that it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE for the less than 3% diesel passenger vehicle fleet to cause the pollution attibuted to it especially since the average diesel puts out the emissions profile of a mainstay Toyota Camry/Honda Accord.!!!
The most fuel efficient 2008-model cars available to consumers are hybrids, according to new fuel economy numbers issued by the EPA. The Toyota Prius, with a combined highway/city mileage of 46, and the Civic Hybrid with combined mpg of 42, are the only vehicles to break the 40-mpg mark. The rest of the top five most efficient vehicles are also hybrids: the Nissan Altima Hybrid, Toyota Camry Hybrid, and two-wheel-drive Ford Escape Hybrid, the only SUV at the top of the list.
The 2008 fuel economy figures for hybrids are about 20 percent lower than last year’s numbers, based on new testing procedures designed to better reflect real-world driving conditions, such as high-speed driving, use of air conditioning, and cold weather. Industry observers speculated that hybrids—commonly criticized for having exaggerated official mpg numbers used on window labels—would tumble when the new testing system took effect. Despite the adjustments, hybrid gas-electric vehicles remain as leaders in fuel efficiency.
The top ten highest ranked vehicles for mpg include three non-hybrids: the manual and automatic versions of the Toyota Yaris, a subcompact, and the manual Toyota Corolla.
better late than never!
This is one of the ugliest cars in the world. YUCK !!!!!
-Rocky
NORTSR
Yes, we are the most powerful and developed country in the world, but we have not taken this issue seriously enough. Our leaders need to react with a sense of urgency in finding alternatives to oil, and we need to do all in our power to become more energy effiecient.
If every American reduced their oil/energy consumption 25% would that solve the global energy issues for long?
Here's an example of how we are as a society. A salesman came to visit me the other day on a visit of questionable value - nothing we couldn't do over the phone, and via UPS. He flew his private plane (hobby) 150 miles, rented a car, took me to lunch, and flew back 2 hours later. I guess the gas was a business expense? Moral - people with mone are still going to use and justify their energy consumption. Reality is if you conserve there is likely someone else who will gladly buy and use your fuel.
Personally I will not sacrifice much, while others use fuel for their personal boats, planes, and RV hobbies, and their 4,000 sq.ft. homes.
(Why for example is China building more power plants? To let them sit idle IN CASE!!!??? )
How many times do I need to say it before you understand? CARB nor CAFE nor anyone else has an "unreasonable bias" against diesel fuel. I have never seen a quote or a paper anywhere that said "diesel passenger cars are a major cause of air pollution in the USA" - No one has EVER said that as far as I have seen.
All their reasons for curtailing diesel exhaust are backed up in full by hundreds of scientific studies over many decades which prove the harm of diesel EXHAUST. And they could not reasonably ban diesel 18-wheelers, or diesel off-road equipment, because you know what? There are no alternatives in those cases.
There WERE alternatives in automobiles, however.
This in part is what led to the excellent current ULSD regulation, and the upcoming limits to be placed on off-road diesel fuel. And it led also to the current crop of 50-state legal cars which will soon be hitting the road in the USA.
All that is GOOD, not BAD. Nothing about it is bad. Just because YOU think it "took too long" does not mean it is a bad thing to have waited until now.
JUST NOW have diesel exhaust systems become technologically advanced enough to make diesel exhaust FAR less of a health hazard than it was just a few years ago. That "clean diesel" technology was not in place 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. Now that it IS available, then diesels will become more commonplace.
I think the one cliche' that applies here is:
Better LATE than never, my friend.
-Rocky
I am not trying to preach and I am not claiming to be without fault, but I think each person can make a difference if we adapt a different mindset.
I have never, ever, EVER said that. Everyone knows that diesel exhaust comes mainly from 18-wheelers, off-road diesel construction equipment, and ships. Of course it's not caused by a few Jettas !!!
I stand by the correctness of my previous post. It was a really good post, with a lot of good facts and good points.
I just love progress, even at ooze speed!
the engine lasts for at least 300,000 miles. though much longer is common...
I mix some waste veggie oil and additives into the biodiesel, as an extender...to help conserve fuel . No problems at all .
I recently drove 400 miles down to Los Angeles...had a few fun days, and drove back..... 900 miles total, and did not even go to a single gas station. We brought along special containers filled up with 15 gallons of biodiesel, and just used that.
Thanks ruking, for introducing me to jetta TDIs.... it is fun.
(I knowt most folks understand that even DIESELS require care and feeding!)
It was also way cool to finally meet you face to face at a past GTG!
(Get To Gether)
Ah, the power of the internet and informational flow!!
1. It's the most fuel-efficient speed you can get in a vehicle. You can get more than 40 MPG in a gasoline Honda Accord or Toyota Camry by driving only 55 mph with A/C turned off.
2. We can save more than 30% of the oil supply before it is completly depleted.
3. When driving 55 mph, you get to be in your car longer (assuming new) and enjoy the interior comfort around you. Plus, it's more relaxing and fun to drive, and you can multitask more easily at the same time, such as taking cell phone calls, eating snacks, writing notes, or reading papers.
4. It can increase the engine life of the vehicle.
5. It may (or may not) reduce the chance of getting into an accident.
However, nobody seems to take advantage at this speed. Everytime I try to drive 55 mph on the highway, freeway, or expressway, people keep on honking, flash headlights, or pass me. Why? Back in the 80s, I had no trouble driving 55 mph on the highway. Now, nobody cares. Today, everybody looks to be in hurry, but they are not. What is going on with people's driving habits these days, and why are people still not worrying what MPG they get in their vehicles?
And BTW, I always drive the speed limit on the highway for the express purpose of saving gas, and always consequently exceed the EPA highway ratings on my vehicles by 10-20% or more. And I DON'T get run off the highway as all the speed mavens at Edmunds always imply. In fact, since the gas prices have skyrocketed it is quite the contrary: I find I have to quite often get out of the slow lane to pass cars going even slower than me.
Just one anecdote to add to the pile. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
70 wouldn't be too painful personally, but 55 outside the urban areas may be a hard sell until gas really does get rationed or goes to $8.
(got the dupe, Nippononly).
It would also eliminate those who think they are "Precise" drivers in little cars as they would have to submit to the fogey's 55 limit.
At 55 MPH you need the AC on full blast to keep you awake. 55 is fine for urban areas. There are too many long stretches of Interstate that should be posted even higher than the current 75 MPH. I just made a trip to Phoenix last week. I drove with the traffic going over. Running about 75-80 MPH in our Sequoia. I got 16.88 MPG.On the return to San DIego I decided to take it easy. I never went over 70 MPH with mostly 65 MPH. I got 16.82 MPG. So I would argue with this vehicle it makes little difference the speed you drive. I got tailgated and and had people passing me across double lines out in the middle of AZ when I was cruising the posted 65 MPH. Switching to diesel cars is a much better way to save gas than slowing down millions of drivers. It would congest the roads even more than they are now.
Look, no one is arguing that saving lives and reducing serious injuries, as well as cutting our dependence on a depleting resource from politically unstable countries, are not worthy goals, because they're very worthy. However, there's also something to the argument that individuals weigh the safety, economic and social factors, as well as the value they place on their time, and other considerations, when they decide how fast they should drive. It seems to me that if 55 were a brilliant idea, all things considered, we wouldn't have raised our limits, and other countries would have embraced the idea.
Here in Pennsylvania, where the speed limit is 65 mph, most people drive 70-75 mph, with a fair number in the 80+ mph range. Which is fine with me. Realistically, anyone who can't drive at least 70 mph on a rural limited access highway shouldn't be on the road in the first place.
I drove from Harrisburg to Indiana (Pa.) for Thanksgiving, most of it via the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and anybody going 65 mph was blocking traffic in the slow lane.
Guess what - fatalities are lower than ever. Setting the speed limit at 55 mph for those who hate to drive any faster is like letting the special education kids set the curriculum for the rest of the class.
If drivers want to make the trade-off of higher speeds for less fuel economy, that is nobody else's business. Let people vote with their right foot.
I think our forefathers fought for the right to govern ourselves. I would like to see the speed limits dropped altogether on the Interstate highways. Currently they are just a money maker for the states they pass through. If someone is driving recklessly give them a ticket. Driving fast and driving erratic are not the same thing.
I tried the slow relaxing 65 MPH for my 325 mile return trip from Phoenix. I got worse mileage than driving 75 MPH and got home 40 minutes later than if I drove the speed limit.
That said, 55 mph is an invitation to screw that up. You have roads that are built to go 70 on them. Going 55 on them only makes you drowsy.
You don't have to go out to Idaho or Wyoming or wherever to find these roads. There's lots of them right here in New Jersey. Try going 55 on the south end of the Parkway!
I've made a couple 350 mile trips for business lately. It's mostly highway miles and I set the cruise control at about 75 mph, which is 5 miles over the posted limit. I get 31 mpg in a 6 cyl. Honda Accord Coupe rated at 240 hp. The RPMs at this speed are just under 2300. While I don't have the patience to attempt this I'm extremely confident that if I slowed down to 55 I would not be getting the 40 mpg that some people are claiming. Let's say I got 35 mpg. So in this 350 mile trip I will have burned 10 gallons as opposed to 11.29. At today's gas prices that's a savings of around $4 but I spent 1 hour 40 minutes longer on the road. For me spending $4 to save 1 hour and 40 minutes is a no-brainer.
These projections of the potential fuel savings are way overstated. First off we don't currently do all our driving on the highway at speeds greater than 55. Let's say 50% of our driving falls into this category even though I think that's a little high. Even at higher speeds this highway driving produces gas mileage that is about 30-50% better than our city mileage, depending on the vehicle . So only about 40% of the fuel we burn is done at these highway speeds. Now let's say slowing down to 55 saved 25%, which I seriously doubt. Well 25% of 40% is only 10% savings. And finally this whole idea is predicated on drivers actually complying. They didn't in the 70s so they sure as heck won't do it now with today's cars being significantly more capable of handling higher speeds.
Some people love to speak of others submitting, perhaps they themselves should submit to the real world for once.
"more revenues will be garnered from speeding tickets, and that money can be used to finally bring our roads up to better than a third world standard."
Really? What happens to all the CURRENT revenue from speeding tickets? It simply boosts the budget of whatever agency writes the tickets, so they can hire more officers to write more tickets. We lowly citizens never see any benefits trickle down to us.
BTW, even the gasoline tax revenue doesn't all go to build roads. Here in TX, the state siphons off 25% of gas taxes for its 'general fund.' Check the rate of theft in your own state. You'll find that even revenues supposedly dedicated to one purpose get stolen by our trusty bureaucrats.
So, forget the 'more money for the government means a better life for us' canard.
"We can save more than 30% of the oil supply before it is completly depleted."
"Experts" have been predicting the end of oil for about 50 years. It's always about 20 years away. Kind of like global warming. Our grandchildren will pay the price.
30 years ago, it was global cooling, the coming Ice Age, that was going to kill our grandchildren. Guess what -- WE'RE the grandchildren! And we're not dead. We're also not out of oil.
"Nobody is so important that they can't start out on their journey sooner than later."
Nobody is so important that they can dictate the daily schedule of everyone else. The post that facetiously argued that if 55 is good, 45 would be better, and 35 even better took this argument to its logical end.
This country is full of "experts" who swear that if everyone did some prescribed action, the world would be a better place. Hey, if everyone gave me $1, I know MY world would be a better place.
C'mon, it's only a dollar, and it'll put $300 million in my bank account. And all the extra stuff I buy will boost the economy, create jobs, increase tax revenues, and trickle down to make YOUR lives better!
Yes, we need federal legislation that requires everyone to pay ME!
It's for your own good!
.
Yecch!!! What's next? Speedometers calibrated to only 85 mph and anemic 115-hp V-8s? No thanx!!!! :sick:
Maybe we should bring back Shaun Cassidy, 8-tracks, and plaid bell-bottoms while we're at it?
Don't kid yourselves -- if these folks had their way, ALL cars would be electronically governed to a speed dictated daily by a nationwide, multi-trillion dollar monitoring system. The system would detect your car wherever it is, regulate its speed (never more than 50 mph), and, of course, automatically charge you a new tax every time you drive (to pay for the nifty monitoring system, of course).
"But what about lost revenue from speeding tickets?" you ask. Tut-tut, my little useful idiot. Not to worry.
The speeding tax will be replaced by the new "Congestion Tax." Again, the monitoring system will automatically extract this from drivers, but only during "congestion" periods.
Those include, but are not limited to, weekday morning rush, 6 am to 10 am; lunch rush, 10 am to 2 pm; and afternoon rush, 2 pm to 7 pm.
In addition, supplemental congestion tax will apply during the period between 7 pm and midnight, to encourage family time at home between parents and their children. And the period between midnight and 6 am will be taxed at twice the normal rate, to encourage everyone to get a good night's sleep.
Weekends will offer reduced taxes to encourage social activity, except holiday weekends, including, but not limited to, President's Day, Memorial Day, Indepndence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, New Year's Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, all of which demand special tax rates to reduce congestion.
Yes, everything would be perfect if (sigh) we only had the political courage to make it so.
Good post!
In CA it is all dumped into the general fund. Hard to tell that they spend much on our roads. They are better than Mexico, by a little bit. I was very pleased with your highways in TX. On my trip to the Hill Country I stayed off the Interstate as much as possible. You have hundreds of miles of very nice 2 lane highways. They must be spending a good portion on roads. Many were posted 70-75 MPH except through little towns. There it dropped to 55 MPH.
Traveling across Montana in 1976 I was ticketed twice in one hour. First was 75 MPH second for 76 MPH. The cop took my money sitting in his car. It cost me 5 bucks each time. The tickets were for "Wasting Natural Resources". Montana was never happy with the 55 MPH limit. I guess that was their way keeping the Feds at bay.
Studies have consistently shown that people who drive faster than the flow of traffic on limited access highways are the better drivers (i.e. they have fewer accidents), and there is no definitive link between higher speeds and more fatalities. Also note that the fatality rates (as expressed in fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled) have been declining for decades, even as average speeds increased - long before safety equipment became standard and long before the 55 mph speed limit.
And while the effects of more safety equipment are certainly beneficial - and appreciated - they only undermine the "we should all go slower for safety" argument even more. If new vehicles are more capable of handling these speeds - well, then why not drive them?
I have to agree with whoever said diesel would be a much better solution. It will make half of the tree huggers mad but it would be a better solution than a 55 MPH speed limit.
Because they burn more gas?
(Please don't forget about the Who Pays for our Roads? discussion either. :shades: )
Let's see, your plate ends in an even number, so you can drive Wednesdays and Fridays. Or meet the gas bootlegger at midnight down by the old mill stream.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Plus there is nothing more frustrating than getting behind a left lane vigilante doing 55 when the speed limit is posted at 65. With freeway walls twenty feet high designed to keep local neighborhoods free from the sounds of the highway there is nothing to enjoy as you drive down the freeway anyway.