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
My Toyota dealer has a slew of base model Prius. They are all at $23,989. That is not a good deal. You can buy a nice RWD Explorer V6 for around $24k after the $3k rebate. For people that keep a vehicle a long time and not a lot of miles the Explorer will cost less to own. My SIL's 96 Explorer had less than 100k miles without any issues. I would not look for a 12 year old Prius to be trouble free.
Not sure about a V6 Explorer costing LESS long-term than a Prius. It would depend primarily on annual miles driven and whether the battery lasts, but also what the price of gasoline will be in 12 years. $6? $8?
If someone told you 12 years ago that gas would be $3.40/gal. in 2008, would you have believed him?
But $24,000 for a Prius with no more tax credit IS a bit steep.
.
I guess I never thought much about it. I did not think gold would be at $955 today, back in 2000 when I bought a couple hundred Krugerrands at $275-$290. I pulled most of my money out of the market when I saw the dot.com bubble popping. Gold was just going to be a short term hedge against the unknown. I thought Gore was going to get elected. I have not needed the money so they just sit safely in the bank until the USD becomes worthless. So you can see that oil is quite similar to gold. It has tripled against our unbacked currency.
I'm more upset about my $500 per month propane bill the last two months. Good thing winter is past for us.
Hehehe, well, the base Prius STICKERS at $21,7 so those are not base model Prius your dealer is quoting you on. But the base Prius is just as easy to get $2000 off sticker as Camry is, which is to say DEAD easy. So for the sum of about $20K + fees, you too can own a Prius! ;-)
My folks have a '98 Explorer that they will be selling soon with roughly 110K miles. Consider that with their lifetime average of 17-18 mpg, those miles have cost them 6111 gallons of gas, close to $20K at current prices if they were buying today (but of course a lot less for them specifically as they bought back when gas was $1.10/gallon). By comparison, the Prius would cost them about $8K in gas to cover the same miles. Obviously, if gas goes much higher than $3/gallon, their savings would be even more substantial than the $12K this example demonstrates. And they don't even drive that much: 11K/year? And that 4WD Explorer has never been further off road than a dirt road, and has never towed a thing. What a waste this automotive "fashion statement" of the 90s was for the vast majority of its owners!
As for "I would not look for a 12 year old Prius to be trouble free", you are just showing your cautious nature with regard to a new technology. And your caution runs completely counter to the data, which shows Prius back to 1997 to be even more reliable and trouble free than the average Toyota, which is pretty good as the industry goes. Certainly with the statistically useless sample size of one, I can speak to the Explorer's tendency NOT to be trouble free. My folks have spent a great deal repairing that thing, having problems with electronics and brakes among other things beginning well before 100K miles on the clock. Now they drive it around with a blank radio display, batteries that go dead periodically for no reason the dealer can identify, and interior lights that just kinda work when they feel like it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So I think you would need to make a better list of reasons than those general statements.
You are on the right side of the 55 mph debate though. 55 mph was great with the old 3-spd auto. brick aerodynamics cars, but not really the best speed for newer cars. Depending on your car the best speed for mpg is going to vary; probably between 55-75mph.
The old fogies decimated the changeover, unfortunately. :shades:
Of course going metric did not show any advantage : the move was never seriously implemented. It is like crossing a river, and making a U turn right in the middle.
>And the world did not end even here in the states because we didn't go metric
Certainly, but the US are just putting a handicap on themselves, in regard to the rest of the world (except Liberia and Myanmar). I heard that a space shuttle crash was originated in a mixup between the 2 systems.
I understand that breaking one's own habit is not easy, but the British and the Canadian seem to cope pretty well with the step.
Of course, one stroke two birds, going metric should be the opportunity to raise SL to more realistic figures. There is no reason any non urban freeway would be restricted to below 130 kph, which is pretty common in Europe.
In those cases, we could consider Germany where 130 is just a recommanded maximum speed.
How does going metric give us the opportunity to raise speed limits? I would believe that the two would be totally independent of each other.
The metric system is for those who are bad at math.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Practically, 55 mph correspond to 88 kph , 65mph to 105 kph ... 70 mph to 113 kph, 80 mph to 129 kph
Only 75mph corresponds to 120
A general practice in metric countries is to express SL with multiple of 10.
Some countries apply increments of 20 kph (30-50-70-90-110-130)
In case of US going metric, posted limits would need to be reviewed to be rounded up or down.
This this the reason for which I consider it could be an opportunity to review the SL
I support SL raise but I am sure Govt would be tempted to use the switch to lower the figures.
We all know that US has a clear edge in mathematics over the rest of the world and that that the US measure system is a key factor thanks to its challenging nature.
Any contradictory figure would certainly be the results of poor math and stats anyway.
I sympathise with your thought
My car gets 18,144 Furlongs per Hogshead and I like it that way.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
They tried this in Revolutionary France but it never caught on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_glider
Due to a mix-up in the fuel calculation, an Air Canada Boeing 767 took off with only about half of the fuel that it needed to make the flight. It ran out of fuel and made a landing at a decommissioned air force base in Gimli, Manitoba with no fatalities. The only thing that saved the flight was the fact that the pilot was also an experienced glider pilot.
I have a tandem canoe that's almost exactly one rod long.
Take my license and all that jive, I can't drive 100 just doesn't have the same ring to it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't mean you said it. This statement is purely my own deduction, based on your statement that Metric system is for people bad at math.
As US is the one of the few countries in the world where Imperial is still legal and mostly used, if your initial statement is true, I consider that the US inhabitants should have a better math level than the rest of the world.
In response to other posts, I don't claim Metric is any better than Imperials. My claim is that if everybody used the same system on a permanent basis, be it Metric or Imperial, this would cut the current mess and its costly experience.
The whole world could have switched to Imperial system. After all, a big part of the population was in touch with this system with the British Empire. Seems they were all math-challenged and made the easy choice.
Americans also associate the metric system with the French, and not in a good way mostly.
Not to make it any more confusing, but there you are.
Would agree speed would vary depending upon vehicle, diff axle ratio, top gear, etc. But, would variance be in lower range such as 30-50 mph.
Would imagine that some entity (car mfr, tire mfr, etc) might have done some measured instrumented tests to determine optimum speed for best mpg. What are the facts?
Isn't air resistance the biggest factor on velocity? Think that it is exponential. If true, then maybe 45 mph will get better mpg than 55 mph. Every vehicle I have had over last number of years would easily cruise at 45 in top gear.
What about folks that compete in mpg contests? Other than their shaved overinflated tires, coasting, shutting off engine at times, etc., what say they about optimal crusing speed?
What if it were proven that the US could cut oil imports by significant amount, say 25 percent by having a 45 mph speed limit. Would that be worth it to us? Side benefit would be reduction in crashes/accidents and resulting loss of lives and injuries.
A few years ago I had a Firebird that would pull in 4th gear at 45mph, but only because it had the torque of 5.7L. The 3.0L Jag 5-spd auto will cruise on the level in 5th gear at 45 mph, but on any slope it downshifts and engine revs go up quite a bit.
My current ride is a 6-spd manual. My "economy" shift-points are 10-20-30-40-50. In 6th which is for highway cruising, and to stay in 6th is going to be 55-60 mph minimum. And the powerband in 6th is really at 65+mph where the engine is turning a decent 2,500 rpms - which is efficient.
If I did get 28 mpg at 55mph and 27 mpg at 65mph, I would still favor the higher speeds because it is just tediously boring and a waste of time to drive 55 mph.
NHTSA has reported that Americans have cut back 4.3% in their driving (and therefore oil consumption) just because gas reached a national average of $3.85.
Add $1 in tax to the gas, watch your 25% reduction on oil imports be reached and exceeded without having to travel around at a crawl.
(Not to mention, a 45 mph speed limit would just invite local agencies to double and triple their speed enforcement to boost local revenues)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'd rather see us cut fuel usage by 25% by making the cars lighter, smaller and more aerodynamic. It wouldn't require much more than the people who could downsize to do so. Personally I could have chosen to drive a vehicle that gets 25% better mpg, but I didn't want to give up the combination of fun safety and comfort for 25% better mpg. And I don't want to give up higher speed limits to get better mpg.
You could also similarly ask why don't we keep decreasing the speed limits to make the roads safer. Now I'm not starting the 55-65 argument as we've all heard the data's about the same. But as you go down to 45mph or 35mph you now start getting into the territory where the energy of the collision is greatly reduced and the cars absorb the punishment. Why don't we set the speed limit to 25 mph? for surely the 10,000 - 20,000 fatalities that we could reduce from the 40,000/year would be worth it right? And just think of how much less severe the injuries would be. Why isn't it worth it to society to drive 15mph, and basically have 0 fatalities?!
The answer is because we as a society have decided that we will pay a certain price to maintain a certain speed of transport. Also as a society we have decided that we won't accept certain things that would make our vehicles safer. There are many racing safety-features which "don't want" though they would be better for us.
We are willing to compromise certain things to have others. If you want to maximize YOUR mpg feel free to; it's not a priority to many.
No, I'm not driving 55 but have slowed it down a bit. Don't know if that's enough to do my part of the 4.3%.
I'd hate to see 55 back again. It isn't even so much the cars that were built to go faster but the roads were engineered for higher speeds. 55 on a road built for 70 makes one drowsy.
I go 55 in this stretch all the time, have done so for a long time now for the express purpose of conserving gas. I am not mowed down by angry Expedition and Tahoe drivers as many here have implied would happen, I don't get honked at or get flipped off. In fact, there are numerous slower drivers even than I!
If people saved 4.3% in their gas consumption merely by slowing down, kudos to them for sure! But I suspect it was much more due to the fact that people drove less because gas was too expensive for them. So instead of making everyone drive 45, I am an advocate of adding $1 in tax to the gas, and then people will reduce their driving a whole lot more.
I don't particularly advocate either, however, but rather a change in the fleet to automobiles that are much more fuel-efficient.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
However, I was talking to a customer of mine yesterday; and he had a very interesting memorial day down in New Jersey.
He was heading back to CT in his LR3 and ended up shredding his sidewall on a chunk of metal in the road. He had to use his spare tire which on that particular LR3 is a temporary use 55 mph max speed tire. Not wanting to push things on a nearly 6,000 lbs vehicle he decided to stay under 55 mph for the whole trip back to CT. He got 25 mpg on his trip back. This is on a vehicle that has a 17 mph highway rating on the 2008 EPA system and a 19 mpg rating on the 2007 EPA system.
With the aerodynamics of a poorly formed brick wall attached to a barn door the LR3 is a prime example of when going slower is a good idea.
Guess I'll have to buy a good Lidar jammer too, but no big deal...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
As gas prices go even further up. there will be a time more people will slow down. I not go 65 mph on a 70 mph freewayand on most other roads we typically do 5 mph under. This does help some, maybe 3 mpg better. But at $ 4.00 a gallon it's worth the savings to me.
My biggest beef is the gas sucking super heavy duty truck or Suv type vehicles that flying buy pulling a huge boat or fifthwheel. I have a 2007 Chrysler Pacifica AWD Touring and it gets 22 to 25 mpg and it's a SUV / Crossover, so I am not against Suv's.
My suggestion is lower the non freeway roads to 60 mph. That is reasonable and would help. Also is everyone changed their oil at 4,000 miles instead of 3,000 miles that would be a bigger savings. That's my nickels worth.
farout
If your point to drive 60mph is to save gas for the nation, that would be better accomplished by people driving 5% less per week, or buying a smaller car, or simpler less drivers causing less congestion, and less inching along in traffic. Driving 55 mph or 60mph is probably the least effective of those ideas.
I agree. And while I know it is true you get the maximum mileage on the highway b/t 55-60mph, I don't feel it's worth the extra effort to keep it at that level- yet. The worst is when I take the family on a road trip and drive for hundreds of miles on wide-open, two lane counrty roads in the middle of nowhere. 80 starts to feel like 50.
I took a 1995 Suburban, put full length running boards on it, dual crossover exhaust, and a chip that resets it for the best tuning.
Once I did that I could make a 5 1/2 hour trip (each way),every 3 months and loaded or not, my mpg's shot up to 24 to 25 mpg at 85 to 90mph! Imagine what a car that "normally" makes 35mpg could be adjusted to do! I'll write more when I do it and test it!
It's all in the gearing, intake and exhaust ( not to mention the electronics that make sure we DON'T get the mpg's), and the refusal of our car manufacturers / gov't regulations to allow cars too be set so they obtain maximum efficiency at a real speed. It has nothing to do with 55!
They should have geared the cars to match the 75 and 80mph range back when they released us to drive at those speeds again!
We should have people in government who make REAL laws and regulations to make sure "We the people" are being thought of FIRST not soak us for everything we have and then allow gas companies to monopolize our fuel cost ( which they (gas companies), could still make real profits at only $0.62 a gallon!), and refuse to allow insurance companies to control how and where were we live!
Stand up, be proud to be an American, and write letters, make phone calls, and take back our country from these politicians who spend enough money to feed every starving family in THIS country, just to get a vote! Where does this make sense? (I guess they must get an awfully good dental plan to spend millions, or billions to get into an office that only pays $444,000.00 a year (approx.)!
Enough from my soapbox, time to fold it up and put it away!
Sure it does. Why? Well the amount of gas your using is dependent on your rpm's. If you're driving 65mph down a hill and in D you're probably at 3000 rpm. Your engine must keep combustion going atto move the pistons at that speed. If you shift into N your engine will be running about 800 rpm and using less gas. But I'm not sure how good that is to an auto. trans. -putting it back in gear. No problem with a standard. before you going doing that though you should check whether it is legal in your state. My state and I think most want you to have the car in a gear, so you can apply power in an emergency maneuver.
On a manual transmission car with EFI, the fuel flow is shut off completely if the vehicle is in gear, your foot is off the gas, and engine speed remains @300-500 rpm above idle speed. If you put the transmission in neutral the engine speed drops to idle and fuel is required to keep it running. The same situation applies to some slushboxes as well.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
"On most cars with computer-controlled, closed-loop electronic fuel injection (including direct injection), no fuel is injected when coasting in gear as the wheels are turning the differential/transmission which in turn keeps the engine from stopping. In neutral, the fuel system must inject enough fuel to keep the engine idling as the engine is effectively disconnected from the transmission/transaxle."
wikipedia
So you have to weigh whether it is worth the extra fuel to coast the extra distance which is going to be dependent on the slope and speed you're going, and the fuel consumption at idle of any particular vehicle. Correct? I know in my car I can coast much further when in Neutral, which delays me getting back on the gas.
Anyway the point is moot for those who want to obey the law (in most states). I could also save gas by ignoring running yellow lights, slowing at Stop signs and having a passenger help look for traffic, and such.
I don't like 55mph except on 2-lane roads. On any interstate outside the cities it's ridiculous. When I was out west last year 80mph seemed like a decent speed. I like to drive but I don't want to be on the road all day, and today's cars are capable of driving around that speed fairly safely and fairly economical.
The problem with speed limits is that the police don't adequately enforce them. I just traveled to Nashville and watched the biggest, heaviest, least fuel efficient vehicles being the ones violation the _70_ mph speed limit. It's not 65, it's 70 and they still travel at 80 and 85. The cars traveling nearer 70 and even 65 were fuel efficient cars.
Have fuel efficient cars travel 65 and 70 doesn't save nearly as much as slowing down the Sequoias, Suburbans, Redwoods, Gigantia, Magnificas and all the other self-engrossed high speed drivers. Just because they don't feel the 65 mph interstate speed limit means them, doesn't mean they shouldn't follow it.
I think rationing is going to be the only method to lower US's demand for oil. The drivers who can easily afford $5 gasoline are the ones who don't care. And that's showing the segmenting of the US into two classes, those with oodles to spend and those struggling to get by.
If someone wants to use their portion of their gas stamps at 80 mph in their Sequoia, so be it. Let the rest of us driving economical cars economically help lower the demand and therefore the cost.
I vote for 55.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
the key is keeping the transmission in overdrive. if you go too slow, you will be down shifting and driving in a lower gear.
heavy vehicles are not good in stop and go driving. once they gain a steady speed they are a lot better. on the highway, even going faster that you would like them to, the drivers are getting noticeably better mileage than normal.
on flatter terrain, slowing will gain you something, but i disagree when it comes to hills.
i vote for 75. :P
if was fun learning where i could coast in neutral, but i don't think i saved any gas. i used up my brakes to control my speed though, from coasting down hills out of gear. :sick:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It could cause stress if you don't match RPMs before putting it back in gear.
before you going doing that though you should check whether it is legal in your state.
If I am not mistaken it is illegal in most, if not all, states as you lose some control of the car when doing that.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is pretty much the system that HAS BEEN and is in place globally. Why do you think that now is any different and time to change that? I know of at least several handfuls of people I meet daily who haven't been able to afford gasoline. But they are apparently getting by - walking, biking, asking for rides and the occasional cab.
There is no right in this country to have a nice house, cable, cell-phone, or a car and gasoline. If you want that I suggest you earn more than our friends in China or India, who are displacing U.S. citizens. While I'd like to see my neighbors do well, I do not intend to cutback or subsidize my neighbor so they can have gasoline rather than the Wangs in China. You want to drive, earn it.
If you want to drive slow do so somewhere where its appropriate; but don't hinder me.
Also, since when do we allow a monopoly to run this country! They all work together to form an alliance and we pay the price! :mad:
I don't see evidence that broad statement is true. The point is our middle class is evaporating for whatever political reasoning you wish to use, but however it is.
>to have a nice house, cable, cell-phone, or a car and gasoline.
I'm not understanding how cell phones, cable, car ownership, house fit into the point I made. I suggest rereading my post. It was about the lack of concern of the elite class, which you say is a worldwide requirement now, about conserving a resource. This is exemplified in
>"I do not intend to cutback or subsidize my neighbor so they can have gasoline..."
To iterate, the point is to conserve a resource for the future and for others. To do that is going to require a choke on some people who feel entitled and above it all. I can't help but think of President Bush when asked in a news conference about the possibility of $4 gasoline and he responded that he had no idea it had even been suggested!!! ...and here we are.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,