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
Well what is middle-class is subjective. It depends on what point in history you're in and that is continuing changing, and is a whole different topic. In the scheme of things $4 or $5 gas is no more the cause, and probably less so than several other things I can think of - health care, college tuition, increased need to save due to expectations of no SS.
It was about the lack of concern of the elite class, which you say is a worldwide requirement now, about conserving a resource.
My point may have been misdirected then. But then I don't get your point about how the elite class has told the masses over the years to build your life in an energy intensive manner. I would say it is the masses who have demanded the high amount of resources, up to the point where they are broke, and the supply is not increasing.
To iterate, the point is to conserve a resource for the future and for others.
Don't speak for me and many others. I'm here to enjoy the resources we have. Every generation has had challenges on how to advance, and the next few generations are going to have to advance, rather than living an ever-bleak life of diminishing resources and increasing population. The next generations are going to have to turn to other energy sources - wind, solar, advanced nuclear.
I think it's rather pessimistic and miserable to figure this oil and gasoline is all we're going to have. Whether we make the oil and gas last 100 years or 150 years, is insignificant compared to the future amount of time.
People need to move on to other energies or lifestyles. if we all have to go back to riding bikes or horses, so be it, if we're not smart enough. But to sit here and worry about conserving gasoline, when you could never get global agreement, is silly.
Driving 55 or 65 mph is insignificant in the grand scheme of things; it's like saying don't wave a fan during a hurricane.
Without fuel they were nothing. They built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men.
On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed.
Except for one man armed with an AK-47, and a Buick Park Avenue full of silver. In the roar of an engine, he lost everything and became a shell of a man, a burnt out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past. A man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here in this blighted place that he learned to live again.
It does seem a quick inflation of gas prices is an efficient way to speed up the enserfment of the working people of the western world, and to further the desires of those who seek a globalized world. It's going to be worse than the worst predictions of the past.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I bet he and Charley only traveled 55 mph or less.
Back in the day, his truck/camper probably wouldn't go much faster than that without blowing over.
I never realized that drivers of modestly priced vehicles who are traveling at 75+ mph are now members of the elite class. This will certainly be news to them.
imidazol97: To iterate, the point is to conserve a resource for the future and for others.
How each individual conserves gasoline is up to them. We tried the 55 mph speed limit; it failed and was the most deservedly ignored law since Prohibition.
It also retarded automobile development in this country. When a car company caters to the "slow-is-good" mindset, we get the rolling monuments to mediocrity produced by the domestics for far too many years. Given that GM, for example, is finally getting its act together with stylish and good-performing cars that also offer very good efficiency for their size and power (Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Malibu), the last thing we should be doing encouraging any backsliding by lowering the bar.
Dumbed-down drivers prefer dumbed-down cars, and ridiculously low speed limits only reinforce that vicious cycle.
imidazol97: To do that is going to require a choke on some people who feel entitled and above it all.
The only entitlement mentality I see is from those who think that everyone else has to change their lives so that they can enjoy $1-a-gallon for unleaded.
The prudent course is to resist the urge to "do something," and let individuals sort this out on their own. I've got better things to worry about than how others are using the gasoline that they purchase with their own money.
Just because someone is driving slow doesn't mean that, overall, he or she is using less gasoline. Someone who is toddling along at 55 mph may still be using 1,000 gallons of gas a year, while someone who doesn't drive as much, but prefers to travel at 80 mph when he or she does, is only using 650 gallons of gas a year.
Just because someone is driving slow doesn't mean that, overall, he or she is using less gasoline. Someone who is toddling along at 55 mph may still be using 1,000 gallons of gas a year, while someone who doesn't drive as much, but prefers to travel at 80 mph when he or she does, is only using 650 gallons of gas a year.
Well said; I also agree that the laughably low 55 mph speed limit produced a crop of very mediocre automobiles. I drove a 1984 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe as my work beater back in the early '90s. When the car was originally introduced Ford rolled out an ad campaign claiming that the Turbo Coupe offered the same performance as the BMW 635 CSi but for "thousands less". They really should have drug tested the ad agency; the car wasn't the equal of my 1973 Bavaria 3.0, never mind a 635. The Ford didn't even have four wheel disc brakes. The puny OEM brakes were only good for one hard stop from 80 mph; any additional hard applications and they faded away in a haze of acrid smoke. That was only one of numerous reasons that it cost "thousands less" than the BMW.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
could it have been a lot better? of course, but it was a way above average driver for the time.
i kind of remember seeing this ad in a magazine:
Wow! I can see it a lot better here than where I got it from!
that is why i made a distinction between travelling on fairly level ground as opposed to hilly terrain.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
could it have been a lot better?
Well, I owned a1988 M6 at the same time I had the Turbo Coupe. The Ford required more than a few repairs and the cost wasn't all that much less than the equivalent work on the BMW. I loved how the mechanical clutch linkage had that little three inch cable that would break every 10K or so. I replaced it once a year as a precaution. When I had to replace the wiper control module I had to remove the lower dashboard, the steering column covers, and thread a power cable through the firewall. On the 6er the same job involved removing the fuse box cover, and unplugging the old module and plugging in the new one. Except the one on the 6er never failed. Then there was the morning the power window switch shorted and smoke began pouring out of the console, or the other morning when an injector cracked and started spraying 93 octane fuel all over the engine compartment. The best thing about it was that I only paid $1500 for it and it kept the commute miles off the M6. I was able to unload it in '98 for $750. The guy I sold it to still has it and plans to restore it. I'm glad it found a loving home but I can't say I miss it very much. Unlike the M6...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
so, what does this have to do with a 55 mph speed limit? :confuse:
That's what I was wondering.
New topic.
I'm still working on the tenet that posited earlier that just because someone wants to, or can afford to, or has a gas-gulping car, they can be above the law and a speed limit, well, just because they can. Does that apply to rape or murder or other laws? We just had a few state employees in Ohio find out it doesn't. The attorney general and several friends have been exposed for being above the laws. Google Marc Dann attorney general and read for yourself--that's ex-attorney general. He and his were above the law because they were "special."
Laws, speed laws, are to be applied equally.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I agree; I was pointing out how ludicrous Ford's comparison was. That said, Chrysler compared one of their FWD K-Car offshoots to the E28 5 series.
so, what does this have to do with a 55 mph speed limit?
My point was that the Ford was engineered to operate within the constraints of the 55 mph speed limit- a very low bar.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I work in the system and you are absolutely right. Did you know that the Feds pay overtime to local police agencies for traffic enforcement? The only catch is that the officers have to write a minimum of four violations per hour.
I fervently hope that there is a special room reserved in the lowest levels of Hell for the goose-stepping brown-shirted bureaucrats who dream up these money-wasting "Safety Programs".
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
It is kinda rape--you know. The lady in question was visiting the apartment the three men shared and kinda woke up violated. And the speeding is kinda okay for some but not others. But the point is that people in a few cases argue that they can violate laws and do what they want because they are kinda exempt from "those" laws. And murder, if you have a passionate enough reason, could be justified???? using the same logic? A stretch but I'm sure it could be made.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't see laws ever being applied equally in the past, and I won't hold my breath for such to take place in the future.
If there's some urgent supply problem, I can see lowering limits...but we don't have supply problem today, we have a speculation problem.
History is full of people who have violated laws and are perfectly moral and correct to do so. Many laws are flawed; and at times it takes masses of people ignoring or violating the law to get it changed. Laws are not absolute; and many laws are immoral or incorrect.
I'm sure in our cities and states we all violate a lot of laws; ones we're not even aware exist (18th and 19th century around here in NE). Maybe we need to pare down the laws and other statutes to a manageable AND CURRENT need.
A 55 mph speed limit is not needed with modern vehicles; it is a relic from decades past when cars worked best at that speed due to their lower safety and inefficiencies of design.
A 55 mph speed limit is something most people don't want, and it is stupid to pass a law to make more people "act criminally". It justs weakens the value of all laws.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But, if you get cited for speeding several times, you lose your license, and then wouldn't driving be a misdemeanor? So you'd be on the "road to being a criminal"?
Also - for anyone who supports a 55 mph speed limit on the interstates - I would ask? What problem(s) did the 55mph speed limit solve in the 70's?
It showed that someone "cared" because they were "doing something" about high (for the times) gas prices.
Whether the something that they were doing was worth anything is another question entirely.
Probably a few local, county, and state revenue problems.
The rest of us will slow down as our financial income dictates or as our choices enable us to drive 80 & eat Mush or drive 65 and eat Hamburger.
The price of gas is really a tax we pay that goes to our debtor nations so we can borrow more from them. That's why the N Slope will not be opened for consumption as per Kissinger's deal with the Arabs. :mad:
The World Bank and the IMF are controlling us & we are unable to stop it.
When have the poorer people in the world EVER had money for gas? You do know that most people in the world don't use gasoline? Autos and gasoline have always been objects of the better-to-do in the world.
So now that others in the world are doing better relative to us, it is time to get mad and infer that it's unfair they're using the resources that we used to?
It is not unfair, but it is competitive to using the resources that we used to use exclusivley.
Competition is to be encoouraged. Not liberal socialism.
me: gasoline and oil usage and demand is a global issue. Similarly the ability to buy what oil and gasoline gets to market is a global issue - who has the money and who is willing to pay for it. What happens everyday in the economies of the world plays a part.
The whole world is in 1 big competitive struggle, and those with the $ will buy autos and gasoline the longest. If you fall behind you're going to find yourself cutoff - even from driving 55mph.
My view is, that, in conjunction with low gas price, this made the domestics become very lazy in terms of car development. Domestic cars became slow, fuel inefficient (except maybe just at 55 mph) , had poor handling and could be compared to dinosaurs (with exceptions of course). Low SL and cheap gas create some kind of bubble that alienated the US from foreign motoring realities. Domestics launched many cars for the US market that were unsuitable for export. Landing back into reality hurts.
the 55 mph did not solve any problem but just created unnecessary new ones.
Sure it did! Police departments across the nation discovered that all the new speeding tickets they wrote solved their budget problems quite nicely.
Only in an election year do we hear that we need a energy plan, rather odd is it not? Until the the upper middle class is having a hard time paying for fuel nothing is going to change. As long as the Hemi type of engines are in cars and Suv's the fuel crisis only really hurts the working people and retired on a fixed income.
Chrysler has stated the Hemi and V-8 engines are not part of Chrysler LLC. future, except in trucks. Lets hope the Chrysler comes up with a better engine than the "World Engine 2.4 L 4 cyc". That engine is a joke and gutless to boot.
The real answer to our fuel crisis is making an electric rail system that actually goes where people really live at a very reasonable cost. Not going to happen anytime soon!
farout
That was because driving in general went down - particularly leisure and recreational driving. The 55 mph speed limit had nothing to do with it.
Today's USA Today had a front page story about a big decline in the number of traffic deaths in recent months. Why? Because people are driving less in response to higher gasoline prices. Yet speed limits have remained unchanged.
As you probably know the fatality rate has been trending downward since pretty much day 1 of the history of the automobile. The national 55 limit did not cause a noticeable deviation in this trend and the lifting of this speed limit also did not produce any change. The data indicates it's a non-factor. But if the reduced fatalities cited in the USA Today article are due entirely to fewer miles being driven I wonder if that will even show up in the fatality rate, which is based upon 100 million vehicle miles travelled.
It will be interesting to see what the Department of Transportation's FARS data shows for 2008. I suspect that we'll see another decline in the fatality rate along with a decline in total fatalities. But I also suspect we'll see a sharp increase in bicycle and motorcycle fatalities. The fatality rate for motorcycles is about 25 times higher than for an automobile. With the high gas prices I'm seeing a lot more motorcycles on the road and I can only assume a good percentage of these people are novice riders.
If I recall correctly, motorcycle fatalities have been increasing in raw numbers for a few years now. Ridership began increasing a few years ago, although the recent run-up in gas prices has accelerated the trend.
Michelle Krebs predicts mounting casualties among products designed when gas was $2.00 or less per gallon and just reaching the market now.
I'm inclined to agree with most of her choices with some exceptions, for example though it's clear that the Ford F-Series will not sell the way it did in the just bygone age of the pickup as commuter car but it hard to believe it's completely DOA. My carpenter isn't going to swap his F-250 for a Focus.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I think right now my biggest concern is the survival of Ford. Between the hit that the F series continues to take and what looks like a dismal rollout of the Flex they have a heap of trouble on their hands.
What are the F's doing now - about half the sales? And the Flex - who the heck wants a $40K would be wagon? It looks nice but gets middling mileage and is way overpriced.
It strikes me that Ford could be looking to become what Chrysler is right now - a company with little or no meaningful product.
The F250 won't die completely, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the poser market for it evaporate, and to see the 1961-1996 sized F100 become the backbone of Ford's remaining trucks sales.
:sick:
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Honda Pilot- I think it could sell well to those looking for an alternatives to traditional big SUVs, it certainly has that Tuff-Truck look.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Keep in mind what I sell, well what I sell for the four days anyway, then think about that statement. That is freaking insane how big the Accord is now.
Geeze, maybe if the Civic grew as big as the current Accord they could call it the Crown Civictoria?
OTOH, it seems to me that ridiculously overpowered compensation-mobiles like the M3 and the CTS-V will always find buyers even in the era of VEG (very expensive gas).
The new Accord IS fat and uninspiring, and it is NOT selling as well as new Accord models in the past, even despite the (as mentioned) uncharacteristically early factory incentives and the fact that Camry just keeps increasing in sales (indicating that it's not some wholesale defection from the midsize segment). It's too bad Honda had to go and do this to the Accord, but let's hope they slim it down after three years, maybe do an early redesign and shorten it a bit, lighten it a lot.
At my very first sight of pre-release pics of the new Pilot, it was obvious to me that it was ugly as sin, but that never seems to hurt Honda that much, and on paper it is pretty competitive in what has been a hot segment of late: full-size crossovers. I don't think Pilot will suffer as much, relatively speaking, as Accord will in the next few years. They should get that Accord diesel to market ASAP.
As for the rest? I think the Venza has a chance as the next Camry wagon if they can hold the weight well under 3500 pounds and pull some really good EPA numbers off the 4-cylinder and hybrid trims. Sounds like that is in the cards, so we will see.
GM ought to dump Hummer like yesterday, it's so bad for PR as they switch to trying to be green, and the Challenger is going to sell so badly I wonder if it will even make a full model run. On that note, how much longer can it be before the 300 and Charger bite the dust? The new Camaro is also going to be DOA, I think, although it is not mentioned here. It maybe has a chance if they make the base engine the turbo 4 from the Cobalt SS, but then is there really a point to selling two Chevy coupes at similar price points with the same powertrain?
As for the VWs, well VW is struggling on in its own way, and these two new models aren't really much of a deviation from that course, nor are they really terrible ideas just because gas got expensive. I believe the Tiguan will get similar gas mileage to the Jetta in FWD, and will also have the new diesel available, won't it? As for the van, well, they could use a van I think. Vans aren't dead, just all the fleet sales of Uplanders and Windstars. VW has had a van in its lineup for most of its existence on U.S. soil, it seems weird for them not to have one for sale.
Any more? Oh yeah...Flex: seemed like a cool concept, then they built it MUCH too heavy, MUCH too thirsty for gas, and too expensive to boot. The MKS: if Acura can sell a TL (something it can't do these days as much as it used to) and Lexus can sell an ES350 (still one of its most popular models I believe, despite gas prices) then Lincoln can sell an MKS, if only everyone remembers there is a brand called Lincoln. Which probably many people don't, although they must have seen the same TV ad I have now about a gajillion times. If the ad doesn't make them hate Lincoln as it has done for me, some will probably go check it out...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)