When someone asks, "Why do mass transit riders deserve a cheaper ride than the other citizens?" and the response is, "If mass transit was dropped how much extra congestion would be created in cities?" that's called a non sequitur.
It's an argument based on false logic. The questioner asked why HE had to subsidize a program. He didn't advocate eliminating all mass transit.
Similarly, a rhetorical statement such as, "imagine what improvements we could make to our roads and bridges if we were not spending billions in Iraq," has no basis in reality.
If we were not spending billions on the Space Program, or Foreign Aid, our roads and bridges would remain the same. The money wouldn't magically transfer to transportation projects.
"A federal commission recently calculated what it will cost to repair and upgrade the nation’s roads and highways." Yes, the federal government, after careful study, has determined that it needs more taxes. What a shock!
This tactic is also popular with school districts across the country. They spend a few hundred thousand tax dollars on a "commission" to study school finance. 100% of the time, these "commissions" determine that we need "more funding for education."
Go figure.
The gov't can always find a reason to raise taxes. And an alcoholic can always find a reason to have a drink. .
"Another effect of high gas prices -- instead of buying a new, fuel-efficient car, many consumers are choosing to keep their old cars (since they're paid off) as a means of compensating for higher gasoline costs. "
We fit that profile. Though we actually made that decision before gas started heading up. My wife and I each enjoyed a few new vehicles in a row; trading in every 3 years or so. But we've gotten that out of our system. Big waste of money buying a depreciating item before the current one is beyond it's service life. So the wife's car (2000) is paid off with 120,000 and no plans on replacing any time soon. My 2003 truck (76,000 miles) is paid off in a couple months and no plans on ever buying another one. We need one for towing our boat and other hauling (maybe once a week). Once both vehicles are no longer reliable enough for longer trips (vs. around town local trips), we will consider replacing one of them.
I did heavily consider getting a high mpg car. Prius was actually first on my list. But as little as I drive my truck in a year (less than 15,000), it doesn't make financial sense and it doesn't even make environmental sense (including impact of vehicle manufacturing, etc). If people used vehicles and other products until their useful life expired, rather than when they get the urge to trade-up or get the latest and greatest, that would have a large impact.
Adding a vehicle payment but only saving $100 or even $200 (if prices get closer to $5.00 gallon) a month in gas won't even come close to making up for another vehicle payment plus insurance on 3 cars rather than 2 (as mentioned, we need to keep my truck for hauling). We even considered trading in my truck on something that can still tow the boat and getting a flatbed trailer for hauling (as I've done in the past), but any vehicle that will tow the boat, like the Toyota High. Hybrid, is really expensive and the mileage improvement from my 20mpg to maybe 26mpg isn't that great of jump.
Adding a $500-$600/month vehicle payment doesn't make sense when I'd only save around $60/month in gas (when it hits $4.00/gal). Basically, for the 1,000 miles/month I drive, my truck uses 55 gallons vs. 40 gallons for something that gets 25mpg. So I'd save 15 gallons x $4.00 = $60.
Besides, my wife's car gets 30+mpg and my motorcycles get 40mpg and 65mpg and I use them as often as I can, which, in the spring, summer, and fall, cuts down my miles-driven in my truck even more. Kind of neat that one of my hobbies has a side benefit of using less gas. One might not be able to justify owning a motorcycle for economical reasons only, because you have to add in the cost of the bike and insurance, but I'd have them anyway and be riding them even if they got 20mpg, so getting 65mpg is just a perk in this case.
This tactic is also popular with school districts across the country.
CA is notorious for wasteful spending. Now they are going to cut education funding. The first thing they do is say we have to cut the amount of teachers or close schools. They never look at the lopsided administration as waste. It is the way politicians play on the ignorance of the masses.
What will the impact be on soccer mom's when their Tahoe gas bill is more than they can afford? When I pick up my grandson from elementary school on occasion there is a line of SUVs for half a mile in front of the school. They have a very orderly system where you drive through the parking lot and the kids get into your vehicle. They are all idling on the high priced gas. Several reasons parents don't let their kids ride the bus to school. First it is less than a safe way to transport children. Second it is expensive since funding was cut and the parents have to pay for their children to ride. The buses are mostly old dirty diesel burners that blow out a cloud of soot on the kids when they take off. Children are not really safe from the kids that are not disciplined on the bus. Those being the majority as they ride free. Due to some program they are on for disadvantaged children.
My daughter just bought a Yaris to cope with the high price of gas. It will be interesting to watch that school lineup as the price of gas goes up.
avalon02wh: Mass transit has some real advantages in cities. Part of the goal of mass transit is to get some people out of cars. Mass transit will reduce congestion and air pollution. It will also reduce the need for parking spots. I am for some funding.
So am I, but the problem with mass transit is political.
To curry favor with users (who vote), politicians work to keep fares artificially low.
But to curry favor with unionized transit employees (who also vote, while the union often provides critical campaign support during elections), those same politicians will sign off on generous wage-and-benefit packages.
No amount of public funds or subsidies will ever be "enough" as long as this dynamic exists.
avalon02wh: Cars are not the be all and end all.
They are the main means of getting around outside of urban areas, and will remain so, because of the flexibility, convenience and privacy that they offer. Mass transit works in Manhattan (or even Philadelphia), but that doesn't mean it is feasible everywhere.
avalon02wh: Funding some of the so called pork projects like bike paths is well worth it. They make a city very livable.
Not when roads have giant-sized potholes, and bridges are crumbling before our eyes. Diverting revenues from the federal fuel tax for bike paths and other "demonstration projects" - as is currently happening - is not the best course of action.
Bike paths are wonderful. I enjoy using them myself. But since they are wonderful, and do add to the "livability" of a city, then there is nothing wrong with asking bicyclists to help pay for them, perhaps through a fee assessed on new bicycles.
Road workers discovered a crumbling support pillar for a I-95 overpass near the Port Richmond neighborhood of Philadelphia. The pillar has a two-inch wide, eight-foot long crack in it exposing rusted and twisted rebar. Traffic is being diverted from this area for three days while workers rush to replace the pillar at a cost of $250K. This section of I-95 was built in the 1960s and is nearing the end of its service life. I believe this section will need to be replaced in a few years at a cost of $6 million. To repair the entire 51-mile stretch of I-95 through Pennsylvania will cost $5.9 billion.
I checked the air pressure in my Intrepid's tires, which is something I really need to start doing more often. Two of the tires were down to about 25 psi and the other two were around 30. The owner's manual calls for 36 psi with the OEM tires, but I think the tires on it now call for 44! So I just split the difference and put them up to 40.
I wonder how much that low tire pressure was affecting economy? Driving into work this morning, the car definitely seemed to roll with less resistance.
I remember my Seville's tires could take up to 44 psi! Under what circumstances would I want that much tire pressure? For my new car, the manual recommends around 31 psi. My girlfriend likes to keep her LaCrosse's tires at exactly 37 psi for some reason. Is she saving fuel this way?
44 is most likely the maximum psi for the tire. Higher pressure is one of the hypermiling tricks, as it does reduce the rolling resistance of the tire at the expense of a stiffer ride. If you're happy with the ride at 40, go ahead and try 44.
Under what circumstances would I want that much tire pressure?
Aside from hypermiling and stiffer sidewalls, it can help out if you have a heavy load in the vehicle. The owner's manual for the GMC has a chart showing tire pressures and maximum cargo weights, though that sort of thing is all but forgotten these days.
Only downside to higher than manual pressures - you can start getting wear in the middle of the tread. If the manual says 36, 40 should be ok, but I don't know about 44...
Those sidewall pressures are only for carrying some maximum load for testing under the government or manufacturers' agreed on standards. There's no way your car should have that amount because it doesn't weigh near the maximum.
I wouldn't go over 35 psi. If the placard says 36 use that but I think I'd ask a friendly service manager at a dealership about what pressure is best.
My cars call for 30 front and rear. I usually run 33 and run 35-36 when I fill them up. I always check them cold for the time of year. If the temp ranges from 20-60 like right now, I check them when down in the 20s so they have at least 33 at 20. I don't want them running low when cold just because I gave them 36 at 60 degrees and then it cooled to 20 one morning (4 pound drop there).
I tried to find pressures on the Michelin site, but didn't.
would going to a slightly narrower tire make much difference in economy? My Intrepid's stock size is 225/60/R16. I was thinking maybe a 215/65/R16? The tread would be slightly narrower, but overall diameter might be close enough that it wouldn't throw off the speedo/odometer. Or would a change that small be too minor to have an effect?
FWIW, a few years ago, I put new tires on my '85 Silverado, going from a 235/75/R15 to a 255/70/R15, and that had no noticeable effect on economy. And if I took my foot off the gas pedal, it also seemed to have no effect on the truck's ability to coast. It did help noticeably in cornering though, although out on some highways, the ruts left by tractor trailers would cause it to wander a bit more.
One thing that might have worked out in my Silverados' favor are the wheels. It has these extra-wide 15x8" rally wheels. So maybe the 255/70 just fills out the rim better than the 235/75 did? The 235's might have just been getting old, too, or been softer. I remember they had whitewalls on them!
Honda notoriously sets there cars low. My van had 30 in it, it should have been 35-37. runs much better with higher pressure. My truck had the same issue.
I think that since prices go up so gradually, thus conditioning us somewhat, not very many people are going to do anything drastic at all when prices hit $4. Or $5. Or $6.
I think people will just start seeing it as the price of living the life they want and having a vehicle to freely roam around in.
People who still have 5 kids are always going to need a 7-seater.
just did his first fill-up today. 370 miles. Took 10.8 gallons. Or about 34.25 mpg in driving that was probably 70% highway. Beats the heck out of the 17-18 he was getting with his Tundra! He's definitely happy.
Hmm, interesting that putting the tailgate down in the Tundra actually yielded slightly better economy. I'd always heard that it would hurt your economy. Also, 21 mpg versus 20.8 is close enough to be insignificant, and could be due to other factors as simple as time of day, changes in humidity, etc.
I wonder what the effect would be of just taking the tailgate off completely? Maybe I'll try it with my Silverado and see what happens.
Yeah, I had read somewhere it hurt to put the tailgate down, hurt more to replace it with one of those 'pre-runner' fabric mesh taigates. Guess the up/down doesn't much matter.
"I wonder what the effect would be of just taking the tailgate off completely? Maybe I'll try it with my Silverado and see what happens."
In the tests that I read, they did tests in a wind tunnel and tested the drag coefficient. They found that the coefficient was better (translates to better mpg) with the tailgate down than with up. Interestingly, removing the tailgate entirely made it worse than having the tailgate on and up. Having a hard bed cover was the best. I don't think a fabric tonnue (sp?) cover was tested.
They explained the "better with tailgate down. worse with it off" results were due to how the air comes out from under the vehicle when going down the road. With it off, it made a lot of turbulence behind the vehicle. With the tailgate on and down, it created a bit of a divider that let the two area of different pressures merge with less turbulance.
I think the best thing to do is remove the tailgate and put on an airfoil on the top of the cab that directs air that is speeded up flowing over the top of the cab down into the volume behind the cab to put more air into there. That gets rid of the low air pressure there which is pulling backwards on the truck as it goes down the road.
There is a problem with the turbulence inside the bed. That may be why removing the tailgate is said not to help.
There's a minivan that has an airfoil above the rear door directing airflow down over the rear of the van. It's not large but it should be effective.
My wife has two nice but relatively inefficient daily drivers, 04 4WD Highlander that gets 23 mpg Hwy and 19 mpg City ( real calculations ) and an 07 Solara Conv that gets 29 Hwy and 22 City. Her daily drive is about 10 mi each way.
However we live on the beach on the Outer Banks where it's DEAD from 9-15 through 5-15 and it's a small city in the summer months. Her commute to and from her store @ 5AM and 3 PM is along the ocean at a max speed of 35 mph STRICTLY enforced.
We are seriously considering a scooter/moped for the Summer months. Instead of $50 per fillup every 10 days or so we might be at $50 per month.
How tough could it be driving along the shore on a scooter @ 5:30 as the sun rises out of the ocean?
Besides, my wife's car gets 30+mpg and my motorcycles get 40mpg and 65mpg and I use them as often as I can, which, in the spring, summer, and fall, cuts down my miles-driven in my truck even more.
Just curious what type of bike you are riding that gets 65 mpg?
Here's what one site recorded about the Mythbusters test:
For the original myth they did a driving test and a water vortex test, both of which showed that you save more gas with the tailgate up. Their viewers suggested that they test three new conditions:
Hardroof cover over pickup bed Mesh tailgate Remove the entire tailgate They had a much simpler test setup this time. They had an electronic flowmeter hooked into fuel line of Jamie's pickup. Adam: "For anyone out there that wants to e-mail telling me that we screwed up this test, we have already calibrated this thing, to this car. So it's going to be perfect!" They drove the pickup truck up and down the stretch of 101 around Candlestick and the Cow Palace.
Tailgate down: 5.2 gallons/hr @ 55mph. 1.2 gallons/hr @ 25. Tailgate up: 5.0 gallons/hr @ 55mph. No reading for 25mph given, but tailgate up was once again confirmed as more efficient. Hardcover over pickup bed: 5.0 gallons/hr @ 55mph. 1.2 gallons/hr @25mph Tailgate mesh: 5% more efficient Tailgate removed: about the same as tailgate up and hardcover Mesh was most efficient by 5%
"Only downside to higher than manual pressures - you can start getting wear in the middle of the tread. If the manual says 36, 40 should be ok, but I don't know about 44... "
I disagree. I think as long as you are below the maximum tire pressure on the tire (not the one in the owner's manual for your vehicle), you won't see wear in the middle of your tread. As a matter of fact, some manufactures have owners use such a low tire pressure that you see the outer edges of the tire wear before the middle.
Manufactures recommend a specific tire pressure for various reasons but the main one is handling. Lower pressure improves grip and allows vehicles to do better in rollover tests, etc. because they will corner better before losing traction resulting in skids, fishtails, roll-overs, etc. You also get a better ride becauce there is more sidewall flex. This is less and less apparent as wheels get bigger and sidewall profiles get shorter. It's also why the recommended and/or max tire pressure on low profile tires is higher. If the sidewall flexes too much, you get bent rims from hitting pot holes. That type of tire needs the pressure to avoid sidewall flex.
Better traction and a cushier ride may be benefits, but the cons are worse, in my opinion. Worse gas mileage (read: more rolling resistance) and higher tire operating temperatures (due to more friction/rolling resistance). Higher temperatures are a tires enemy. So combine high speeds, a hot summer, and low tire pressure and bad things can start to happen to the tire carcass (and there are no visible signs of it).
Remember the Bridgstone and Ford Explorer issues? Part of that was attributed to the recommendation, by Ford, to run the tire pressure so low. That dramatically overheated the tires and contributed to the failures.
You should consider the owner's manual as a minimum and the tire manufactures sidewall max as the maximum.
I keep pretty good track of my tire pressure and run my trucks tires at the max (35 lbs). I have 76,000 miles on this set of Michelin LTX M/S and they probably have another 15,000 on them. I got rid of the stock tires the day I bought the truck and put on the Michelin because they proved to have way better traction (wet and dry road, snow, cornering, braking, and acceleration) than any other truck tire I've used. I had them on my previous truck. Running at the max pressure and rotating every 10,000 miles or so has proven to give long tread life and very even wear (no more wear down the middle of the tread than the outer edges).
For those that don't like to, or forget to, check their tire pressure at least every month, it might be wise to fill to the max pressure. Then it if goes down a bit without you checking it, you'll still be within the prefferred range of "over the manual and below the max".
"Just curious what type of bike you are riding that gets 65 mpg? "
That's our 2003 BMW 650CS. My wifes bike, but I ride it a lot, too. It's a single cylinder, fuel injected 650cc four-stroke, has 50hp, and accelerates quick because it's so light. 110 mph top speed, so no excuses that you'll get run over by faster traffic on the freeways like on some of the little 150cc - 250cc bikes. Some others, like the Kawasaki 250 ninjas get great mileage as well and stay well ahead of traffic, but they are sport orientated and the riding positions less comfortable. Also less room for bringing with gear or packing room for running errands.
BMW had Rotax make these 650cc engines and they are great. BMW doesn't make the CS model anymore, but have a new line of 650 that have the same basic engine and mileage. Heck, even the 800cc Rotax that BMW is using in their 800S, 800ST, and now 800GS are getting over 50mpg and they have 85hp.
We actually get closer to 70mpg with our 650, but that is when doing leisurely 55mph backroads and we are at altitude (4,500 feet) so we get better mileage (but make less horsepower) here. The best we ever got was 90mpg over a 100 mile trip. That was riding up to the local ski mountain (during the summer) and back down. The combination of atlitude (up to 8,000 feet), low speed (55mph) and practically coasting all the way back down yielded that. It wasn't a fluke, either, because we've repeated it and on my bike, my usual 40mpg is about 60mpg on that same trip. The bikes are way down on power up at 8,000 feet though, but both are fuel injected so it's nice to have them automatically run the correct air/fuel ratio rather than running really rich like a carburated bike (or car) does as you gain altitude).
Even on my bike, I get good enough mileage that I can ride the 10 miles to work, go for a 20 mile ride during lunch, and the 10 miles home and use the same amount of gas as driving my truck that day (again, the altitude helps my truck mileage too. I get 20mpg in my 03 Chev. Avalanche).
And to be even more green, the BMW has a catalytic converter, etc. even though it wasn't required by US law at the time. As of 2008, all motorcycles have to meet the next tier of emissions standards, so many or most of them have catalytic converters for the current model year. I didn't think this was a big deal until I read a report that said even with an average of far better mileage, as a whole, many bikes poluted MORE than the average auto since their were few if any emissions equipment on motorcycles. Glad to see that's changing.
Sorry, gotta disagree, the # on the tire is the max, not specific to any vehicle. Of course, underinflation is very bad, to be avoided, but, as Tom and Ray said:
TOM: And by the way, you should never use (or exceed) the pressure number listed on the sidewall of the tire. That's not the recommended tire pressure. That's the maximum pressure that the tire can take before it's in danger of exploding. If you fill your tires to that amount of pressure, not only will your car handle like a basketball, but your head will bounce off the ceiling every time you hit a bump.
RAY: So your best bet is to stick to, or very close to, the car manufacturer's size recommendation when replacing your tires. If you do that, the manufacturer's pressure recommendation will always be a good guideline. That means if the local tire shop says, "We don't have your size in stock, but these bulldozer tires'll be even better," go somewhere else.
"I always heard that [minivan rear window airfoil] was to intended to help keep the back window clean, not to help mpg. "
Yes, you are correct. They actually hurt MPG from what I remember, though not by much. Spoilers on the trunk lid of cars are the same. Vary small mpg hit, but they are actually adding drag and/or turbulance to the airflow depending on the shape and setup.
Yes as you inflate a tire to higher pressures, you are also decreasing the contact-patch of the tire with the road. This thus affects the amount of friction you have for cornering and braking. My preference would be to keep the pressure at the mfr. recommended for the improved handling and braking, and give up a slight amount in mpg.
Bike paths are wonderful. I enjoy using them myself. But since they are wonderful, and do add to the "livability" of a city, then there is nothing wrong with asking bicyclists to help pay for them, perhaps through a fee assessed on new bicycles.
Some people think that cyclists do not own motor vehicles. I own three cars and I pay taxes on all of them each year, whether I drive them or let them sit in the garage while I ride my bike back and forth to work.
My bike causes absolutely no damage to the road surface, so I could say that I am subsidizing road maintenance and repairs that I did not cause.
I've read posts from some others on here who say they would pedal to work except for the fact that there is no safe route for them. A bike path would relieve rush hour congestion and result in cleaner air if it meant less cars on the road.
That's our 2003 BMW 650CS. My wifes bike, but I ride it a lot, too. It's a single cylinder, fuel injected 650cc four-stroke, has 50hp, and accelerates quick because it's so light. 110 mph top speed, so no excuses that you'll get run over by faster traffic on the freeways like on some of the little 150cc - 250cc bikes
Oh that's a very nice bike! :shades: I was looking at getting one myself but I think the seat height might be a bit high for me as I have short legs. I've spoken with a lot of people who just love that bike! I do agree the 250cc bikes are just not that good on the highway.
Some others, like the Kawasaki 250 ninjas get great mileage as well and stay well ahead of traffic, but they are sport orientated and the riding positions less comfortable. Also less room for bringing with gear or packing room for running errands.
I have a bad back so I can't ride a sport bike as it hurts my back too much. Also have a high seat height. There is one model that doesn't a Yamaha Virago I believe but haven't tried it.
We actually get closer to 70mpg with our 650, but that is when doing leisurely 55mph backroads and we are at altitude (4,500 feet) so we get better mileage (but make less horsepower) here. The best we ever got was 90mpg over a 100 mile trip. That was riding up to the local ski mountain (during the summer) and back down. The combination of altitude (up to 8,000 feet), low speed (55mph) and practically coasting all the way back down yielded that.
I'm not up all that high here and the beach isn't that far away. I think we are about 900-1000 feet above sea level here. So mileage might be less but more power. I'm not certain. But 65 mpg would be worth it for running around town but it is a bit cold up here most of the year compared to going further south. Sounds like your riding is done in some fun areas.
It's good that it's clean as well. Right now we have a lot of snow and it snowed today as well only about 3 inches. But no bikes for at least 2 months. i'll try out the 650, the seat height looks to be 30.7 inches so it's about 3 inches too high for me but sitting on it might drop it enough and I'm sure a 3 inch adjustment would be possible. Thanks
tedebear: My bike causes absolutely no damage to the road surface, so I could say that I am subsidizing road maintenance and repairs that I did not cause.
Revenues from the federal fuel tax are only generated when you buy fuel. So, if your cars are sitting at home, they are not using fuel, and thus not generating revenue for road and bridge construction and repair. Realistically, you are not subsidizing anything if your cars are sitting at home when you ride your bicycle to work.
tedebear: I've read posts from some others on here who say they would pedal to work except for the fact that there is no safe route for them. A bike path would relieve rush hour congestion and result in cleaner air if it meant less cars on the road.
Better maintained roads and bridges (or expanded ones) also reduce congestion and result in less gasoline burned, so one can therefore make the same argument for not diverting any of the revenues generated by the federal fuels tax for the construction of bicycle paths.
I think some states base their registration fees on a car's size and weight, and use part of the money generated for roads and bridges. Or at least it's viewed as a potential source of income. (link)
The governor here proposed a fee increase last month but got a lot of flack. Voters in my county approved a $20 registration fee increase back in 1990 with the revenue going for roads. link
Sounds like a good way to sort out the vehicles that will be usable in every day driving. I would assume it would have to be built for a reasonable price. Chrysler was very close to 100 MPG with their diesel hybrid in 1998. The price was higher than they felt people would pay. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork.
applicants will be narrowed to those who can prove they would build production-ready, consumer-friendly cars. Those that qualify will race their vehicles in cross-country races in 2009 and 2010 that will combine speed, distance, urban driving and overall performance.
The purse will be split between two categories: mainstream and alternative cars. Mainstream cars must carry four or more passengers and have climate control, an audio system and 10 cubic feet of cargo space. They also must have four or more wheels, hit 60 miles per hour in less than 12 seconds and have a minimum top speed of 100 miles per hour and a range of 200 miles.
"Oh that's a very nice bike! I was looking at getting one myself but I think the seat height might be a bit high for me as I have short legs."
When new, BMW offered the buyer a choice of the standard or the lowered seat (completely interchangeable). You are correct that the standard seat is 30.7 inches. The lower seat brings the seat height down to 29.5 inches. When you are shopping around, you will see some with the lower seat. Or you can probably find someone to trade with or buy one outright. There were also versions with lowered suspension, but you don't often see those for sale. Aftermarket offers lowered suspension, but it is not cheap.
Riding technique can account for the seat height even if it's too high for you. Look at all the folks that ride the R1200GS Adventures with a seat height of 36 inches. You just ride it like a dirtbike and scoot to the side of the seat when you stop, putting one foot flat on the ground with the bike leaned slightly that way. Very manageable.
Good luck in your search. There are a lot of bikes out there that get decent gas mileage. If you don't have a lot of riding experience, I suggest taking some riding classes. I've been riding street bikes for 20 year and dirtbikes for 25 years and I still try to take advanced riding courses now and then. Riding around day to day does not give a person the familiarity with emergency techniques that you need to have in your bag when that stray car pulls out in front of you, etc.
As others have mentioned, there are a lot of scooters available that are quite capable, too. Just make sure you get a four stroke and not a two stroke to avoid the stink of oily-exhaust and pollution.
There are also lots of smaller cruisers that would give reasonable mileage but a comfortable seating position. Just realize that many of them are the economical units so use carburation and often don't provide the mpg ratings of injected models (the small BMWs for example).
"I'm not up all that high here and the beach isn't that far away. I think we are about 900-1000 feet above sea level here. So mileage might be less but more power. I'm not certain. "
Yes, you would get more hp at sea level than at altitude. The atmospheric pressure is creater so your engine is able to pull in denser air (hence more fuel to keep the air/fuel ratio correct) making more power and using more gas than at altitude. The is especially true of fuel injected motors that can more easily account for the change. Carburetors are jetted for sea level. When you go up, they run rich, so use more gas than they would if they were rejetted for that altitude. But if they were jetted for altitude (to run leaner) then when you brought them down to sea level again, they would be way too lean, and that will eventually create a nice hole in the top of your piston.
Wild swings in tempurature have a similar, though lessened, effect because cold air is denser. Luckily, with fuel injection, the computer accounts for all that and riches or leans to account for altitude, temperature, and even exhaust and intake modification.
I'm in Montana. Last fall, I rode my bikes to work until it was 19 degrees F. but had to stop because the snow came. That is cold, but it's only a 9 mile ride and the afternoon ride home was in the 50s. By the way, heated grips are nice! For long rides, once it's down to around 35 - 40 degrees, I start doing less.
Are there other folks on this board that are considering adding a motorcycle or scooter to their garage to get better mileage? Or have one and are riding it more than normal rather than driving a auto?
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.
Now we know that 8% of the people ride mass transit...
My wife grew up in Munich and most of her family still lives in the area, so we make at least one trip over there a year. First, I've always been amazed by the public transportation system. The trains are fast and smooth, and most of that infastructure was built or rebuilt back in 1972 when the olympics were there. By contrast, back when I lived in St. Louis, MO in the late 90s and early 00s, the Metrolink (subway) was so rough it would bang you against the side of the car and jerk around so bad, it practically threw out your back. And that was brand new. A good idea that was implemented poorly. Other US cities have it figured out. The D.C. system seemed great the few time's I've used it.
As for autos, the majority of the vehicles, that I notice, driving around Munich, are small or medium sized (vs. the US where everything is an SUV or truck). Most have manual transmissions. They tend to use 4 cylinders and other mall engines vs. 6 and 8 cylinder engines geared towards hp. A good share are wagon and hatchbacks. And, of course, many diesels. The bad part of the diesels is the particulate matter. They were in the process of powerwashing and cleaning entire city blocks along the downtown roads. When I asked my wife about it, she said they had to do it every few years because they get so sooty and dirty from the traffic.
Now the good part of the diesels. Mileage. Everything is measured in "liters per 100km" there, so I always have to do a lot of conversions, but the few times that we've bothered renting a vehicle while there, it was interesting.
The last time we got a BMW 1 Series wagon (mainly because they didn't import the 1 Series into the US at the time and I wanted to drive it). It had the bigger of the two 4 cylinder diesels that they make in that car. 5 speed manual. On a 200 mile autobahn drive up north, I got around 45mpg driving between 80 and 140mph. Most of it being about 105-115mph. That car is rated at getting 55mpg with regular driving and last year, BMW made improvements to their small diesels that bumped up both power and mileage by 15%. There was talk of 60mpg with the smaller of the two diesels...none of which are available in the US, of course.
Granted this is a small car (way less room in the back seat than a prius). They brought the 1 series to the US this year, but only in a couple (no hatch back/wagon) and only with the 3-liter inline-6 or the -liter inline-6 with twin-turbos. No 4 cylinder gas and no diesels because, in the US, most people that would by a BMW buy it for either status or for sports car reason and not for economy.
I don't see a gas tax as being all that relevant anymore. I know that when gas prices were below $2/gallon I was a big advocate for a $1/gallon tax. It no longer matters since the market has pushed prices to this level. And in terms of reducing consumption and encouraging alternatives these high prices seem to be having the desired effect. The only downside is that if higher gas prices were a result of higher gas taxes the government would have had some funds to mitigate the negative economic impact.
Comments
It's an argument based on false logic. The questioner asked why HE had to subsidize a program. He didn't advocate eliminating all mass transit.
Similarly, a rhetorical statement such as, "imagine what improvements we could make to our roads and bridges if we were not spending billions in Iraq," has no basis in reality.
If we were not spending billions on the Space Program, or Foreign Aid, our roads and bridges would remain the same. The money wouldn't magically transfer to transportation projects.
"A federal commission recently calculated what it will cost to repair and upgrade the nation’s roads and highways." Yes, the federal government, after careful study, has determined that it needs more taxes. What a shock!
This tactic is also popular with school districts across the country. They spend a few hundred thousand tax dollars on a "commission" to study school finance. 100% of the time, these "commissions" determine that we need "more funding for education."
Go figure.
The gov't can always find a reason to raise taxes. And an alcoholic can always find a reason to have a drink.
.
We fit that profile. Though we actually made that decision before gas started heading up. My wife and I each enjoyed a few new vehicles in a row; trading in every 3 years or so. But we've gotten that out of our system. Big waste of money buying a depreciating item before the current one is beyond it's service life. So the wife's car (2000) is paid off with 120,000 and no plans on replacing any time soon. My 2003 truck (76,000 miles) is paid off in a couple months and no plans on ever buying another one. We need one for towing our boat and other hauling (maybe once a week). Once both vehicles are no longer reliable enough for longer trips (vs. around town local trips), we will consider replacing one of them.
I did heavily consider getting a high mpg car. Prius was actually first on my list. But as little as I drive my truck in a year (less than 15,000), it doesn't make financial sense and it doesn't even make environmental sense (including impact of vehicle manufacturing, etc). If people used vehicles and other products until their useful life expired, rather than when they get the urge to trade-up or get the latest and greatest, that would have a large impact.
Adding a vehicle payment but only saving $100 or even $200 (if prices get closer to $5.00 gallon) a month in gas won't even come close to making up for another vehicle payment plus insurance on 3 cars rather than 2 (as mentioned, we need to keep my truck for hauling). We even considered trading in my truck on something that can still tow the boat and getting a flatbed trailer for hauling (as I've done in the past), but any vehicle that will tow the boat, like the Toyota High. Hybrid, is really expensive and the mileage improvement from my 20mpg to maybe 26mpg isn't that great of jump.
Adding a $500-$600/month vehicle payment doesn't make sense when I'd only save around $60/month in gas (when it hits $4.00/gal). Basically, for the 1,000 miles/month I drive, my truck uses 55 gallons vs. 40 gallons for something that gets 25mpg. So I'd save 15 gallons x $4.00 = $60.
Besides, my wife's car gets 30+mpg and my motorcycles get 40mpg and 65mpg and I use them as often as I can, which, in the spring, summer, and fall, cuts down my miles-driven in my truck even more. Kind of neat that one of my hobbies has a side benefit of using less gas. One might not be able to justify owning a motorcycle for economical reasons only, because you have to add in the cost of the bike and insurance, but I'd have them anyway and be riding them even if they got 20mpg, so getting 65mpg is just a perk in this case.
CA is notorious for wasteful spending. Now they are going to cut education funding. The first thing they do is say we have to cut the amount of teachers or close schools. They never look at the lopsided administration as waste. It is the way politicians play on the ignorance of the masses.
What will the impact be on soccer mom's when their Tahoe gas bill is more than they can afford? When I pick up my grandson from elementary school on occasion there is a line of SUVs for half a mile in front of the school. They have a very orderly system where you drive through the parking lot and the kids get into your vehicle. They are all idling on the high priced gas. Several reasons parents don't let their kids ride the bus to school. First it is less than a safe way to transport children. Second it is expensive since funding was cut and the parents have to pay for their children to ride. The buses are mostly old dirty diesel burners that blow out a cloud of soot on the kids when they take off. Children are not really safe from the kids that are not disciplined on the bus. Those being the majority as they ride free. Due to some program they are on for disadvantaged children.
My daughter just bought a Yaris to cope with the high price of gas. It will be interesting to watch that school lineup as the price of gas goes up.
So am I, but the problem with mass transit is political.
To curry favor with users (who vote), politicians work to keep fares artificially low.
But to curry favor with unionized transit employees (who also vote, while the union often provides critical campaign support during elections), those same politicians will sign off on generous wage-and-benefit packages.
No amount of public funds or subsidies will ever be "enough" as long as this dynamic exists.
avalon02wh: Cars are not the be all and end all.
They are the main means of getting around outside of urban areas, and will remain so, because of the flexibility, convenience and privacy that they offer. Mass transit works in Manhattan (or even Philadelphia), but that doesn't mean it is feasible everywhere.
avalon02wh: Funding some of the so called pork projects like bike paths is well worth it. They make a city very livable.
Not when roads have giant-sized potholes, and bridges are crumbling before our eyes. Diverting revenues from the federal fuel tax for bike paths and other "demonstration projects" - as is currently happening - is not the best course of action.
Bike paths are wonderful. I enjoy using them myself. But since they are wonderful, and do add to the "livability" of a city, then there is nothing wrong with asking bicyclists to help pay for them, perhaps through a fee assessed on new bicycles.
I wonder how much that low tire pressure was affecting economy? Driving into work this morning, the car definitely seemed to roll with less resistance.
Aside from hypermiling and stiffer sidewalls, it can help out if you have a heavy load in the vehicle. The owner's manual for the GMC has a chart showing tire pressures and maximum cargo weights, though that sort of thing is all but forgotten these days.
I wouldn't go over 35 psi. If the placard says 36 use that but I think I'd ask a friendly service manager at a dealership about what pressure is best.
My cars call for 30 front and rear. I usually run 33 and run 35-36 when I fill them up. I always check them cold for the time of year. If the temp ranges from 20-60 like right now, I check them when down in the 20s so they have at least 33 at 20. I don't want them running low when cold just because I gave them 36 at 60 degrees and then it cooled to 20 one morning (4 pound drop there).
I tried to find pressures on the Michelin site, but didn't.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
FWIW, a few years ago, I put new tires on my '85 Silverado, going from a 235/75/R15 to a 255/70/R15, and that had no noticeable effect on economy. And if I took my foot off the gas pedal, it also seemed to have no effect on the truck's ability to coast. It did help noticeably in cornering though, although out on some highways, the ruts left by tractor trailers would cause it to wander a bit more.
have been 35-37. runs much better with higher pressure. My truck
had the same issue.
I think people will just start seeing it as the price of living the life they want and having a vehicle to freely roam around in.
People who still have 5 kids are always going to need a 7-seater.
mpg hints
I wonder what the effect would be of just taking the tailgate off completely? Maybe I'll try it with my Silverado and see what happens.
In the tests that I read, they did tests in a wind tunnel and tested the drag coefficient. They found that the coefficient was better (translates to better mpg) with the tailgate down than with up. Interestingly, removing the tailgate entirely made it worse than having the tailgate on and up. Having a hard bed cover was the best. I don't think a fabric tonnue (sp?) cover was tested.
They explained the "better with tailgate down. worse with it off" results were due to how the air comes out from under the vehicle when going down the road. With it off, it made a lot of turbulence behind the vehicle. With the tailgate on and down, it created a bit of a divider that let the two area of different pressures merge with less turbulance.
There is a problem with the turbulence inside the bed. That may be why removing the tailgate is said not to help.
There's a minivan that has an airfoil above the rear door directing airflow down over the rear of the van. It's not large but it should be effective.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
However we live on the beach on the Outer Banks where it's DEAD from 9-15 through 5-15 and it's a small city in the summer months. Her commute to and from her store @ 5AM and 3 PM is along the ocean at a max speed of 35 mph STRICTLY enforced.
We are seriously considering a scooter/moped for the Summer months. Instead of $50 per fillup every 10 days or so we might be at $50 per month.
How tough could it be driving along the shore on a scooter @ 5:30 as the sun rises out of the ocean?
Just curious what type of bike you are riding that gets 65 mpg?
Maybe it depends on the truck itself.
For the original myth they did a driving test and a water vortex test, both of which showed that you save more gas with the tailgate up. Their viewers suggested that they test three new conditions:
Hardroof cover over pickup bed
Mesh tailgate
Remove the entire tailgate
They had a much simpler test setup this time. They had an electronic flowmeter hooked into fuel line of Jamie's pickup. Adam: "For anyone out there that wants to e-mail telling me that we screwed up this test, we have already calibrated this thing, to this car. So it's going to be perfect!" They drove the pickup truck up and down the stretch of 101 around Candlestick and the Cow Palace.
Tailgate down: 5.2 gallons/hr @ 55mph. 1.2 gallons/hr @ 25.
Tailgate up: 5.0 gallons/hr @ 55mph. No reading for 25mph given, but tailgate up was once again confirmed as more efficient.
Hardcover over pickup bed: 5.0 gallons/hr @ 55mph. 1.2 gallons/hr @25mph
Tailgate mesh: 5% more efficient
Tailgate removed: about the same as tailgate up and hardcover
Mesh was most efficient by 5%
I disagree. I think as long as you are below the maximum tire pressure on the tire (not the one in the owner's manual for your vehicle), you won't see wear in the middle of your tread. As a matter of fact, some manufactures have owners use such a low tire pressure that you see the outer edges of the tire wear before the middle.
Manufactures recommend a specific tire pressure for various reasons but the main one is handling. Lower pressure improves grip and allows vehicles to do better in rollover tests, etc. because they will corner better before losing traction resulting in skids, fishtails, roll-overs, etc. You also get a better ride becauce there is more sidewall flex. This is less and less apparent as wheels get bigger and sidewall profiles get shorter. It's also why the recommended and/or max tire pressure on low profile tires is higher. If the sidewall flexes too much, you get bent rims from hitting pot holes. That type of tire needs the pressure to avoid sidewall flex.
Better traction and a cushier ride may be benefits, but the cons are worse, in my opinion. Worse gas mileage (read: more rolling resistance) and higher tire operating temperatures (due to more friction/rolling resistance). Higher temperatures are a tires enemy. So combine high speeds, a hot summer, and low tire pressure and bad things can start to happen to the tire carcass (and there are no visible signs of it).
Remember the Bridgstone and Ford Explorer issues? Part of that was attributed to the recommendation, by Ford, to run the tire pressure so low. That dramatically overheated the tires and contributed to the failures.
You should consider the owner's manual as a minimum and the tire manufactures sidewall max as the maximum.
I keep pretty good track of my tire pressure and run my trucks tires at the max (35 lbs). I have 76,000 miles on this set of Michelin LTX M/S and they probably have another 15,000 on them. I got rid of the stock tires the day I bought the truck and put on the Michelin because they proved to have way better traction (wet and dry road, snow, cornering, braking, and acceleration) than any other truck tire I've used. I had them on my previous truck. Running at the max pressure and rotating every 10,000 miles or so has proven to give long tread life and very even wear (no more wear down the middle of the tread than the outer edges).
For those that don't like to, or forget to, check their tire pressure at least every month, it might be wise to fill to the max pressure. Then it if goes down a bit without you checking it, you'll still be within the prefferred range of "over the manual and below the max".
That's our 2003 BMW 650CS. My wifes bike, but I ride it a lot, too. It's a single cylinder, fuel injected 650cc four-stroke, has 50hp, and accelerates quick because it's so light. 110 mph top speed, so no excuses that you'll get run over by faster traffic on the freeways like on some of the little 150cc - 250cc bikes. Some others, like the Kawasaki 250 ninjas get great mileage as well and stay well ahead of traffic, but they are sport orientated and the riding positions less comfortable. Also less room for bringing with gear or packing room for running errands.
BMW had Rotax make these 650cc engines and they are great. BMW doesn't make the CS model anymore, but have a new line of 650 that have the same basic engine and mileage. Heck, even the 800cc Rotax that BMW is using in their 800S, 800ST, and now 800GS are getting over 50mpg and they have 85hp.
We actually get closer to 70mpg with our 650, but that is when doing leisurely 55mph backroads and we are at altitude (4,500 feet) so we get better mileage (but make less horsepower) here. The best we ever got was 90mpg over a 100 mile trip. That was riding up to the local ski mountain (during the summer) and back down. The combination of atlitude (up to 8,000 feet), low speed (55mph) and practically coasting all the way back down yielded that. It wasn't a fluke, either, because we've repeated it and on my bike, my usual 40mpg is about 60mpg on that same trip. The bikes are way down on power up at 8,000 feet though, but both are fuel injected so it's nice to have them automatically run the correct air/fuel ratio rather than running really rich like a carburated bike (or car) does as you gain altitude).
Even on my bike, I get good enough mileage that I can ride the 10 miles to work, go for a 20 mile ride during lunch, and the 10 miles home and use the same amount of gas as driving my truck that day (again, the altitude helps my truck mileage too. I get 20mpg in my 03 Chev. Avalanche).
And to be even more green, the BMW has a catalytic converter, etc. even though it wasn't required by US law at the time. As of 2008, all motorcycles have to meet the next tier of emissions standards, so many or most of them have catalytic converters for the current model year. I didn't think this was a big deal until I read a report that said even with an average of far better mileage, as a whole, many bikes poluted MORE than the average auto since their were few if any emissions equipment on motorcycles. Glad to see that's changing.
TOM: And by the way, you should never use (or exceed) the pressure number listed on the sidewall of the tire. That's not the recommended tire pressure. That's the maximum pressure that the tire can take before it's in danger of exploding. If you fill your tires to that amount of pressure, not only will your car handle like a basketball, but your head will bounce off the ceiling every time you hit a bump.
RAY: So your best bet is to stick to, or very close to, the car manufacturer's size recommendation when replacing your tires. If you do that, the manufacturer's pressure recommendation will always be a good guideline. That means if the local tire shop says, "We don't have your size in stock, but these bulldozer tires'll be even better," go somewhere else.
Well, for starters the guy riding in the back is going to fall out...
Not too bad, except for the occasional breezy day with a dense cloud bank building from the south. :surprise:
I always heard that was to intended to help keep the back window clean, not to help mpg.
The luggage hit was interesting. When I carry canoes, I figure I lose one mpg. They are nice and streamlined though.
"I always heard that [minivan rear window airfoil] was to intended to help keep the back window clean, not to help mpg. "
Yes, you are correct. They actually hurt MPG from what I remember, though not by much. Spoilers on the trunk lid of cars are the same. Vary small mpg hit, but they are actually adding drag and/or turbulance to the airflow depending on the shape and setup.
My preference would be to keep the pressure at the mfr. recommended for the improved handling and braking, and give up a slight amount in mpg.
Some people think that cyclists do not own motor vehicles. I own three cars and I pay taxes on all of them each year, whether I drive them or let them sit in the garage while I ride my bike back and forth to work.
My bike causes absolutely no damage to the road surface, so I could say that I am subsidizing road maintenance and repairs that I did not cause.
I've read posts from some others on here who say they would pedal to work except for the fact that there is no safe route for them. A bike path would relieve rush hour congestion and result in cleaner air if it meant less cars on the road.
Oh that's a very nice bike! :shades:
I was looking at getting one myself but I think the seat height might be a bit high for me as I have short legs.
I've spoken with a lot of people who just love that bike!
I do agree the 250cc bikes are just not that good on the highway.
Some others, like the Kawasaki 250 ninjas get great mileage as well and stay well ahead of traffic, but they are sport orientated and the riding positions less comfortable. Also less room for bringing with gear or packing room for running errands.
I have a bad back so I can't ride a sport bike as it hurts my back too much. Also have a high seat height.
There is one model that doesn't a Yamaha Virago I believe but haven't tried it.
We actually get closer to 70mpg with our 650, but that is when doing leisurely 55mph backroads and we are at altitude (4,500 feet) so we get better mileage (but make less horsepower) here. The best we ever got was 90mpg over a 100 mile trip. That was riding up to the local ski mountain (during the summer) and back down. The combination of altitude (up to 8,000 feet), low speed (55mph) and practically coasting all the way back down yielded that.
I'm not up all that high here and the beach isn't that far away. I think we are about 900-1000 feet above sea level here. So mileage might be less but more power. I'm not certain.
But 65 mpg would be worth it for running around town but it is a bit cold up here most of the year compared to going further south.
Sounds like your riding is done in some fun areas.
It's good that it's clean as well. Right now we have a lot of snow and it snowed today as well only about 3 inches. But no bikes for at least 2 months.
i'll try out the 650, the seat height looks to be 30.7 inches so it's about 3 inches too high for me but sitting on it might drop it enough and I'm sure a 3 inch adjustment would be possible.
Thanks
I would hope so since i've never seen tires on a bulldozer! :P
Tractor Treads will surely decrease your fuel economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYaSBW7pELQ
Having a "tough" bumper just doesn't mean it's safer. New cars take damage so that you don't.
Automotive X Prize Will Offer $10 Million for Fuel-Efficient Vehicle
link title
Regards,
OW
Revenues from the federal fuel tax are only generated when you buy fuel. So, if your cars are sitting at home, they are not using fuel, and thus not generating revenue for road and bridge construction and repair. Realistically, you are not subsidizing anything if your cars are sitting at home when you ride your bicycle to work.
tedebear: I've read posts from some others on here who say they would pedal to work except for the fact that there is no safe route for them. A bike path would relieve rush hour congestion and result in cleaner air if it meant less cars on the road.
Better maintained roads and bridges (or expanded ones) also reduce congestion and result in less gasoline burned, so one can therefore make the same argument for not diverting any of the revenues generated by the federal fuels tax for the construction of bicycle paths.
The governor here proposed a fee increase last month but got a lot of flack. Voters in my county approved a $20 registration fee increase back in 1990 with the revenue going for roads. link
applicants will be narrowed to those who can prove they would build production-ready, consumer-friendly cars. Those that qualify will race their vehicles in cross-country races in 2009 and 2010 that will combine speed, distance, urban driving and overall performance.
The purse will be split between two categories: mainstream and alternative cars. Mainstream cars must carry four or more passengers and have climate control, an audio system and 10 cubic feet of cargo space. They also must have four or more wheels, hit 60 miles per hour in less than 12 seconds and have a minimum top speed of 100 miles per hour and a range of 200 miles.
When new, BMW offered the buyer a choice of the standard or the lowered seat (completely interchangeable). You are correct that the standard seat is 30.7 inches. The lower seat brings the seat height down to 29.5 inches. When you are shopping around, you will see some with the lower seat. Or you can probably find someone to trade with or buy one outright. There were also versions with lowered suspension, but you don't often see those for sale. Aftermarket offers lowered suspension, but it is not cheap.
Riding technique can account for the seat height even if it's too high for you. Look at all the folks that ride the R1200GS Adventures with a seat height of 36 inches. You just ride it like a dirtbike and scoot to the side of the seat when you stop, putting one foot flat on the ground with the bike leaned slightly that way. Very manageable.
Good luck in your search. There are a lot of bikes out there that get decent gas mileage. If you don't have a lot of riding experience, I suggest taking some riding classes. I've been riding street bikes for 20 year and dirtbikes for 25 years and I still try to take advanced riding courses now and then. Riding around day to day does not give a person the familiarity with emergency techniques that you need to have in your bag when that stray car pulls out in front of you, etc.
As others have mentioned, there are a lot of scooters available that are quite capable, too. Just make sure you get a four stroke and not a two stroke to avoid the stink of oily-exhaust and pollution.
There are also lots of smaller cruisers that would give reasonable mileage but a comfortable seating position. Just realize that many of them are the economical units so use carburation and often don't provide the mpg ratings of injected models (the small BMWs for example).
"I'm not up all that high here and the beach isn't that far away. I think we are about 900-1000 feet above sea level here. So mileage might be less but more power. I'm not certain. "
Yes, you would get more hp at sea level than at altitude. The atmospheric pressure is creater so your engine is able to pull in denser air (hence more fuel to keep the air/fuel ratio correct) making more power and using more gas than at altitude. The is especially true of fuel injected motors that can more easily account for the change. Carburetors are jetted for sea level. When you go up, they run rich, so use more gas than they would if they were rejetted for that altitude. But if they were jetted for altitude (to run leaner) then when you brought them down to sea level again, they would be way too lean, and that will eventually create a nice hole in the top of your piston.
Wild swings in tempurature have a similar, though lessened, effect because cold air is denser. Luckily, with fuel injection, the computer accounts for all that and riches or leans to account for altitude, temperature, and even exhaust and intake modification.
I'm in Montana. Last fall, I rode my bikes to work until it was 19 degrees F. but had to stop because the snow came. That is cold, but it's only a 9 mile ride and the afternoon ride home was in the 50s. By the way, heated grips are nice! For long rides, once it's down to around 35 - 40 degrees, I start doing less.
Are there other folks on this board that are considering adding a motorcycle or scooter to their garage to get better mileage? Or have one and are riding it more than normal rather than driving a auto?
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.
Now we know that 8% of the people ride mass transit...
As for autos, the majority of the vehicles, that I notice, driving around Munich, are small or medium sized (vs. the US where everything is an SUV or truck). Most have manual transmissions. They tend to use 4 cylinders and other mall engines vs. 6 and 8 cylinder engines geared towards hp. A good share are wagon and hatchbacks. And, of course, many diesels. The bad part of the diesels is the particulate matter. They were in the process of powerwashing and cleaning entire city blocks along the downtown roads. When I asked my wife about it, she said they had to do it every few years because they get so sooty and dirty from the traffic.
Now the good part of the diesels. Mileage. Everything is measured in "liters per 100km" there, so I always have to do a lot of conversions, but the few times that we've bothered renting a vehicle while there, it was interesting.
The last time we got a BMW 1 Series wagon (mainly because they didn't import the 1 Series into the US at the time and I wanted to drive it). It had the bigger of the two 4 cylinder diesels that they make in that car. 5 speed manual. On a 200 mile autobahn drive up north, I got around 45mpg driving between 80 and 140mph. Most of it being about 105-115mph. That car is rated at getting 55mpg with regular driving and last year, BMW made improvements to their small diesels that bumped up both power and mileage by 15%. There was talk of 60mpg with the smaller of the two diesels...none of which are available in the US, of course.
Granted this is a small car (way less room in the back seat than a prius). They brought the 1 series to the US this year, but only in a couple (no hatch back/wagon) and only with the 3-liter inline-6 or the -liter inline-6 with twin-turbos. No 4 cylinder gas and no diesels because, in the US, most people that would by a BMW buy it for either status or for sports car reason and not for economy.