55 mph speed limit, cameras sending automatic tickets, gas taxes.....if we can bring back torque vs horsepower we could bring all the best arguing topics into one fold..... We really need a rolleyes icon in here.
Well, to report in, I did not ride my bike to work yet and I spent Memorial Day weekend in New Hampshire driving from southern New Jersey. So almost amything I do for the next week should be an improvement.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Seemingly, shared by only you. That'll be $25. There is no better way to save than to just slow down once you have minimized your driving. That'll be $25. Europeans drive more efficient cars. That'll be $25. Yes, it's your money. That'll be $25. It's not slightly lower economy from 75 to 55. It's up to 25% lower. That'll be $25. His opinion is known/shared by others. That'll be $25. Same real world pollutants at 75 as at 55? That'll be $25. Thanks for playing.
You really do need to spend less time in the bass boat and more time on the highway, to at least get a real understanding of how people are driving in the real world.
You'll be better informed.
I'lll take you for a road trip around southcentral Pennsylvania, as we have three major highways - Pennsylvania Turnpike, I-81 and I-83 - that converge on the area.
And "that'll be $25" for the gas I use that weekend as I introduce you to the real world. The cost of education is climbing these days...
1487: There is no better way to save than to just slow down once you have minimized your driving.
In your opinion. When on a limited access highway, fuel efficiency is just one factor to consider.
Again, you'll discover this on our fun-filled road trip.
bluzf1: Europeans drive more efficient cars.
They also drive lots of high-powered BMWs, Mercedes, Audis and Porsches. I was there, and saw them. And in Germany, they drive them really, really fast - over 100 mph in many cases.
Next time we go to Europe, you can come along to see for yourself, but that's going to cost lots more than $25.
bluzf1: It's up to 25% lower.
It's not 25 percent lower in or Honda or our Focus. I've measured. So, you're wrong. It's lower, but the trade-off is worth it.
bluzf1: His opinion is known/shared by others.
Apparently, not by the people actually driving on limited access highways, and they are the ones that count, if actual behavior is the guide. It helps to get out once in awhile...
And, as I've said repeatedly, you and anyone else are free to drive in the slow lane at 60 mph, if that is your wish.
bluzf1: Same real world pollutants at 75 as at 55?
Yes, it's the way the law is written. A car can only emit the level of the pollutants allowed by the Clean Air Act, regardless of the speed at which it travels.
It seems to me these cars did fairly well in mpg in this real-world evaluation (no computer simulation). And what does it say the typical speed was at cruise - I see 75 to 80mph listed under the Vette and Jetta. And their mileage beats the EPA estimates. Note that the drivers were trying to maintain enough speed, to keep the engine rpms up enough to stay in top-gear. Enjoy!
Are you serious with that question? There are TONS of reasons to save gas and slow down, the most important of those is to help us (us all, the citizens of the USA) cut excess consumption of fuel and pollution caused by the burning of such excess fuel.
Regardless of what happens 20, 50, 75 years from now, I mostly care about the air which I and my kids breathe TODAY.
If everyone driving 75 slowed down to 65 , we'd have a lot less wasted fuel and less pollution to boot, and people would have more money to spend on IMPORTANT things like saving for college and saving for retirement.
Neither 55 nor 65 speed limits do anything to alleviate this problem. At 65 you have less speeders but more problems with old folks and trucks that don't go 65, not to mention the problems with the merge lane - despite horsepower tripling in the American fleet in the last 20 years, a majority of folks STILL will not get their cars up to 65 before the top of the onramp.
Let's see, back then there were more cars than trucks. And, horsepower is up in every vehicle category, especially in the last 5 years. I can see doubled, but tripled?
I'm absolutely serious. Do you have a reputable source that states more pollution is produced at 75 as opposed to 65? Since you mentioned you're concerned with the air your kids breathe then I guess we are talking about particulate pollution. Unless your kids have a problem breathing the 380 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere you can't be referring to that. But anyway, bringing kids into a discussion is always a sure fire winner. Almost brings a tear to my eyes.
I've averaged 31 mpg in a 6 cyl Honda Accord maintaining a constant 75 mph. I'm very skeptical that I could save a lot of fuel driving at 65 mph. Regardless, whether I want to spend money on college, retirement or gas is a personal decision.
Conservation is not a solution, it is merely a way to delay the inevitable. Why delay it? High fuel prices will accelerate development of alternatives. These can be brought about by fuel taxes, which is highly unlikely. Or they can be brought about by our excess consumption, which is happening now. I've read many of your posts where you seem to welcome these current high prices. So what's your problem with keeping them high?
I personally conserve simply because it saves me money. I don't for a second believe that I am saving the planet. There is no good amount of fuel to burn. People that drive 50 mpg vehicles are simply harming the planet less. How commendable.
I pull my boat to the Lake on the highway,so I get out plenty. True many people go over the speed limit but many do not and many would cooperate if led. I understand that some highways are just faster than others. I understand that limited access highways are safer at greater speeds than open access highways. If everyone slowed a little for the common good, what's the problem? I said up to 25%. Sure most would be less but what's wrong with an average 15-20% savings? If speeding is that rampant, let's just camera the current speed limit and save that much. Doing something common to raise awareness of conservation would be good for our country. If you and others want to speed, just pay to play.
lasrb: If everyone driving 75 slowed down to 65 , we'd have a lot less wasted fuel and less pollution to boot, and people would have more money to spend on IMPORTANT things like saving for college and saving for retirement.
Vehicles emit the same level of pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act at 65 mph as they do at 75 mph.
As for "wasting" fuel - that is your opinion. Many of us prefer to trade some efficiency for other benefits. That is not "wasting" fuel. That is making our own set of trade-offs. "Wasting" is dumping it on the ground.
And how people spend their money is their business, although, given the costs of college and retirement, I don't think driving 65 mph, as opposed to 75 mph, will save enough money to make much of a dent in those costs.
I like driving 75+ and you like towing your boat to the lake, which uses more fuel? Have you appointed yourself as the person who should be able to determine what is and isn't a legitimate discretionary use of fuel?
tpe says, "Do you have a reputable source that states more pollution is produced at 75 as opposed to 65?"
Um, yes, it's called common sense. At 75 versus 65, more fuel is being burned. The amount of pollution is based on the amount of fuel burned. Burning more fuel = more pollution produced.
And if you are of the opinion that you LIKE to spend your extra money on fuel, then you are in the VAST, VAST Minority and have very few partners in that opinion.
If you know anything about my philosophy, you would know that I DO want higher gas prices. The higher the better, for curbing usage and stimulating alternatives to fossil fuel waste.
And yes, harming the planet less "IS" commendable. If we all harmed the planet less, guess what?
And no, particulate matter is not the only thing that damages the air. Gasoline exhaust is a pollutant and a carcinogen just as diesel exhaust is.
bluzf1: True many people go over the speed limit but many do not and many would cooperate if led.
Actually, around here, most, not many, go over the speed limit.
And, once again, "cooperation" is not the result of fines. "Coercion" is the result of fines.
bluzf1: If everyone slowed a little for the common good, what's the problem?
Because there is no proof that slowing down meets the definition of "the common good," and many people don't want to slow down. They are quite happy at their current speeds, and it's a big problem when you propose fining them for driving at those speeds.
bluzf1: I said up to 25%. Sure most would be less but what's wrong with an average 15-20% savings?'
Because, as I've explained before, many of us are happy to make that trade-off, and it's none of your business.
bluzf1: If you and others want to speed, just pay to play.
No. I've got a better idea - you mind your own business, and we'll make the decision as to how to balance fuel efficiency versus speed, without any fines.
If you want to drive 60 mph, then do so. There is nothing stopping you. But you need to get over this obsession with what other people are doing. Just because it isn't what you are doing doesn't make it wrong, or the incorrect choice.
lasrb: Um, yes, it's called common sense. At 75 versus 65, more fuel is being burned. The amount of pollution is based on the amount of fuel burned. Burning more fuel = more pollution produced.
No. Consider vehicles in the same regulatory class. A Ferrari must meet the same standards set out by the Clean Air Act as a Honda Civic, even though the Ferrari obviously uses much more gas.
If the Ferrari does not meet those standards, it cannot legally be sold in this country. It does not get a "pass" because it is a higher horsepower vehicle.
A car can be retuned for lower emissions, but that is not necessarily related to size or horsepower, or even gasoline consumption.
For example, when Ford retuned the Focus to get better gas mileage, it INCREASED its emissions. The tuning that enabled the car to achieve PZEV status HURT its gas mileage.
Same with higher speeds. The car's emissions cannot exceed Clear Air Act standards at 85 mph, anymore than it can at 55 mph.
grbeck says, "Vehicles emit the same level of pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act at 65 mph as they do at 75 mph. "
Um, no they don't. Pollutants released by fuel combustion is based on the amount of fuel burned. More fuel burned = more combustion bi-products released. No car that I know about gets exactly the same MPG at 75 MPH as it does at 65 MPH.
Sure, the amount of difference is minuscule when comparing 65 to 75 MPH for ONE CAR. But when you consider MILLIONS of cars, that small amount adds up fast.
And if you are of the opinion that you LIKE to spend your extra money on fuel, then you are in the VAST, VAST Minority and have very few partners in that opinion.
Interesting. I said that I personally conserve because of the financial benefit. How do you interpret a statement like that as I like to spend extra money on fuel?
Where I live people typically drive around 9 mph over the limit and that is based on the perceived threshold for getting ticketed. And probably half of these people are not only speeding but are the sole occupant of a full sized truck or SUV. I'm sure most of them would like to spend less on gasoline, ideally zero. But apparently there are other things that they find even less appealing. One of which is reducing speed limits.
Good for you on your choice to harm the planet less. If there were just more like you then we'd be able to destroy the earth at a later date.
In California and a few other states a lot of vehicles achieve an EPA air pollution score of 9.5. That's due largely to different fuels and regulations imposed in those states. Outside CA there are plenty of vehicle's that beat the Prius's rating of 8 despite the fact that the Prius burns the least fuel. Anyone driving a Prius outside CA clearly doesn't care about the air our children are breathing.
tpe says, "How do you interpret a statement like that as I like to spend extra money on fuel? "
Well, in post #1026 you said, "Regardless, whether I want to spend money on college, retirement or gas is a personal decision."
That translates to "if I want to waste money on gas it's my decision to do so."
I'm glad you conserve to save money. That's a smart thing to do, and more of us (collective US) should do so.
And as for sarcastic comment about my choice to "harm the planet less" let's be real for a second. We live in an economy and society in the USA which is based on fossil-fuel. That was not my choice, but I'm stuck with it. I'm on my second hybrid and I ride a Segway to work and my household "carbon footprint" is far smaller than most families my size have.
If a few more million people did what I do, then YES the destruction of the planet can be postponed until a time which technology will allow us to overcome the pollution issue and start getting the planet healthy again. That might take 100 years. The longer we push back "the inevitable," the farther away such inevitability takes place, and the better the chances we have to stop it.
Actually, those air pollution scores are misleading in a way.
All the Priuses are equally clean, regardless of where you buy them. They are all AT-PZEV rated.
I corresponded with a tech at the fueleconomy.gov website back when my TCH came out and I was confused about the cleanliness rating.
Here's what the tech told me:
"It is confusing . Every vehicle is required to have a permanent underhood emission label (known as the Vehicle Emission Control Information label). It can usually be found under the hood near the engine. You’ll find the engine size (displacement) and the Underhood Label Identification Number (engine family) and other emission information on the underhood label. You should also find be able to find the certification standard BIN3 or SULEV II. In the case of the TCH and the Prius, it isn’t really necessary. Since the engine IDs are the same the actual emissions from the two “models” will be the same. EPA’s air pollution scores are based on the certification level of the vehicle. The BIN3 vehicle receives a lower score because it is certified to a lower standard. Typically manufacturers certify vehicles sold in California to higher standards because their air pollution standards are higher. In some cases the vehicles are actually cleaner than those sold elsewhere; these vehicles will have different engine family IDs. In other cases the vehicles are the same; they receive different scores because the manufacturer has certified identical vehicles to different standards."
So translated, that means the Prius with the 9.5 Air Pollution Score and the Prius with the 8.0 Air Pollution score, because they have the same engine code, are EXACTLY the same pollution level - AT-PZEV.
lasrb: Um, no they don't. Pollutants released by fuel combustion is based on the amount of fuel burned. More fuel burned = more combustion bi-products released. No car that I know about gets exactly the same MPG at 75 MPH as it does at 65 MPH.
And the pollution control equipment works harder to clean up those pollutants. You don't think that the EPA and Congress thought of this when they drew up the standards?
And, for the 10th time, pollutant levels are not necessarily correlated with gas mileage.
Reread what I posted about the Ford Focus - when Ford retuned it to increase gas mileage, its emission levels INCREASED.
Simply driving smarter will reduce climate change.
"The better mileage you get, the more fuel you save, the less carbon dioxide you're emitting," said Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist and policy analyst with Consumer Reports. "Inflating your tires, getting your oil changed regularly, keeping your car tuned up: Those things can go a long way to improving your fuel mileage."
Slowing down helps, too. "Driving 65 miles per hour versus 75 miles per hour can save you up to 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, even more if you drive an SUV," Rangan said. That decrease in speed improves your mileage by about 15 percent.
The articles refer to carbon dioxide, which is not specifically regulated by the Clear Air Act as a pollutant.
The recent United States Supreme Court decision stated that the EPA could not summarily dismiss California's request to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act, but it did not state that it was necessarily a pollutant.
Considering that animals and even plants emit carbon dioxide, and it is necessary for life, calling it a pollutant is a stretch.
Note the neither article mentions hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide or nitrogen oxides, all of which are explicitly limited by the Clean Air Act, and all of which cannot increase just because the vehicle gets lower fuel economy, or is being driven faster.
I haven't appointed myself anything. I am just a person that understands that the easiest way to save oil is to slow down. The ignorance of some people as to the amounts we could save by lowering highway speeds is amazing.
$4/gallon won't force me to do anything except cut back on driving a bit, when we see $6+/gallon that would force me to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle. But I already vowed to myself that if I ever want to trade in my car, I will always go to the more fuel efficient car, instead of the less fuel efficient car. No more gas guzzling vehicles for me, from here on out I'll make my vehicles more fuel efficient. Seems like no one else is planning on doing that, because everyone on my block with a new vehicle in the past year has upgraded from a car or small suv to full-size pickup or suv. Are people stupid or something?
We understand that going slower reduce gasoline consumption. Many of us, however, would prefer to reduce consumption in other areas.
As has been mentioned before, no one is making you drive any faster than 60 mph on a limited access highway, if that is what you want to do.
Just because people disagree with you does not make them "ignorant." From what I see, they have a much more sophisticated understanding of driver behavior, the ability of the government to enforce an unpopular law, and how past ineffective speed limits led to increased law breaking and cynicism among the public.
Slow down to save oil, what a crock. I do 80mph and get 28mpg, whereas I do 70mph and get 26mpg. Don't tell me slowing down will save oil. Have you ever heard of drafting, if everyone were to do 80mph in a line everyone drafting the next person will save more oil than 60mph.
This is just conversation,man. I'm not trying to personally wrench your steering wheel and accelerator away from you. The stick and carrot approach is the only thing that works on some people i.e. traffic laws. Tell me you want to speed, just don't tell me we as a country couldn't save millions of barrels by slowing down just a little bit.
So translated, that means the Prius with the 9.5 Air Pollution Score and the Prius with the 8.0 Air Pollution score, because they have the same engine code, are EXACTLY the same pollution level - AT-PZEV.
I don't doubt that it's the same engine. The problem is that outside CA there is more sulfur in the fuel. I don't think the EPA makes up these ratings that they assign vehicles. I suspect that they test the vehicles with the low sulfur fuel and the fuel with a higher sulfur content. The Prius doesn't do as well as other vehicles with the higher sulfur fuel. So if you're driving outside of CA you can go cleaner than a Prius.
bluzf1: The stick and carrot approach is the only thing that works on some people i.e. traffic laws.
An even better approach is to leave speed limits as they are. I have heard no complaints one way or another (that they should be raised or lowered).
bluzf1: Tell me you want to speed, just don't tell me we as a country couldn't save millions of barrels by slowing down just a little bit.
And, as has been mentioned before, lots of people choose other ways to save gasoline. And driving 75 mph on a modern limited access highway hardly constitutes "speeding."
The EPA under the Clinton administration called carbon dioxide a pollutant. The EPA under Bush reversed that. Thus the suit. The Supremes have told the EPA to explain itself, so it's possible that the EPA will again regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
I don't think the Supremes wanted to define the gas itself since they've taken so much flack over the last 100 years for calling tomatoes vegetables when they are clearly fruit. :shades:
I drive a Mini Cooper. It's a 2003 I bought used. I get 42 mpg on the highway. I get that because I set the speed control to drive at 70 . If gas gets to be $4/gal I'll do the same thing. I put about 30000miles/ year on this car and love it. It's fun to drive. It's a great city car too. Easy to park and zip through congested roads. I feel that this car will be economical to drive for quite awhile. I have an old pickup I leave at home and just use for home projects , towing my boat , etc. Most of my driving is with the Mini.
The longer we push back "the inevitable," the farther away such inevitability takes place, and the better the chances we have to stop it.
I disagree. We will transition from fossil fuels when we are forced to. That will happen when the supply can no longer meet the demand. At that point prices will go up and alternatives will become feasible and will be developed very rapidly. I'm confident that if we all conserved this transition will take place at a later date. That's very good for the oil producers. I'm not so sure it's good for the planet.
If conservation was accompanied by an aggresive plan to promote renewable, sustainable alternatives I could support it. Since it isn't then it just seems like procrastination to me.
I suspect we are in the beginning of the transitioning stage right now.
The thing that will create economic havoc is if the price of gas goes seriously higher in a very short time with no relief in sight - kind of like what happened with Katrina but without the "things will get better" attached to it. It would make a whole bunch of teh current fleet obsolete.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
"Here's an approach to cut the speed limit and thus save gas - quit maintaining and improving the infrastructure......It seems that many states are already implementing this idea"
Oh absolutely, California very astutely implemented this policy almost a decade ago now. And it is sticking to it with a resolve not often seen in government...
;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"everyone on my block with a new vehicle in the past year has upgraded from a car or small suv to full-size pickup or suv. Are people stupid or something?"
Yes, people ARE stupid.
;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm not calling you ignorant. You seem intelligent 2 me. I just do not think a lot of drivers understand how much could be saved by slowing down or driving a more fuel efficient vehicle, that's all.
Saving money by no infrastructure repair! We've been doing that in Jersey for years and thought we were the kings of that concept. Then we went to Pennsylvania....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I suspect we are in the beginning of the transitioning stage right now.
I think you're right.
The thing that will create economic havoc is if the price of gas goes seriously higher in a very short time with no relief in sight
Well that would be a problem. I think the current prices are high enough to create an incentive to develop alternatives without being too disruptive. But we quickly become conditioned to a certain price level so they need to continue a gradual rise. What I'm more concerned about is the price falling by a significant amount and staying there for a prolonged period. We tend to have short memories and complacency would quickly set in even though the problems still exist. The recent, heightened interest in things like EVs, biodiesel, solar, wind energy, etc. would soon fizzle out.
You are certainly correct about a sudden drop being as big a concern as a sudden rise.
Again, in the Katrina situation, people were trying to unload their Suburbans what have you and deciding they really needed a hybrid. A few months later and everything had settled down and they were already shopping big again.
I will grant you that these were not actually the same people flipping vehicles every couple of months but the trends do tell a tale.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
you: Well, in post #1026 you said, "Regardless, whether I want to spend money on college, retirement or gas is a personal decision."
me: I think you're equating that because someone wants the right to spend extra $ on fuel, that that equates to them "Liking" to spend extra $ on fuel. Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying he wants to be able to do things without others interference.
This is perfectly understandable as I live in a state with no helmet law for motorcycles. I like that we have no law, but I would probably advise people to wear a helmet (if they asked), and would probably wear one myself. we also don't have a seatbelt law for adults, which I like though I do wear a seatbelt 99% of the time.
you: If a few more million people did what I do, then YES the destruction of the planet can be postponed ...
me: OK I'm really tempted to ask, because this is so science fiction clichess ... do you mean mankind is going to kill itself off, or do you really think the planet's going to explode (that would be destruction). I think the Earth and life, and maybe another intelligent species would arise, even if we used our entire nuclear arsenals. And if we run out of gasoline, society existed for millenium without it, so I don't see that as destruction. And if you're trying to scare me with warm weather bring it on ... I'll buy land in the Canadian Rockies.
I have a question - not taking any sides on this debate (changed the subject, too).
Consider a day trip of 975 miles, on some freeway. At 75pmh, you drive for 13 hours. At 65mph, you make it in 15 hours. Now, the autos come with mileage ratings of city and Hwy. Could we ask them to publish mpg at different mph levels?
E.g., if the numbers are 43mpg@65mph and 39mpg@75mph, the drive at 75mpg takes 25gal and at 65mpg uses 22.7gal. Now we can decide whether 2.3gal or $8 of gas is more expensive than 2 hours of extra driving time.
Come on,man. No seatbelt law? That is ridiculous. What state?
A state that probably believes it isn't the government's role to protect an individual from his own stupidity. You seem to disagree. That rational represents a a very slippery slope that will allow a lot of behaviour to be regulated. Yeah I've heard the tired argument that if a person is hurt in a car crash it negatively impacts our health care system. Okay well then we better prohibit smoking, drinking, high risk sports, overeating, sun bathing, etc. Actually motorcycles should be banned outright because I guarantee even riding helmeted they're more dangerous than riding unbelted in an automobile, especially with today's front and side airbags.
If they want to put a rider in the law that says "in the event that I get hurt in a crash I waive my claim to medical payments if I was not wearing a seat belt" in the law and I'm OK on that.
I resent paying higher insurance for the irresponsible folks on the road.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
As far as what we should do when gas hits $4 a gallon:
Start spending less on gas. Either find alternate means of transport, or buy an electric car or a B100-capable diesel or shop around for a veggie-oil-converted Jetta or MB car.
Do you know off-hand if there was a judicial hand slap when CO2 was called a pollutant?
The news this week is about crude prices easing, the strike in Nigeria ending, and US refinery production catching up with demand. So maybe we won't see $4 a gallon gas this summer.
Shall we start a pool to predict the average US price of regular on Labor Day?
Comments
Well, to report in, I did not ride my bike to work yet and I spent Memorial Day weekend in New Hampshire driving from southern New Jersey. So almost amything I do for the next week should be an improvement.
You really do need to spend less time in the bass boat and more time on the highway, to at least get a real understanding of how people are driving in the real world.
You'll be better informed.
I'lll take you for a road trip around southcentral Pennsylvania, as we have three major highways - Pennsylvania Turnpike, I-81 and I-83 - that converge on the area.
And "that'll be $25" for the gas I use that weekend as I introduce you to the real world. The cost of education is climbing these days...
1487: There is no better way to save than to just slow down once you have minimized your driving.
In your opinion. When on a limited access highway, fuel efficiency is just one factor to consider.
Again, you'll discover this on our fun-filled road trip.
bluzf1: Europeans drive more efficient cars.
They also drive lots of high-powered BMWs, Mercedes, Audis and Porsches. I was there, and saw them. And in Germany, they drive them really, really fast - over 100 mph in many cases.
Next time we go to Europe, you can come along to see for yourself, but that's going to cost lots more than $25.
bluzf1: It's up to 25% lower.
It's not 25 percent lower in or Honda or our Focus. I've measured. So, you're wrong. It's lower, but the trade-off is worth it.
bluzf1: His opinion is known/shared by others.
Apparently, not by the people actually driving on limited access highways, and they are the ones that count, if actual behavior is the guide. It helps to get out once in awhile...
And, as I've said repeatedly, you and anyone else are free to drive in the slow lane at 60 mph, if that is your wish.
bluzf1: Same real world pollutants at 75 as at 55?
Yes, it's the way the law is written. A car can only emit the level of the pollutants allowed by the Clean Air Act, regardless of the speed at which it travels.
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060424/FREE/60417021&SearchID=73244466514443
Are you serious with that question? There are TONS of reasons to save gas and slow down, the most important of those is to help us (us all, the citizens of the USA) cut excess consumption of fuel and pollution caused by the burning of such excess fuel.
Regardless of what happens 20, 50, 75 years from now, I mostly care about the air which I and my kids breathe TODAY.
If everyone driving 75 slowed down to 65 , we'd have a lot less wasted fuel and less pollution to boot, and people would have more money to spend on IMPORTANT things like saving for college and saving for retirement.
Let's see, back then there were more cars than trucks. And, horsepower is up in every vehicle category, especially in the last 5 years. I can see doubled, but tripled?
I'm absolutely serious. Do you have a reputable source that states more pollution is produced at 75 as opposed to 65? Since you mentioned you're concerned with the air your kids breathe then I guess we are talking about particulate pollution. Unless your kids have a problem breathing the 380 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere you can't be referring to that. But anyway, bringing kids into a discussion is always a sure fire winner. Almost brings a tear to my eyes.
I've averaged 31 mpg in a 6 cyl Honda Accord maintaining a constant 75 mph. I'm very skeptical that I could save a lot of fuel driving at 65 mph. Regardless, whether I want to spend money on college, retirement or gas is a personal decision.
Conservation is not a solution, it is merely a way to delay the inevitable. Why delay it? High fuel prices will accelerate development of alternatives. These can be brought about by fuel taxes, which is highly unlikely. Or they can be brought about by our excess consumption, which is happening now. I've read many of your posts where you seem to welcome these current high prices. So what's your problem with keeping them high?
I personally conserve simply because it saves me money. I don't for a second believe that I am saving the planet. There is no good amount of fuel to burn. People that drive 50 mpg vehicles are simply harming the planet less. How commendable.
Vehicles emit the same level of pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act at 65 mph as they do at 75 mph.
As for "wasting" fuel - that is your opinion. Many of us prefer to trade some efficiency for other benefits. That is not "wasting" fuel. That is making our own set of trade-offs. "Wasting" is dumping it on the ground.
And how people spend their money is their business, although, given the costs of college and retirement, I don't think driving 65 mph, as opposed to 75 mph, will save enough money to make much of a dent in those costs.
Um, yes, it's called common sense. At 75 versus 65, more fuel is being burned. The amount of pollution is based on the amount of fuel burned. Burning more fuel = more pollution produced.
And if you are of the opinion that you LIKE to spend your extra money on fuel, then you are in the VAST, VAST Minority and have very few partners in that opinion.
If you know anything about my philosophy, you would know that I DO want higher gas prices. The higher the better, for curbing usage and stimulating alternatives to fossil fuel waste.
And yes, harming the planet less "IS" commendable. If we all harmed the planet less, guess what?
And no, particulate matter is not the only thing that damages the air. Gasoline exhaust is a pollutant and a carcinogen just as diesel exhaust is.
Actually, around here, most, not many, go over the speed limit.
And, once again, "cooperation" is not the result of fines. "Coercion" is the result of fines.
bluzf1: If everyone slowed a little for the common good, what's the problem?
Because there is no proof that slowing down meets the definition of "the common good," and many people don't want to slow down. They are quite happy at their current speeds, and it's a big problem when you propose fining them for driving at those speeds.
bluzf1: I said up to 25%. Sure most would be less but what's wrong with an average 15-20% savings?'
Because, as I've explained before, many of us are happy to make that trade-off, and it's none of your business.
bluzf1: If you and others want to speed, just pay to play.
No. I've got a better idea - you mind your own business, and we'll make the decision as to how to balance fuel efficiency versus speed, without any fines.
If you want to drive 60 mph, then do so. There is nothing stopping you. But you need to get over this obsession with what other people are doing. Just because it isn't what you are doing doesn't make it wrong, or the incorrect choice.
No. Consider vehicles in the same regulatory class. A Ferrari must meet the same standards set out by the Clean Air Act as a Honda Civic, even though the Ferrari obviously uses much more gas.
If the Ferrari does not meet those standards, it cannot legally be sold in this country. It does not get a "pass" because it is a higher horsepower vehicle.
A car can be retuned for lower emissions, but that is not necessarily related to size or horsepower, or even gasoline consumption.
For example, when Ford retuned the Focus to get better gas mileage, it INCREASED its emissions. The tuning that enabled the car to achieve PZEV status HURT its gas mileage.
Same with higher speeds. The car's emissions cannot exceed Clear Air Act standards at 85 mph, anymore than it can at 55 mph.
Um, no they don't. Pollutants released by fuel combustion is based on the amount of fuel burned. More fuel burned = more combustion bi-products released. No car that I know about gets exactly the same MPG at 75 MPH as it does at 65 MPH.
Sure, the amount of difference is minuscule when comparing 65 to 75 MPH for ONE CAR. But when you consider MILLIONS of cars, that small amount adds up fast.
Interesting. I said that I personally conserve because of the financial benefit. How do you interpret a statement like that as I like to spend extra money on fuel?
Where I live people typically drive around 9 mph over the limit and that is based on the perceived threshold for getting ticketed. And probably half of these people are not only speeding but are the sole occupant of a full sized truck or SUV. I'm sure most of them would like to spend less on gasoline, ideally zero. But apparently there are other things that they find even less appealing. One of which is reducing speed limits.
Good for you on your choice to harm the planet less. If there were just more like you then we'd be able to destroy the earth at a later date.
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle/all-rank-07.htm
In California and a few other states a lot of vehicles achieve an EPA air pollution score of 9.5. That's due largely to different fuels and regulations imposed in those states. Outside CA there are plenty of vehicle's that beat the Prius's rating of 8 despite the fact that the Prius burns the least fuel. Anyone driving a Prius outside CA clearly doesn't care about the air our children are breathing.
Well, in post #1026 you said, "Regardless, whether I want to spend money on college, retirement or gas is a personal decision."
That translates to "if I want to waste money on gas it's my decision to do so."
I'm glad you conserve to save money. That's a smart thing to do, and more of us (collective US) should do so.
And as for sarcastic comment about my choice to "harm the planet less" let's be real for a second. We live in an economy and society in the USA which is based on fossil-fuel. That was not my choice, but I'm stuck with it. I'm on my second hybrid and I ride a Segway to work and my household "carbon footprint" is far smaller than most families my size have.
If a few more million people did what I do, then YES the destruction of the planet can be postponed until a time which technology will allow us to overcome the pollution issue and start getting the planet healthy again. That might take 100 years. The longer we push back "the inevitable," the farther away such inevitability takes place, and the better the chances we have to stop it.
All the Priuses are equally clean, regardless of where you buy them. They are all AT-PZEV rated.
I corresponded with a tech at the fueleconomy.gov website back when my TCH came out and I was confused about the cleanliness rating.
Here's what the tech told me:
"It is confusing .
Every vehicle is required to have a permanent underhood emission label (known as the Vehicle Emission Control Information label). It can usually be found under the hood near the engine. You’ll find the engine size (displacement) and the Underhood Label Identification Number (engine family) and other emission information on the underhood label. You should also find be able to find the certification standard BIN3 or SULEV II. In the case of the TCH and the Prius, it isn’t really necessary. Since the engine IDs are the same the actual emissions from the two “models” will be the same. EPA’s air pollution scores are based on the certification level of the vehicle. The BIN3 vehicle receives a lower score because it is certified to a lower standard. Typically manufacturers certify vehicles sold in California to higher standards because their air pollution standards are higher. In some cases the vehicles are actually cleaner than those sold elsewhere; these vehicles will have different engine family IDs. In other cases the vehicles are the same; they receive different scores because the manufacturer has certified identical vehicles to different standards."
So translated, that means the Prius with the 9.5 Air Pollution Score and the Prius with the 8.0 Air Pollution score, because they have the same engine code, are EXACTLY the same pollution level - AT-PZEV.
And the pollution control equipment works harder to clean up those pollutants. You don't think that the EPA and Congress thought of this when they drew up the standards?
And, for the 10th time, pollutant levels are not necessarily correlated with gas mileage.
Reread what I posted about the Ford Focus - when Ford retuned it to increase gas mileage, its emission levels INCREASED.
OK, then, explain this page:
Road Speed Limiter reduces pollution
And there are others too:
Simply driving smarter will reduce climate change.
"The better mileage you get, the more fuel you save, the less carbon dioxide you're emitting," said Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist and policy analyst with Consumer Reports. "Inflating your tires, getting your oil changed regularly, keeping your car tuned up: Those things can go a long way to improving your fuel mileage."
Slowing down helps, too. "Driving 65 miles per hour versus 75 miles per hour can save you up to 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, even more if you drive an SUV," Rangan said. That decrease in speed improves your mileage by about 15 percent.
That was from this page:
Slow down to pollute less
People who know about me on these forums know that although I am not always right, I always have data to back up my statements.
The recent United States Supreme Court decision stated that the EPA could not summarily dismiss California's request to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act, but it did not state that it was necessarily a pollutant.
Considering that animals and even plants emit carbon dioxide, and it is necessary for life, calling it a pollutant is a stretch.
Note the neither article mentions hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide or nitrogen oxides, all of which are explicitly limited by the Clean Air Act, and all of which cannot increase just because the vehicle gets lower fuel economy, or is being driven faster.
Nothing you have posted disputes that.
As has been mentioned before, no one is making you drive any faster than 60 mph on a limited access highway, if that is what you want to do.
Just because people disagree with you does not make them "ignorant." From what I see, they have a much more sophisticated understanding of driver behavior, the ability of the government to enforce an unpopular law, and how past ineffective speed limits led to increased law breaking and cynicism among the public.
I don't doubt that it's the same engine. The problem is that outside CA there is more sulfur in the fuel. I don't think the EPA makes up these ratings that they assign vehicles. I suspect that they test the vehicles with the low sulfur fuel and the fuel with a higher sulfur content. The Prius doesn't do as well as other vehicles with the higher sulfur fuel. So if you're driving outside of CA you can go cleaner than a Prius.
An even better approach is to leave speed limits as they are. I have heard no complaints one way or another (that they should be raised or lowered).
bluzf1: Tell me you want to speed, just don't tell me we as a country couldn't save millions of barrels by slowing down just a little bit.
And, as has been mentioned before, lots of people choose other ways to save gasoline. And driving 75 mph on a modern limited access highway hardly constitutes "speeding."
I don't think the Supremes wanted to define the gas itself since they've taken so much flack over the last 100 years for calling tomatoes vegetables when they are clearly fruit. :shades:
I disagree. We will transition from fossil fuels when we are forced to. That will happen when the supply can no longer meet the demand. At that point prices will go up and alternatives will become feasible and will be developed very rapidly. I'm confident that if we all conserved this transition will take place at a later date. That's very good for the oil producers. I'm not so sure it's good for the planet.
If conservation was accompanied by an aggresive plan to promote renewable, sustainable alternatives I could support it. Since it isn't then it just seems like procrastination to me.
I suspect we are in the beginning of the transitioning stage right now.
The thing that will create economic havoc is if the price of gas goes seriously higher in a very short time with no relief in sight - kind of like what happened with Katrina but without the "things will get better" attached to it. It would make a whole bunch of teh current fleet obsolete.
Oh absolutely, California very astutely implemented this policy almost a decade ago now. And it is sticking to it with a resolve not often seen in government...
;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes, people ARE stupid.
;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think you're right.
The thing that will create economic havoc is if the price of gas goes seriously higher in a very short time with no relief in sight
Well that would be a problem. I think the current prices are high enough to create an incentive to develop alternatives without being too disruptive. But we quickly become conditioned to a certain price level so they need to continue a gradual rise. What I'm more concerned about is the price falling by a significant amount and staying there for a prolonged period. We tend to have short memories and complacency would quickly set in even though the problems still exist. The recent, heightened interest in things like EVs, biodiesel, solar, wind energy, etc. would soon fizzle out.
Again, in the Katrina situation, people were trying to unload their Suburbans what have you and deciding they really needed a hybrid. A few months later and everything had settled down and they were already shopping big again.
I will grant you that these were not actually the same people flipping vehicles every couple of months but the trends do tell a tale.
A case of regulatory over reach.
me: I think you're equating that because someone wants the right to spend extra $ on fuel, that that equates to them "Liking" to spend extra $ on fuel. Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying he wants to be able to do things without others interference.
This is perfectly understandable as I live in a state with no helmet law for motorcycles. I like that we have no law, but I would probably advise people to wear a helmet (if they asked), and would probably wear one myself. we also don't have a seatbelt law for adults, which I like though I do wear a seatbelt 99% of the time.
you: If a few more million people did what I do, then YES the destruction of the planet can be postponed ...
me: OK I'm really tempted to ask, because this is so science fiction clichess ... do you mean mankind is going to kill itself off, or do you really think the planet's going to explode (that would be destruction). I think the Earth and life, and maybe another intelligent species would arise, even if we used our entire nuclear arsenals. And if we run out of gasoline, society existed for millenium without it, so I don't see that as destruction. And if you're trying to scare me with warm weather bring it on ... I'll buy land in the Canadian Rockies.
I have a question - not taking any sides on this debate (changed the subject, too).
Consider a day trip of 975 miles, on some freeway. At 75pmh, you drive for 13 hours. At 65mph, you make it in 15 hours. Now, the autos come with mileage ratings of city and Hwy. Could we ask them to publish mpg at different mph levels?
E.g., if the numbers are 43mpg@65mph and 39mpg@75mph, the drive at 75mpg takes 25gal and at 65mpg uses 22.7gal. Now we can decide whether 2.3gal or $8 of gas is more expensive than 2 hours of extra driving time.
Regards, - MS.
A state that probably believes it isn't the government's role to protect an individual from his own stupidity. You seem to disagree. That rational represents a a very slippery slope that will allow a lot of behaviour to be regulated. Yeah I've heard the tired argument that if a person is hurt in a car crash it negatively impacts our health care system. Okay well then we better prohibit smoking, drinking, high risk sports, overeating, sun bathing, etc. Actually motorcycles should be banned outright because I guarantee even riding helmeted they're more dangerous than riding unbelted in an automobile, especially with today's front and side airbags.
I resent paying higher insurance for the irresponsible folks on the road.
Murder laws.
Suicide laws.
Assault laws.
DUI/DWI laws.
The seatbelt law is just another one like those.
BACK ON TOPIC:
As far as what we should do when gas hits $4 a gallon:
Start spending less on gas. Either find alternate means of transport, or buy an electric car or a B100-capable diesel or shop around for a veggie-oil-converted Jetta or MB car.
The news this week is about crude prices easing, the strike in Nigeria ending, and US refinery production catching up with demand. So maybe we won't see $4 a gallon gas this summer.
Shall we start a pool to predict the average US price of regular on Labor Day?