andre... how about paying the property taxes on this 'house'? i am sure there would be plenty of room for your cars. fiddy's house we could be neighbors.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I could not afford to keep 35 bathrooms stocked with toilet paper.
Even better, consider that the chlorine in the water supply becomes null after about 20 days, and bacteria can start to grow. So if any of those toilets, sinks, and showers aren't getting used at least once every 20 days, all sorts of fun stuff can start growing somewhere!
actually, it was a sanctuary for some high profile gangsta's. nice contribution to the local budget, though. in general, the house has a notorious reputation. the owner won't be worried about $4 per gallon for gas, it has a helicopter pad. i will see if i can find out how much the taxes are, just for grins.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I did a little experiment this weekend. On the way down to PA from MA I set the cruise above the speed limit (65-74mph) and got a respectable 32mpg; 1mph better than the EPA estimate for my Mazda6. On the way back however, I set the cruise to exactly the speed limit (65 or 55) and got a whopping 38mpg! Amazing. The difference between 32mpg and 38mpg is like saving 48 cents a gallon!
I did the same test with our CRV a few months ago and got 30mpg by going the speed limit but only 23mpg by going 72mph which is like saving 70 cents a gallon! Wow.
So all those people that were flying by me going 75-80 have no right to complain about gas prices.
That is a major problem with small gas engines. They do not have adequate torque to keep the car moving down the highway at the normal speeds. Especially up hills. My 2005 Passat Wagon TDI would cruise all day at 70-75 and turn in tanks from 39-42 MPG. That is above the EPA rating that was tested at 55 MPH. So either their tests are invalid or going faster with a diesel results in higher mileage. It was just under 2000 RPM at 70 MPH. I would fall asleep on the interstate at 55 MPH. I miss it with diesel 30-40 cents a gallon cheaper than unleaded. Wouldn't you rather cruise at 70 MPH and still get great mileage?
He's baaauk! Higher gas prices change driving behavior and car purchasing behavior. What don't you understand? Come on, if everyone else was going 65 so could you. I personally don't give 2 sents how fast you drive. I do know that we,as a country,could save huge amounts of oil by just reducing the speed limit to 65 and driving more economical cars. Unfortunately, it takes high gas prices and leadership in Washington to get everyone on page.
Unfortunately, it takes high gas prices and leadership in Washington to get everyone on page. That leadership needs to concentrate on what's good for the entire country today and tomorrow! However, most are more concerned how if will effect their financial support.
To get back on track of what would I do when gas hits $4 a gallon... I've already turned my 13 mile daily commute and 700 mile monthly business trip into 0 miles by working from home. I've been doing this for about 3 months and it's not as easy as many people think and it's certainly not fun. If you have the opportunity, I'd recommend working from home two or three days per week, but not full time. There are some people that shouldn't do it at all. It takes drive to stay focused on business and ignore everything in your house that you wouldn't have access to at the office. It also takes balance to know when to "close shop" and "go home" each day. You have a problem when your spouse begins asking when will you be home and you're sitting in your own den.
I do know that we,as a country,could save huge amounts of oil by just reducing the speed limit to 65
It's been tried before and it didn't work then, why would it work now? I drive in an area where the interstate speed limit ranges from 55 mph to 70 mph. You sure wouldn't know what the posted limit was by the speed of traffic. It is pretty much 75 everywhere. Most people will simply not comply and the few that do will be creating a hazard. If you think that the police can crack down and force compliance then, IMO, that's not realistic.
Anyway advances in transportation involve several factors. One of them being reducing the time it takes to reach your destination. Even if you could get people to drive slower it would represent a step backwards. While fuel is a limited resource a person's time is also a limited resource. I've heard the argument that relatively little time is saved going from 65 to 75. That same rational can be applied to going from 55 to 65 or 45 to 55. It comes down to arriving at a consensus on what is reasonable. Our highways were designed for speeds in excess of 65 mph. My personal opinion is 75-80 represents a reasonable speed. But that is just one point of view that should be considered amongst all the others when determining what the speed limits should be.
My son in law worked at home for a year and did not like it. He took a new job in the company and is much happier back at the office. He rides a motorcycle to save gas. It is also nice when the freeways become a parking lot. Motorcycles may not be a good option everywhere. They are not bad here in So CA as a hedge against high gas prices. Providing you do not buy a gas guzzling Harley.
...when I saw a total of $54.96 on a pump from the previous customer, but looking across at the same pump as I was filling my girlfriend's Buick LaCrosse this morning was the figure $100.00 for 33.8 gallons!
I think you are right on with regard to speed limits. They have done studies in CA and find that slowing down traffic extends the time on the freeways. Or lengthens the rush hour(s) by more than is practical. The difference between 55 & 75 may not seem like a lot. When you subtract 20 MPH from hundreds of thousands of commuters on their average 35 mile commute it is thousands of man hours lost. Many cars are optimized by gearing to get their best mileage at about 70 MPH. Many have small engines and it is not practical. That is part of the reason a Corvette gets great mileage out on the highway. 5 and 6 speed transmissions help also. If you are buying a car primarily for freeway commuting it should be optimized for 75 MPH travel.
The difference is diesel vs gas. The gas Passat is lucky to get 30 MPG on the highway. Mine never got under 27 MPG around town. The Jetta which is nearly as big as the 2005 Passat gets even better mileage in the diesel version. I expect the new one will be even better when it is released next year. If we are really serious about saving on fuel I do not see any other currently available option.
My Sprinter diesel conversion RV weighed about 8,000 lbs and averaged 22 MPG for the 5500 miles I owned it. The new owner has put 7,000 miles in two months and got as high as 26 MPG. He and his daughters love it.
It is possible to cut our consumption.
PS I saved that fellow over 400 gallons of fuel in the last two months. The other camper he was looking at was a Ford conversion with a big V8 that may get 10 MPG.
That's gotta hurt... Heck, my Acura SUV hits over 60 bucks for 18 gallons and that thing gats filled every 4 days! The wife is looking at another commuter just for that reason. We like the utility and performance of the MDX which will be hard to give up, but luckily my Subaru is a wagon so we can throw some stuff in there if we need to. That thing is getting 29mpg if I try hard enough (90% highway commute).
For a real good laugh, I get 30mpg with my S2000. That's because I am a pretty leisurely driver (unless I find a good straightaway to VTEC her in ) but there are some guys in my club who really flog their cars on a regular basis and are getting only 10-12mpg with theirs :surprise:
Oh, I understand the diesel rewards. I am a big proponent of diesel powerplants. My only experience with one was over in Ireland when I got to spent 2 weeks and about 1000 miles driving around Ireland. It was a Toyota Avensis with a little 4-cyl, I think around 2.2 liters. I filled the car up once and put another 15 bucks in on the way from Sharon to Dublin Airport. Not once, did I feel penalized or underpowered. It was a fine vehicle and the engine was smooth as silk with very little racket. I'd buy that car in a heartbeat if it were offered here.
You wrote: The gas Passat is lucky to get 30 MPG on the highway.
My Passat wagon (with a Tip transmission) reliably gets 32 to 34 mpg on the Interstate, at 70 mph. That's with the 1.8T engine.
I am hoping to hold out on replacing our 1997 Accord until the Japanese diesels get to market. My dream car would be for Honda to bring back their station wagon and stuff a turbodiesel under the hood.
you: I do know that we,as a country,could save huge amounts of oil by just reducing the speed limit to 65 and driving more economical cars.
me: you are correct in that many vehicles would save but it is really vehicle dependent. Any vehicle that is not aerodynamic - vans, SUV's blocky cars will suffer more from increased speed. The 2nd major factor is the engine efficiency at any given speed and the gearing. A small engine revving high may get better mpg at 65 than at 75mph. But some engines - many V-8's and such would actually operate more efficiently at 75mph than at 65mph. I believe an engine is most efficient operating at the rpm's where torque is the highest.
So what is true for an auto Kia Rio is not true for a 6-speed Corvette. I have a 4-spd auto 5.7L Firebird and the best mpg I get is cruising at 2,300 rpm at 75mph. My car is aerodynamic enough that the increased wind resistance at 75mph does not offset, my engine operating more efficiently.
The $100 was from the previous customer. Wonder what he had? A Hummer? I put about $33 in her car which lasts her about a week unless she keeps running to the mall to buy a bunch of stuff she "needs." Sunoco Regular is $2.95 so that yields about 11.2 gallons.
My Seville STS gets about 25 MPG on the highway, but isn't so hot in the city. Fortunately, my job is very close to home. Heck, I can walk the distance in 45 minutes or take the bus in. My Park Avenue gets a respectable 29 MPG on the highway and is pretty decent in town.
I could forgive Honda their past sins and buy a Pilot with their fine diesel engine. I did not think the 1.8L capable of that kind of mileage. That is good. You should be in good shape even if gas were to hit 4 bucks.
Doesn't seem like THAT "small gas engine" has a torque problem at hwy speeds.
I remember a cross country test drive of the HCH vs non hybrid Civic. That was a major complaint. The HCH ran out of power up long hills. Running out across a flat highway at 70 MPH you can get some great mileage in many vehicles. It is maintaining that same speed up the long hills without significant drop in MPG that would be of interest to me. I am not taking away from the HCH as it is a good car for mileage. It is too small for most families to consider. It is an econo box with a high price tag.
29 is very respectable for an almost 20 year old car. Congrats. I can only imagine what your big classic Caddy gets
How is the public transportation in Phili? Here in Boston, the "T" is pretty reliable and safe (I unfortunately work in NH ) That's one of the perks of working in the city I guess.
But some engines - many V-8's and such would actually operate more efficiently at 75mph than at 65mph. I believe an engine is most efficient operating at the rpm's where torque is the highest.
But if it is correct that some engine/vehicle combos are more efficient at 75 than at 65, would that factor be offset by the increase in air resistance and increase in tread heat/friction. Doesn't aerodynamic drag increase with speed as an exponential function?
Maybe some group such as CR will do mpg tests at various speeds in a variety of vehicles and publish results. This would be useful for general driving public.
Think that if gas gets to around $4, then might see big suvs going slower on interstates to try to soften displeasure of $100 fillups.
Public transportion in Philly is spotty at best. When a job requires reliable transportation, it does not mean SEPTA. I have a little part-time physical inventory gig and one of the requirements is to have a reliable car. Anyway, one year our district manager, who must've been in diapers when I was in college, hired a bunch of people who didn't own cars and relied on SEPTA to get to work. SEPTA went on strike that summer and he actually paid for taxis to get these people to the different job sites at company expense! It wasn't long before my boss was gone. There is a lot of turn-over at this company and I've been there the second-longest of anybody at 13 years and 5 months. I've out-lasted at least 7 district managers.
the next time I take one of my big boats up for a car show in Carlisle, is to try driving a little slower to see if it helps fuel economy much. My '76 LeMans, with its 350-2bbl and (I think) a 2.41:1 axle, only gets about 15 on the highway. But that's at speeds of around 70-75, with occasional bursts to 80. It's not an easy car to drive slow.
Ditto my '79 New Yorker. It seems like it WANTS to cruise at 70+, and if you try to hold it down to about 55-60, it just doesn't seem happy.
I have noticed that with my '85 Silverado, if I keep it right around 60-65, it usually loafs along with the slightest bit of pedal pressure, and seems okay. Get above that though, and I think that's when the 4-bbl really starts to open up. And with the wind resistance on something that big and brick-like, it seems like pedal pressure goes up considerably. Meaning fuel economy, already marginal to begin with, probably plummets.
One trip gas mileage doesn't mean much. We'd want his monthly average, measured accurately. It won't be 56 mpg, it'll be more like 45, betcha. So that's his "real" mileage. It's like my bro'. He touted 41 mpg, which was true, but day to day it was 33 mpg. That's the real answer to the question I think.
I tried going 60-65 mph yesterday on highway 80 out of Sacramento and I was passed by a city bus with a "not in service" sign on it--LOL! It's possible, but it wasn't fun trying to do that speed. You had to stay in the right lane and duke it out with heavy trucks and violent ramp entries from drivers coming in.
The second lane was truly impossible at 65 mph. I think I'd have gotten rammed. :mad:
I just registered for the Carlisle All-GM Show last night! I will, hopefully, be bringing my 1989 Cadillac Brougham again if the weather is good. Maybe I should just bring the Park Ave since it gets the best fuel economy. Trouble is, the paint is shot. I'm almost foolish enough to get it painted. Anyway, the Brougham can do about 18-19 MPG on the Turnpike these days. In it's prime it could've done 21 MPG or better.
But if it is correct that some engine/vehicle combos are more efficient at 75 than at 65, would that factor be offset by the increase in air resistance and increase in tread heat/friction. Doesn't aerodynamic drag increase with speed as an exponential function?
Here's one possibility, although it may be a bit far-fetched. Depending on gearing, maybe some engines are revving so slow at 65 mph at top gear that they're really not putting out much power and can't really loaf along, so they occasionally require more pedal pressure or downshifting, which is going to use more fuel. But at 75 mph, the engine's revving fast enough in that top gear to get it to a useable torque range, so it doesn't have to downshift?
Also, terrain may play a role. If you're going slower, you'll save fuel on the flat stretches, but you might not pick up as much speed on the downhill slopes, and my have to stomp it harder to get up the hills. When you're going faster, the car will coast further on downhill grades, and make it further up a hill before requiring you to hit the gas to maintain speed. In some cases, at a higher speed, you might be able to just coast up a hill without hitting the gas at all, if you're willing to let your speed drop off.
This is a couple of quotes from the cross-country article you are remembering. I kept the full text.
"With half the trip under our belt, some opinions are beginning to crystallize. First, the Civic EX might get better fuel economy if it had a deeper overdrive gear. At 80 mph, and 4000 rpm, the 1.7-liter Four is buzzing like a swarm of killer bees. The Hybrid's tach shows just under 3000 rpm at the same speed. And its engine is much happier. However, acceleration up to and beyond that speed is a bit better in the EX."
And:
"Another reality of the Hybrid is that sometimes, just when you need it most, the electric motor's nickel-metal-hydride battery pack runs out of juice and you're left running strictly on internal combustion. The Hybrid relies on deceleration and regenerative braking to recharge the pack. Nine times out of 10, you draw the full assistance of the electric motor by simply flooring the gas pedal. But when the grades are long, without any downhill sections, the battery can't recharge."
No one is going to say that a Civic running on a tiny gas engine is going to climb mountainous hills as well as a TDI.
But most (almost all) long hwy trips involve long stretches of straight, flat interstates, and in those instances, the torque of the HCH is more than comparable and adequate.
I tried going 60-65 mph yesterday on highway 80 out of Sacramento and I was passed by a city bus with a "not in service" sign on it-
That was my biggest complaint with the Sprinter RV. Our trip across AZ & TX was during high winds. I tried to keep it under 65 MPH as it was a bit scary at higher speeds. Trucks passed us one after another buffeting the van all over the road. You cannot drive that Interstate 10 corridor comfortably under 75 MPH. You will get run off the road or at least tailgated by a line of semi trucks.
But most (almost all) long hwy trips involve long stretches of straight, flat interstates, and in those instances, the torque of the HCH is more than comparable and adequate.
As a commuter its a fine car with HOV access, as a road car you can have it. I did notice you got rid of your HCH while it was still virtually new. They are too small for the majority of families. Maybe when gas stabilizes above $4 a gallon, folks will rethink their priorities on car size. I just cannot imagine myself buying a cramped little car like that. I did talk my pastor into a new Civic as he does a lot driving around town. I have ridden in the back seat and hated it. I think downsizing to a Tahoe size is as far as I will go, even if gas is 10 bucks a gallon.
Either that or working four 10 hour days. I think companies need to investigate new ways to save on commutes as well. The main reason my son in law volunteered for the home job was office space. They were expanding their tech support and he said pick me. He only had interaction 1 day per month and was soon an outsider. Creativity is the key. Two days home and 3 in the cubicle may work at some places.
My old Bonneville, which is basicly the same car as your park avenue, got over 30 mpg on the highway easily. I managed to squeak out just over 40 mpg on a couple of long trips. I had perfect conditions for those trips though...
- ambient temp in the 60s - not using AC - little traffic - steady speed 60-70 mph - had just down an oil change - just done a transmission service - only me in the car plus some luggage - tires maxed out at 44 psi
I used synthetic oil in that car for the engine not the transmission.
The Civic I rode in the back seat of is a 2007 EX. It is too small for the average 6 foot 190 lb person. I like the way you spin the figures. Why didn't you include US sales of the Civic? Maybe because they are bleeding here. The numbers are off from last year even with the high price of gas. The new Civic is getting its butt whipped by the 7 year old Corolla. My pastor likes driving his 1996 Nissan 200SX better than the Civic. It is probably a big car by EU standards?
oddly, I was impressed at how roomy they feel! I'm 6'3", about 200 pounds, and I fit inside okay, both front and rear. I think the main reason that I fit in the back, though, is that since the seat cushion is a bit low, my legs actually stick upward instead of straight out, so I can fit in a tighter spot without my knees digging into the seatback in front of me. Sometimes, for taller people, that "theater style" seating that some auto makers like to tout is not a good thing.
IMO at least, the current Civic is more comfortable inside than the current Corolla.
I don't know why I bothered posting this since the guy apparently didn't say anything. Edmunds was hard pressed to write a paragraph about the punditizing.
I rode in back with a tall driver. My knees were pinned to the front seat. Fortunately it was only a 15 mile ride to and from. I have never sat in a Corolla. It is bad enough being crowded into an airplane where you have little choice. Why do it in a car when there are so many better choices. I did not like the back seat of our Passat either. One reason I sold it. If the younger generation wants to be able to drive the vehicles of their choice they better get off their video games and come up with some alternatives. Our generation tripled the average mileage for cars. Let's see if this next generation can do the same.
I didn't say it would be fun. But 65 is not a hardship for 99% of Americans. Some of them only think it is. It is reluctance to change that is the problem. Higher prices are already causing change. Witness the CRV being the highest selling suv and behavorial change witnessed on this board. When the cops start issuing $300 tickets for speeding things will slow down pretty quickly. P.S. I don't respond to those who think their cars get better mileage as the speed increases from 55.
I don't mind driving 65 MPH. I did not mind going 55 MPH in Victoria BC. I just will not go slow and hold up the flow of traffic. Many Interstates are posted 70 MPH some even 75 MPH. You can figure that most people will exceed by about 10 MPH. Once in a while they will have a zero tolerance day on certain freeways here in San Diego and ticket for driving over the limit. That is a rare occurance. Maintaining the flow of traffic is important whatever that speed may be.
PS I did not see any change in traffic or the speed during these times of higher priced gas. I don't think it means much to most people. Just the cost of living.
you: But if it is correct that some engine/vehicle combos are more efficient at 75 than at 65, would that factor be offset by the increase in air resistance and increase in tread heat/friction.
me: yes, that is why I said they are both factors. Depending on the vehicle Cd (coefficient of drag, and frontal area), and the engine, and the gearing, each vehicle will have a different "sweet-spot" for maximum mpg. Maybe I'm missing some other small factors, but that is the basis.
It would be silly to think that every vehicle despite the different shapes, engine sizes and rpms, and coefficient of drag, would all have maximum mpg at 1 speed! It would also be silly to think that the slower you go the better, as you want to get the vehicle into the highest gear possible and not lug the engine.
you: Think that if gas gets to around $4, then might see big suvs going slower on interstates to try to soften displeasure of $100 fillups.
me: yes if you solved the mathematical model for an SUV - a squarish-front one in particular - like a Toyota FJ Cruiser, the coefficient of drag would be a large negattive, and I would gguess going 75mph instead of 65mph would be detrimental to mpg.
Comments
how about paying the property taxes on this 'house'?
i am sure there would be plenty of room for your cars.
fiddy's house
we could be neighbors.
Even better, consider that the chlorine in the water supply becomes null after about 20 days, and bacteria can start to grow. So if any of those toilets, sinks, and showers aren't getting used at least once every 20 days, all sorts of fun stuff can start growing somewhere!
in general, the house has a notorious reputation.
the owner won't be worried about $4 per gallon for gas, it has a helicopter pad.
i will see if i can find out how much the taxes are, just for grins.
I did the same test with our CRV a few months ago and got 30mpg by going the speed limit but only 23mpg by going 72mph which is like saving 70 cents a gallon! Wow.
So all those people that were flying by me going 75-80 have no right to complain about gas prices.
Just to keep on topic, the wife said Union 76 reg unleaded is $3.47 a gallon in Gig Hbr. WA. So, I'm not going to drive again until the 27th of May.
That leadership needs to concentrate on what's good for the entire country today and tomorrow! However, most are more concerned how if will effect their financial support.
To get back on track of what would I do when gas hits $4 a gallon... I've already turned my 13 mile daily commute and 700 mile monthly business trip into 0 miles by working from home. I've been doing this for about 3 months and it's not as easy as many people think and it's certainly not fun. If you have the opportunity, I'd recommend working from home two or three days per week, but not full time. There are some people that shouldn't do it at all.
It takes drive to stay focused on business and ignore everything in your house that you wouldn't have access to at the office. It also takes balance to know when to "close shop" and "go home" each day. You have a problem when your spouse begins asking when will you be home and you're sitting in your own den.
It's been tried before and it didn't work then, why would it work now? I drive in an area where the interstate speed limit ranges from 55 mph to 70 mph. You sure wouldn't know what the posted limit was by the speed of traffic. It is pretty much 75 everywhere. Most people will simply not comply and the few that do will be creating a hazard. If you think that the police can crack down and force compliance then, IMO, that's not realistic.
Anyway advances in transportation involve several factors. One of them being reducing the time it takes to reach your destination. Even if you could get people to drive slower it would represent a step backwards. While fuel is a limited resource a person's time is also a limited resource. I've heard the argument that relatively little time is saved going from 65 to 75. That same rational can be applied to going from 55 to 65 or 45 to 55. It comes down to arriving at a consensus on what is reasonable. Our highways were designed for speeds in excess of 65 mph. My personal opinion is 75-80 represents a reasonable speed. But that is just one point of view that should be considered amongst all the others when determining what the speed limits should be.
My Sprinter diesel conversion RV weighed about 8,000 lbs and averaged 22 MPG for the 5500 miles I owned it. The new owner has put 7,000 miles in two months and got as high as 26 MPG. He and his daughters love it.
It is possible to cut our consumption.
PS
I saved that fellow over 400 gallons of fuel in the last two months. The other camper he was looking at was a Ford conversion with a big V8 that may get 10 MPG.
For a real good laugh, I get 30mpg with my S2000. That's because I am a pretty leisurely driver (unless I find a good straightaway to VTEC her in
My Passat wagon (with a Tip transmission) reliably gets 32 to 34 mpg on the Interstate, at 70 mph. That's with the 1.8T engine.
I am hoping to hold out on replacing our 1997 Accord until the Japanese diesels get to market. My dream car would be for Honda to bring back their station wagon and stuff a turbodiesel under the hood.
me: you are correct in that many vehicles would save but it is really vehicle dependent. Any vehicle that is not aerodynamic - vans, SUV's blocky cars will suffer more from increased speed. The 2nd major factor is the engine efficiency at any given speed and the gearing. A small engine revving high may get better mpg at 65 than at 75mph. But some engines - many V-8's and such would actually operate more efficiently at 75mph than at 65mph. I believe an engine is most efficient operating at the rpm's where torque is the highest.
So what is true for an auto Kia Rio is not true for a 6-speed Corvette. I have a 4-spd auto 5.7L Firebird and the best mpg I get is cruising at 2,300 rpm at 75mph. My car is aerodynamic enough that the increased wind resistance at 75mph does not offset, my engine operating more efficiently.
My Seville STS gets about 25 MPG on the highway, but isn't so hot in the city. Fortunately, my job is very close to home. Heck, I can walk the distance in 45 minutes or take the bus in. My Park Avenue gets a respectable 29 MPG on the highway and is pretty decent in town.
Doesn't seem like THAT "small gas engine" has a torque problem at hwy speeds......:)
Every "rule" has it's exceptions.
I remember a cross country test drive of the HCH vs non hybrid Civic. That was a major complaint. The HCH ran out of power up long hills. Running out across a flat highway at 70 MPH you can get some great mileage in many vehicles. It is maintaining that same speed up the long hills without significant drop in MPG that would be of interest to me. I am not taking away from the HCH as it is a good car for mileage. It is too small for most families to consider. It is an econo box with a high price tag.
How is the public transportation in Phili? Here in Boston, the "T" is pretty reliable and safe (I unfortunately work in NH
But if it is correct that some engine/vehicle combos are more efficient at 75 than at 65, would that factor be offset by the increase in air resistance and increase in tread heat/friction. Doesn't aerodynamic drag increase with speed as an exponential function?
Maybe some group such as CR will do mpg tests at various speeds in a variety of vehicles and publish results. This would be useful for general driving public.
Think that if gas gets to around $4, then might see big suvs going slower on interstates to try to soften displeasure of $100 fillups.
Ditto my '79 New Yorker. It seems like it WANTS to cruise at 70+, and if you try to hold it down to about 55-60, it just doesn't seem happy.
I have noticed that with my '85 Silverado, if I keep it right around 60-65, it usually loafs along with the slightest bit of pedal pressure, and seems okay. Get above that though, and I think that's when the 4-bbl really starts to open up. And with the wind resistance on something that big and brick-like, it seems like pedal pressure goes up considerably. Meaning fuel economy, already marginal to begin with, probably plummets.
I tried going 60-65 mph yesterday on highway 80 out of Sacramento and I was passed by a city bus with a "not in service" sign on it--LOL! It's possible, but it wasn't fun trying to do that speed. You had to stay in the right lane and duke it out with heavy trucks and violent ramp entries from drivers coming in.
The second lane was truly impossible at 65 mph. I think I'd have gotten rammed. :mad:
Here's one possibility, although it may be a bit far-fetched. Depending on gearing, maybe some engines are revving so slow at 65 mph at top gear that they're really not putting out much power and can't really loaf along, so they occasionally require more pedal pressure or downshifting, which is going to use more fuel. But at 75 mph, the engine's revving fast enough in that top gear to get it to a useable torque range, so it doesn't have to downshift?
Also, terrain may play a role. If you're going slower, you'll save fuel on the flat stretches, but you might not pick up as much speed on the downhill slopes, and my have to stomp it harder to get up the hills. When you're going faster, the car will coast further on downhill grades, and make it further up a hill before requiring you to hit the gas to maintain speed. In some cases, at a higher speed, you might be able to just coast up a hill without hitting the gas at all, if you're willing to let your speed drop off.
"With half the trip under our belt, some opinions are beginning to crystallize. First, the Civic EX might get better fuel economy if it had a deeper overdrive gear. At 80 mph, and 4000 rpm, the 1.7-liter Four is buzzing like a swarm of killer bees. The Hybrid's tach shows just under 3000 rpm at the same speed. And its engine is much happier. However, acceleration up to and beyond that speed is a bit better in the EX."
And:
"Another reality of the Hybrid is that sometimes, just when you need it most, the electric motor's nickel-metal-hydride battery pack runs out of juice and you're left running strictly on internal combustion. The Hybrid relies on deceleration and regenerative braking to recharge the pack. Nine times out of 10, you draw the full assistance of the electric motor by simply flooring the gas pedal. But when the grades are long, without any downhill sections, the battery can't recharge."
No one is going to say that a Civic running on a tiny gas engine is going to climb mountainous hills as well as a TDI.
But most (almost all) long hwy trips involve long stretches of straight, flat interstates, and in those instances, the torque of the HCH is more than comparable and adequate.
That was my biggest complaint with the Sprinter RV. Our trip across AZ & TX was during high winds. I tried to keep it under 65 MPH as it was a bit scary at higher speeds. Trucks passed us one after another buffeting the van all over the road. You cannot drive that Interstate 10 corridor comfortably under 75 MPH. You will get run off the road or at least tailgated by a line of semi trucks.
As a commuter its a fine car with HOV access, as a road car you can have it. I did notice you got rid of your HCH while it was still virtually new. They are too small for the majority of families. Maybe when gas stabilizes above $4 a gallon, folks will rethink their priorities on car size. I just cannot imagine myself buying a cramped little car like that. I did talk my pastor into a new Civic as he does a lot driving around town. I have ridden in the back seat and hated it. I think downsizing to a Tahoe size is as far as I will go, even if gas is 10 bucks a gallon.
I think a good compromise for many jobs is to work at home one day a week. That helps the commuting traffic and saves a bit of that $4 a gallon gas.
They are not "a cramped little car" at all, and might be "too small for the majority of families" but that sure does not affect their sales numbers:
European sales 2006: Sales of the Civic range increased 33.4% to 105,313 cars in 2006.
Canadian sales 2006: The Honda Civic remained Canada's top-selling passenger car for calendar year 2006 with record annual sales of 70,028 units
Worldwide sales: the Civic, with annual sales of more than 500000 units worldwide.
I guess a lot of people who do not need bigger cars think the Civic is plenty big enough. And fast enough. And has enough torque on the hwy.
Back on Topic: In short, a Civic is a good car to buy to insulate yourself against $4 gas.
- ambient temp in the 60s
- not using AC
- little traffic
- steady speed 60-70 mph
- had just down an oil change
- just done a transmission service
- only me in the car plus some luggage
- tires maxed out at 44 psi
I used synthetic oil in that car for the engine not the transmission.
The Civic I rode in the back seat of is a 2007 EX. It is too small for the average 6 foot 190 lb person. I like the way you spin the figures. Why didn't you include US sales of the Civic? Maybe because they are bleeding here. The numbers are off from last year even with the high price of gas. The new Civic is getting its butt whipped by the 7 year old Corolla. My pastor likes driving his 1996 Nissan 200SX better than the Civic. It is probably a big car by EU standards?
IMO at least, the current Civic is more comfortable inside than the current Corolla.
I don't know why I bothered posting this since the guy apparently didn't say anything. Edmunds was hard pressed to write a paragraph about the punditizing.
Maybe the driver had his seatback reclined as well? That can definitely cut into your legroom in back.
PS
I did not see any change in traffic or the speed during these times of higher priced gas. I don't think it means much to most people. Just the cost of living.
me: yes, that is why I said they are both factors. Depending on the vehicle Cd (coefficient of drag, and frontal area), and the engine, and the gearing, each vehicle will have a different "sweet-spot" for maximum mpg. Maybe I'm missing some other small factors, but that is the basis.
It would be silly to think that every vehicle despite the different shapes, engine sizes and rpms, and coefficient of drag, would all have maximum mpg at 1 speed! It would also be silly to think that the slower you go the better, as you want to get the vehicle into the highest gear possible and not lug the engine.
you: Think that if gas gets to around $4, then might see big suvs going slower on interstates to try to soften displeasure of $100 fillups.
me: yes if you solved the mathematical model for an SUV - a squarish-front one in particular - like a Toyota FJ Cruiser, the coefficient of drag would be a large negattive, and I would gguess going 75mph instead of 65mph would be detrimental to mpg.
Well, I didn't include US Sales because they did not come up in the top hits on my Google search.
gary says, "The new Civic is getting its butt whipped by the 7 year old Corolla."
Well, the Civic is on pace to sell 291,885 cars in the USA this year based on Jan-April sales numbers.
The Corolla is on pace to sell 320,688. A difference of about 28,803 cars, or about 78 more cars a day.
I don't know if that qualifies as a "butt whippin" but it is definitely odd if you ask me.
Of course, Honda has about 1,270 dealerships in the USA and Toyota has around 1,400 total, so Toyota has more places to buy.
Back on Topic: Either car is a good choice for combating $4 gas.