NationStates Jolt Archive

Thats fine with me because my car is slower than most electric wheelchairs. But there are a lot of guys with vettes and rice burners that won't like it. Heck, my little sister drives an escort and doesn't stay below 80 on the freeway.

www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69045.htm


HILL DRIVE FOR '55'

By IAN BISHOP

May 24, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - In a surprise move yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called for "most of the country" to return to a speed limit of 55 mph in an effort to slash fuel consumption.

"The 55-mile speed limit really does lower gas usage. And wherever it can be required, and the people will accept it, we ought to do it," Clinton said at the National Press Club.

Before sounding off on the benefits of a lower speed limit, Clinton called for a combination of tax incentives, the use of more ethanol-based fuel and a $50 billion fund for new energy research to cut the consumption of foreign oil 50 percent by 2025.

She also pushed for half of all the nation's gas stations to have ethanol pumps by 2015, and for every gas station to have them by 2025.

She couldn't just come out in favor of something sensible, like a crash program for a real, nationwide, public transportation system using busses and light rail. No, it's "drive 55." Cars are half the fucking problem. All slowing them down does is leave the problem for future generations to deal with.

One foot on the brake and one on the gas, hey!
Well, there's too much traffic, I can't pass, no!
So I tried my best illegal move
A big black and white come and crushed my groove again!

Go on & write me up for 125
Post my face, wanted dead or alive
Take my license n' all that jive
I can't drive 55! Oh No! Uh!

So I signed my name on number 24, hey!
Yeah the judge said, "Boy, just one more
I'm gonna throw your ass in the city joint"
Looked me in the eye, said, "You get my point?"
I said "Yeah!, Oh yea!"

Write me up for 125
Post my face, wanted dead or alive
Take my license, all that jive
I can't drive 55!
Oh, yea!

I can't drive 55!
I can't drive 55!
I can't drive 55!
I can't drive 55!
Uh! (Solo)

When I drive that slow, you know it's hard to steer.
And I can't get my car out of second gear.
What used to take two hours now takes all day.
Huh - It took me 16 hours to get to L.A.!

Go on & write me up for 125
Post my face, wanted dead or alive
Take my license n' all that jive
I can't drive 55!

No, no, no, I can't drive...(I can't drive 55!)
I can't drive... (I can't drive 55!)
I can't drive 55!

She couldn't just come out in favor of something sensible, like a crash program for a real, nationwide, public transportation system using busses and light rail. No, it's "drive 55." Cars are half the fucking problem. All slowing them down does is leave the problem for future generations to deal with.

If a nationwide light rail was feasible, worked, and was private, IE not government run, I'd sure use it.

ETA: I agree on the methanol and stuff, but the 55 thing is nuts. Not that it matters, I still get the same MPG at 75 as I do at 55. It just takes me longer to get where I'm going.

Hillary Clinton needs to resume her regular program of stuffing her head up her ass. My car gets 34-37 mpg. And it has gotten the higher number when I was spending most of my time doing 70-80 mph. I get 34 or so going slower.....

Hillary Clinton needs to resume her regular program of stuffing her head up her ass. My car gets 34-37 mpg. And it has gotten the higher number when I was spending most of my time doing 70-80 mph. I get 34 or so going slower.....

C'mon man, tell us how you really feel :D :p

That wont be much of an inconvenience for residents of New York City or for people who can afford to fly everywhere they go.

If a nationwide light rail was feasible, worked, and was private, IE not government run, I'd sure use it.

ETA: I agree on the methanol and stuff, but the 55 thing is nuts. Not that it matters, I still get the same MPG at 75 as I do at 55. It just takes me longer to get where I'm going.
Private rail isn't feasible. It's too expensive for the people who are the most likely to use it. Hell, there aren't many public transportation systems in the US where the passengers pay even the majority of the costs in the fares. But by the same token, we already give oil companies subsidies out the ass--transfer that money over and you'll have more than enough funding.

Private rail isn't feasible. It's too expensive for the people who are the most likely to use it. Hell, there aren't many public transportation systems in the US where the passengers pay even the majority of the costs in the fares. But by the same token, we already give oil companies subsidies out the ass--transfer that money over and you'll have more than enough funding.

We shall make the rails of pixiedust and have unicorns to pull the trains

We shall make the rails of pixiedust and have unicorns to pull the trainsHey, I ain't saying it'll be easy or cheap, but it will be doable if there's the political will. But there's no will to get it done. This country was built for cars, and it looks like cars will be the death of us.

If I wanted a better rail system (and I do) and I was a legislator (Im not) the first place I would like to start is by making over-the-road trucking less desirable and rails more desirable.

C'mon man, tell us how you really feel :D :p


LOL, I was trying to be nice about it, honest!

The only problem with unicorns pulling the trains is that only virgins would be allowed to ride them.

The trains you pervs.

This is probably a stupid question, but does the 55mph apply to all roads or just to highways? Here in Australia the speed limit for roads is only 50 ks an hour.
It would apply to the Interstate Highway system, were it to pass. It probably won't.

This is probably a stupid question, but does the 55mph apply to all roads or just to highways? Here in Australia the speed limit for roads is only 50 ks an hour.

55 would be a maximum speed limit. They make decisions on maximum speed limits here on a road by road basis. The speed limits on roads are posted periodically on the roadside. Also anytime it changes. So anything currently 55 and above would all become 55 mph. Those that are lower would stay that way. Ive seen speed limit signs in 5 mph increments from 75 mph all the way down to 10 mph on various roads. Except 20 mph. I cant ever recall seeing a 20 mph posted speed limit.

Hillary Clinton needs to resume her regular program of stuffing her head up her ass. My car gets 34-37 mpg. And it has gotten the higher number when I was spending most of my time doing 70-80 mph. I get 34 or so going slower.....

Not since General McAuliffe's reply of "Nuts!" to the German commander's demand for the surrender of Boulogne has there been a more eloquent response.

I'm getting about 40 mpg, and my typical cruising speed is 65-75. The DC rail system is pretty useless unless you happen to live on top of a station. Ethanol by 2015? Gee, glad you're not in a hurry or anything. By the time ethanol is a reliable fuel source, it will have been taxed and surcharged until it costs as much or more than other fuel source, and those controlling it will as bad as ExxonMobil.

Save gas, fart in a jar. ;)

Or she could, y'know, just push to get Americans driving cars that are a bit more efficiant. Force everyone to drive one of these http://www.vw.co.uk/new_devs/one_litre :P

No, no, no, I can't drive...(I can't drive 55!)
I can't drive... (I can't drive 55!)
I can't drive 55!

See the macho cock-rock metal heroes
Vomit fire out of their big mouths
Shake your fists obediently
Make Leni Riefenstahl real proud
See the Aryan bozo with the red guitar
Parachute on the White House lawn
Gonna bomb the commies with his air guitar
So dumb he can't drive 55.
Like Bing Crosby before them
GOVERNMENT MUSIC
Too idiotic to be real
GOVERNMENT MUSIC
You want it loud?
We'll make sure it goes nowhere
So you won't get ideas.

Triumph of the swill.

Sorry, you reminded me of a Dead Kennedys song. :D *circlepits*

she could try raising taxes on fuel to discourge excessive consumption.

"The 55-mile speed limit really does lower gas usage. And wherever it can be required, and the people will accept it, we ought to do it," Clinton said at the National Press Club.
Talk about spin; she's just throwing an idea in the air and seeing how people react without committing to a thing. It makes her look good to the Green lobby and doesn't alienate her from the driving lobby.

Not to mention courting the cranky senior vote :rolleyes:

If young people voted in as large numbers as the geriatrics, then Nanny-State crap like this (and the 21 year drinking age) wouldn't ever be mentioned.

Ah yes, the wonderful logic of Hillary.

Sorry Hillary, but you need to actually take the time to smell the concrete. The 55 MPH speed limit does not lower gas usage. In fact it is quite the opposite. Driving 55 MPH does lower gas usage. The speed limit does not.

I drive around New York and New England, so here are some sample facts. The speed limit on the Long Island Expressway I495 is 55 MPH. The average speed on the highway is probably 70 MPH and speeds as high as 75 MPH are common, especially on the HOV lane.

The speed of the New York Thruway at some points is 65 MPH. The average speed of cars on the Thruway is ... 65 MPH. On the interstate to Boston where the speed limit was 65 MPH the average speed was actually 60.

That's the fact Hillary. The Iron Glove of the Federal Government, establishing the "Make your roads 55 or you loose federal funds" resulted in a speed limit law that was considered a joke. But with a strange irony higher speed limits are generally given more respect.

The solution is not to go back to the old tired and worn liberal approach of making a law that no one will follow, but to find concrete ways to make people follow the current speed limits as they are written.

Ah yes, the wonderful logic of Hillary.

Sorry Hillary, but you need to actually take the time to smell the concrete. The 55 MPH speed limit does not lower gas usage. In fact it is quite the opposite. Driving 55 MPH does lower gas usage. The speed limit does not.

I drive around New York and New England, so here are some sample facts. The speed limit on the Long Island Expressway I495 is 55 MPH. The average speed on the highway is probably 70 MPH and speeds as high as 75 MPH are common, especially on the HOV lane.

The speed of the New York Thruway at some points is 65 MPH. The average speed of cars on the Thruway is ... 65 MPH. On the interstate to Boston where the speed limit was 65 MPH the average speed was actually 60.

That's the fact Hillary. The Iron Glove of the Federal Government, establishing the "Make your roads 55 or you loose federal funds" resulted in a speed limit law that was considered a joke. But with a strange irony higher speed limits are generally given more respect.

The solution is not to go back to the old tired and worn liberal approach of making a law that no one will follow, but to find concrete ways to make people follow the current speed limits as they are written.

Two words: speed cameras. They'd make the majority follow the new speed limit.

Drive 55 movement, eh? Suddenly I am stricken with a strong sense of having seen this before ....

I have visions of Willie Nelson on TV commercials singing about "55 saves lives" during the last oil crises.

Great ... just fuckin' great .... you and your damn generation bringing back all those 70s clothes and music and now you want the bad shit too ...

FUCK!

Damn you retro hippies! Damn you all to Hell!

Here's my magical solution to combatting high gas prices:

1. Drive Less
2. Combine Trips
3. Buy a Fuel-Efficient Vehicle
4. Go Diesel...even better, Biodiesel

If everyone does this, demand falls and so do prices! The free market in action, no pandering politicians required...even better, car companies start producing fuel efficient vehicles to meet the new demand! Remember, the only way to cure high prices is high prices.

In the near future, alternative fuels and hybrids will also help as will improved design. Further improvements in technologies will do the same in the longer term, and eventually we'll start switching over to a totally electric and hydrogen fleet. In the long run, gas prices are not going to be an issue but in the short run they will be and you have to adapt to it.

I see nothing worng witha 55 mile speed limit. It's coming whether you like it or not. We're going to need it to save oil.

I cant ever recall seeing a 20 mph posted speed limit.
You've never driven through a school zone? They're usually 20mph.

I see nothing worng witha 55 mile speed limit. It's coming whether you like it or not. We're going to need it to save oil.

The only problem is, it didn't work very well. One of the main things that really solved the transportation problem was the CAFE standards; US automakers doubled the mileage of the American car fleet (not just new models, the entire fleet)...in six years. After 1986, the mileage declined steadily up until 2004.

Two words: speed cameras. They'd make the majority follow the new speed limit.
Exactly. That's just easy. Start throwing $200 and $300 speeding tickets all over and people will drive the speed limit. The fact is, regardless of all teh rhetoric about MPG in this thread, when we instituted and enforced teh 55 mile an hour speed limit last time we saw an immdeiate impact on fuel inventories. It works and it works fast.

The only problem is, it didn't work very well. One of the main things that really solved the transportation problem was the CAFE standards; US automakers doubled the mileage of the American car fleet (not just new models, the entire fleet)...in six years. After 1986, the mileage declined steadily up until 2004.
Yes it did work well. That's why they're recommending it now. Even teh EIA listed it as an immdeiate response to an oil shock.

The only problem is, it didn't work very well. One of the main things that really solved the transportation problem was the CAFE standards; US automakers doubled the mileage of the American car fleet (not just new models, the entire fleet)...in six years. After 1986, the mileage declined steadily up until 2004.
All of the solutiosn you propose are long term solutions that will take years to have an effect. CAFE standards imposed in the mid 70s had their effect in the early 80s. We need relief now.

Yes it did work well. That's why they're recommending it now. Even teh EIA listed it as an immdeiate response to an oil shock.

Immediate response, I'd have to agree. Right after Katrina, gas demand fell 6% due to the spike in prices; concievably, with an oil shock and 55 mph that amount could be greatly increased.

However, the longer term would have to be a combination of CAFE, technology, and conservation.

Immediate response, I'd have to agree. Right after Katrina, gas demand fell 6% due to the spike in prices; concievably, with an oil shock and 55 mph that amount could be greatly increased.

However, the longer term would have to be a combination of CAFE, technology, and conservation.
Of course, but slowing down now IS a major conservation move.

The only problem is, it didn't work very well. One of the main things that really solved the transportation problem was the CAFE standards; US automakers doubled the mileage of the American car fleet (not just new models, the entire fleet)...in six years. After 1986, the mileage declined steadily up until 2004.And that's largely because of the light truck/SUV loophole. Close that loophole and force manufacturers to produce higher mileage vehicles and you'll go a long way. It never fails to amaze me that US auto manufacturers can't seem to understand why Toyota and the other Japanese automakers are kicking their asses in every phase of the game.

Here's my magical solution to combatting high gas prices:

1. Drive Less
2. Combine Trips
3. Buy a Fuel-Efficient Vehicle
4. Go Diesel...even better, Biodiesel

If everyone does this, demand falls and so do prices! The free market in action, no pandering politicians required...even better, car companies start producing fuel efficient vehicles to meet the new demand! Remember, the only way to cure high prices is high prices.

In the near future, alternative fuels and hybrids will also help as will improved design. Further improvements in technologies will do the same in the longer term, and eventually we'll start switching over to a totally electric and hydrogen fleet. In the long run, gas prices are not going to be an issue but in the short run they will be and you have to adapt to it.
1. Is correct.
2. Is correct.
3. Won't happen because the free market you so loudly tout has created this mess by ignoring the first oil crisis in the 70s. US automakers ceded the high mileage territory to Japan and are just about ready to cede the entire auto market to Japan and Korea. Americans have been deluded and enabled into horsepower and SUV addiction because they couldn't realize that "demand" isn't always sensible or good for the country. If we rely on US automakers to actually produce real fuel efficient cars and not the horseshit Chevrolet has been advertising recently -- "we have nine cars that get 30 miles per gallon or better!"...yeah, on the freeway on trips long enough to generate that number. Commuter driving will never see those numbers consistantly from nine Chevys -- then the change we need will not come fast enough.
4. At least you didn't say ethanol, like Hillary. Ethanol is a red herring designed to boost agribusiness profits. The ratio of fossil fuels it takes to produce one gallon of ethanol is something like 1.3:1. More horseshit.

All of the solutiosn you propose are long term solutions that will take years to have an effect. CAFE standards imposed in the mid 70s had their effect in the early 80s. We need relief now.

Immediately, we need to conserve and plan more efficient trips and buy more efficient vehicles. In the immediate short term, I'm going to change my mind and agree that 55 mph should be implemented; even if people violate it, enough people will follow 55 mph that it will have an effect. Following that, CAFE standards need to be upped and funding increased for alternative fuels and energy.

Finally, in the long term technology will address many of the problems that we currently face; however, it will take at least two decades to seriously retrofit the fleet and it will take time to build the infrastructure necessary to support that.

Depending on the actions we take now, the transition period can be one of moderately high real prices like today or a period of price spikes to levels like four dollars per gallon, five per gallon, six per gallon or even higher.

I don't believe anyone has done a news story on this yet, on a national scale at least, but it would be interesting to see how high gas prices has affected ridership on local public transportation. I know that a few weeks ago I read an article in the Sun Sentinel about how ridership on the TriRail system down here had jumped massively when gas went above $3.00 a gallon.

3. Won't happen because the free market you so loudly tout has created this mess by ignoring the first oil crisis in the 70s. US automakers ceded the high mileage territory to Japan and are just about ready to cede the entire auto market to Japan and Korea. Americans have been deluded and enabled into horsepower and SUV addiction because they couldn't realize that "demand" isn't always sensible or good for the country. If we rely on US automakers to actually produce real fuel efficient cars and not the horseshit Chevrolet has been advertising recently -- "we have nine cars that get 30 miles per gallon or better!"...yeah, on the freeway on trips long enough to generate that number. Commuter driving will never see those numbers consistantly from nine Chevys -- then the change we need will not come fast enough.It already is happening. Vetalia didn't say buy and American fuel efficient vehicle, he said buy a fuel efficient vehicle. You can drive off the lot with a Prius now because Toyota more than tripled the amount they produce. Two years ago you had to wait 6 months for one because the demand was so high. SUV and large truck sales are in the toilet here and that's why GM will probably go bankrupt while Ford will probably pull it out. GM is stupid enough to make a hybrid truck that gets worse mileage than its standard counterpart while Ford is concentrating on shifting it's plants to produce more Ford Focus' and other, more fuel efficient vehicles.


4. At least you didn't say ethanol, like Hillary. Ethanol is a red herring designed to boost agribusiness profits. The ratio of fossil fuels it takes to produce one gallon of ethanol is something like 1.3:1. More horseshit.GOD! I wish more people understood that. It's one of the biggest stumbling blocks we have. Were it up to me I'd take every dime spent on ethanol subsidies and spend it all on light rail construction and consumer awareness campaigns.

I don't believe anyone has done a news story on this yet, on a national scale at least, but it would be interesting to see how high gas prices has affected ridership on local public transportation. I know that a few weeks ago I read an article in the Sun Sentinel about how ridership on the TriRail system down here had jumped massively when gas went above $3.00 a gallon.
They did a story in the LA Times that said ridership out here is way up. I would like to ee a national story, though.

3. Won't happen because the free market you so loudly tout has created this mess by ignoring the first oil crisis in the 70s. US automakers ceded the high mileage territory to Japan and are just about ready to cede the entire auto market to Japan and Korea. Americans have been deluded and enabled into horsepower and SUV addiction because they couldn't realize that "demand" isn't always sensible or good for the country. If we rely on US automakers to actually produce real fuel efficient cars and not the horseshit Chevrolet has been advertising recently -- "we have nine cars that get 30 miles per gallon or better!"...yeah, on the freeway on trips long enough to generate that number. Commuter driving will never see those numbers consistantly from nine Chevys -- then the change we need will not come fast enough.


I'd have to disagree; the market ultimately does produce changes but there is not guarantee that those changes will be pleasant or manageable for those who do not take action before the adjustment occurs. I think some of the blame lies with the government as well; for twenty years after the 1979 crisis they did almost nothing to address our dependence on oil. In 2000, the SPR only had enough oil for a few weeks of US consumption and the US car fleet was at its lowest fuel economy level since 1982...we also were saddled with thousands of megawatts of natural gas power plants, which didn't help one bit.

GM and Ford are facing the possibility of bankruptcy due to plunging SUV demand; they failed to learn from their experiences in the 1970's and are now facing an even greater crisis than than before because they are utterly unprepared to compete in sectors outside of SUVs; GM's most fuel efficient vehicle ranks 37th among the most efficient cars in the US.

4. At least you didn't say ethanol, like Hillary. Ethanol is a red herring designed to boost agribusiness profits. The ratio of fossil fuels it takes to produce one gallon of ethanol is something like 1.3:1. More horseshit.

It's mildly positive, but that doesn't really matter because of the fuel needed to produce the feedstock for it and the diesel needed to ship it by train or truck. It has some advantages as a blendstock in reformulated gas or in an E10 blend or for use by farmers who grow corn, but as a main fuel it is not a viable option. Corn ethanol is great as a subsidy market for farmers, but it has little use besides a nominal blending component outside of that market; if farmers want to use it for their vehicles, that's great, but corn ethanol will not solve our energy problems.

Cellulosic ethanol will be a major solution, however. The only problem is, we're still looking at around 5-6 years before the technology becomes commercially viable on a large scale; that means it will not help in the short run.

Biodiesel is an excellent choice, however. It's energy positive and can be made from grease waste, algae, sewage, oil seeds or any number of products. Even better, there is a new reactor out that processes oils in to biodiesel almost instantly and a new filtration model that removes the need for secondary processing. This fuel will take off on its own because unlike ethanol it is economically feasible.

They did a story in the LA Times that said ridership out here is way up. I would like to ee a national story, though.
It would no doubt be met with "Agh! Teh commiez want to burn our carS!!!!!!!!"

I find it hilarious that people still think ANWR would solve our energy problems.

1 million bpd ten years from now would cut our oil imports by a whopping 4-5% assuming US production retains its proportion of US oil demand....which is almost impossible given the continued decline in production since 1970. I don't think Saudi Aramco will be terrified by such a dastardly move to declare energy autarky.

The only good use for the oil in ANWR is to auction off the drilling rights to companies and use the sale proceeds plus oil royalties to fund alternative energy research and the expansion of light rail/subway/bus transportation. It's time to use the oil we still have to fund ways to get away from it; the most responsible way to use oil reserves is to use them to eliminate our dependence on oil.

The same should be done with ethanol subsidies; eliminate them and give them to public transportation and research projects. Ideally, I'd eliminate the subsidies to oil and gas companies and power producers and give major tax credits and interest-subsidized loans for household distributed generation and zero-energy projects nationwide.

It would no doubt be met with "Agh! Teh commiez want to burn our carS!!!!!!!!"
Yeah, you'd probably get that, but I think things are going tio get so much worse that any voice screaming about the commie mass transit conspiracy will be smothered by the cacaphony of voices screaming, "I need to get to work!"

I find it hilarious that people still think ANWR would solve our energy problems.

1 million bpd ten years from now would cut our oil imports by a whopping 4-5% assuming US production retains its proportion of US oil demand....which is almost impossible given the continued decline in production since 1970. I don't think Saudi Aramco will be terrified by such a dastardly move to declare energy autarky.

The only good use for the oil in ANWR is to auction off the drilling rights to companies and use the sale proceeds plus oil royalties to fund alternative energy research and the expansion of light rail/subway/bus transportation. It's time to use the oil we still have to fund ways to get away from it; the most responsible way to use oil reserves is to use them to eliminate our dependence on oil.

The same should be done with ethanol subsidies; eliminate them and give them to public transportation and research projects. Ideally, I'd eliminate the subsidies to oil and gas companies and power producers and give major tax credits and interest-subsidized loans for household distributed generation and zero-energy projects nationwide.
ANWR = Feeding a starving man a sandwhich.


Piece by piece.


Over thirty years.

she is trying to please one group but i think she forgets that by doing so she is pissing off the rest of the groups.

ladies and gentlemen i give to you a future presidential candidate :rolleyes:

anyone else see where this country is going fast (or atleast at 55mph)?

*snip*
GOD! I wish more people understood that. It's one of the biggest stumbling blocks we have. Were it up to me I'd take every dime spent on ethanol subsidies and spend it all on light rail construction and consumer awareness campaigns.
Well, as a Seattleite transplanted to North Dakota, I have to keep that understanding under my nonexistent John Deere hat. Ethanol is seen here as a savior of the agricultural economy, and every time the local NPR affiliate news announces another multimillion-barrel-capacity ethanol plant, I want to scream.

Yeah, you'd probably get that, but I think things are going tio get so much worse that any voice screaming about the commie mass transit conspiracy will be smothered by the cacaphony of voices screaming, "I need to get to work!"

Practicality always drowns out ideology...I'd rather pay $4/day for a light rail commute to work. That's a high price for mass transit; it'll fall once more people start taking it and goverment funds flow in. It'll be better than paying $5/gallon to drive to work. I think I could give up the car...honestly, the commute to and from work is not enjoyable or memorable enough to make me miss it.

So, if I commute to work via mass transit and do all of my driving in a hybrid Civic or Prius, I might only be spending $10-$20 per week on gas at that price. Combine that with the price of mass transit and I would be spending probably around $40-$50 per week on transportation.

That price is comparable to a week's worth of driving in an average mid-size car at a price of $2/gallon. I'll take it.

Here's my magical solution to combatting high gas prices:

1. Drive Less
2. Combine Trips
3. Buy a Fuel-Efficient Vehicle
4. Go Diesel...even better, Biodiesel

If everyone does this, demand falls and so do prices! The free market in action, no pandering politicians required...even better, car companies start producing fuel efficient vehicles to meet the new demand! Remember, the only way to cure high prices is high prices.

In the near future, alternative fuels and hybrids will also help as will improved design. Further improvements in technologies will do the same in the longer term, and eventually we'll start switching over to a totally electric and hydrogen fleet. In the long run, gas prices are not going to be an issue but in the short run they will be and you have to adapt to it.


Diesel Mercedes Benz baby, the only way to fly! I have a 45 gallon tank and I can make it from the middle part of florida to Tejas on one tank and still have some left over.

:D

Exactly. That's just easy. Start throwing $200 and $300 speeding tickets all over and people will drive the speed limit. The fact is, regardless of all teh rhetoric about MPG in this thread, when we instituted and enforced teh 55 mile an hour speed limit last time we saw an immdeiate impact on fuel inventories. It works and it works fast.

No because people will still go above the speed limit no matter what, and in the end all the 55mph highways would do is become a cash cow for local PDs and city halls.


It already is happening. Vetalia didn't say buy and American fuel efficient vehicle, he said buy a fuel efficient vehicle. You can drive off the lot with a Prius now because Toyota more than tripled the amount they produce. Two years ago you had to wait 6 months for one because the demand was so high. SUV and large truck sales are in the toilet here and that's why GM will probably go bankrupt while Ford will probably pull it out. GM is stupid enough to make a hybrid truck that gets worse mileage than its standard counterpart while Ford is concentrating on shifting it's plants to produce more Ford Focus' and other, more fuel efficient vehicles.


GOD! I wish more people understood that. It's one of the biggest stumbling blocks we have. Were it up to me I'd take every dime spent on ethanol subsidies and spend it all on light rail construction and consumer awareness campaigns.

There are large SUVs and trucks that get great gas mileage. Look at almost any of the large diesel powered trucks and SUVs. I drive a LARGE car (It's old towncar size) and yet I still get 28 or so in the city and 30+ on the highway. A gas version of my car, however, would get much worse MPGs.

I wouldn't buy a prius. Too soccer momish for me.

Diesel is the future for me.

You've never driven through a school zone? They're usually 20mph.

Yes I have driven through school zones. None of them in this neck of the woods is 20 mph. they are all 25 mph.

Diesel Mercedes Benz baby, the only way to fly! I have a 45 gallon tank and I can make it from the middle part of florida to Tejas on one tank and still have some left over. :D.

You get like 30% more mileage with a diesel...it's a lot better than gasoline, and Honda's new diesel models will be no more polluting than gasoline. Combine that with clean diesel fuel and you've got a vehicle cleaner than a gas-burning one.

Clean diesel hybrids are going to be huge in the near future.

ANWR = Feeding a starving man a sandwhich.
Piece by piece. Over thirty years.

And the sandwich itself is very, very small to begin with.

Actually my friends subaru wrx gets better gas milage in 6th gear lol

Lowering the speed limit is insane. Cars being made now are being geared to run at optimal fuel efficiency of speeds of 65-75 mph. At 55mph most cars don't have the torque to stay in cruising gear, and consequently run in a lower gear at a higher engine speed. That, and the fact that there is more to MPG than just the speed.

Acceleration has a big effect, accelerating and braking hard uses more gas than gradual speed changes. I've noticed a lot of people seem to have a hard time holding constant speed. When your foot is constantly going on and off the pedal, the engine is using more gas. People need to learn how to actually hold at a speed, not average around it.

Types of fuel will also change your MPG. Fuels high in ethanol actually have less energy. There's a whole mess of stuff when dealing with alcohol and octane boosting properties that I just plain won't get into right now.

Diesel is probably the best fuel when looking at a combustion engine. It has by far the highest energy content, and a diesel engine will burn just about any oil that the injectors can handle. Diesel tends to be cleaner, and biodiesel blends or straight could be easily grown locally.

Ultimately, a better infrastruture making use of public transit is the best solution for urban and highly populated areas. I pay more for insurance in a year than my car is even officially worth. Pile gas on top of that, and other maintenance, and a bus or tram would probably cost me 1/10 as much. And 90% of the driving I do is to and from work.

Lowering the speed limit is insane. Cars being made now are being geared to run at optimal fuel efficiency of speeds of 65-75 mph. At 55mph most cars don't have the torque to stay in cruising gear, and consequently run in a lower gear at a higher engine speed. That, and the fact that there is more to MPG than just the speed.

Acceleration has a big effect, accelerating and braking hard uses more gas than gradual speed changes. I've noticed a lot of people seem to have a hard time holding constant speed. When your foot is constantly going on and off the pedal, the engine is using more gas. People need to learn how to actually hold at a speed, not average around it.

Types of fuel will also change your MPG. Fuels high in ethanol actually have less energy. There's a whole mess of stuff when dealing with alcohol and octane boosting properties that I just plain won't get into right now.

Diesel is probably the best fuel when looking at a combustion engine. It has by far the highest energy content, and a diesel engine will burn just about any oil that the injectors can handle. Diesel tends to be cleaner, and biodiesel blends or straight could be easily grown locally.

Ultimately, a better infrastruture making use of public transit is the best solution for urban and highly populated areas. I pay more for insurance in a year than my car is even officially worth. Pile gas on top of that, and other maintenance, and a bus or tram would probably cost me 1/10 as much. And 90% of the driving I do is to and from work.
I agree with everything you said here except yoru first point. I drive a 2001 Mustang GT - obviously a car geared for sped and power. I get significantly better gas mielage when I drive at 55 than at 65. This is something that I have tested more than once. By tested, I mean I have filled up my gas tank, turned on the trip meter and not filled up again until the fuel light came on. Driving the way I want to, at 70, I get about 260 miles on a tank. driving like a granny, 55 in the slow lane, I get about 320.

No because people will still go above the speed limit no matter what, and in the end all the 55mph highways would do is become a cash cow for local PDs and city halls.
I wear a seat belt now. The reason I wear it is because I understand the physics involved in an accident and I don't want to die in a car accident. However, I started wearing a seat belt long before I got old enough to lose my youthful feelings of imortality. The reason I started wearing one is because I got two tickets for driving without a seatbelt that cost me a total of $250. Trust me, when they start enforcing the 55 mile/hour speed limit by handing out speeding tickets people will drive 55. Right now enforcement is lax. When it isn't, people will wake up 10 minutes earlier to make it to work on time rather than spend $250.

Diesel is probably the best fuel when looking at a combustion engine. It has by far the highest energy content, and a diesel engine will burn just about any oil that the injectors can handle. Diesel tends to be cleaner, and biodiesel blends or straight could be easily grown locally

Absolutely. Biodiesel is excellent in diesel engines, either blended or used as pure B100; however, most warranties don't cover biodiesel blends above B20 but engines do run safely on mixtures above that. Nevertheless, a biodiesel blend produces better lubricity and increases mileage over straight diesel fuel; also, it alleviates the problems caused by the low sulfur content of clean diesel. Even small, nonhybrid diesels get excellent mileage comparable to a gasoline hybrid...they're a great value, and many attractive cars could be made diesel without compromising their design. A diesel hybrid run on B100 or a mixture is incredibly efficient and are coming to market in the next couple of years; if I recall correctly, Honda will be releasing several more diesel hybrids in 2009, in addition to products released by other manufacturers.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: gasoline is a mediocre, energy negative fuel whose only redeeming merit is its cheap cost and the low amount of pollution produced. With the advent of clean diesel, biodiesel blending, and improved engines it's clear that gasoline's days as a major fuel are numbered. Not only that, but biodiesel blends are getting cheaper than regular unleaded, which means the other main advantage of gasoline is disappearing.

-partial snip-
Right now enforcement is lax. When it isn't, people will wake up 10 minutes earlier to make it to work on time rather than spend $250.

I think that is one of the things people forget about the 55 mph speed limit; the difference between the two speeds is not significant for daily commuting and would require at best marginal adjustments in your morning routine. The commute between Mentor and Cleveland is about 21 miles on the highway; at 65 mph, it takes about 19 minutes to make the trip without any traffic delays.

At 55 mph, it takes 23 minutes...you have to leave an unbearable 4 minutes earlier than you did and you boost your fuel economy by at least 10%. That means you save at least 10% on you fuel expenditures, leaving that much more to spend on things you want, rather than another gallon of unecessary gasoline.

Even better, a lot of people will do the same, and so you're looking at significant fuel savings nationwide. Strict penalties for violating it would definitely encourage drivers to follow it, and the money brought in could help fund the expansion of public transportation...a win-win situation if there ever was one.

Why don't Americans drive diesels? The fuel efficiency of diesels greatly exceeds that of gas engines. Just switching to diesels would do more than a reduced speed limit would, it would have a cheaper adoption cost that requiring ethanol, and you'd all get that satisfying rumble.

Why don't Americans drive diesels? The fuel efficiency of diesels greatly exceeds that of gas engines. Just switching to diesels would do more than a reduced speed limit would, it would have a cheaper adoption cost that requiring ethanol, and you'd all get that satisfying rumble.

I will...diesels are a lot better than gasoline, and clean diesel solves the problem of extra pollution that diesel used to have. Even better, I can use biodiesel to improve further on the diesel technology and save money at the same time.

I always find it ironic that the first diesel engines ran on peanut oil and the Model T was intended to run on ethanol...we're coming full circle on those technologies. Of course, corn based ethanol is little more than a shell game for corn producers, but when cellulosic technology hits the market it'll be able to compete economically with other fuels.

I agree with everything you said here except yoru first point. I drive a 2001 Mustang GT - obviously a car geared for sped and power. I get significantly better gas mielage when I drive at 55 than at 65. This is something that I have tested more than once. By tested, I mean I have filled up my gas tank, turned on the trip meter and not filled up again until the fuel light came on. Driving the way I want to, at 70, I get about 260 miles on a tank. driving like a granny, 55 in the slow lane, I get about 320.

That's why I said "most". Your Mustang isn't considered a daily driver commute vehicle, and sure as hell isn't made with the intention of fuel economy.

Practicality always drowns out ideology...I'd rather pay $4/day for a light rail commute to work. That's a high price for mass transit; it'll fall once more people start taking it and goverment funds flow in. It'll be better than paying $5/gallon to drive to work. I think I could give up the car...honestly, the commute to and from work is not enjoyable or memorable enough to make me miss it.

So, if I commute to work via mass transit and do all of my driving in a hybrid Civic or Prius, I might only be spending $10-$20 per week on gas at that price. Combine that with the price of mass transit and I would be spending probably around $40-$50 per week on transportation.

That price is comparable to a week's worth of driving in an average mid-size car at a price of $2/gallon. I'll take it.
I went without a car for the two years I lived in San Francisco and it was beautiful--I spent $55 a month for a fastpass, which gave me unlimited rides on Muni and BART (within the City), I spent nothing on gas, upkeep, car insurance or parking. I came out way ahead. And if I needed a car, I could rent one for next to nothing, or I could join City CarShare. If there were anything remotely similar down here in Florida, I'd be on it in a heartbeat. Hell, avoiding the stress of road rage alone would make it worth it.

I went without a car for the two years I lived in San Francisco and it was beautiful--I spent $55 a month for a fastpass, which gave me unlimited rides on Muni and BART (within the City), I spent nothing on gas, upkeep, car insurance or parking. I came out way ahead. And if I needed a car, I could rent one for next to nothing, or I could join City CarShare. If there were anything remotely similar down here in Florida, I'd be on it in a heartbeat. Hell, avoiding the stress of road rage alone would make it worth it.
I went without a car for 6 years. I had a mountain bike that took me everywhere. Never felt better or healthier. Now I live 30 miles from work. :(

I went without a car for 6 years. I had a mountain bike that took me everywhere. Never felt better or healthier. Now I live 30 miles from work. :(
When I lived in the City, I used to commute once a week down to Palo Alto via CalTrain. That's about 25 miles. Need to get your local folks on the light rail bandwagon.

Do I smell another Cannonball Baker Sea to Shining Sea Memorial Trophy Dash?

Do I smell another Cannonball Baker Sea to Shining Sea Memorial Trophy Dash?
Psssst.





If you don't get this reference I'm severely disappointed in you...




gumball

I went without a car for the two years I lived in San Francisco and it was beautiful--I spent $55 a month for a fastpass, which gave me unlimited rides on Muni and BART (within the City), I spent nothing on gas, upkeep, car insurance or parking. I came out way ahead. And if I needed a car, I could rent one for next to nothing, or I could join City CarShare. If there were anything remotely similar down here in Florida, I'd be on it in a heartbeat. Hell, avoiding the stress of road rage alone would make it worth it.

Ooh, I hope you can still do that. I intend on moving across the bay to The City when I get out of college.

Its that same idiot who wanted to ban video games. I don't think this will do well. If you want to slash down fuel usage, build a fricken railway system.

When I lived in the City, I used to commute once a week down to Palo Alto via CalTrain. That's about 25 miles. Need to get your local folks on the light rail bandwagon.
When I was a wee lad we used to walk 17 miles in the snow to school. Uphill both ways. In July. We didn't have food so we ate salt soup for lunch. And we liked it that way.

Its that same idiot who wanted to ban video games. I don't think this will do well. If you want to slash down fuel usage, build a fricken railway system.
That's true, but it's not an immediate solution.