Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > 55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Beaugrand®™©
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 16
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?Page 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)

I was just teasting about the ladder rack ~ but a nice utility scooter/bike, is something people could really use ~ would be a good idea. ~ Someone need to make one, a SUV scooter
Check out the Yahoo Cabin Scooters group. Some of us are working on it.
 Steve_Sandy
Joined: 3/19/2006
Msg: 17
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:46:43 AM
just dump the 5 mpg SUV's for an oil burner - getting around 52-53 mpg driving whatever speed I want, A/C seems to cost me 10% fuel, driving with the windows open costs me 25% fuel

I do use cruise control as it is easier

We get trucks on the M11 - 2 lane motorway, the empty trucks trying to overtake the full ones, so everyone seems to go at truck speeds for 30 miles and most people way too close
 Beaugrand®™©
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 18
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/23/2008 7:58:32 AM

you think about it ~ and look at the traffic as you move about ~ we are using a 3200 pound to 4800 a pound devise to transporting a human being weighing anywhere from 120 pounds to 320 pounds ~ this really makes "no" sense and never did. We just fell it love with our Buicks! ~ In the early 50's we drove around with a couch to sit on.
Exactly the philosophy we have adopted at the Cabin Scooters group: instead of "how many cup holders can we put in here?" we adopt the philosophy of "just enough, only what we need."

I drive myself to work in one of those 3,000# Buicks, and it doesn't make sense at all. What I need is "just enough" to keep me warm and dry in the winter, relatively cool in the summer, single seat, with enough cargo space for a toolbox or briefcase, and a lunch bag. Okay, maybe a cramped back seat, sometimes I might want company.

It doesn't have to carry ladders or sheets of plywood or haul a boat, it just needs to get me to work- curb weight of 700-900# should do it, I'm hoping to keep the price under $8500 in 2008 US dollars. Shooting for 100 mpg+ initially, 300 mpg eventually (that would be the "Dalnik" project).
 yna6
Joined: 1/21/2007
Msg: 19
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/23/2008 10:37:53 AM
Scorio had an idea ( a few posts up) that has been kicking around for years. It could be done...but there are a few problems. Such as some dork changing the frequencies, etc, etc...electrical storms, solar flares, etc, etc. Could be a bit problematic, but would work most of the time.
Another poster told me to have some idea as to what I was talking about before posting...gee thanks...
The idea is to put a governor on vehicles so they cannot go faster. Simple idea. They can be GEARED to do so without fear of over-reving the engine.
Some big rigs have this. they cannot go over a certain limit except on a downhill run...but SUV's and cars can be outfitted the saeme. Try giving me one reason why ANY road vehicle (outside of police and emergency vehicles) must be able to go over 60 mph? Or less. Drivers would "get used" to this and make accomodations to their driving habits to conform to it. Kind of like having a small 3 cylinder car..you KNOW its limitations, then climbing into a vehicle with a big V6 in it that is ready to roar. Huge difference in driving habit and style.
With governors people would get used to lower speeds, and realize that they may not have the speed or power to pass in what may be an "iffy" situation. they make accomodations for it.
So, think before you post....try thinking about how to actually make things WORK, rather than being the "nay-sayer" that wants to keep that big gas hog on the road because of the "prestige" or whatever.
 Draskinn
Joined: 7/11/2007
Msg: 20
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/23/2008 2:21:40 PM

Put a friggin govener on ALL vehicles that won't allow them to go more than 60...


YEAH!

And well your at it, tap my phone, I have nothing to hide. And feel free to search my apartment any time you like (oh yeah they can already do that now… sneak and peak warrants)

Oh heck just put a RF chip in my neck and a shock belt around my waste and get it over with.

F-ing sheeple.

Yeah bigger more intrusive government evolvement, that will fix the problem every time.


nonchalantly wasting gas


Funny did you pay for that gas? Or did they pay for it? Who are you to tell others how they can spend there money? Who’s next? The weekend jet skiers, the winter snowmobiles, the people with powerboats instead of sail boats, private planes?

Who gets to be the all powerful arbitrator of gas? What makes you the gas god to decide who is “wasting” gas and who has a right to use it?


you'd rather waste money and go fast


Again who are you to decide how anyone else spends there money. Only the person spending the money can decide if they are wasting it or not it depends on what they think they are getting, in this case getting where ever they are going a few seconds earlier is worth to them. It’s not your call, your not paying for it.
 Beaugrand®™©
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 21
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/23/2008 5:22:16 PM

Again who are you to decide how anyone else spends there money. Only the person spending the money can decide if they are wasting it or not it depends on what they think they are getting, in this case getting where ever they are going a few seconds earlier is worth to them. It’s not your call, your not paying for it.

There are times when, yes, it is my business how you spend your money. If you buy kiddie porn, if you buy crack, if you pay for hookers, if you buy stolen merchandise, and yes, if you drive too fast and if you waste gas and cause the price of my gas to increase and pollute the air I breathe- yes, it's my business, and everyone else's. As I've mentioned in another post, if everyone was capable of rational choices, there would be no alcoholism, no drug abuse, no prostitution or illegal gambling, and traffic cops would write a bunch less tickets.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 22
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/24/2009 7:45:06 AM
I'm finding this whole "big car vs. little car" argument to be less and less about fuel economy than it is an issue of one group of people trying to force EVERYONE to be just like them, like only what they like, approve of only what they approve of!

I just read this article:
Mileage will be better--on virtually all cars. The new rules will directly mandate higher fuel economy. For passenger cars introduced as 2016 models, fleetwide mileage must be 39 miles per gallon or better. SUVs and pickup-truck fleets must average 30 mpg. Combined, that's an average of 35 mpg for all cars in an automakers' lineup.

In the past, required mileage increases have been structured in a way that allowed automakers to offset low mileage vehicles like SUVs by building lots of higher-mileage economy cars, even if they were unpopular and the manufacturers took a loss on them. That's one reason the Detroit automakers became overreliant on big vehicles. But the new rules will be different, and will basically require every vehicle category to become more efficient. The details aren't yet final, but an SUV that currently averages 16 mpg may have to average 19 or 20 mpg by 2015. A minivan averaging 19 mpg now may have to get 23 or 24 mpg. A small runabout getting 30 mpg may be required to average 36 or 37 mpg by 2015.


Well, I have some news for the Anti- big vehicle folks!!! I ditched a 4 cylinder Pontiac Sunfire in January 2008 and bought myself ANOTHER pick up truck. Granted, it's a GMC Canyon (a mid-sized truck) with a 5 cylinder engine.....BUT...I average 3 MPG MORE on fuel than I did in the "death trap". Lucky to get 20 mpg in the Sunfire....I regularly average (YES, I have a log in my glove box and I record my gas milage and maintenance expenses) 22 to 25 mpg in my "pick up". Ohhhh, and I have the full size crew cab and 2 more doors , so add a little additional weight that I'm pushing down the highway.

My point is, that the gas milage on my truck is NOT that far off of what these "small, fuel efficient cars" get.....AND....now, ADD to that.....the Insurance Class. I was shocked....literally shocked....when I replaced the "liability only" on my Sunfire (the vehicle was paid off) with FULL coverage on the new pick up truck. My insurance premiums DROPPED by over 60%....and that was comparing liability only...to FULL coverage!!! What I saved in Insurance premiums in the last year has PAID for the 5 mpg that the government wants built into new vehicles....plus an extra $200 per year!

Not one to look a gift horse in the mouth...but I was curious about WHY the insurance was so much cheaper on my newer, more expensive truck. Falling back on my Dad's agrument (he's 76 yrs old) from when I was MUCH younger....and "unibodies" were first being introduced....it's because....they ARE "death traps". Ok, so, I looked up safety records about pick up trucks and the news was NOT encouraging! BUT...all the hoopla was that....trucks have a higher center of gravity (well, duhhhh) and are more prone to rolling over. Gosh....I rolled my first vehicle (I was 18)...it was a Volvo that got over 40 MPG!!! (that was in 1971). Now coming up on my concerns and arguments.....when I was 18 yrs old....it was "cool" to stuff 11 people in my 5 passenger Volvo.... and smuggle them into the Drive In Theatre....and then let em out of the trunk after we were in! (That was BEFORE the flat rate for a carload days.) But people....I'm 56 yrs old now! I have enough hardware in my back to build a small building, it's extremely difficult for me to plop DOWN into one of these little Matchbox cars....and even harder for me to hoist my butt back OUT of it! The seats on literally maybe 2 inches off the floor.....so you have little choice of how to position your legs....which DOES effect the strain put on your back.

People with 4 children???? Tell me that we're not discriminating against them? Oppppssss, guess you're supposed to either stop with 3....or be divorced! (not enough seatbelts for a FAMILY of 6) Ohhhh, and NOW....we have the law going into effect that ALL "Children"...up to age 12 have to be in a child safety seat!!! Well dang.....get these kids OUT of these "unibody" (frameless) lightweight , fuel efficient vehicles that disintegrate on a 30 mph impact and we wouldn't have so many traffic fatalities. BTW....even though a pick up has a higher risk of rolling.....passengers are SAFER and suffer fewer and more minor injuries in the majority of accidents. (There's your answer as to why the insurance is cheaper)

Another item of interest: My Uncle...who is 82 yrs old.....has the same truck, same year, same engine....and he complains about how bad his gas mileage is. He drives 1/2 the time with his foot on the brake!!!

Another group being discriminated against: Campers. You're not going to pull a 30' camping trailer too far down the road in a Nissan Altima. But, you know...that's ok....because those in power don't like camping anyway.

So, yes....I can see that it makes perfect sense to discriminate against families....and old people....so that Generations X and Y can suck up more gasoline at lower prices. What is OUR problem that we're not willing to suffer a few aches and pains and inconveniences so that they can drive 25,000 miles per year.....compared to MY 8,000 miles per year? By all means....take my Granny truck away from me....cause I don't need to take my grandkids camping a few times a summer...and if my back aches.....what do they care...they have places to go and they don't want me consuming THEIR fuel....or even having the remotest possibility that I might want to.
 MotownSingleGuy
Joined: 12/20/2008
Msg: 23
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/25/2009 9:12:59 PM
So much misinformation, so little time.

Most fatalities don't occur at 70 or 80 miles per hour. They occur on congested roads where it's impossible to get up to that speed, or in side impacts at intersections. So governing vehicles to 60 or 65 miles per hour isn't going to have much effect on the fatality rate.

Free-flowing intakes and exhausts enable engines to produce more power. Not better mileage. Ever hear of a throttle? A vehicle uses maybe 20% if the installed horsepower to cruise, the throttle is 80% closed and the air/exhaust flowrates are so small that flow resistance is negligible.

Most back-wheel drive cars are equipped with electric fans now. The ones which are belt-driven are usually either clutched or variable pitch so as to consume no more power than necessary.

Most every modern gas engine is also equipped with a knock sensor, to take advantage of however much octane is in the tank at the moment. But again, it's something which only affects power output, not fuel economy.

The only time a larger vehicle is more crashworthy is when it's compared to a smaller vehicle and all other things are equal. (which they seldom are) In a collision with the Earth, (such as the rollover described by boredbroad) the weight is irrelevant, and, as previously mentioned, in a vehicle not penalized by the chassis dynamics of a sport-futility vehicle, the crash might not have occurred at all.
For a dramatic counterexample, see the Fifth Gear crash test of a Volvo 940 estate vs a Renault Modus at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I . Even though the Volvo is easily a thousand pounds heavier, the driver of the Renault fares much better.

There's no law preventing passenger-car Diesel engines. The price of fuel in the U.S. is just so low that there isn't much economic incentive to buy a Diesel engine, and there isn't much incentive for the automakers to offer them. You will probably see a few more Diesel engines in American showrooms in about 2014 – there's a new set of emission standards taking effect for model year 2010; (sixteen months from now) the automakers will have worked the bugs out of the technology by 2012 or so, and after that, Diesel engines will be an off-the-shelf item which passenger-car designers can offer with little or no extra cost.
But that's not the end of it; there are a lot of cars the automakers don't offer in the U.S. Freedom of choice, my ass.
http://cars.about.com/od/detoursanddiversions/ig/American-world-cars/

Mixed speed limits for different vehicles is not dangerous, especially on multilane roads. Drivers trying to assert an imaginary god-given “right” to exceed the posted speed limit, regardless of conditions, are dangerous.

And in case you're not keepin' up with technology, virtually every modern car & truck (since MY1996 or so) has both an engine-speed governor and a vehicle-speed governor already built into the brain box.

You want to save fuel, put an excise tax on it. It ain't rocket science.
http://www.gp.org/first100/?cat=18
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 24
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/26/2009 4:47:47 AM
Definition:
Projection: Projection is a primitive form of paranoia. Projection also reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the undesirable impulses or desires without becoming consciously aware of them; attributing one's own unacknowledged unacceptable/unwanted thoughts and emotions to another; includes severe prejudice, severe jealousy, hypervigilance to external danger, and "injustice collecting". It is shifting one's unacceptable thoughts, feelings and impulses within oneself onto someone else, such that those same thoughts, feelings, beliefs and motivations are perceived as being possessed by the other.


LOL! nice try....but wouldn't it be handier to suggest how a family of 6 might decide which of their children they'll leave behind?

But, this is a good example of the mentality that leads to such lop-sided arguments (comparing apples to oranges) and coming up with sour grapes.

As described one post up; there are numerous variables that contribute to fuel economy...and highway safety.

ALL vehicles, regardless of weight and design are more fuel efficient at 55mph. The optimum speed for fuel efficiency is at exactly the speed in which the vehicle shifts into it's top gear. For my truck...it's 47mph. Every mph over that is "wasting gas". Every time you step on the brake, you're wasting gas. (simple laws of physics....not Freudian psychology)
IE. Those who COULD get 35mpg IF they drove consistently under the same conditions that the vehicle was tested...but in REALITY get only 22 MPG because they drive 75 mph with their foot on the brake 1/2 the time who blast, blame and accuse those who drive vehicles that are rated lower for fuel economy under TEST conditions...but who DRIVE consistently to take advantage of the maximum fuel economy they can get. (Like I said...I CONSISTENTLY get 22-23 mpg on the SAME truck that my Uncle says he gets only 16 mpg in).

Therefore, I reassert, projection or NOT....that it's MORE of a "people argument" than a mechanical one. The whole....."well....I COULD get good milage.....IF I wanted to....but I don't want to. (Credit card thinking)

But, to answer the OP's question: YES, I would keep my truck if a 55mph speed limit were imposed. NOW....how do you propose that we enforce the optimal fuel efficient conditions of those who COULD get the manufacturer tested milage....IF they wanted to?

How about....we control which vehicles can be sold in colder climates??? You know...that estimated fuel economy goes to hell in a handbasket when the temperature drops below 40 degrees. We could save LOTS of gasoline if we forced everyone to move out of the northern states....or at least to walk or ride a horse in the winter.

Ohhhh, wait...but are we REALLY talking about saving fuel.....or are we just using fuel economy as an excuse to make everyone the same???
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 25
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/26/2009 8:52:40 AM
I don't own an SUV or anything like that and I never will unless they eventually stop making energy efficient automobiles. (Ya right.)

I think any vehicle that doesn't get at least 30 or 35 MPG should have to pay a much higher tax every year when they register their tags. The fewer miles per gallon ... the higher the tax should be.

Low miles-per-gallon vehicles are obvious gas guzzlers and due to that, they obviously pollute the air equal to the lower MPG they get. I look at it this way ... a vehicle that gets only 20 MPG pollutes the air twice as badly as a vehicle that gets 40 MPG ... right? Well, if we can't ticket low miles-per-gallon vehicles as they travel down the road for "pollution", then we need to get them as they register those gas guzzling air polluters ... eh?

And I agree ... they should have to drive slower so they get better more MPG (obviously conserving fuel) and hopefully emitting less pollution.
 MotownSingleGuy
Joined: 12/20/2008
Msg: 26
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/26/2009 4:40:22 PM

Low miles-per-gallon vehicles are obvious gas guzzlers and due to that, they obviously pollute the air equal to the lower MPG they get. I look at it this way ... a vehicle that gets only 20 MPG pollutes the air twice as badly as a vehicle that gets 40 MPG ... right? Well, if we can't ticket low miles-per-gallon vehicles as they travel down the road for "pollution", then we need to get them as they register those gas guzzling air polluters ... eh?


No, not necessarily. If you compare a 1972 Ford Pinto (~40 mi/gal, carburettor, no catalyst, open-loop control) with a 2009 Crown Victoria, (~20 mi/gal, dual catalysts & dual lambda sensors, digital fuel injection, closed-loop control and OBD-II) the Pinto emits ~1000 times the amount of regulated emissions as the Crown Vic. Only in carbon dioxide emission does the Pinto outperform the Crown Vic. (it's the only tailpipe gas which is proportional to fuel consumption)

Now what policy should we implement for, say, a retired couple who own a gas-guzzling Crown Vic but only drive 5,000 miles per year? Gouge them on registration fees because their car consumes the same 250 gallons of fuel as a Pinto driven 10,000 miles per year or a Prius driven 12,000? (and substantially less than just about every vehicle on the road in daily service)

No, while the concept of taxing excessive consumption is sound, the right policy is to tax fuel, not vehicles.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 27
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/26/2009 8:22:51 PM

... while the concept of taxing excessive consumption is sound, the right policy is to tax fuel, not vehicles.
Point well made.

The other side of that coin though ... the way the taxes would be spent. Personally I drive a vehicle that gets 40 MPG on the open road, so I wouldn't mind paying extra taxes if I knew it was hitting those with the gas guzzlers deep in the pocket. (A good inspiration to get rid of their gas guzzler and buy more economic transportation?)

I'd want the extra taxes to go to a good cause ... making more offenders clean up their air pollution.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 28
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/28/2009 6:54:08 AM
EBF writes:

Now what policy should we implement for, say, a retired couple who own a gas-guzzling Crown Vic but only drive 5,000 miles per year? Gouge them on registration fees because their car consumes the same 250 gallons of fuel as a Pinto driven 10,000 miles per year or a Prius driven 12,000? (and substantially less than just about every vehicle on the road in daily service)
v> But that is NOT what they want! As I stated earlier :

So, yes....I can see that it makes perfect sense to discriminate against families....and old people....so that Generations X and Y can suck up more gasoline at lower prices. What is OUR problem that we're not willing to suffer a few aches and pains and inconveniences so that they can drive 25,000 miles per year.....compared to MY 8,000 miles per year? By all means....take my Granny truck away from me....cause I don't need to take my grandkids camping a few times a summer...and if my back aches.....what do they care...they have places to go and they don't want me consuming THEIR fuel....or even having the remotest possibility that I might want to.
There's only so many gallons of gas to go around...and "they" want it ALL. "They" want us to drive our 5,000 miles a year in a Pinto....so that "THEY" can reap the benefits of "US" using less....so that "they" can use MORE....at lower prices. IF those of us who use that 250 gallons a year in a Crown Vic would drive Pintos....then we'd free up 125 gallons a year for THEM to use....at a LOWER price.

Hence I still maintain that "most" of the argument is less about fuel efficiency and air pollution...and more about.....those screaming the loudest just want MORE....for LESS...for themselves....and the hell with anyone else.....their lifestyle, comfort, convenience...or anything else. Come on....you can see this.....when the fuel efficiency argument starts coming unraveled.....you see the REAL issue.....they HATE kids...they HATE old people...they hate anyone...who isn't just like them. For every gallon of gas some Soccer Mom uses to haul the kids to a game...that's 1 gallon of gas that's not available for Stud Boys to strap their ski's onto the top of their 2 seater and drive 600 miles for a weekend of "entertainment".



No, while the concept of taxing excessive consumption is sound, the right policy is to tax fuel, not vehicles.
EXACTLY RIGHT!!! But you're not likely to see that happen. Because, I am going to drive exactly the SAME number of miles per year...whether gasoline is $1 a gallon...or $5 a gallon. I'm going to drive the same number of miles per year whether I can drive 65 mph.....or 55mph. Those doing the loudest screaming however.....are those who WANT to be even MORE excessive consumption hogs....but who can't afford to. Lower the price of gasoline..and "they" will consume TWICE as much.....thus PROVING...they really don't care about fuel reserves or air pollution.....but if they could FORCE everyone to drive what they drive....they could suck up the "excess"....at lower prices.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 29
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/28/2009 8:08:47 AM

... you see the REAL issue.....
they HATE kids...
they HATE old people...
they hate anyone...who isn't just like them.
Well, I'm for fuel conservation ... but it's NOT because:
I hate children ... I want some oil to be left for their generation (for other things than just fuel) ...
I hate old people ... I'm old and I don't hate myself. I've just always been a fan of conservation ... recycle, hang out my clothes to dry instead of always using a dryer, open the windows and use a fan in the summer instead of whole house AC that runs day and night, clean my oven with elbow grease instead of putting the electric oven on the "self-clean cycle" ...
I hate anyone who isn't just like me ... I just wish others would be more like me when it comes to conserving fuel for no matter what we do ... not just cars, but also home energy as well.

For every gallon of gas some Soccer Mom uses to haul the kids to a game...that's 1 gallon of gas that's not available for Stud Boys to strap their ski's onto the top of their 2 seater and drive 600 miles for a weekend of "entertainment".
I find that unfair.

There are selfish people out there, but that does not in any way, shape, or form mean that people who want to promote fuel and energy conservation are nothing but a bunch of selfish individuals.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 30
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/28/2009 8:18:42 AM
The simple way to address all of this is two part:

Lower speed limits for EVERYONE (55 mph would be fine)

Higher gas prices for EVERYONE.

Lower speed limits would improve everyone's fuel economy. A prius gets about 17 mpg better mpg at 55 than it does at 75. And high gas prices make everyone put more thought into their vehicle selection, driving technique, and number of miles driven. If our gas was consistently in the 5-10$ range per gallon, a whole lot of lifestyle changes would take place, all resulting in less fuel use and less related pollution.

And sooner or later, that will happen naturally, once peak oil's impacts start to take hold.

We can make wise choices now, or have those choices forced on us later. Either way it all works out.

Dave
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 31
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/28/2009 9:40:49 PM
Re: Post #51: No, I see your point clearly, that you and some like you have a genuine concern about the issues at hand; however there are those more militant and aggressively pushing these issues who stray from the arguments at hand and their true agendas become obvious ...Re post # 46


If somebody is determined to have four kids, they can pay a higher tax on their vehicles as a result. I don't quibble about having to pay for their multiple childrens educations through my tax dollars.


Why is it that you find it "unfair" for a mother or grandmother to stand up to criticisms of a generation Y member, but find it perfectly fair for them (the 2 seater ski boys) to criticize us???

I think you've missed my point entirely....which is OVERALL CONSUMPTION. The whole gas pricing thing is based on "consumption". Gasoline prices go up the day before a holiday, and every summer...because they KNOW people are going to be driving MORE. It's the credit card mentality generation who buys MORE.....NOT because they "need" more... because it's cheaper.....IE....WASTEFUL.

I just read an article....not even an hour ago...and now I can't find it....but related to the "health benefits of walking". The whole "spirit" of the article was geared toward....and to my great surprise....they ADMITTED as much...that "urban living" is healthier than "country living"!

A truly objective person would recognize that BOTH lifestyles have their advantages and disadvantages and that in the end...it's really a matter of personal choice. HOWEVER, more and more....there are those who refuse to accept that not ALL people are city dwellers, who tend to have less children, who are still working...blah, blah, blah.



There are selfish people out there, but that does not in any way, shape, or form mean that people who want to promote fuel and energy conservation are nothing but a bunch of selfish individuals.
I've certainly never stated that people who WANT to promote fuel energy and conservation are selfish; I've simply said that there are POSERS, PRETENDERS out there with hidden agendas who hide behind the argument of fuel conservation, but when they discuss the issues, it becomes totally apparent that they're not at all about conservation, but rather about being cheap consumerism hogs.

Here's another place where that 40mpg argument falls apart. My cousin lives in NYC....well, actually, she lives on Long Island and works in the city. Her 40 mpg Toyota takes her FEWER miles on a tank of gasoline than my 20 mpg pick up truck takes me in good ole Amish country, Ohio. WHY??? Do you think that engines don't use gasoline while they're idling...sitting at traffic lights? Every time you step on the brake...you're "wasting gas". (not to mention adding to air pollution) The point is....that her 40 mpg Toyota might actually get her 40 miles down the road in Ohio....or Iowa, or Montana...but NOT in NYC.

I truly wonder how many "fuel conservationists" ACTUALLY KEEP a record of their fuel economy? How many of you REALLY....keep a log book in your glove box....and who write down their milage.....EVERY TANK...and how actually KNOW how many MPG you REALLY get? Or do you just go by the sticker that was on the window when you bought the car????

Determined to hit the Manufacturers top milage rating on my truck last year (26 mpg), I set my cruise control (also a big gas saver that few people use) at 65mph. (I would have done much better at 55mph....but I didn't want to get run over or create a hazzard on the interstate). I started out to visit my daughter....a 420 mile round trip. After the first 200 miles; I calculated in my head that I was very likely to hit about 27.5 mpg when I fueled up......well DANG....then I hit a construction zone on the interstate going home and for about 20 miles, was only moving about 15 mph for a few feet...then stop, a few more feet....then stop. When I finally fueled up again.....I'd gotten 25.34 mpg.

Any mathematicians in here like to check my figures....feel free to do so, because I could be wrong....but by my calculations, losing 2 mpg because I hit a 20 mile traffic jam.....figure out how many MPG I would have lost...if the whole trip had been that start/stop driving!!!! My calculator says I'd have lost 20 MPG if my whole trip had been "start/stop". So, then tell me......how many MPG does a 40 mpg vehicle REALLY get....in a city...with a driver who never uses cruise control...with a hot shot who likes to drag race away from stop lights...only to hit the brakes in 500 feet when he has to stop for the next one?

Now....tell me that fuel conservation has more to do with the vehicle than the driver....and I'll call you delusional!
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 32
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/31/2009 6:58:39 AM
I'd use lighter cars for light journeys, and SUVs for when I need to transport a heavier and/or larger road. Of course, if this was law, then there would need to be separate lanes, some fast lanes for 65mph and over, and some for 55mph and under.

By the way, I know someone who has a diesel Skoda that does 50 miles to the gallon. Other cars in the UK perform quite similarly, maybe 30 mpg. Do American cars have the same mileage? If not, then why not?
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 33
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?
Posted: 5/31/2009 2:15:32 PM
Throughout most of Canada (and I would suspect many other places around the world) having a larger vehicle is not considered a luxury. In Alberta we have a population over 3 million in a province bigger than the UK. In the area that I live our economy is solely driven by oilfield, forestry and agriculture... I'm guessing that 30 - 50% of the vehicles I see are pickups or SUVs. Anyone in my town who works five minutes from home with nothing heavier than their briefcase to pack with them can thank bluecollar spending for the existance of their job. Many people here work hundreds of kilometres from home, driving on unpaved roads with mud in the summer and snow in the winter, packing the tools of their trade with them.... hardly luxurious.


I'd use lighter cars for light journeys, and SUVs for when I need to transport a heavier and/or larger road. Of course, if this was law, then there would need to be separate lanes, some fast lanes for 65mph and over, and some for 55mph and under.

Economically it doesn't make sense. The extra cost of insurance and vehicle depreciation would completely negate any fuel savings someone could expect by having two vehicles. And what would be the enviromental impact of manufacturing enough cars so everyone could have a spare sitting at home in their garage?

Thirty percent of the time my truck is loaded with tools or materials. For many people this percentage would be a lot higher, but even for the people who only need a truck 5% of the time, the cost of renting a truck for 18 days a year would probably eclipse any fuel savings they had by driving a small car for the rest of the year.

By the way, I know someone who has a diesel Skoda that does 50 miles to the gallon. Other cars in the UK perform quite similarly, maybe 30 mpg. Do American cars have the same mileage? If not, then why not?

The diesel jetta is popular among several of the people I know. They make claims from 45 to 65 mpg (I'm never sure how much exagerration is included in the brag). For people who can afford the LUXURY of driving smaller cars 30 mpg is not uncommon. I have a '67 mustang that has 300 HP that I drove a lot more when I was younger, I would get 28 mpg on road trips where it was rare the speedometer would dip below 80 mph. Now... 40 years later we've got hybrids that'll get 5o mpg. Whoop-de-doo...

As another poster has already pointed out, different driving styles will definitely affect mileage. And it should not be the government's business to enforce uniformity amongst everybody based on the whims of people who can afford the luxury of working in the city.
 MotownSingleGuy
Joined: 12/20/2008
Msg: 34
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 6/1/2009 9:03:10 PM

GrandmaBooBoo
... Now....tell me that fuel conservation has more to do with the vehicle than the driver....and I'll call you delusional!


So what's your point? Your truck has a bigger gas tank than your cousin's Toyota? Non-hybrid vehicles deliver poor fuel economy in stop & go traffic? Are you suggesting that your cousin would use less gasoline by driving a 20 mpg truck from Long Island to Manhattan? (Does she even drive? Most Long Island commuters take the train.) We shouldn't bother building more-fuel-efficient vehicles because driving habits have a profound influence on fuel economy? It's hard to tell just what you're advocating here.



427cammer
... I have a '67 Mustang that has 300 Hp that ... would get 28 mpg on road trips where it was rare the speedometer would dip below 80 mph. Now 40 years later we've got hybrids that'll get 50 mpg. Whoop-de-doo...
As another poster has already pointed out, different driving styles will definitely affect mileage. And it should not be the government's business to enforce uniformity amongst everybody based on the whims of people who can afford the luxury of working in the city.


Keep in mind that this citation is in miles per Canadian Imperial gallon, which is more like 20 miles per gallon in the usual units. Canadian cars don't actually achieve better fuel economy; Canadian gallons are bigger. How's the city mileage? Fifteen?

So a small (under 3000 pounds) 2+2 coupe achieves 20 highway mpg. Forgive me for being underwhelmed.
Comparing apples to apples, we see that today's hybrid cars achieve triple the fuel economy of the 1967 Mustang on the highway, and quadruple in city driving. The same size 2+2 coupe today with a non-hybrid powertrain will achieve double the gas mileage.

Again, what's your point? There is no proposal from the government to "enforce uniformity"; there's a proposal to require the automakers to achieve a better Fleet Average fuel economy. That won't mean that everybody will be required to drive the same thing. It means that the automobile fleet - as a whole - has to be more efficient.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 35
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 6/1/2009 10:52:29 PM

Keep in mind that this citation is in miles per Canadian Imperial gallon, which is more like 20 miles per gallon in the usual units.

I'm well aware of the difference between an imperial and US gallon. Which is the usual unit? Well the poster I was responding to is from the UK... over there it's imperial gallons too.

And your math is wrong.... it would be just over 23 mpg in US gallons.... and that's at 80 mph. I haven't taken my car on a roadtrip in 15 years, if I did.... and I were to drive in a more leisurely manner than I did when I was 25, I'm confident I could get 30 mpg US. And 20 mpg in the city at least.

Comparing apples to apples,

Were not comparing apples to apples. Were comparing 100 year old technology in a v-8 that produces 300 HP versus state of the art technology that produces what.... 80 HP? Excuse me if I'm underwhelmed. And forty years later my car still hasn't seen the inside of a crusher... just because I care about the planet we all live on.

There is no proposal from the government to "enforce uniformity"; there's a proposal to require the automakers to achieve a better Fleet Average fuel economy. That won't mean that everybody will be required to drive the same thing. It means that the automobile fleet - as a whole - has to be more efficient.

Then what exactly would be the point for this proposal? Forcing the manufacturers to bring out more models and in the end still selling the cars that Americans (and Canadians) want to buy. We've already got choices if our prime concern is fuel economy.... we've had choices for decades.

This is the type of proposal a politician makes in order to get talking points.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 36
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 6/2/2009 6:23:54 AM

So what's your point? Your truck has a bigger gas tank than your cousin's Toyota? Non-hybrid vehicles deliver poor fuel economy in stop & go traffic? Are you suggesting that your cousin would use less gasoline by driving a 20 mpg truck from Long Island to Manhattan? (Does she even drive? Most Long Island commuters take the train.) We shouldn't bother building more-fuel-efficient vehicles because driving habits have a profound influence on fuel economy? It's hard to tell just what you're advocating here.
MPG....Miles PER gallon has absolutely nothing to do how big the tank is.....whether your tank holds 1 gallon, or a million gallons.

And NO, of course I'm not advocating that she'd get better milage in a truck (you're just being argumentative for the sake of arguing). I'm talking about CONSUMPTION. BTW, No, she's hasn't been on a train for the last 20 years; when I take "tourists" with me however, she will drop US off at a train station....and pick us up at a designated stop. LOL!

What I AM talking about is...that for each of us to drive say 1000 miles a month.....we CONSUME the SAME amount of fuel (50 gallons)....the fact that she can only put her 50 gallons in 13 gallons AT A TIME...and I get my 50 gallons in 19 gallons at a time is IRRELAVANT. For each of us to drive 1000 miles....we CONSUME 50 gallons of gasoline. Her vehicle is rated at 40 MPG.....mine at 24 MPG. Another fact is.....when I go to NYC...it's cheaper for me to park my truck in Pennsylvania and rent something else to drive in the city.

What you're refusing to see.....is that I in REALITY....consume NO MORE fuel than she does....and may even actually consume LESS....regardless of what the sticker on the windows SAY!

Again, what's your point? There is no proposal from the government to "enforce uniformity"; there's a proposal to require the automakers to achieve a better Fleet Average fuel economy. That won't mean that everybody will be required to drive the same thing. It means that the automobile fleet - as a whole - has to be more efficient.
Thank you for restating THAT POINT!!! (though I doubt even 20% of people will comprehend it) The GOVERNMENT is NOT trying to enforce uniformity.....it's the "PEOPLE" who cannot conceive of any other style of living besides their own, who insist on shooting fish in a barrel.

A better fleet average fuel economy will benefit EVERYONE, BUT the "holier than thou" Mazda drivers CURRENTLY get their jollies by ignoring the fact that THEY waste as much as not more fuel that us redneck pick up truck out in BFE do, can stop their whining, stop pointing their finger at us, because THEY are equally to blame for "excessive consumerism", but want to delude themselves that they're NOT.....based only on their "credit card mentality" that they COULD get 40mpg.....IF they WANTED to.

It's like saying......I make $100K a year....and I COULD pay my bills if I wanted to, but instead I blow it on Lottery Tickets....and looking down on some poor smuck who makes $40K a year and can't "afford" a Lottery Ticket....because he paid his bills.

Now, as hydrogen fuel is the new rage (E-85....is that what they're calling it?)....FYI....the CLOSEST place where I could buy that fuel....is a 208 MILE round trip drive!!! So, exactly how much fuel would I be conserving by driving 208 miles that I wouldn't have otherwise driven?

As stated in the article I read about urban living being so much healthier than country living; "THEIR" stance is that....if EVERYONE just moved back into cities...we wouldn't have to drive 208 miles to get hydrogen fuel....in fact....we wouldn't even NEED a vehicle. How odd it is then to see about 500,000 MILLION cars on NYC streets (excluding the taxi's and busses)...when they don't NEED to be using gasoline OR hydrogen at all!!! (Yet, they don't see any hypocrisy in blasting us country bumpkins for driving pick up trucks that waste fuel)
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 37
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 6/2/2009 7:06:25 PM
Jack-d : Thanks so much for the flex fuel tip....I will be checking that out!

The number of publications available debunking the "Average Fuel Economy" as everything from a blatant lie of the government to lull us into a false sense that they actually care about global warming.....to.....the result of flash backs from bad LSD in the 1960s is simply staggering! Nearly every one of them I've read however refers to a "Correction Factor" that CAFE has built into the "Fuel Economy Values" since 1985. Apparently the testing methods have NOT been altered since their inception (1975) and this "correction factor" is intended to accurately both changes in urban growth, average age of drivers, lifestyle, etc. That correction factor is 10% for city driving, and 22% for highway driving. I cannot find the reasoning behind the 22% factor for highway miles (unless it was totally related to the Double Nickle decade (55mph speed limit on interstates); HOWEVER, according to all "Environmentalists" the 10% correction for city driving is outrageously unrealistic; given that between the years of 1982 and 1999....urban congestion rose by over 227% !!!!! (Meaning that the average city driver nearly tripled the number of hours they spend idling in traffic jams...going NOWHERE) {http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_ca_global_fuelfalsehood2.pdf}

another consumer report:
As has been well-publicized, the gap between official and experienced fuel economy can be even wider for owners of gas/electric hybrid-powered vehicles. Most experts feel the EPA's ratings for hybrid vehicles tend to be overstated by a factor of at least 20 percent. This discrepancy can be wider yet if a motorist drives primarily on the highway, where hybrids tend to be less efficient than in stop-and-go city driving conditions (during which the electric motor shoulders more of the effort).


With gas prices soaring, some people may trade in their gas-guzzlers for more fuel efficient vehicles. But don't trust the EPA ratings. A recent analysis by Consumer Reports shows that 90% of vehicles get worse gas mileage than advertised -- in some cases more than 50% worse for city driving. And nationally, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) may be overstated by a whopping 30 percent.


I have 17 months worth of gasoline receipts and my mileage recorded to PROVE that I consistently exceed the average fuel economy for my vehicle; while at the same time...other owners of the same make, model and year vehicle complain that they get far less. Address the issue of vehicle....YES...by all means, but don't base the entire argument of fuel economy on it! There just might be some people driving "guzzlers" who are in REALITY...getting better mileage than you are in your hybrid.
 MotownSingleGuy
Joined: 12/20/2008
Msg: 38
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 6/3/2009 10:02:39 AM

GrandmaBooBoo:
The number of publications available debunking the "Average Fuel Economy" as everything from a blatant lie of the government ... is simply staggering! Nearly every one of them I've read however refers to a "Correction Factor" that CAFE has built into the "Fuel Economy Values" since 1985. Apparently the testing methods have NOT been altered since their inception (1975) and this "correction factor" is intended to accurately both changes in urban growth, average age of drivers, lifestyle, etc. ... {http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_ca_global_fuelfalsehood2.pdf} …


The fundamental conclusion from the 2002 Bluewater Network report cited is obsolete. In 2008, the EPA changed their estimating method to better reflect real-world conditions.
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml

EPA estimates are not "blatant lies of the government". Manufacturers conduct their own tests and report their own results. The EPA spot-checks a few vehicles to keep the manufacturers honest, but the window-sticker numbers come from the manufacturers.

It is true that we still use the FTP-75 (Federal Test Procedure, 1975) test procedure for the city mileage estimate, which specifies an average speed of 21 mi/hr and quite a bit of stop and go driving. If you have a better method to suggest, we're all ears. Numerous different test methods have been proposed for specific circumstances but none of them have delivered any better estimates. In 2006, we began using a new test procedure (US06) which better simulates real-world highway driving.
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/

The correction factors are nothing more than that: correction factors. EPA testing is conducted indoors on dynamometers, which means that aerodynamic drag (among other factors) is not accounted for. When dynamometer results were compared to test-track results, there was a discrepancy, so we factored that discrepancy back into the results before publishing them. And for whatever it's worth, we deduct the correction factors from the laboratory results.

There is a new test method for hybrid vehicles, too. Initially, when a hybrid car ran an FTP-75, it tended to deplete its battery during the test. (the FTP-75 is only 11 miles long) Today, battery energy is monitored and if there's more withdrawn than replenished, a correction factor is made for that. Note that the published fuel economy estimate of the 2009 Toyota Prius is only 48/45 mi/gal, not the 55-60 mi/gal previously reported.

Many drivers report a mileage difference between EPA estimates and their actual results. I get 2 mi/gal better than the EPA estimate and large truck fleets report a 40-50% spread among their drivers. But the EPA estimates are still useful: With few exceptions, no matter who you are, where you live or how you drive, your actual mileage will almost always be a constant ratio of the EPA estimate. If your actual mileage is 10% more than the EPA estimate in a Hummer, it'll also be 10% more in a Mini.

So yes, "your mileage may vary", but there's no smoking gun or grand conspiracy.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 39
view profile
History
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 6/4/2009 6:30:30 AM
LOL! EBF......please don't attempt to make it appear that I am personally trying to promote the smoking gun/grand conspiracy theory. If you read what I wrote without a pre-conceived notion that you already know how and what I think....you will find that I was ONLY narrating (defining my own impressions) the articles that I've read on the topic.

If you have a better method to suggest, we're all ears.
I do believe that I HAVE suggested a "better method"....several times in fact!

I've also NOT advocated that we abandon efforts to make more fuel efficient vehicles, but tried to impress on people that in all likelihood, they're not even taking advantage of the fuel efficiency built into the vehicles they're currently driving....what makes them think they're going to maximize on the next one???

LOL! by the way....I feel even better now with the "new rating"...that I'm consistently getting up to 4mpg better mileage than the "average driver".

The "thinking" that I'm critical of is that which insists that the "machine" should have to make up for their bad habits (lack of personal responsibility).
Definition: Efficient
1. performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.


It would seem that there are a couple of us posting here who are operating with something like 110% efficiency....and yet those who are operating with only 60%-80% efficiency are the ones doing the most complaining. (notice the silence now from those who were just talking to hear their heads rattle). They want to (or so they say) maximize fuel efficiency....but they DON'T want to have their vehicle serviced regularly, they want to (so they say) have fuel economy; but they DON'T want to....drive efficiently (more conservatively).

Wanting to drive more miles for less money is NOT the same thing as being "environmentally concerned". It CAN be....but it isn't always. I'm the first to admit that if forced to rate my concerns......#1 would be (dependence on foreign oil; #2 (environmental issues and #3: (monthly fuel costs. We ALL juggle our purchase decisions on what we "need", what we "want" and what we can "afford". Hopefully somewhere in there, we'll all give some consideration to social and environmental concerns, but clearly those whose #1 priority is the price of gasoline (but yet FAIL to maximize their fuel economy TODAY....in whatever they're driving)....are a bigger problem than the lack of more efficient vehicles....and will continue to be a bigger problem even when we get vehicles capable of 100mpg.

IF the government and environmentalists get truly SERIOUS about this issue, we could be looking at the word nobody wants to hear...."Rationing". LOL! not a bad idea altogether though. You asked for better solutions.....given the definition of "efficiency"....how about we use On Star to simply disable any vehicle in which the driver refuses to attain a minimum of 95% fuel efficiency for that vehicle? Now, tell me.....are we talking about "efficiency"....or are we really talking about "money"?
 MotownSingleGuy
Joined: 12/20/2008
Msg: 40
55 mph speed limits on SUVs - would you keep yours?
Posted: 6/10/2009 6:25:50 AM
When I invited suggestions for a "better method", I was only referring to methods of measuring fuel economy.

I still maintain that an excise tax on fuel is the way to go. Start by ramping up to a dollar per kilogram of fossil carbon included for domestic fuels, (including coal and natural gas) two dollars for imported fuels and twenty for fuels imported from (or shipped through) places where we have American armed forces in harm's way.

Still, human psychology being what it is, there will always be a few people who practice conspicuous consumption for its own sake -- lighting cigars from dollar bills being the most notorious example. Since that kind of behavior isn't likely to away, the least we can do is make them pay dearly for it.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > 55 mph speed limits on SUVs- would you keep yours?