57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago

[UfoTofU]

I don't know how it is where all of you are from but here in Maine the winter months (sort of) necessitate large vehicles.

Many people use their own vehicles for plowing, hauling and general heavy duty work.

I am a cautious driver. I figure that since I drive for a living (postal delivery) the more cautious the better. I am on the road a lot of hours and the more time I spend out there the more likely I am going to encounter a collision of some sort.

Let's just put it this way. My CRX is probably the last car that I would want to be in an accident with and not only because it would then be ruined.

[kamesama980]

roll cage+seats+harness: love the idea

"I won't let other people dictate my speed...drive off a bridge too?" you arrogant pridefull sob. I'm gonna laugh when you're a bug splatter on a mack truck

Maine winters don't necessitate big vehicles, just capable ones. I've seen 4x4 trucks get stuck where my RWD sedan goes through. 90% of SUVs/trucks are NOT used to haul large amounts of stuff. 90% of them are used to carry a woman and maybe 2 kids. I've heard radio ads saying "when we had our second kid we KNEW we needed a SUV..."

[GasSavers_Ryland]

I've been in 2 crashes with mid 80's civics, a friends 1985 civic sedan where we hit ice and hit the rear of a pickup truck at about 15-20mph, spent 3 days pounding dents out of the front of the civic, replaced the headlight and had to pay the pickup owner $1,000 to fix his truck, the civic is still on the road, seeing the design of the crumple zones in the civic made me want to get one of my very own, a 1984 civic dx hatch back with a 42.2mpg average, then someone in a pickup truck rearended me while stoped in trafic they were going about 40mph, pushed forword about 4-6 feet with my brakes locked, and made the car much much shorter, it was then that I realized that I wanted a smaller ligher car, so I got my 1985 crx hf, and now my civic vx, and I DO feel safe.

back in the late 1990's someone wrote an artical about vehicle safty, and they used the honda civic as an example of an extreamly safe vehicle, and a Ford explorer as the example of an unsafe vehicle, the artical sited statistics of total number of people killed in acidents that invalved the differnt vehicles, not just drivers and passengers, but ocupents of other vehicles, an pedestrains, needless to say the civic was responsible for nearly 1/5 of the number of deaths then that of the explorer.

[jadziasman]

chill clencher.

The idea here is to not exceed the speed limit - but just drive at the limit when the conditions permit it. Meaning you do the speed limit whatever it is - usually 70 on most Interstates and you will be safer than trying to go 55 while others whiz by you 15 to 30 mph faster. If other people want to go faster than the speed limit, let them get past you as soon as possible. I'm not advocating driving 85 in a 70. I won't do that!!

Sure, you have every right to block the flow of traffic, if you want to. But you are being selfish in the name of mpg by driving 10 or more mph under the speed limit and that's definitely not safe.

People drive like a**holes, you know that don't you? When one of them hits your slow moving vehicle you know what they call that? That's right - an accident. Oops, I'm really sorry I didn't see you when I moved over to the right lane to pass someone and you just happened to be there - darn!

And tell me. What usually happens to the perpetrator after the "accident", hmm? Yes, he/she might get a ticket and you might have to go to the hospital.

And, what if one of these a**holes was drinking before "meeting" you. Sure, the jerk will get a DUI and you might be R.I.P. - what a nice trade!

So drive defensively but don't drive too slow. Get out of the way of faster vehicles when you can and stay alert to the unpredictable movements of other drivers. And if your car is a P.O.S. that can't go 70? Then you should drive on the goat paths instead and leave the highways to the real cars.

[skewbe]

Jad, I give you credit for driving an efficient vehicle . But you can't rationalize the herd, it is just not the intellectual exercise you make it out to be. If you want to say "I'm herd and proud of it" then that is your right, but who is going to steer the herd in a sustainable direction?

[basjoos]

One advantage of extremely low aero drag is that you can get good FE at normal highway speeds.

[Mighty Mira]

Originally Posted by jadziasman

Sure, you have every right to block the flow of traffic, if you want to. But you are being selfish in the name of mpg by driving 10 or more mph under the speed limit and that's definitely not safe.

It's a matter of perspective. Maybe 20 people who procrastinated too much fail to meet some appointment, but save a few dollars.

On the other hand, those litres of fuel wasted by those people will be fuel that my kids won't be able to use someday for a better purpose than pushing air out of the way. And that's also emissions that I won't have to be breathing.

From that point of view, I think it's the speeders who are being irresponsible and selfish.

[UfoTofU]

Originally Posted by basjoos

One advantage of extremely low aero drag is that you can get good FE at normal highway speeds.

Good point basjoos.

[jadziasman]

Okay skewbe and mighty mira,

I get your point. Following the herd does not make you right. And yes it's very true that it is the speeders in the gas guzzlers who are really the selfish ones. How do you change their behavior?

If I had the authority, I would lower the national speed limit back to 55 mph and have it strictly enforced with heavy fines. This would improve fuel efficiency for the herd right away. The auto makers "complain" that they will have to invest billions to meet the newly approved CAFE standards. Well, they wouldn't have to work so hard with a lower speed limit in place. I really wonder why that wasn't in the energy bill? Too unpopular I guess.

The only reason the speed limits were increased from 55 to whatever is because gasoline became cheap again when the price of crude crashed in the early 1990's. And back then CO2 wasn't considered pollution like it is today.

I doubt that crude oil will ever crash again due to the demand in China and India - whom I have a suspicion my grandkids will be serving quick rice and curry to at sometime in the not too distant future. Chinese and Indian families will be driving to places they used to walk, bike, or motorbike to. And - they will have the money to do so. We gave it to them in exchange for consumer goods and services. So, carbon dioxide will fill the skies at an ever increasing rate - Kyoto or not.

Let's be realistic. The icecaps will melt. Sea levels will rise. And many unfortunates will suffer for it. What a shame.

[Mighty Mira]

Originally Posted by jadziasman

The only vehicles that should routinely be driving 55 are the big rigs. They are easy to see and they benefit the most from the slower speed.

Only if you are talking about volume of fuel per trip, and not percentage of fuel used for each.

Have you done the comparison of drag and rolling resistance for a car and semi at those speeds? Maybe four times the drag, but with that weight the rolling resistance has to be way up there. The tractor alone would be more than an SUV, and loads are over 100 tonnes.