Should we lower back to 55MPH to save gas and the planet?
 

cue up the Hagar... I can't drive 55!!!!

I can drive 55, I can drive whatever the posted limits are. Because I don't agree with them, generally the traffic is flowing faster than posted, I judge based on how I learned to drive in California.

I haven't looked around to see what the graphs are or data is about how much fuel comsumption raises when driving over 60MPH. "As a rule of thumb, you can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas." I don't buy that....

So what do you think? If we reduce the national speed limit back to 55MPH will we save more gas? Will there be a direct benefit from doing so?

I live in New Jersey and no one here pays any kind of attention to the speed limit. They can set it at whatever speed they want but people will still go as fast as they want to go.

NJ drivers must be a lot like MI drivers, then. Man, these motherfuckers are CRAZY. I can drive 85mph through the middle of town and be one of the slower ones on the road.

I highly doubt that there is enough law enforcement present in the gas-guzzling, speed-addicted USA to enforce such a drastic change in our driving habits. I don't think it would do much at all, honestly.

I support it whole-heartedly. There is a parabola of efficiency in all vehicles. Very few cars are efficient over maybe 63 mph. Mine is around 61 mph for it's most efficient. The faster I go over 61, the less efficient I am. By the time I'm at 130, I might as well be driving in second gear.

Moreover, money from those caught going over the speed limit should go towards paying for solar cells for the city. Cover bus stations, city buildings, etc. with solar cells that will help to offset the fuel burned creating electricity.

Why not just make engines over a certain size outlawed? It would give you the same result and probably be easier to police. (Obviously if you *need* a hummer, there will be opportunities for exemptions)

Maybe we spend more time/money teaching people how to drive better. Just because you know how to parallel park and pull away from the curb doesn't mean you are a good driver.

Put everyone in a diesel, thats a more realistic alternative to 55mph, or actually develop some fuel efficiency in those yankie battleships of yours.

If you need a Hummer, you should have your tubes tied/have a vasectomy. We don't need those genes moving on. :expressionless:

If It didn't take 35-40 minutes to drive to work when going 75mph on the highway I'd be more in favor of going slower.

I remember my dad.. then sister... then grandpa.. then my dad again having a 1989ish Chevy Sprint.. Had 400,000 miles on it and got 52mpg. It was a stick shift but it had an air conditioner and cassette player. Now, We have Hybrid Gas/electric that are getting more milage than anything else on the road.. yet.. They're stilling only pushing 35-40mpg on a good day. Tell me why we can't bring back some of these light-on-features automobiles. We could easily make them more stylish and they don't HAVE to be hatch-backs..

Because we are a fat, sassy society that thinks our vehicle has to have more bells and whistles than the next guy?

I was taught how to be a good driver, but I still know from my physics class: that the faster I go, the quicker I get to work. Being taught something doesn't work when one is indifferent to those Red on the Road videos.


I support this but enforcing it would be a bitch I think. Outlawing engines over a certain size would be much easier to standardize in automobiles.

Why not start off putting this money towards public transportation composed of hydrogen buses, first. Then once enough are in place, start it towards city wide solar energy.

My car gets 40mpg going 55mph.

My car gets 32mpg going 70mph.

On my 300 mile trip home, it will take me 4 hours and 15 minutes at 70mph, it will take 5 hours and 25 minutes at 55 mph. So, is it worth saving 1.875 gallons ($7 now) if it takes 1 hour and 10 minutes longer (7.5 gallons vs 9.375 gallons)? It is a 20% reduction in the amount of gas I would need. Will this cause everybody to be on the road longer meaning more traffic jams (which use more gas, my car gets 24 mpg in city driving or stop & go)

The best bet would be to mandate every car sold sin 2010 has to be a hybrid. This would help with fuel use wasted in traffic and short trips around town.

Damn, I totally need a hummer right now... I haven't had any in a few days. A Hummer, however, I have no need for.

Legislating this kind of thing just totally twists me the wrong way. Set speed limits where you want them to be, enforce as required, use fines for any good cause you see fit, and then leave me the hell alone.

This sounds like another band-aid solution. Congress needs to start looking at initiatives that will actually have an impact, such as funding (or more funding) for:

• Biofuel production and distribution
• Energy efficiency technology
• Public transportation infrastructure improvements (both local and intercity)
• Urban planning and redevelopment

This speed-limit thing sounds a lot like that daylight savings shift we got pulled into, which is also questionable.

Being in San Jose, a place that tried using hydrogen busses, I know it's not worth it yet. The tech isn't cheap enough yet. We spent a lot of money on those damn things only to have them cost twice what everyone was expecting.

I wonder if this economic interpretation includes the benefits of how clean these burn, and the global economic impact of higher emission vehicles, or is this initial cost only? Also, somebody has to pay for the R & D or it'll never get more economical, so the higher initial costs include that.

They burned perfectly clean, but there were only a few of them (SJ has hundreds). I was at the "town hall" meeting and strongly suggested investing in solar power to convert water to hydrogen, but I was ignored.

OP
Sure, why not. I like to drive fast but when we're talkin about savin a whole planet? I can slow down. Will it help? I don't know, but if its thought it might do some good why not? Again, a whole planet. In the meantime, checking out alternatives to buy and developing others is the way to go dont you think?

Sheeeit, how about we just do away with dumbass automobile racing like NASCAR?

It would save more gasoline than trying to enforce something we already have that doesn't work: A 55 MPH speed limit which means "do 64" and a 65 MPH speed limit which means "don't-do-faster-than-85-its-reckless."

Example: Virginia and New Jersey's $1000 speeding tickets and yet... I still get zoomed on the highway by some guy in an Eclipse doing 85.

Oh, uh, sorry about that. At least I signal when I change lanes!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CfNATuw1DRs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CfNATuw1DRs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Should we lower back to 55MPH to save gas and the planet?

I'm more worried about the onslaught of misguided social conditioning rather than saving gas or the planet for that matter.

The only benefit that comes from 55 mph speed limits is the truckloads of revenue local municipalities would collect. All in the name of saving the kids.

Of course, what gets me is how the automobile is seen as the root of carbon evils even though it doesn't even account for 25-percent of greenhouse emissions.

Whatever benefit there might be from this reduction will simply be offset by the increase in the construction of coal plants elsewhere.

Why not target all sources instead of just going after the low hanging fruit?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/wo...yt&oref=slogin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G..._by_Sector.png

Exactly my thought. It's beneficial effects are highly questionable.

If the speed limit is lowered, congestion increases. It's a simple formula and could be viewed as an analogue to the Bernoulli principle. So with lower speed limits you get people wasting gas by idling or going too slow instead of going too fast.The net change is likely to be very small.

That, of course, assumes that people obey the new speed limit and fails to address the social aspect. People know that cars are safe up to higher speeds these days and are likely to get frustrated with arbitrarily low limits; given that, the adherence to such a law is questionable.

Outlawing a class of engines doesn't work either, because there are a lot of people who do need bigger vehicles. Farmers and truckers, for example, both need towing power and cargo capacity. Granted nobody needs a car that goes 200 mph, but there's a very large and very profitable enthusiast community based around such vehicles, so outlawing them doesn't really work either.

Americans (and Canadians, for that matter) screwed up by making their roads too wide. If we had narrower streets nobody would buy the great big SUV's because they'd be impractical and frustrating to drive. Can't fix that now, though.

Seriously, there are better ways to save the environment. Assuming global warming is as big a deal as everyone seems to think, economic pressures will drive oil powered vehicles off the road long before the Earth turns into an EZ Bake.

I agree with everything on your list with the exception of biofuel. It costs more, screws with the carbon levels and takes away from our food supplies. Plus it isn't as fuel efficient and costs more than gas. What's up??

We've always been at war with East Asia, Winston...

Could you elaborate?

I do what I can, as far as keeping my foot off the throttle as much, just to save my pocket book. It has helped some. Mileage has increased from an average of 24mpg to 28mpg. This in a 240,000 mile and twenty year old engine.

The hot rod has been parked due to a blown engine, but with premium gas around $4.15, and a city mileage of 12mpg, and race mileage of about 3mpg, it's not so bad that it is resting. Highway mileage is in the mid 30's, though. But, average mileage is around 21mpg.

Honestly no one really does pay attention to the speed limit. I usually go at least 10 miles faster than what is posted.

Fair enough, but I would rather use sources such as switchgrass and waste vegetable oil. They exist in abundance and could even be increased greatly. All that is left to do is find an efficient means of producing a usable fuel and distributing it. I would like to see solar power make its way into the equation as well.

Extra funding for research and development will eventually bring the prices down. It would create jobs too.

This quote from an article in today's issue of USA TODAY titled Moviegoers eyes could pop at the price of popcorn: http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...n-prices_N.htm

"Increased popcorn costs. Higher oil prices have increased popcorn farmers' costs, such as for fertilizer and fuel.

And then there's the ethanol factor. Demand for field corn, used for animal feed, products such as high-fructose corn syrup and, increasingly, ethanol, has caused its price to explode. That's caused some farmers to shift from popcorn to easier-to-grow field corn, cutting supply and pushing its price higher, too."

I agree that using those other sources for biofuel would be a better idea but no one is going to have an incentive to invest while reaping the benefits from corn. Also, anything we grow still requires lots of carbon to produce. I suspect you'll see a lot of trees cut to make way for other fuel crops, like was done with palm oil, which also hurts the carbon issue since we'll be cutting down even more of nature's carbon filtration system.

I also heartily agree with solar power along with wind and nuke plants. We are so far behind the Europeans!!! I have a nephew just graduating with a degree in nuclear engineering who is having to go to France to complete an internship!!

Do you just not care if you get a ticket?

Everywhere I live they pretty much give yu 10 mph over.

Yeah, in Ontario anyway, going 10 over won't get you a ticket. The cops wait for the guy going 20 over or more as that is the bigger fine and holds up better in court.

s'truth. I was actually going 122 on the 401, had a police car right behind me for a couple of km, keeping pace. Then he passed me and was gone. So he spotted me 22 over the limit.

I think that the police just manage the situation. Unless they are in a fishing zone. The Bloor street viaduct is a wide open 4 lane bridge that just begs for you to drive at 60, or 80 while the limit is 50. At 50, you feel like youare holding up traffic, but the cops put a radar trap at the end, and just haul out drivers for going 55 or higher. Is it a safety or awareness campaign? Not that I can see. It's a cash grab.

Ugh... I hate that spot. It's such a cash grab for them. When my wife's brother was a rookie on the force, they would spend some time there collecting.

Oregon doesn't have the manpower to enforce a 55-mph speed limit strictly. Speed limits here are 55 in urban/suburban areas and 65 on the open highway, yet they are largely unenforced because OSP is more concerned with catching reckless drivers (those driving in excess of 20 mph above the posted speed limit and those changing lanes recklessly). I don't disagree with their policy. If reducing the speed limit came with an increase in funding for state patrol, I see no problem with it; if it does not, I don't see how it can work in a state with little enforcement as is.

Man here in NC they will give you a ticket for 10 over in a heartbeat. 15 over and you're majorly busted. I've witness 5 over tickets as well. If you pass a cop in NC going more than 5 over you're almost guaranteed a ticket.

On the highways in the GTA, you will easily see average speeds of 75 to 80 mph (120 to 130 kph) on a 62 mph (100 kph) limit when there isn't gridlock. Any slower and you'd best stay out of the way.

Just wait until someone makes GPS governors for cars. It would be the only way to enforce a 55mph law now.

But, without everyone driving a hybrid that would turn off the gas engine at low speeds in traffic, the fuel savings in the cities wouldn't be as great. But for the stretches between cities, it would reduce consumption. However, it is those long stretches where high speeds make trips shorter.

I'm a firm believer if they were truly about safety, income, and mileage they can set photocops on highway stretches and photo all the offenders of speed limits.

I understand they have right turn stop activated cameras now, I don't see why they don't use speed sensitive cameras.

If I'm not mistaken, most government vehicles driven by military recruiters actually do have a similar governor system installed nowadays. FWIW.



Oddly enough, I'm still reading Cyn's OP and the entire issue at hand as speed limits vs. fuel economy.

Putting aside everything else dealing with greenhouse gases, who's generating local, state, or federal government revenue, scofflaws, ecology, or anything else for a moment, I'm focusing on that.

I know for a fact, and from experience, that my Jeep gets better fuel economy at speeds under 65. At 55, it's a significant improvement. If I were able, I would take my long Interstate trips at 55-60 mph just for that. It's worth it to me - I enjoy driving in my free time, and I plan plenty of extra time into road trips. There's no way I can drive more efficiently, though, because with the 65-70mph speed limits in this state, I'd be impeding traffic.

Given the way gas prices have continued rising for the past five or six years, I would be all for a 55 speed limit nationwide.

Whether it happens or not, or is even seriously considered, in the next five or ten years is moot. I would imagine that eventually speed limits will have to be reduced anyway, just due to population growth, urban sprawl, and other related issues. Can't really cite anything solid for that, it's just a hunch.

I might be full of shit, but that's where I feel it will end up over the long term.

Speed cameras are just another form of automated revenue generation.

Your jeep has the aerodynamic efficiency of a brick. As did most cars on the road when the 55 federal speed limit was enacted. Even a sleek car like the Lamborghini Countach had a drag coefficient of 0.42. Compare that to a Camry which has a drag coefficient of 0.28. Most cars on the road have a significantly improved aerodynamic efficiency. They don't have the drag that older cars needed to overcome.

Cars back then also did not have the transmission advantages we share today. The average automatic transmission back then was a three speed with no overdive. Nowadays, you have five- and six-speed transmissions with overdrive and locking torque converters.

Then there's the introduction of electronic fuel injection, variable camshafts, etc.

In short, the technological advances that have been engineered into today's cars means the reduction in fuel consumption is not enough to justify this mandatory enforcement.

that's what my point is... if they are serious about collecting revenue ala the red light cams, why not just put them across the highway and cha-ching cha-ching cha-ching....turn them on and off at various times and vavoom... income galore.

The outlawing of engines over a certain displacement isn't that good of an idea.

First. Do we really need the government outlawing things of this nature? Would these same people be ok with outlawing homes over a certain square footage or determining the number of children a family can have? I'd rather my government support the search for alternative energy sources that we should have been working on in the 70s instead of giving the government more power to abuse.

And the displacement of the engine has less to do with the amount of fuel it uses than you would think. Take a guess which gets better mileage. A 2008 Vette with a 6.2 liter, 400 and some hp V8 or my 1.3 liter 200ish hp RX8.

First off, those who grew up when the speed limit was 55 know there were more accidents than there are now. States worked hard to get 55 changed to where THE STATES want the speed limit.

Secondly, FUCK YOU PEOPLE that want to have the federal government take more power, FUCK YOU. People can drive the speed limit set by the state or if they want to pay the price, as fast as they want. I've driven I-10 from Phoenix to Tuscon....no fucking way would I drive that bullshit 55. For those of you wanting to drive 55, then drive 55 and shut the Hell up.

Sorry for the language and the anger, but it pisses me off more than just about anything when people decide what is best for everyone else and want the feds to change the laws of the states and assume more power over the people.

Plus, this isn't even a short term fix. You want gas efficiency, fucking take all the energy you expend on surrendering our rights and fight the car companies to build more efficient cars and put your money into companies that are working hard on finding alternative fuels..... don't fall into the trap that government must control the people.

FUCK YOU!!!!!!!! Spend the energy, time and effort on ways to truly HELP BENEFIT THE PEOPLE NOT ADD TO MORE FUCKING LAWS AND FEDERAL CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whoa! Meltdown on I-10 or somewhere in OH!

Hmmmm that's ironic coming from a man who has as his avatar Uncle Sam saying stand up, dissent is patriotic.

Freedom to voice MY opinion man, that's all my post was.

And in my opinion, you could have made the same points without saying FUCK YOU! repeatedly to other TFP members who dont share your views.

Particularly for someone who claims to be a "uniter"....how does that kind of emotional outburst lead to bringing people together?

Alternative energy is just a good idea to begin with. If the engine size plays as little to do with economy as you suggest, then I'll let someone else argue it.

Since living in Europe and seeing how crowded it is here, I could understand making laws that determine the size of one's house, else paying higher taxes. The population explosion E5D predicts isn't just a pipe-dream. It is already happening. We have disasters, and droughts, and rising food prices and starving kids. Maybe the government should limit the number of kids families are having. These observations are entirely off topic.


Since being here in Europe, I have come to love the public transportation system, and have used it extensively. I feel a good start in the States should be building a better- meaning cleaner and further reaching- public transportation system. From what I read in places like New York and Chicago, the subways are at a critical problem: the more people on the subway means less people are driving, which means people are buying less gasoline, which means the State collects less taxes on gas, which means the State has less money to spend towards subways.

To hell with everyone else on this one! I'm with you, man, right by your side. This is America, not Big Brother land. We've already got enough Big Brother after 9/11 and the way Bush and his VP and friends used that to take away more in the name of terrosism and our safety.

And now, back to the original subject of this thread...

It isn't that engine size isn't a factor. It is that engine size isn't a 100% effective basis to use to give more government room for abuse. 1.3 liters is hardly anything compared to the 5.4 liters my SUV has. Yet my SUV doesn't use much more fuel than my RX8. What some people would suggest is outlawing the wrong vehicle.

Oh, Pan's back.
Oh... that Pan's back.

You know part of me just wants to make sure me and my family and friends will be taken care of when we run out of oil. I've got a pretty decent garden, as does my mom and dad, and many friends. We've all discussed how to landscape local parks so that they can grow crops. We've discussed redirecting local water (streams and such) in order to aid in crop cultivation. We've discussed having long-term rations. I suspect that if we started running out tomorrow, I'd likely be okay. I know exactly where I'd go (Canada) and exactly what I'd do. Still, a shit-load of people would die.

What kind of person is willing to allow people to die from their own ignorance, though? Is that really the kind of person I want to be? Is it just about me taking care of me and fuck the rest of people, many of whom will starve to death?

These are the questions that make me who I am. I do care about other people, even strangers... even strangers that can't take care of themselves. I don't just want to survive myself, but I want everyone to. Or at least as many people as possible. Despite not believing in a higher, supernatural power, I wholeheartedly believe in the golden rule, and I think it applies here.

Putting the "FUCK YOUs" aside...On the issue of a mandatory 55 mph...I dont think its politically feasible.

IMO, a better approach is tougher CAFE standards (even tougher than those required by the 2007 Energy Act), particularly for SUVs still treated as trucks rather than passenger vehicles, and...

for the FTC to move more aggressively to use its new investigation and enforcement power under the same act.... ("to levy tough penalties against those who might seek to profit from supply manipulation")

I would also consider tax incentives for employers who promote (or subsidize) employee car pooling and/or using mass transit, where available. (My association subsidizes metro rail cards for employees).

Spending time and energy to allow the federal government to take more control of our lives because YOU and people like you would rather turn to government to solve problems than find the solutions yourself sickens me.

You want to take care of others fine.... I do everyday, and I am damn good at it. But wanting government to do it is flat out wrong.

Take care of others and the planet by investing in companies that are working o alternative fuels..... work on getting car companies to develop better engines.

Wanting laws to make everyone go 55, TRULY WILL DO NOTHING TO SAVE GAS IN THE LONG RUN.... AND WILL DO VERY LITTLE SHORT TERM. Are you so truly uncaring, unwilling to see this, so willing to give the feds more control over us....... than to work on long term solutions that do not need federal government in our lives taking more control?

I feel sorry for you and others who believe the federal government is the only way we can ever solve anything. I feel sorry that you have such little faith in your brothers and sisters who would probably be more willing to listen and help you if you offered up demands for change and worked on getting alternative fuels going.

pan....should I interpret that to mean you dont support last year's bi-partisan Energy Independence and Security Act that requires improved vehicle fuel efficiency (the first new CAFE standards in 30 yrs), increased production of biofuels, energy savings through improved standards for buildings and appliances, investment in alternative energy r&D....

Do you really think its achievable if its voluntary and "market" driven?

I'd be fine with this being a state decision. I realize Congress made the determination in the 70s, to much success, but that hardly means that they are the only governmental group who can make such a determination. If the state of California made such a determination, people would huff and gruff at first, but after they saw that it worked, and got use to the fact that all one has to do is leave a few minutes earlier, it'll be fine.
It does work. It's simple engineering. I've even tested it myself. It's how I got 30 mpg.

Making it a law won't fix anything. Getting people to drive a little slower and/or in the right type of vehicles WILL make a difference.

Which puts us back to the enforcement/incentive question. Lots of folks are just going to drive however fast they want, and they will deal with whatever those consequences are.

My question is what kind of *incentive* vice punishment could we have for people to drive slower/more efficiently?



Please don't ever get a job in government. You're too smart. It would be unholy evil incarnate for scofflaws. :shakehead:

YES, if enough people demand it. I have no problem with the government requiring companies to work on bettering society, sometimes that is needed. Companies sometimes need government to regulate them, in fact pat of the problem we are in the condition we are in economically and societally is less regulation on what companies do and more laws against the people. The balance today favors big business and the rich and not the everyday people that make this country great.

If I understand correctly what you believe...that we need a government that will regulate anti-consumer business practices more and intrude on personal activities less...

...then you should vote for Obama, who is far more likely to govern in the manner you desire than McCain, with his 100+ lobbyists in and associated with his campaign.

:)

I'm all for regulating the companies, but I doubt GM would like a law that all cars have to be hybrids by 2011. The Chevron-Texaco large battery patents don't expire until 2015 or something to make anything but lead-acid economical. The government could set in and force Chevron to either do something with that patent or give it up... so I could buy a 144V NiMH battery pack instead of having to wire up my own.

Which brings me to the next point. How many Americans are going to spend the $4-7k minimum to convert a car to electric and stop using gas, there are a few of us that have or have come up with other modes of transportation like bikes that don't use gas? It isn't happening fast enough, and that is why the government may have to get involved. I don't like the police and I don't like driving 55, but it is better than ignoring the problem and continuing on like nothing is wrong. What happens when gas supplies are half what they are now. I lived in Phoenix in 2003 when the pipe was broken/shutdown and gas supply was cut in half. It was a mess, but people continued to drive everywhere (except for me it seemed, I rode my bike everywhere that month). There were long lines for the stations that did have gas, and prices were about what they are now.

So yeah, government should make the corporations produce better cars (as well as zero fuel cars, if I can convert one in my garage, they can make them), but if the problem doesn't get better, eventually people's consumption will have to be reduced. And I don't see it happening now at $4/gal. I doubt we will see it next year when it doubles to $8/gal.

Were that an option, I'd gladly do that to my '99 Expedition. It only has about 80,000 miles on it and this would likely renew much of the powertrain, extend the life of the vehicle and other positives I'm sure as well as allow me to keep it another 10 years.

It is an option, actually. Electric conversions have been around for well over 10 years. There's one in my neighborhood, actually.

$7k would likely get you 60mph max and 40-60 mile range. I think this because I'm currently researching a car to convert to EV. $4k gets a subcompact a 60+mph max and a 50-60 mile range. I'm nearly ready, now I'm trying to figure out which subcompact or compact car I can get my tools in. I can't imagine what that extra 200+lb does to the range but the boss would let me plug in and I could probably sneak it at most of the job sites. Lots of info if you google "ev kit".

I'm driving 55 in the Denver Metro since the beginning of the year and most every morning (0530) I get a finger, sometimes three. I mean, WTF? The roads I drive are 55 except for a 1.5 mile stretch from my exit to the 55 zone. Afternoon isn't so bad because the traffic is clogged and 55 is towards the top end of speed. Once I start getting passed I guess people just think I'm a throwback to the last jam.

Fuck 'em. I'm going to drive slow and no amount of hand gesture or horn honking is going to change that. I'm about ready to put a slow moving vehicle triangle on my Cherokee.

Can you at least be kind enough to keep to the right and not block the people you've forced to slow down your shameless act of self-rightenousness?

You assume I'm not? Nice. I'm stuck to the white solid line.

Jeez. It's not a "shameless act of self-rightenousness" (sic), "It's the economy, stupid!" (to borrow from the far right)

You mean forced to obey the speed limit? Oh, the humanity! :rolleyes:

lower speed limit = more speeders = more cops chasing them = more gas


that's just one way of looking at it.

I meant a practical option.

I would think getting another car that is efficient or electric as a commuting car or for short trips to the store would be a practical option for most people in the next 5 years. It's not going to happen overnight (our power grid couldn't handle it), but we need to come up with a plan for how the nation can cut it's oil use by 50%.

But, I understand the economic side of it. It costs a lot currently to buy all the electric vehicle components compared to the amount of gas/petrol that you would save. I could save between 200 - 300 gallons per year, but that is only $800-$1200. It would take 6-8 years for it to be cost effective right now at the current price of gas.

Getting another vehicle doesn't work for me. It already costs me $325/month to park my car in NYC, that's rent on a whole apartment in some cities. If I could afford another parking space, I'd be buying a sports car which gets shitty gas mileage because I enjoy driving.

I used to live in the Ft, Lauderdale area. There is a 25 mile or so section of interstate called I-595. The posted speed limit is 55 mph. I read when I lived there that they were thinking of raising the limit to at least 65 mph since the average speed was in excess of 75 mph.

Somehow I just don't think speed limits will do anything to reduce fuel consumption. If they did, enforcement of our current speed limits would be effective. In fact, there are many laws on teh books that aren't enforced with new laws coming every day on top of the ones not enforced. We are a nation of wanting to control other people yet we can't even use the controls we currently have effectively.

More practically, you could sell your SUV and buy a small van or sedan/wagon, then do the conversion by sending it to a decent shop.

I've seen a Mazda 6 that gets charged overnight and that has a range of over 120 miles. It's got carbon fiber body panels, racing seats, etc., and a really torquey AC motor. You'd want 400+ volt nickel-metal hydride battery of a decent size.

Couldn't agree more.

Another point also that some people haven't realized is that alot of r&d into enviro-green products (ie fuel efficient cars etc) is being funded by big oil. My concern is that with everyone going off the side of cliffs like herds of like buffalo regarding the green movement, without fully scrutinizing the end results, that the green movement could cohesively become a huge scam that does very little for the actually environment it is intended on saving.

As before, the social conditioning that all is green is good has been very successful in generating the masses to follow along. I am all for preserving the planet and doing my part, but am very concerned that the green movement will mirror exactly the power that big oil retains right now, and will become as corrupt all the while holding us ransom, like big oil, and have a control over us that that can't be broken, like big oil.

here here Percy! Has anybody else noticed that to disagree, even utilizing the scientific method, with the current 'green' movement (especially around climate change) is met with a hysteria akin to politcal McCarthyism?

I had a minivan but needed an SUV. I haul people, cargo and pull trailers.

Trailers? How big? Electric cars are frighteningly torquey. They're a bit like diesels in that sense; they have much more torque than horsepower.

We've had this discussion before... from How are gas prices affecting you?
It doesn't matter what kind of torque, hauling you need... see you need to change. It's not acceptable that you have your needs and found a way to meet them.

I've labeled it "I need this..." and "other people need to change, not me..."

Cynth, you're still completely wrong on this, no matter which thread you try to jack it with.

I've changed, most other haven't. Instead of being happy with the hp available in my car, I've improved the hp/mpg ratio considerably. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone in the US did this? The Ford Mustang GT gets about 17/25 mpg with 300 hp. Imagine getting more horsepower and getting 29/32 mpg. It's about being more green by making your car more efficient. My car is more efficient.

What have you done to make your car more efficient, Cynth?

/threadjack

Yes, I drive it less. It's 100% stock, 2001 Plymouth Neon with 36,000 miles on it. I have averaged 5,142 miles per year on the vehicle.

So why isn't this 95 Eclipse electric? Something you're suggesting that Psycho Dad do...

But what Psycho Dad is stating is that he needed more towing power and the ability to haul cargo and people. This is something that larger SUVs were designed and used for. He found something that fits his needs, and your suggesting that he put more money into something that may not exactly fit his needs. It "may" fit based on your "torquey" comment, but that's not the same as knowing what hauling capabilty he has to do what he requires.

Driving less does not make a car more efficient. I'm sure you'd like it to, so you could excuse trying to call me out, but it doesn't.
I was in Santa Barbara a few weeks ago visiting my step-brother, who goes to college there. I visit there maybe 5 times a year. 300 miles is beyond current, reasonably priced electric conversions. Not only that, but I have to drive on highway 17 pretty often and the extra weight from the batteries would have a seriously negative effect on my suspension.

Trust me, I did look into the electric option. Should my driving situation change, I will reevaluate the conversion. For the time being, it's simply not feasible.
He basically asked:
I'm letting him know it's an option. Do I need your permission to do that? No. Am I guilting him into it? No.
There are electric engines and batteries set up to pull large boats and even large camping trailers. The Tesla Roadster has 211 lb ft of torque at zero rpms. If that's not enough, there are electric motors out there that can do 5 times that. The biggest Expeditions have about 360 lb ft of torque. That means about 9,000 pounds towing. Imagine 600 lb ft of torque, and an even power band from zero rpms.

I'm not telling Psycho he must do this. I'm not even saying it's necessarily a viable option. I just want to make sure people know the options are out there. And if I could do that without you on my back about it, all the better.

Right. And it isn't feasible for most applications. Were it feasible the automakers would be doing it seeing as they are going to lose in SUV and truck sales.

And Cynthetiq's reducing how much he drives is as good or better than increasing the efficiency of his Neon. If he ultimately uses less fuel then it works. We are ultimately going to be driven financially in this matter more than environmentally.

Everyone's situation in this is different. Some drive vehicles that are not efficient, some waste fuel with needless trips. I'm reminded of a car forum I was on once. They younger people felt that SUV owners were to blame for fuel prices (way back when it was approaching the astronomical price of $1.75/gallon. They failed to understand that it is an individual's usage as much as the vehicles size that uses fuel.

Cynth - Will's just getting a little mean again.:grumpy:

We have had this discussion and he said he was on the list for a trendy Smart Car. But yet it won't work on his road. I'm all confused. We're all doomed!! :eek:

I'm on the list because I don't know how it drives yet. I want a chance to really take one to task, and see if it can handle 17. If it can't, then oh well. If if can, then I'll consider getting one.

You talk 17 up like it is Rubicon the trail of trails and marker of performance for 4x4 vehicles but for performance.

note... does it get from point A to point B? Yes? then it should be able to handle 17. Will it perform and handle like your 95 Eclipse, 96 Z3, 02 MINI? Oh do you mean it needs to be able to perform and handle like a go kart on twisty roads? doubtful.. Even a Geo rolls 17 just fine... it's not like it is such a special road that only a certain class or type of vehicle can "conquer" the road.

please stop with the disingenuine...my stock 85 4 door Corolla drove 17 fine on a regular basis.

Wait, are we talking rt 17 near Harriman?

no, talking about California State Route 17 from San Jose to Santa Cruz...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...etiq/17map.png

and busses seem to make the journey on such a regular basis, so I don't know what kind of special suspension they've done to those busses...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...SC_970_MAP.gif

and they run about 25 times a day...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...etiq/17bus.png

On average, how many accidents do you suppose are on 17 in a given year? How well do you think a 1985 corolla would handle an SUV or semi suddenly changing lanes without signaling? Have you ever hit a deer going 60? Have you ever hydroplaned near a cliff during a light rainstorm?

Let's stop pretending that you know what highway 17 is like in 2008. It's one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in the entire state. And my family lives on the other side of it.

My Eclipse is basically designed for two things: improving its efficiency considerably (I've managed to do so to the tune of 50%), and being able to drive on even dangerous roads like 17.

If you'd like to discuss this further, there is a thread for it. I won't continue to threadjack just to satisfy your fixation on this point.

So then in saving the planet and all... a bus ride with a pick up from your family doesn't sound so unreasonable. I mean, that reduces your total fuel usage of your Eclipse by 1 round trip and you use public transportation... or do you also worry that the bus doesn't handle so a SUV changing lanes so well, or hydroplaning near a cliff... (so dramatic) All those conditions you state including fauna, are issues that don't differentiate an Eclipse from a Neon from a Corolla or a bus. It is so disingenuous of you to continue to tout it as so.

Your Eclipse isn't special nor a specially designed choice, I guess when faced with being wrong, you'll pull the "We'll have to agree to disagree" card...

Threadjacking is probably okay for a few posts, or for people new to the forum:
This is the thread where we've already had this conversation. Bring it there or be ignored.

excuse me, but what the fuck are you talking about?

Should we lower the speed limit? Maybe. Should we continue a discussion in this thread that was going on in another thread? Absolutely not.

WE are not lowering any speed limit; that's up to our state legislators...

is this discusion really being carried on in another thread?

went there ,and i don't think so...

..

If the road is so bad tell us the actual stats rather than blathering about. Also, I used to drive through the most dangerous intersection in the country - Flamingo and Pines in Pembroke Pines , FL - so I've seen danger in a small vehicle and lived to tell about it.

If this highway is so dangerous than how is it an Eclipse will fair well? I mean, it is a small car although I sure don't think it's some fancy sports car with better than average suspension. Of course, I'm sure you've modified the thing into something incredible.

I think this thread is kind of fun and has regular activity but I can see you'd rather back off and try to force people someplace else. Cynth is right: you do want to control people and you are right/they are wrong!