Fuel efficiency

NOT a good idea!!!

('88 Supra...4400 LBS, 210 HP...) But I get about 20-22 MPG, depending on how nice the breeze feels with the roof off...

ALL of my Toyotas and my Chrysler LHS have achieved their highest fuel economy at 70MPH...

What kind of car do you have? This even holds true for a Honda Accord I had with an automatic trans, although the best I ever did with that was 28 MPG, and I am near that with the Chrysler!

Um, let's just NOT talk about the Supra, OK?

My 300hp 4x4 celica gets 30mpg (UK) at 78mph and lower either side of that speed, 22-24 at 85 and 20-22 at 50-60mph. Cars are DESIGNED to be more efficient at highway cruise speeds, not lower. Anyone assuming slower = more efficient is very misinformed and fall into the same league as those who flog their engines in 5th up hills thinking that revving them higher in 4th uses more fuel.

Assuming that all fast cars fall into "inefficient" catagories is just plain WRONG. Also assuming big 4x4 cars like landcruisers are inefficient is WRONG - our landcruiser cruises at 27 uk mpg, which isonly 7mpg off my old 1.1 litre 2000lb french mobile. And people who make blanket assumptions about types of cars or engine sizes should learn a little more about cars before annoying those who do know more.

I remember seeing a some dumbass woman on TV in the UK who was skipping down a london road. She placed stickers on cars saying "your car is large, inefficient and pollutes" in some green friendly fit. She skipped past the V12 jaguar and a couple of high power prestige cars and placed a sticker on the RAV4 and a TD short wheelbase landcruiser. I wanted to slap her, idiots, pure idiots.

I'm pulling about 32-36MPG with my 95' Geo Prizm. As I recall, that's actually better than it is rated for at fueleconomy.gov. I've never heard of any vehicle getting better mileage at 70MPH vs. 55MPH. From what I've seen, optimum is 55-65MPH for most vehicles.

Americans as a whole?

Too funny.

Again? Make the same mistake (55mph) or maybe 45mph and cause some real damage.

of those who still want to go fast.

A traffic ticket cost you (Orange county, CA) the penalty$ + the court cost$ + 175% penalty tax$ here. Ouch

What about causing a accident by impeading the flow of traffic. A car going the posted speed limit on a freeway here in the fast lanes is a accident waiting to happen.

Not to mention the congestion caused from blocking the flow in a river of traffic.

don't rev my car over 2500RPM either unless I am

I get every discount State Farm offers and drive 85 mph freeway,

54 mph main roads every day. I rev my car over 6,000RPM (redline 6,500) just about any time the engine is under a full load.

BTW: My highway gas mileage is 1 mpg under what was listed on the window sticker.

Dan

Reducing the speed limit won't work. Jimmy Carter tried that. Even today out on the freeway the sign says 65 and they're doing 85 and 90. Nobody stops speeders on freeways, only on city streets. Still using drag strip driving at the lights, still out joy riding. Check out the local high school parking lot this fall, it will be packed with hs kids driving their own car rather than taking a bus or public transportation.

You want to know the real thing that will help Americans to slow down, use their personal vehicles more efficiently? Raise the price of gas at the pump to $10 a gallon. That will cause many to stop and think, do I really need to make this trip today, perhaps I could combine trips in two days, ect.

My 2003 Corvette 6-speed turns just about 1500 RPM at 70 mph. It returns worse mpg trying to maintain a steady 55 than 70 'cause I'm lugging the engine at 55. I'm getting 27-28 mpg while commuting (90% highway but some traffic) in the 'Vette.

Wanna reduce fuel consumption? How about proposing new Federal gasoline taxes unless average retail fuel consumption decreases by some achievable %? We know the Govt keeps track of retail fuel sales. A published goal (say 0.5% per quarter) is announced and folks know that if they don't conserve, next quarter the gas tax goes up (say by $0.15/gallon). It is left to the consumer to determine how to save gas; fewer miles driven, more fuel efficient car, whatever.

Know any politician willing to propose anything having to do with increased taxes? Me neither. But that's how other countries have kept a lid on fuel consumption.

10$ is a little excessive, we pay 7ish and it makes no odds to peoples driving habits here, but it does make a change to the vehicles they drive. MOST people cant afford to drive a car that gets 2 litre engine size unless you tow something BIG or move heavy stuff regularly. But at the same time I could point you to a 1.6 litre production car that gets single figure mpg ratings. The thing is we'll never eliminate the US/canadian obsession with everything being BIG and thirsty. Its as ingrained in you lot as the love of the sea is to us islanders.

I'm all for taxing fuel more, but only if you make it affordable for people to run two cars in case they NEED a large vehicle occasionally. I'd happily trundle around in a 1 litre commuter LPG car if I could have it insured on the same policy as my fast car/towing vehicle. That way I wouldnt drive my fast car around ALL the time and it wouldnt kill my budget just because I choose to do a sport thats not football.

J

I get about 22-25 MPG, with the top down...on a 2007 Mustang GT an it has

300 HP ;)

mike hunt

I never see anything but "one-driver" Yukons/Escalades/Expeditions/Hummers. But then again, except for driver training cars, I see all vehicle with only one driver. Do we ban tractor trailer rigs as well? LOL

mike

Speeding tickets are a touchy subject. The last time there was a ticket frenzy around here people began yelling "racial profiling". Also, police aren't paid to show up in court. I don't know if it still holds true or not but insurance rates were partially based on speeding tickets. mark_

You going to get a Shelby when they come out?

That is because you most likely drive small cars that have less torque and will run at closer to 3,000 RPMs to maintain 60 MPH on a flat roadway. A V8 with much more torque will run at less 2,000 RPMs to maintain 60 MPH. However a V8 runs most efficiently at around 2,200 RPMs and that equates to

70 MPH. The higher torque of a V8 will also allow it to stay in top gear more often on a grade, where a 4 or 6 will need to down shift to hold speed. My V8 Lincoln has a fuel computer and it will constantly show its best mileage at 70 MPH.

mike hunt

Why should my fuel efficiency be any business of the government? I buy it, I should be able to burn it as I see fit. Quit talking dirty.

-- Mike Harris ... going out to drive my 1963 Willys Wagon with small block Chevy conversion (11 MPG) - because I can.

Yep, and the safety factor would be a non-issue if everybody were driving a similar vehicle. Now in the U.S. some of the pickups people drive to work are like tanks, therein lies the safety problem. A little car that crashes into a little car should not have an unusual safety factor. A huge pickup truck that sits high above the ground will demolish a Honda civic with little effect to the pickup.

Yeah, OK. You get 10 mpg around town and 13 on the highway. Big deal. You're as bad as a Hummer owner. The only difference between you and him is you're already in your Hearst. Do you have your songs picked out too?

depends a lot on the axle ratio. I had a Dodge B200 v8 (318cid) that had a 2.73 ax and it got good gas milage but I couldn't tow anything and it was pretty doggy going up a hill.

Goes to show that the US car industry is still thinking like in WW2. 35 MPH was the most efficient speed of cars back then. Probably not far off the most effieceint speed of some of the 60's/70's cars, too. . . . My Corolla gets 30 mpg at about 80 or so on the tollway, and a bit less at 70.

Figures that a car designed before WW2 has its most efficeint speed higher than the average US car of the period (i.e. the VW Beetle.)

Charles of Schaumburg