9X Corolla Wagon fuel economy. Scott, you awake?!

Hachi, I think that there were some studies made in the early to mid seventies when the federal speed limit on interstates was 55 mph. I think that speed was in force for a little over ten years. I hope we never return to that. IMHO.

LOL! Yeah, me too!

Of course, you have to remember, ALL foreign car drivers (maybe w/ the exception of Volve, M-B, etc) were considered Moonbats, and I'd bet my last $100 that those studies were made using large American made cars.

IIRC, I got to drive for about 1 week at 65 MPH (got my Lic in 1973). I don't remember...I always drove 60 back then, in my '74 Corolla 1200.

That is, 60 MPH...*EVERYWHERE*!

"Ph@Boy" wrote in news:RJ-dnYbV5vsUfsDbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@trueband.net:

I read years ago that the main reason for the double-nickel wasn't primarily fuel economy or safety, but protection for the then-new pelletized catalytic converters.

At sustained high engine speeds, the violence of the exhaust pulses had a tendency to knock the pellets loose, sending them rolling out of the cat body and reducing the effectiveness of the cat. Dropping highway speeds down meant lower revs, and better cat life.

The 55mph public relations campaign centered around fuel economy because it was an easier sell. Plus many tests showed that there was in fact an element of economy to going slower in the cars of the day.

Believe it or not.

My '92 Corolla wagon gets best mileage just below 60 IF I can do it.

It gets worse over 75.....

Sooooooooo the Moon Bat was probably saving some fuel.

Most American cars were probably still made to get best mileage at 35 MPH, the Victory speed from WW2. My 4A-C with 3 is as near American geared as a Toyota gets and it still seems to get better mileage if I can get her up to

65 or a little better and hold her there.

Charles of Schaumburg

"n5hsr" wrote in news:oJCdnU1PRL3ZmMPbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Maybe, but in 1970 nobody much cared about that, and certainly nobody drove that way.

Up until the political and environut crises beginning circa 1965, it was assumed that highway speeds would naturally increase as cars became capable of better speeds.

Anybody else remember those "RESUME SPEED" signs you used to see? No speed limit, mind you, just a permission that you could go back up to whatever speed you happened to be maintaining when you reached the built-up area.

LOL! Yes, I do...but I always assumed they meant to the last speed limit posted before entering the town, village or hamlet...

I saw a few down in the South when I lived down that way in the 1990's.

I saw a wierd sign I'd never seen before the other day. "Cancel Turn Signals".

Charles of Schaumburg

"n5hsr" wrote in news:0sqdnaHgrOEHgcPbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

That one is for the Florida retirees.

:)

That is to remind 'white hairs' to turn off their turn signals...LOL

There is a gentle turn on one of my frequent routes that should have one of those signs....it isn't sharp enough to click off the turn signal.

;-)

Consumer Reports did a test of a 2005 Toyota Camry and a 2005 Mercury Mountaineer (V8) in their Dec 2006 issue. They got their best gas mileage at 55 mph. In short, the "moonbat" is right:

"Aerodynamic drag exponentially increases on the highway the faster you drive. We tested our vehicles' fuel economy at 55, 65, and 75 mph. Driving at 75 mph instead of 65 reduced the Camry's gas mileage from 35 mpg to 30. For the Mountaineer, fuel economy fell from 21 mpg to 18. Slowing down to 55 mph improved the gas mileage by similar margins: The Camry improved to 40 mpg and the Mountaineer to 24 mpg."

If you study the mechanical factors of fuel economy after the vehicle has reached its top gear, you will find that most of the power used is for overcoming wind resistance. This is on the stipulation that there is nothing abnormal such as extremely high tire rolling resistance (a flat), excessive mechanical resistance, and others.

I dunno. Your experiences seem kinda wierd... IE: that #$%^ ain't right... LOL... I have to wonder about the accuracy of your testing.. I'm having trouble believing a car would do a better mpg at 70, vs 55, if the gearing is the same for both scenarios.. The rpm should be lower at 55, and the mpg should be a bit better assuming the engine is not lugging or anything, which is unlikely at highway speeds. Also.. Your experiences do not jive with my 05 corolla.. Mine gets better mpg if I hold the speed down. I'll get 40 mpg if I hold it to 65 or less. But I'll drop a bit if I bump it up to

70-75.. I might get 37-38 at the higher speeds.. Anyway, she is probably saving a small amount of gas.. But she is also probably a nuisance to public safety, as most tree hugger types will drive like that in the fast lane. :/ It won't do her any good to save a few barrels of oil, if she becomes interstate road kill after being run over by a gasoline tanker doing the speed limit. MK

I always fill my car, reset the odo and keep everything in a little book. I've been doing it since my '78 Corolla. They have all gotten better economy @ 70 MPH than at 55 or 60.

At 75 MPH, economy drops off again.

Best range was 68-70. worst range was 75+. Second best is 45-50.

I've done this over 30 years with 5 different cars and they all came out very similar. I fill the tank, reset the odo, and keep the results in a book in the glove box. Always comes out the same, except for that one trip to Toronto, 75-80 MPH and 45 MPG...