Ahhhhh Gas Prices

[EJBasile]

Oh no! The gas prices are on the move. $2.50 for diesel and $2.45 for premium! Lets see its close to $70 to fill up my Rovers and $55 to fill up my E320 CDI.

I feel bad for people that have even more gas guzzling cars like my fathers denali and bently or one of the millions of full size SUV owners. My fathers denali would be close to $100.000 with regular fuel to fill up!

I know I shouldn't be complaining because it was me who bought 2 SUVs. But even for small cars its still expensive. Yes I know in Europe its like $5 a gallon but we have a bit of a different life style.

Does anyone know the projected gas prices

[yellow]

Supposedly the average price will be $2.50 a gallon for cheap stuff during the summer. Supposedly the current average gas price is $2.17 for 87 octane. Where I live it's currently $2.30 for 87 octane, and it used to be cheap where I live. I'm guessing it's going to be closer to $3.00 a gallon for 87 by the summer.

[Daveway]

Here in south LA the price for regular is about $2.10.

[adn rcd dly]

southern utah: $2.34, and on wednesday i am going north 300 miles for a week... i hate this....i am going Hybrid

[----Bowie----]

I'm all for high gas prices! Its a good wake up call.

[Eevee]

I'm all for high gas prices! Its a good wake up call.

Good point. Time for us not to rely on gas guzzling cars. Also, time for us to use alternative energy source. Heard that the hybrid (hydrogen and gas) cars are in development now. You can rent one from Honda.

But most likely we will not see a big push on hybrids anytime soon. The petroleum industry would not be very happy (hint: George Bush: sorry for being political).

[rtdgoldfish]

$2.35 a gallon for regular here in Tallahassee, FL.

Gonna need a new car after this summer, my poor 1996 Hyundai Accent has over 170,000 miles now and things just keep breaking. I want a Toyota Prius or Civic hybrid. Anyone want to donate some money?? :D

[Eevee]

The cheapest one I found is in Hamden, CT $2.19

[MacAztec]

It is $2.59/gallon here in Palm Desert, CA. Some pumps go to around $2.70 (this is for 87 Octane).

Good thing I drive a Ford Focus (27mpg)

[FightTheFuture]

i filled up at $2.25 in birmingham, michigan earlier today - at a speedway station. bleh! i know i can find something a few dollars less than that. anyone know of any good resources where you can find the best fuel prices in your area?

[sorryiwasdreami]

I spent the weekend in Newark, NJ and got away with murder: $1.99/gallon for regular unleaded. For some reason, gas prices in NJ are much cheaper than most other places in the northeast.

The weird thing about NJ is that it's illegal to pump your own gas!

[SilentPanda]

i filled up at $2.25 in birmingham, michigan earlier today - at a speedway station. bleh! i know i can find something a few dollars less than that. anyone know of any good resources where you can find the best fuel prices in your area?

http://www.gasbuddy.com

[rtdgoldfish]

http://www.gasbuddy.com

Great link, I used to have a site for Orlando but since I moved, never bothered looking. Thanks a bunch!

[tangerineyum]

It is $2.59/gallon here in Palm Desert, CA. Some pumps go to around $2.70 (this is for 87 Octane).

Good thing I drive a Ford Focus (27mpg)


It's pretty much the same here in Ontario, 2.58 for regular. But Im a chevy man myself. :D

[homerjward]

it's ~$2.10-$2.17 for regular here (87 i guess) but my parents '93 aerostar just won't run it on that anymore. middle grade for that but regular for our conversion van. not exactly gas-friendly vehicles especially the van :eek: i believe there's a konfabulator widget that'll find the lowest gas price in/around your zip code but meh...
edit: just checked gas buddy and the lowest prices in SA are like $2.01-$2.05. guess i live in an expensive part of town for gas

[saabmp3]

I just bought mid grade for 2.51 in Tacoma, WA. I've seen it going for over 2.60 right now.

BEN

[wrc fan]

I paid $2.85/gal for premium at my last fill up. At least it's still cheaper than what the British pay for it.

[Savage Henry]

85.6 pence sterling per litre (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4424547.stm) here in the UK ... yes folks at current exchange (http://www.xe.com) rates that is an OPEC-boosing $7.36 a gallon.

I'd cry if I wasn't too busy laughing at my own misfortune ......

[RandomDeadHead]

I thing this whole gas increase issue will end up being very good for highway safety. Higher priced gas equals fewer and fewer suv's on the road.

Am I the only person that thinks we should have a law that states if you are caught using you cell phone while speeding in an suv, you should be charged with attempted murder?

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm all for high gas prices! Its a good wake up call.

You have a point. Though I think that it will have little effect on the majority of drivers. For those that drive the big gas guzzlers it is just another cost of their lifestyle. Just as some of them flaunt the HOV laws.

The shame is that with fuel prices increasing 30 to 40% it is the working poor (read the lower middle class) that will have to without in other areas. Like the "housing bubble" hasn't already done a number on them.

[Chip NoVaMac]

85.6 pence sterling per litre (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4424547.stm) here in the UK ... yes folks at current exchange (http://www.xe.com) rates that is an OPEC-boosing $7.36 a gallon.

I'd cry if I wasn't too busy laughing at my own misfortune ......

Ouch! :(

But how much of that is in taxes? Also the popular opinion is that mass transit is better in Europe than in most areas of the US.

[EJBasile]

I thing this whole gas increase issue will end up being very good for highway safety. Higher priced gas equals fewer and fewer suv's on the road.

Am I the only person that thinks we should have a law that states if you are caught using you cell phone while speeding in an suv, you should be charged with attempted murder?

Yea people may slow down on buying SUVs. I don't think they will just disappear. Its still expensive for small car owners if they were paying $1.89 dollars a gallon before and now are paying $2.49.

[iGav]

Am I the only person that thinks we should have a law that states if you are caught using you cell phone while speeding in an suv, you should be charged with attempted murder?

Do you not think that's a little harsh? Driving without due care and attention yes, but attempted murder?

Imagine the legal precedent a law like that would set. Where would it stop?

[evoluzione]

gas here in woodstock is up about 30c per gallon over the last month or so. now about $2.25. i try and fill up in NJ when driving to NYC as it's so much cheaper there, and it's full service too, strange (by law).

while i agree that it's a good wake up call, i'm sure the prices aren't rising to discourage people from buying gasoline. if that were the case, bring it on! raise it more!



oh, and the cellphone thing...i personally think hands-free is a joke, you are still concentrating on the call, not paying as much attention to the road as you should, cellphones should be banned whilst driving, period. what difference does hands-free make? majority of cars here are autos anyway, no need to change gear or anything with the spare hand...the state of drivers here is terrible as it is.

[takao]

Ouch! :(

But how much of that is in taxes? Also the popular opinion is that mass transit is better in Europe than in most areas of the US.

actually in austria it's roughly at 0,95 - 1 euro per liter ... and the germans are driving across the border like crazy because it's so cheap to fill up here

personally as student it's simpy not worth the hassle to own a own car so i'm all for increasing the taxes ... only if it really hurts (which at 1 euro a liter it doesn't really do) people will drive less with their cars... perhaps if they would double the prices people would drive less...

the car owning/buying taxes are not small either..they take up most of the taxes paid by car owners ... not the gasoline

[Savage Henry]

But how much of that is in taxes? Also the popular opinion is that mass transit is better in Europe than in most areas of the US.

About 60% of that is tax.

As for the second part, the rest of Europe may be better than most US areas, I can't really speak for them, but the UK's isn't. If it was, we wouldn't need to draft in Bob Kiley (former saviour of the New York and Boston subways) to try to sort out the London Underground. Nor partially re-nationalise a failing rail infastructure.

It just blows right now.

[Orage]

Yes I know in Europe its like $5 a gallon but we have a bit of a different life style



And the bold part is why the prices are so high....

[apple2991]

Do you not think that's a little harsh? Driving without due care and attention yes, but attempted murder?

Imagine the legal precedent a law like that would set. Where would it stop?

Um, right there.

It's not a first degree murder attempt, but it is criminal negligence while piloting a potentially quite lethal device. And they should know better.

Manslaughter.

[iGary]

I get 40MPG and the prices are staring to get on my nerves.

32 bucks to fill up my little Civic. :rolleyes:

[yellow]

Um, right there.

It's not a first degree murder attempt, but it is criminal negligence while piloting a potentially quite lethal device. And they should know better.

Manslaughter.

Without actually killing someone? I think not.

Besides, this is pretty far afield from the original topic of the thread.

[iGav]

Um, right there.

I bet it wouldn't.

It's not a first degree murder attempt, but it is criminal negligence while piloting a potentially quite lethal device. And they should know better.

So let me get this right, you think that anyone caught speeding in an SUV whilst on the phone should be convicted of manslaughter? whilst the other poster thinks they should be charged with attempted murder regardless of whether anyone is actually harmed?

[RugoseCone]

I paid $2.45 for premium yesterday in Charlotte, NC. $35 for under 15 gallons.

Here's an interesting (probably extreme) article from Rolling Stone regarding the energy situation of the world and it's likely effect on the USA...

The Long Emergency (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7203633?rnd=1113320485660&has-player=unknown)

[Kushiro]

As a US citizen who has been living outside of the states for the last however many years, I do have to laugh every time I go home and hear people complaining about gas prices. Here in Switzerland, it's around 1.40 ChF/liter, or about 4.40 USD a gallon. When I was living in Japan (5 years ago or so), it was around 116 Y/liter, or about 4.16 USD a gallon. I'm sorry gang, but as bad as you think it may be, gas is criminally cheap in the US.

:rolleyes:

[CanadaRAM]

Just went up to Canadian 102.9 per litre here, or $4.66 per imperial gallon ($3.88 per wimpy US gallon)

Shades of Y2K: Gas stations are scurrying around because their price signboards have only three digits and can't handle higher than 99.9....

[Black&Tan]

The cheapest one I found is in Hamden, CT $2.19

Is that the one across from the Hamden Plaza? They usually have cheap prices, but the lines can be brutal, especially at that intersection. I usually buy from BJ's in North Haven. Just filled up 2 days ago and it was $2.189 for regular.

Not to hijack the thread, but I've often wondered, does the brand of gas make a difference to fuel economy? Is Shell better than BJ's or Stop & Shop?

[Eevee]

Is that the one across from the Hamden Plaza? They usually have cheap prices, but the lines can be brutal, especially at that intersection. I usually buy from BJ's in North Haven. Just filled up 2 days ago and it was $2.189 for regular.

Not to hijack the thread, but I've often wondered, does the brand of gas make a difference to fuel economy? Is Shell better than BJ's or Stop & Shop?

Yeah, that's the one. And there is NO difference in fuel (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Just loyality to your favourite company (I didn't know Stop & Shop sells gas?). Thus, we should shop around. Thank for bringing this up Black & Tan! :cool:

[Lord Blackadder]

Listen to the bell, Oh SUV - it tolls for thee...


Eventually we'll get to the point where Congress will pull their collective heads out of their a**es (you'll hear a large sucking noise) and legislate more in favor of energy efficient vehicles.

People who chose to buy fuel-sipping cars or hybrids should get insurance discounts or other perks, with corresponding penalties for people who buy large gas-guzzlers. Manufacturers need real incentives to stop making SUVs despite the silly demand. With an underdeveloped mass-transit system, the US needs to improve the efficiency of the cars that we drive, unless Uncle Sam builds a huge bullet-train network funded by a big fat tax on fuel.

And if you think the current price of gas is bad, just wait a few years. We'll be at European prices soon enough.

[mactastic]

$2.69/gallon baby! Oh yeah! Thankfully one of our cars gets 35ish mpg.

Just wait till next year when it tops $3/gal.

[Black&Tan]

This link provides a very interesting concept...the addition of acetone to gasoline:

http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/

I wouldn't normally link to something that seems like an "internet legend," but there are a number of Jeep Cherokee owners (and I trust their opinions) that are trying this now and reporting gains of 3-6 mpg. Over a single tankful, that's an additional 60-120 miles. I am going to give this a shot myself after I go through my current tank of gas.

[anonymous161]

What sort of wake up call?
I purchased the most fuel efficient car I could afford (honda civic) but now my gas costs twice as much as it did when I bought my car. The distance I have to drive to work is not any shorter now than it was a year and a half ago. If it was just the cost of gas I wouldn't complain as much, but as the cost of fuel goes up, so does the cost of everything you buy (groceries. I don't know about you but I don't make twice as much this year as I did last year and I don't think next year my salary will double, but it looks like gas prices will. At least if we were paying $6 or so a gallon we would have some government sponsored healthcare like much of europe and canada. Instead I have to figure out how to afford $350 plus a month health insurance for me and the wife (who's expecting) while the ExxonMobil execs celebrate record profits. It would be nice if I could afford to do more than eat, sleep, and work.

[stcanard]

Well one interesting thing to think about is how the politics are affecting the oil supply. Not politics of war, but economics.

Did you know that Canada is currently the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world? Two years ago we jumped from 5 to 180 billion barrels (http://www.geotimes.org/mar03/NN_canada.html) by admitting to reserves that had been underplayed before. What I've read recently is we actually have more than Saudi Arabia, but a significant portion is still not being reported (since it also contains natural gas, there is debate about what's more important to extract). Estimates reach 315 billion in the sands alone, meaning that just our oil sands outstrip Saudi Arabia's entire supply. By comparison the US is estimated to have about 20 - 25 billion.

Apparently Brazil is in a similar situation, with billions of unreported reserves, again in oil sands.

These reserves were never reported in the past because oil sands have been too expensive. But now that technology has changed and made them exploitable, the countries are slow to add them to the reserve, because they don't want to "upset" the balance.

[mymemory]

Hi family

As everybody know Venezuela is one of the mayor oil producers. Just to remind you that an entire tank of fuel for a regular car cost only ONE $. I repeat, to fill up a Toyota Corolla cost only one dollar. I was amazed when i went to Germany last year and the same car cost 50 Euros, that is more thna a year worth of gas for us.

But the situation with the gast is going to get worse based on our predictions...

China is growing too fast and is demanding a lot of oil. The problem is not the oil production but the ammount of refinaries, they are at their higest capacity almost every where. There is the bottle neck.

Usually when the oil is over $15 is not good for Venezuela because the oil companies at the northic sea become competitive with our prices but that scenario is not the one right now.

Now, the problem for us (Venezuela) is that Chavez is making deals with China to export our oil directly to them, if such agreement settle, Chavez probably will cut negotiations with the US and we supply I guess 15% of your overall demand.

That will create an secenario for the US to invade Venezuela as well but... if the US is having so much problems fighting in a deser as Irak it would be impossible to penetrate Caracas that is sourounded by a forest and mountains + Chavez is developing a civil army of some 100.000.

Considering that makes me think the reason why Bush wanted to invade Irak in first place... to secure the oil for the US.

That is just an escenario but all the dots are creating that shape.

[Doctor Q]

Gas prices not only grow over the years, but they rise every year as Memorial day approaches and demand builds up for summer vacations.

How much does it cost to fill up an SUV these days? I'm glad I have a smaller car with a smaller tank, so the sticker shock isn't quite as much per fillup. After all, I have a lot of Macs to feed so I need money for necessities other than gas.

[stcanard]

How much does it cost to fill up an SUV these days? I'm glad I have a smaller car with a smaller tank, so the sticker shock isn't quite as much per fillup. After all, I have a lot of Macs to feed so I need money for necessities other than gas.

My Mazda costs $60 CDN to fill up (it's pretty easy, $1/litre on a 60 litre tank :)) That's USD $50 for a two door car.

Forunately last summer I started biking to work every day, and haven't been hit nearly as hard as I could have been!

[Chip NoVaMac]

Am I the only person that thinks we should have a law that states if you are caught using you cell phone while speeding in an suv, you should be charged with attempted murder?

Maybe not that far. Though I do think that if you have a child in the car, and are caught doing more than 10mph over the limit, or charged in an accident - then you should be charged with child endangerment.

[Doctor Q]

Forunately last summer I started biking to work every day, and haven't been hit nearly as hard as I could have been!Your phrasing ("haven't been hit nearly as hard as I could have been") surprised me because I had to give up biking to work for the reverse reason: I was nearly hit by cars, not gas prices. After three close encounters with drivers on cell phones, I figured my life was worth more than the gas or saving the environment or getting more exercise.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I get 40MPG and the prices are staring to get on my nerves.

32 bucks to fill up my little Civic. :rolleyes:

I know. It costs me about the same to fill up my Subaru Baja. Had a Civic, the difference for me is about 25% fewer mpg's. Or about $16 extra a month for the way I drive. The added comfort was worth it to me in the long run. But still hurts everytime I go to the pump.

I wanted to do a Prius, but I do way less than 1K a month - so it did not make sense for me. I could have maybe justified a VW TDI - if it weren't for the crappy quality.

[stcanard]

Your phrasing ("haven't been hit nearly as hard as I could have been") surprised me because I had to give up biking to work for the reverse reason: I was nearly hit by cars, not gas prices. After three close encounters with drivers on cell phones, I figured my life was worth more than the gas or saving the environment or getting more exercise.

Now that I think about it, that statement applies in both ways to me! I've had a combination of being very lucky, and being very attentive.

My commute is along the route into the university so I end up "sharing" the road with a bunch of 20 year olds who don't pay enough attention to driving because they either aren't awake yet, yakking on the cell phone, or simply too inexperienced. When traffic backs up they will often make a sudden right turn onto a side street wihout checking to see if there is a bike in the bike lane they are cutting across (and yes, it is a bike lane not a shoulder). <knocks wood> I made it through the school season without getting hit, so I should be okay until next september.

[Chip NoVaMac]

As a US citizen who has been living outside of the states for the last however many years, I do have to laugh every time I go home and hear people complaining about gas prices. Here in Switzerland, it's around 1.40 ChF/liter, or about 4.40 USD a gallon. When I was living in Japan (5 years ago or so), it was around 116 Y/liter, or about 4.16 USD a gallon. I'm sorry gang, but as bad as you think it may be, gas is criminally cheap in the US.

:rolleyes:

But how necessary is it to own a car in those countries as compared to the US.

We need individuals and businesses to catch up with reality. We are to a degree with Zip Car rentals. In my case I am looking for a new apartment. There is one that is walking distance to work. But their income requirements are such that I do not qualify for the unit. Yet another apartment that is 6 miles away and about $200 less a month, I qualify for, though I would need a car since it would take 3 busses and about an 1 1/4 hour to do what I can drive in 20 minutes. The first unit was told that I would be more than happy to sell my car and rely on car rentals and the Zip Car when I needed to get around. No dice.

[stcanard]

Maybe not that far. Though I do think that if you have a child in the car, and are caught doing more than 10mph over the limit, or charged in an accident - then you should be charged with child endangerment.

This is off-topic (slightly) but there's something that's always confused me about speed limits.

Now, back 50 years ago when they were set up, we were led to believe that this was done for safety. They analyzed stopping distances, safety devices, and decided on a speed limit that had what was determined to be a reasonable level of risk. Here in Canada on a controlled access freeway that was 60 MPH.

New technologies have significantly reduced stopping distances, and thus lowered the degree of risk at 60MPH. So why has a reassessment not been done? Even in the underpopulated areas where density has not increased (thus increasing the accident risk) the limit is still 60MPH.

Worse yet, I see highways with a limit of 60MPH where they have done significant road work, built extra lanes, better safety devices, and for that section lowered the limit to 55MPH, the fact that the section is actually *safer* notwithstanding!

So IMO speed limits are a fiction. There is no basis for the limit. If you want people to pay attention to the speed limit (and increase the penalty for disobedience) you first need to build the speed limit on some definable basis. I personally believe that basis should be safety and a society-determined "acceptable risk".

Until then I will practice my civil disobedience of driving at what I consider a safe speed. On a lot of these freeways it is a high as 80MPH, and in some neighbourhoods where there are a lot of visual obstacles and kids playing, it can be as low as 20 even if the limit is 30.

As for the fuel consumption point, my car gets its best milage at 80MPH (50 miles per canadian gallon), as opposed to 60 where I only get about 40 miles to the canadian gallon[1].

[1] Remember the Canadian / British gallon is 25% larger than the US. It all goes back to the definition of a pint, and when you find a pub that serves a real pint you will understand why I never want that to change!

[Chip NoVaMac]

Listen to the bell, Oh SUV - it tolls for thee...


Eventually we'll get to the point where Congress will pull their collective heads out of their a**es (you'll hear a large sucking noise) and legislate more in favor of energy efficient vehicles.

What is surprising is that we have as consumers have been tempted by better "performance" that has led to lower mpg even for econo cars. For years we have allowed the consumer to dictate mpg and performance. In stead of Congress looking at the long term needs of the country. But yet have a few Firestone under-inflated tires cause a few rollovers, and we have about $100 to $200 added to the cost of the cars we drive.

{quote]People who chose to buy fuel-sipping cars or hybrids should get insurance discounts or other perks, with corresponding penalties for people who buy large gas-guzzlers. Manufacturers need real incentives to stop making SUVs despite the silly demand. With an underdeveloped mass-transit system, the US needs to improve the efficiency of the cars that we drive, unless Uncle Sam builds a huge bullet-train network funded by a big fat tax on fuel.

And if you think the current price of gas is bad, just wait a few years. We'll be at European prices soon enough.[/QUOTE]

Some very good penalties and thoughts here. Some of which are being used on a state by state basis. The problem with the car makers is that they have been able to make $5K to $10K profit on SUV's - and if you believe them they loose money on the Focus and Cavalier.

Add to that the lack of desire an planning for mass transit. I will use my own area of Northern Virginia. I live in Herndon, near Dulles Airport. Even with a major international airport that has been there since the 60's, and a building boom that has been going strong since the 80's out here - as an outer suburb - we have just one bus line that goes into the city or near Metro Rail. Even that bus only runs every 1/2 hour during rush hour, and every hour during non-rush hour. Because of the unpredictable nature of airport travelers, it is a roll of the dice about whether the bus has space or not.

Even for myself working in Tysons Corner, it takes a minimum of three busses and almost an hour to travel 10-12 miles. Tysons is a major employment hub. We have a transportation hub at Herndon-Monroe that could offer express service to the Tysons Kiss-N-Ride hub. From there they could offer a circle bus line that would make the commute easier. the excuse is that there is not enough riders. A chicken vs. the egg argument. They loose sight that there are those that would leave our cars behind, if given better choices.

Then we have an issue of bloated transportation system, with over paid execs. I was told many years ago that our Metro Rail and Bus system could be subsidized by the local governments (this goes back 15-20+ years) since the management is burdened with fare calculation and collection.

What gets me is that based on what is spent on the war in Iraq each month, we could have a rail system that went to the airport and beyond, with just a few months expenditure in Iraq.

[Chip NoVaMac]

What sort of wake up call?
I purchased the most fuel efficient car I could afford (honda civic) but now my gas costs twice as much as it did when I bought my car. The distance I have to drive to work is not any shorter now than it was a year and a half ago. If it was just the cost of gas I wouldn't complain as much, but as the cost of fuel goes up, so does the cost of everything you buy (groceries. I don't know about you but I don't make twice as much this year as I did last year and I don't think next year my salary will double, but it looks like gas prices will. At least if we were paying $6 or so a gallon we would have some government sponsored healthcare like much of europe and canada. Instead I have to figure out how to afford $350 plus a month health insurance for me and the wife (who's expecting) while the ExxonMobil execs celebrate record profits. It would be nice if I could afford to do more than eat, sleep, and work.

Amen there brother! But what did we expect by having a President and Vice President that has interests in oil before they got in office. To be fair the DNC is too weak to pose the windfall profit tax that cured some run ups in the past.

I hate to take this down a political rod, but what do you expect when we are not "Pioneers" or as GWB said his "Base"?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Your phrasing ("haven't been hit nearly as hard as I could have been") surprised me because I had to give up biking to work for the reverse reason: I was nearly hit by cars, not gas prices. After three close encounters with drivers on cell phones, I figured my life was worth more than the gas or saving the environment or getting more exercise.

I know what you mean here. I am looking at a new apartment that would be easy for maybe not a bicycle ride do to speeds, but would be great for a Vespa type "bike". That would cover maybe half of of commuting (hearty soul here) , but having a motorcycle 15-20+ years ago and the idiots we had back then, I can't see doing this today. Unless gas gets to $5 a gallon. :D

[Chip NoVaMac]

This is off-topic (slightly) but there's something that's always confused me about speed limits.

Now, back 50 years ago when they were set up, we were led to believe that this was done for safety. They analyzed stopping distances, safety devices, and decided on a speed limit that had what was determined to be a reasonable level of risk. Here in Canada on a controlled access freeway that was 60 MPH.

New technologies have significantly reduced stopping distances, and thus lowered the degree of risk at 60MPH. So why has a reassessment not been done? Even in the underpopulated areas where density has not increased (thus increasing the accident risk) the limit is still 60MPH.

Worse yet, I see highways with a limit of 60MPH where they have done significant road work, built extra lanes, better safety devices, and for that section lowered the limit to 55MPH, the fact that the section is actually *safer* notwithstanding!

So IMO speed limits are a fiction. There is no basis for the limit. If you want people to pay attention to the speed limit (and increase the penalty for disobedience) you first need to build the speed limit on some definable basis. I personally believe that basis should be safety and a society-determined "acceptable risk".

Until then I will practice my civil disobedience of driving at what I consider a safe speed. On a lot of these freeways it is a high as 80MPH, and in some neighbourhoods where there are a lot of visual obstacles and kids playing, it can be as low as 20 even if the limit is 30.

As for the fuel consumption point, my car gets its best milage at 80MPH (50 miles per canadian gallon), as opposed to 60 where I only get about 40 miles to the canadian gallon[1].

[1] Remember the Canadian / British gallon is 25% larger than the US. It all goes back to the definition of a pint, and when you find a pub that serves a real pint you will understand why I never want that to change!

Much of what you say is based on where you live. We have the Fairfax County Parkway that was designed for 50mph, but the average speed regardless of safety is like 70mph.

I take a different point of view in that I am old enough to remember enough law enforcement of the speed limits that doing much above 5+mph got you a ticket. Now we can go for hours or days before we even see a cop.

It is your attitude of what you think is best that is causing many of our issues in gas consumption and safety. I find it hard to believe that you get better milage going faster. Maybe you could give us the name of this miracle car. For I get 32mpg at 60mph verses about 28mpg at 75mph.

[benbondu]

I find it hard to believe that you get better milage going faster. Maybe you could give us the name of this miracle car. For I get 32mpg at 60mph verses about 28mpg at 75mph.

Yeah really. There's no way you could be getting better gas mileage going faster in the same gear. Unless you have some crazy gear ratio where from 60-80 you switch from like 5th to 6th gear or 6th to 7th, better fuel economy at 80 would be impossible (unless you're going down a steep hill I guess). For hybrids, fuel economy goes down drastically the faster you go.

[stcanard]

It is your attitude of what you think is best that is causing many of our issues in gas consumption and safety. I find it hard to believe that you get better milage going faster. Maybe you could give us the name of this miracle car. For I get 32mpg at 60mph verses about 28mpg at 75mph.

1993 Mazda MX-6 with a 5 speed (manual) transmission. And yes, of course efficiency can increase as you go faster. Engines have a sweet spot where they are burning more efficiently than if the RPMs are higher or lower.

As an extreme example, what would you expect to get better milage --

1) Me driving in second gear at 80KPH with the engine turning 6000 rpm
2) Me driving in fourth gear at 80KPH with the engine turning 2000 rpm

In the case of my car, the engine appears to be most efficient at about 3500 rpm. In 5th gear that translates so about 130kph. Of course the engine is just as efficient in 4th gear at 3500 rpm, but since the car is moving slower the fuel efficiency rated by distance covered is less.

If you're in California all the rules changes. The California pollution controls tend to punish speed.

If you're driving an automatic things get even worse. But then again, if you're driving an automatic you're wasting gas to begin with.

As for speeding tickets I much prefer the attitude the Alberta RCMP have. Rather than ticket speeding on the highway they ticket dangerous driving. If somebody goes by at 130 KPH on a dry highway that's wide open they will let you go by. If you're doing 80kph on the left lane of a busy highway and backing up traffic you will get a ticket for driving without due care and attention.

Too many people confuse the issue being due care and attention, as opposed to a set of hard and fast rules. Just like on the news last year, when a woman (who's car was in the ditch because she had spun out in the snow storm) had been given a speeding ticket, was complaining that they couldn't give her one, because she had been doing 100 in a 100 zone. She didn't understand that things change with conditions.

[stcanard]

Yeah really. There's no way you could be getting better gas mileage going faster in the same gear. Unless you have some crazy gear ratio where from 60-80 you switch from like 5th to 6th gear or 6th to 7th, better fuel economy at 80 would be impossible (unless you're going down a steep hill I guess). For hybrids, fuel economy goes down drastically the faster you go.

I'd suggest you go read some thermodynamics and look into ingnition efficiency and ignition byproducts. Here are some places to start:

Fuel Thermodynamics (http://www.chemcases.com/fuels/fuels-c.htm)
Carnot Cycle (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html)
How is the physics of the combustion engine best described (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec2001/1009202458.Ph.r.html)

Now, on that last one pay special attention to this:

The highest efficiency would be obtained with the highest combustion temperature and lowest exhaust temperature. However at temperatures above 400 degrees C the fuel air mixture would self explode and ignite without a spark before the cylinder reaches the top of the compression stroke. This destroys engine efficiency.

And think about that for a bit ... so at lower RPMS, the ignition temperature is lower, and actually leads to less efficient combustion.

This ignores the fact that the fuel/air mixture is not constant across RPMS, and the exhaust efficiency (out of the engine cylinder) is not constant, all of which affects efficiency. That's why engines have a power curve, not a power line...

[Timelessblur]

1993 Mazda MX-6 with a 5 speed (manual) transmission. And yes, of course efficiency can increase as you go faster. Engines have a sweet spot where they are burning more efficiently than if the RPMs are higher or lower.

As an extreme example, what would you expect to get better milage --

1) Me driving in second gear at 80KPH with the engine turning 6000 rpm
2) Me driving in fourth gear at 80KPH with the engine turning 2000 rpm

In the case of my car, the engine appears to be most efficient at about 3500 rpm. In 5th gear that translates so about 130kph. Of course the engine is just as efficient in 4th gear at 3500 rpm, but since the car is moving slower the fuel efficiency rated by distance covered is less.

If you're in California all the rules changes. The California pollution controls tend to punish speed.

If you're driving an automatic things get even worse. But then again, if you're driving an automatic you're wasting gas to begin with.

As for speeding tickets I much prefer the attitude the Alberta RCMP have. Rather than ticket speeding on the highway they ticket dangerous driving. If somebody goes by at 130 KPH on a dry highway that's wide open they will let you go by. If you're doing 80kph on the left lane of a busy highway and backing up traffic you will get a ticket for driving without due care and attention.

Too many people confuse the issue being due care and attention, as opposed to a set of hard and fast rules. Just like on the news last year, when a woman (who's car was in the ditch because she had spun out in the snow storm) had been given a speeding ticket, was complaining that they couldn't give her one, because she had been doing 100 in a 100 zone. She didn't understand that things change with conditions.

I might want to tell you that restances the car has to fight is 4 times greater at 70mph then it is a 55mph. (this would be wind restances increase a lot on top of that tire to road restatance increases quite a bit. Also internal frictions on you drivetran increase quite a bit.) Even if the enginee is in the "Sweet spot" the friction that you car has to over come decreases the effecty of the car

[stcanard]

I might want to tell you that restances the car has to fight is 4 times greater at 70mph then it is a 55mph. (this would be wind restances increase a lot on top of that tire to road restatance increases quite a bit. Also internal frictions on you drivetran increase quite a bit.) Even if the enginee is in the "Sweet spot" the friction that you car has to over come decreases the effecty of the car

Yes, obviously (and as a cyclist trust me, I am very aware of the effects of wind resistance). That is a part of the equation. All of it adds up be quite complex, actually.

Here's a graph from somebody who spent way too much time calculating fuel effciency on his BMW 318TI (http://www.randomuseless.info/318ti/economy.html) . The important thing to note is how the curve peaks, then tails off as speed increases. Obviously there is a specific point where you get the "ideal" mileage, lower and you're wasting through inefficient combustion, higher and you're wasting through inefficient combustion and higher resistances.

Now, I'm sure you're looking at that and thinking, that it peaks at a about 40MPH (although there are outliers at 50MPH, and given the test methodololgy, its possible that more data points would push the curve out). Now, there are 3 things that can push the curve on my car to the rigtht:

1) California pollution controls I know shift the curve left. I'm not sure if the rest of the US has a similar problem, but I would not be surprised.

2) He has an automatic transmission. Automatic transmissions lose efficiency faster at high RPMs because of their design. The engine might be burning better, but it's all being lost in the tranny. Plus, I would assume he has 4 gears to my 5 so at 60MPH he would be outside that curve.

3) The coefficient of drag on a BMW 318TI is apparently 0.34 (http://www.randomuseless.info/318ti/performance.html) with a weight of 2833lbs. My MX-6 is 0.31 (http://www.internetautoguide.com/car-specifications/09-int/1995/mazda/mx-6/) (wrong year, but they didn't change much) and a curb weight of 2618lbs. As mentioned, air resistance becomes a huge determiner at higher speeds, so a better drag coefficient is definitely going to push that curve right for me.

As a side note, from the MX-6 spec change you'll notice that the power curve of my engine peaks between 4500 and 5500 RPM. So at 3500 it's probably less efficient, but over that the drag coefficient takes over too much and saps more efficiency than is made up with the engine.

My personal test was done on the drive between Calgary and Edmonton (http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=calgary+alberta+canada&ll=52.074219,-113.501677&spn=4.515625,5.841976&hl=en). Now, it may be hard to see because Google doesn't put scales on the maps, but Hwy 2 between those cities is 170 miles of the straightest, flattest highway you can imagine. Going back and forth between there a few times is a great way to find behaviour at a sustained speed, without worry of slowing down for traffic, lights, or even the inconvenience of turning!

[kaylee]

at the current rate of around $AU 1.09 per litre (highest its been in quite a while, and apparently we should be paying more like 80c per litre but fuel companies are fixing prices or something like that), our gas/petrol prices equate to about $US3.20 per gallon.

[XIII]

Ouch! :(

But how much of that is in taxes? Also the popular opinion is that mass transit is better in Europe than in most areas of the US.

17.5% is tax..

I was stunned by how cheap petrol was in america when I went.. Thats what happens when you invade a country for oil I guess... :rolleyes:

[dustininsf]

I live in San Francisco, and was in San Jose today visiting clients. I meant to fill up there @ $2.59/regular (sadly, the best price I've seen in a while) but had to rush back to the City. The usual place I fill up is now $2.79, and it seems the range is from $2.69 (with huge lines) to $2.91 at the stations that typically gouge. I imagine we'll hit $3.50 this summer. I'm just glad I have a Civic (though the stop and go and hills here don't do much for your mileage).

SF has decent public transportation (it works well for in/out downtown travel during the commute hours) but it's pathetic for evening/weekend use and the drivers are some of the most surley I've ever encountered... even though the compensation is unbelieveable (a MUNI driver w/5-8 yrs typically makes $70-90k with amazing benefits and ironclad job security). With all of the street congestion (very few dedicated transit lanes), the system is extremely slow and is prone to backups and major scheduling problems. I used to use transit a lot more, but got tired of the delays (figuring an hour for a moderate trip - maybe 2-3 miles) and noticed that in the evening I could often walk to my destination without even having a bus pass me!

Budget problems are just getting worse here (another $100+ million deficit for the City after 4 years of ~$100million/yr cuts) and they'll be raising fares, cutting service, eliminating routes, raising parking permits, parking meters, parking fees in garages, street cleaning tickets, etc. etc. There's even talk of a downtown toll zone (a la London).

They've already crossed the point where the increased costs start to discourage ridership (which starts a nasty cycle of even less fare revenue, etc.) and more and more people are choosing driving over transit (many people here just use transit but a large number like myself also have vehicles-often originally intended for evening/weekend/trip use)

The only positive thing in transportation going on here is the phenomenal success of CityCarShare www.citycarshare.org - it's a great service that aims to reduce auto ownership by allowing hassle-free hourly rental for those times when you need a car. My roommates got rid of their car and now use CarShare and love it. I would do it, but it doesn't really work out for me with my work-related auto use and the fact that I've just about finished paying for my car (three months left!).

I can only imagine how awful public transportation issues must be elsewhere!

[MOFS]

17.5% is tax..

I was stunned by how cheap petrol was in america when I went.. Thats what happens when you invade a country for oil I guess... :rolleyes:

I think more than 17.5% is tax - thats just the VAT isn't it? What about the odd penny on the pound Mr Brown adds every so often...

PS: If you get cheap petrol for invading Iraq, how come we ain't got none? :confused:

[Chip NoVaMac]

I used to use transit a lot more, but got tired of the delays (figuring an hour for a moderate trip - maybe 2-3 miles) and noticed that in the evening I could often walk to my destination without even having a bus pass me!

I can only imagine how awful public transportation issues must be elsewhere!

You would figure on the success that some cities are having with "circle route buses" (bus service that runs frequently in a small circle type of route, or a simple back and forth route) at fares like a quarter or fifty cents; that we would see more of them. But it is like I said, it a chicken and the egg argument. For transportation officials won't provide the service unless the ridership is there. And riders won't ride it unless the service levels are there.

[TMA]

17.5% is tax..

That's the VAT that we pay on everything, but Petrol has it's own tax which has got to be something silly like 50%.

And yes we must be getting close to $8 a gallon! It's quite hard to work out the conversion, because of the currency and the fact that our gallons are different to US gallons. We also tend to measure petrol in litres, although some how we manage to talk with our friends about miles per gallon!

Roughly speaking $20 of petrol will usually power a car for 100 miles/160km

I hate it and it's just one more reason why living in England makes my brain cry.

[Lord Blackadder]

1993 Mazda MX-6 with a 5 speed (manual) transmission. And yes, of course efficiency can increase as you go faster. Engines have a sweet spot where they are burning more efficiently than if the RPMs are higher or lower.

I'll admit that I sneered when looking at your first post, but thinking about it now you may have something, with a caveat.

My '99 Nissan Altima gets about 23-25 mpg on avarage. The engine redlines at 6000 RPM, max power occurs at ~5500 RPM. I usually cruise at 80mph on the freeway in 5th gear, at which point the engine is turning about 2900 RPM. About a month ago I filled up and decided to go slower on the freeway and see how much my mileage went up. I stuck to 65-70, and didn't notice a difference when I went to fill up the next week. I can be a slightly aggressive :o (though not angry) driver, so I think the best way to improve mileage would be to accelarate more slowly and avoid engine braking or heel-toe downshifts. My car's engine sees little difference between cruising at 60 or 80. At about 85 MPH, wind noise becomes more noticable and acceleration slows a bit, and I assume this is the point where fuel consumption begins to ramp up. The engine uses all 150 HP when accelrating, but only a fraction of that to maintain highway speeds.

[anonymous161]

I have found that accelerating quickly (but not maniacally) and then maintaining a constant engine speed produces the best results. I believe this is called "pulse driving" and it is the method used by the EPA in the US to arrive at the numbers they place on window stickers. I almost always best the window sticker numbers for my civic. It's really kind of sad to watch other drivers butcher the power curves of their engines and then complain that the EPA numbers are unrealistic. I also tend to drive about 5 mph above the posted speed limits (usually 75) on the highways in my area so I imagine I could get a little better economy at a slightly slower speed.

[atakordie]

Until then I will practice my civil disobedience of driving at what I consider a safe speed. On a lot of these freeways it is a high as 80MPH, and in some neighbourhoods where there are a lot of visual obstacles and kids playing, it can be as low as 20 even if the limit is 30.


You know what you are talking about. It would be even safer if we could get rid of all those left lane campers :mad:

Also, with the MPG, yes you can get better at a higher speed to a point, then air drag becomes an issue. I drive a 1990 buick lesabre with a 3.8L V6 and it certainly gets better mileage at 75 than 55. I accelerate smoothly and somewhat slowly, and maintain speed very well, minimizing brake use.

Lastly, yes, the price of fuel in the US is getting ridiculous. It also directly determines how much I make, as I deliver for Papa Johns on the weekends. People aren't tipping more than they used to (which is commonly zero dollars)when the price of gas was lower, so I am just biding my time until next May when I'll have a real job after finally graduating college. :rolleyes:

[Otto Rehhagel]

But the situation with the gast is going to get worse based on our predictions...

China is growing too fast and is demanding a lot of oil. The problem is not the oil production but the ammount of refinaries, they are at their higest capacity almost every where. There is the bottle neck.

Usually when the oil is over $15 is not good for Venezuela because the oil companies at the northic sea become competitive with our prices but that scenario is not the one right now.

Now, the problem for us (Venezuela) is that Chavez is making deals with China to export our oil directly to them, if such agreement settle, Chavez probably will cut negotiations with the US and we supply I guess 15% of your overall demand.

That will create an secenario for the US to invade Venezuela as well but... if the US is having so much problems fighting in a deser as Irak it would be impossible to penetrate Caracas that is sourounded by a forest and mountains + Chavez is developing a civil army of some 100.000.

Considering that makes me think the reason why Bush wanted to invade Irak in first place... to secure the oil for the US.

That is just an escenario but all the dots are creating that shape.

Very interesting point, mymemory. It is true that the US is having trouble with Iraq. You would think that the US would have lower gas prices as a result of invading one of the worlds largest oil producing nations. Many people think this is why Wolfowitz was demoted to head of the World Bank because his plan failed. As a result, Arab nations (OPEC) are retaliating against the US by raising the price of crude, even thought the supply is bountiful. Some financial news sources predict that the price of crude may even double to $100 a barrel. :eek: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

We also have to realize the implications of higher gas prices on everything else, like higher costs to ship food, clothes, manufactured goods, and people (air travel).

[Xenious]

17.5% is tax..

I was stunned by how cheap petrol was in america when I went.. Thats what happens when you invade a country for oil I guess... :rolleyes:


Hey now, didn't we fight another war to escape high taxes a few hundred years ago? ;) Maybe the answer is cheaper UK taxes. You could stage a coup, oh wait you can't carry handguns. lol - kidding :)

Seriously I do really enjoy the UK. Taxes aren't the answer. I think it's all just different transportation mind-sets. No way I could hop a train here in texas and get to work. Of course it is nice in crap weather to go from house to car to parking garage. The trouble with mass transit here is it gets a lower class stigma. So that even if it was available it might be avoided.

Bring on my flying electric car that has a 4 second 0-60mph and all the sounds of a reving ferrari. :)

[Silencio]

I live in San Francisco, and was in San Jose today visiting clients. I meant to fill up there @ $2.59/regular (sadly, the best price I've seen in a while) but had to rush back to the City. The usual place I fill up is now $2.79, and it seems the range is from $2.69 (with huge lines) to $2.91 at the stations that typically gouge. I imagine we'll hit $3.50 this summer. I'm just glad I have a Civic (though the stop and go and hills here don't do much for your mileage).

SF has decent public transportation (it works well for in/out downtown travel during the commute hours) but it's pathetic for evening/weekend use and the drivers are some of the most surley I've ever encountered... even though the compensation is unbelieveable (a MUNI driver w/5-8 yrs typically makes $70-90k with amazing benefits and ironclad job security). With all of the street congestion (very few dedicated transit lanes), the system is extremely slow and is prone to backups and major scheduling problems. I used to use transit a lot more, but got tired of the delays (figuring an hour for a moderate trip - maybe 2-3 miles) and noticed that in the evening I could often walk to my destination without even having a bus pass me!

Budget problems are just getting worse here (another $100+ million deficit for the City after 4 years of ~$100million/yr cuts) and they'll be raising fares, cutting service, eliminating routes, raising parking permits, parking meters, parking fees in garages, street cleaning tickets, etc. etc. There's even talk of a downtown toll zone (a la London).

They've already crossed the point where the increased costs start to discourage ridership (which starts a nasty cycle of even less fare revenue, etc.) and more and more people are choosing driving over transit (many people here just use transit but a large number like myself also have vehicles-often originally intended for evening/weekend/trip use)

The only positive thing in transportation going on here is the phenomenal success of CityCarShare www.citycarshare.org - it's a great service that aims to reduce auto ownership by allowing hassle-free hourly rental for those times when you need a car. My roommates got rid of their car and now use CarShare and love it. I would do it, but it doesn't really work out for me with my work-related auto use and the fact that I've just about finished paying for my car (three months left!).

I can only imagine how awful public transportation issues must be elsewhere!

I also live in SF and can echo pretty much all of your observations.

MUNI is sliding back downhill after making some noticable improvements over the past few years. Muni operators are actually getting laid off now, so you know the budget situation is getting dire over there. You're right that MUNI is a big commuter service, but downtown businesses don't pay nearly their fair share into the system for all the benefits they reap from it. San Francisco voters rejected a couple of small tax increases last November, but seemed genuinely shocked when the city announced massive service cuts shortly thereafter. There's no free lunch.

Public transit in the Bay Area in general is not nearly as good as it could and should be, but it's got everybody else in the country beat save New York -- I'm not familiar enough with Chicago and Boston's subway systems as to how extensive they are.

What do these cities with above average public transit have in common? Above average population density. Suburban sprawl makes it ridiculously expensive and impractical to adequately service by rail, let alone by bus. I've watched Santa Clara County lay a bunch of light rail over the past 15 years, and it always feels like drops in the bucket because of the vast expanse of population and commerce in the valley. Mass transit is not going to be successful unless population density increases around transit lines, but the genie is already out of the bottle.

I have been a City Carshare member for four years now, and it's a great service. I'm very pleased with how much it has expanded. However, it ends up being uneconomical if you use a car more than, say, twice a week. I only use the Carshare for driving out to one of my clients in Oakland (they're situated deep in the 'hood in West Oakland, too far from a BART station). If I go out there 6 times a month for the better part of a day each time, it sets me back around $300-400 per month in Carshare fees. At least I can deduct those costs as a business expense.

[Kushiro]

But how necessary is it to own a car in those countries as compared to the US?

Um, I'd say it's just about as 'necessary'--You say that you could go by bus, but you don't want to.

My daily commute is about the same as the one you describe in your post (well, more like 45 min to 1 hour by 2 busses or a bus and a tram). Yeah, there may be more mass transit options in Europe, but in most situations you still have to wait for them to show up, and the one near your house doesn't necessarily go exactly where you want it to. :(

[mymemory]

As a result, Arab nations (OPEC) are retaliating against the US by raising the price of crude, even thought the supply is bountiful.

The OPEC was first suggested and founded by Venezuela back in the 70's (OPEP at that time).


Then, the secretary or president of the OPEC right now (I do not remember his name or position) is Venezuelan and very close to Hugo Chavez = Left Wing memeber of the San Paulo's Forum and some other social-communist organizations.

[XIII]

That's the VAT that we pay on everything, but Petrol has it's own tax which has got to be something silly like 50%.

And yes we must be getting close to $8 a gallon! It's quite hard to work out the conversion, because of the currency and the fact that our gallons are different to US gallons. We also tend to measure petrol in litres, although some how we manage to talk with our friends about miles per gallon!

Roughly speaking $20 of petrol will usually power a car for 100 miles/160km

I hate it and it's just one more reason why living in England makes my brain cry.

My bad, I really didn't know about the lovely petrol tax, not being a driver.. :) Something to look forward too, eh? ;)

[fox2005]

Now that the Bush family is the owner of the company that sells Irak oil I assume they are making huge quantyties of money... I tell you well done for the shareholders... If only all CEO's would go on such compromise for their shareholders interests then bye bye wall street...

[vniow]

SF has decent public transportation (it works well for in/out downtown travel during the commute hours) but it's pathetic for evening/weekend use and the drivers are some of the most surley I've ever encountered... even though the compensation is unbelieveable (a MUNI driver w/5-8 yrs typically makes $70-90k with amazing benefits and ironclad job security). With all of the street congestion (very few dedicated transit lanes), the system is extremely slow and is prone to backups and major scheduling problems. I used to use transit a lot more, but got tired of the delays (figuring an hour for a moderate trip - maybe 2-3 miles) and noticed that in the evening I could often walk to my destination without even having a bus pass me!

Have to agree there, not currently an SF resident but I'm moving up there within a month. I have a car (which I'll probably still need) and while I don't mind the transit system there (its definately a lot better than a lot of other places I've been) I would still rather drive. BART while a good service is pretty pricey and while I don't think I would have a problem with the fare's going up myself, I can see why a lot of other people would however. Its a real shame how something as useful as MUNI can go downhill like its doing (Weren't they actually profitable in the past couple years or so?) but its stilla pretty good system. VTA in Santa Clara has been a dissapointment though, they should have had that BART station down there years ago and now its just going to be even more of a delay, all that area is too spread out to have a really good transit system (although I think they did a decent job in dealing with that, it could be better) and their fares are going up as well.

I hate to see a place like the Bay Area have public transit almost completely replaced by cars, there's just too many people and not enough room.

-Ani

[IJ Reilly]

The BART system is great -- easily the best public transportation system in California (which, granted, isn't saying much), and in a league with any in the nation. I can also remember how it was vilified when it was proposed and under construction, as being too high-tech and too expensive. But I also remember how people got around the Bay Area after the '89 earthquake, when the freeway system was a shambles, and the Bay Bridge was closed. People do complain about BART -- but where would the Bay Area transit situation be without it anymore? Like LA, only worse.

[vniow]

Like LA, only worse.

Wow. Now that's pretty bad.

[IJ Reilly]

Wow. Now that's pretty bad.

No kidding. I just spent a grueling day getting around LA, or at least trying to. I can't imagine living there, or even trying to.

[mactastic]

SF actually has it pretty good. It's the outlying areas that are the real pisser right now because SF at least has the ability to pull a decent amount of people off the streets. The drive up 101 to SF is a total nightmare from San Jose all the way into the city for instance.

I've heard that if we could pull 1 in 5 cars off the road we could significantly alter traffic levels. I'm guessing SF is pulling somewhere near that number (of it's own residents at least) off the streets. As IJ says, it could be much, much worse.

SF also benefits from it's tight confines. With nowhere to grow except up, it's able to saturate the streets with public transit far easier than others (say LA). It's the smallest county in the state, but it manages to have the best public transit of any county. Whilst Santa Cruz, as the second largest county in the state, has a pathetic public transit system unless you live near downtown or at UCSC.

However, I've known people who lived in Santa Cruz and commuted to SF daily. I've also heard of people commuting from even farther distances in from the east and north of the city. Ugh.

Ani - good luck in the city. I'm thinking you'll really like it up there.

[IJ Reilly]

I like nearly everything about San Francisco -- except the Giants. :p

[vniow]

The drive up 101 to SF is a total nightmare from San Jose all the way into the city for instance.

That's why I usually take 280. Although if you want to get on 1 to 19th, it becomes a major pain. Fortunately there's a back way, take 280 to 35 and then up to SF. That's only if you're going by the coast area I think. There's all sorts of littke back ways in that I'm finding out.

Whilst Santa Cruz, as the second largest county in the state, has a pathetic public transit system unless you live near downtown or at UCSC.

I didn't think it was so bad unless you lived pretty far out like I do and even then it could be a lot worse. I know Monterey/Salinas transit is a lot worse for example, I'd take the SC system over it any day.

Ani - good luck in the city. I'm thinking you'll really like it up there.

Thanx. I think I will too. :)

-Ani

[pseudobrit]

I spent $36 on diesel today. The tank will last me well into May.

Bring on $5/gallon gas! Mwhahaha! It won't hurt me unless maybe diesel hits $10/gal. And if No.2 oil hits $10/gal, we're in much bigger trouble with the trucks collecting dust and people freezing to death in the winter.

[zimv20]

I spent $36 on diesel today. The tank will last me well into May.

you and your diesel. feels good to gloat, eh?

oh wait, i've got a diesel. and i can't even remember the last time i filled up. hey, that does feel good! :-)

[IJ Reilly]

I spent $36 on diesel today. The tank will last me well into May.

Bring on $5/gallon gas! Mwhahaha! It won't hurt me unless maybe diesel hits $10/gal. And if No.2 oil hits $10/gal, we're in much bigger trouble with the trucks collecting dust and people freezing to death in the winter.

I just put $28.00 worth of premium into the Mini, which will also last into May. My secret (in addition to driving a small car) is driving only about 5,000 miles per year. The joys of not having a commute!

Still, I'm not inviting five dollar gasoline. At the price we're paying now, plenty of people should already be sending their SUVs to the crusher.

[Roger1]

Bah! I have to commute. I can't afford to live in the town where I work. Houses start around $200K in the town where I work. I can buy a NEW house, with and acre of land for a around 160k, where I live. Anyway I had a nice little car that got around 37 mpg, but my wife decided she wanted it. So she took it, and gave me the mini van (22mpg). Anyhow, the minivan died, so now I drive a Taurus (27 mpg). Boy it hurts. My wife still drives the little car, and won't give it back. :mad:

[Desertrat]

US gasoline taxes were put into place as a "user pay" system for highway construction. Inflation changed that such than general funds are also required, nowadays. Congress has tried to up the federal tax by a nickel or so, but public outcry scared them off. Regardless, our gasoline taxes aren't intended as revenue producers for other public spending.

In constant dollar terms, crude oil would have to hit $80 per bbl in order to equal the price of crude during the Iran/Iraq war.

The US situation in Iraq has damn-all to do with the availability of oil for the US. Any and all oil is priced by the bidding among oil brokers and all buyers.

Separate from the mining efforts' costs, changing tar sand to oil costs around $11/bbl. There is now an effort to explore all aspects of both the tar sands of eastern Utah (very large reserves) and to reopen the exploration of the shale oil areas in Colorado. These are apparently economic with crude prices at or above $50/bbl.

As far as SUVs and such, I see the present as pretty much a repeat of the late 1960s/early 1970s. Lots of gas hogs on the road; 8 to 11 mpg was the approximate fleet average. Rising gasoline costs changed all that, as it will now. It doesn't need any government doings; the marketplace will take care of the demand for fuel-efficient snot-bubbles versus gas hogs. And, I'd bet that a lot of folks who bought full-size pickups for other than actual need will change their ways fairly quickly.

FWIW, the cost of diesel in Mexico is 70¢ to 90¢ cheaper than in the US. Cuts the cost of operating my backhoe. I just wish I had an old VW diesel Rabbit.

Y'all be good. I gotta go do my weekly 180-mile round trip to visit/deal with my 94-year-old mother. Memory problems are beginning...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, I hope you're right and consumption patterns will change as a result of higher prices, but so far I don't see much evidence to suggest it. Pump prices have been rising steadily overall for a couple of years now, each spike higher than the last. We can't say we weren't warned. But at least where I live, gas consumption has continued to climb, and the roads are ever-more populated by '70s style gas hogs, and they're driving at higher speeds than ever. It defies all logic and reason to me, but most people seem to have accepted the $2.70 a gallon hit, and aren't prepared to change their habits to save money. Too bad the folks running things in Washington don't believe in energy conservation. Some leadership on this issue might help.

[mischief]

Whilst Santa Cruz, as the second largest county in the state, has a pathetic public transit system unless you live near downtown or at UCSC.

However, I've known people who lived in Santa Cruz and commuted to SF daily.

Mainly due to the fact that the median home price in SC is $750,000.00. THis is due to a completely backwards and corrupt "growth management" policy designed to both line the pockets of connected devellopers and strangle the living daylights out of the local job market. County planners have been actively foiling efforts to fix the Hwy 1/Hwy 17 interchange (despite a significant loss of life and limb every year) for better than a decade.

County and City of SC planners have also made it nearly impossible to get new Develloper licenses. Plus they've restricted the zoning and planning processes so much that the process of building a house on that tiny $500,000.00 lot will cost you another $250,000.00 in fees, consultants, contractors, lawyers, court fees, litigation, fines, time spent arguing with the coastal, butterfly, creek preservation, slow growth and dog beach preservation comittees. Once your marriage is over, you've got a third mortgage on that empty lot and you're on your third contractor you can begin your building process.... assuming it's between May and September...

Honestly... If it were possible to save enough money to leave, I'd be gone. Unfortunately this place is so expensive it's like concrete overshoes.

But we were talking about Gas.... My Acura averages about 26 to 28 MPG but the roads in SC are so clogged by this lack of upgrades/maintenance that I rarely get up to speed anymore which brings me down to 22 MPG in stop-and-go driving.

Gas here is edging towards $3.00/Gal and it's somethimes in short supply as all of it has to come through the aforementioned 1/17 interchange.

[IJ Reilly]

Bah! I have to commute. I can't afford to live in the town where I work. Houses start around $200K in the town where I work. I can buy a NEW house, with and acre of land for a around 160k, where I live.

You've suggested the solution to your own dilemma. The $40k you think you're saving on housing by living a longer distance away from work is going into car payments and your gas tank. Not to mention, the time you spend commuting is subtracted from your life.

[Roger1]

I forgot to mention that taxes are nearly triple what I currently pay. Believe me, I've done the math and it is cheaper to live where I do. And I do, unfortunately, need a car for my job.

BTW, I did say new houses are going for 160k where I live, but unfortunately, that is more than what I paid for my house and more that what I can afford. In other words even though where I live is cheaper than where I work, I'm still being priced out of the market. So I guess I'll stay put, and consider taking my wife's car away from her :)

[stcanard]

You've suggested the solution to your own dilemma. The $40k you think you're saving on housing by living a longer distance away from work is going into car payments and your gas tank. Not to mention, the time you spend commuting is subtracted from your life.


Sometimes its easier said than done.

If you look at housing prices in the Vancouver area (http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/keyfacts/tableshtml/median-H.htm) a house within a reasonable "non commute" distance of my work place (on UBC campus), which would be Vancouver West, had a median price of $688,000. Now even that is misleading, because for price you're getting a 75 year old house 11km from where I work! I would have provided a link, but apparently there's nothing in the neighbourhood for less than $700K right now.

Mind you, that's if I don't mind a 40 minute busride to work, or (my option now, since I'm renting in that neighbourhood) a 30 minute bike ride. If I wanted to live a "no commute" distance I'm looking at a million dollar townhouse.

OTOH if I move out to Richmond, which means I have to drive (or 45 minute bike each way, which is the option I'm planning on), I'm looking at average price of $370,000. (same link)

In this case we're talking the difference between the bank being willing to give me a mortgage, and not being willing. Oh, and those numbers are 2 years out of date, we're in a hot housing market, so add 25%. Seriously.

Now there's a third problem. I used to think like you. When I was working in Richmond I bought a condo in Richmond (a steal at just under $200K 10 years ago). Of course in the computer industry the average time spent in a job is 3 - 5 years (and if you spend more than 5 years in a place, people start asking what's wrong, why can't you find another job), and 2 years later I was working at a company in downtown Vancouver, 2 bridges and a very inconvenient commute away. I will never again choose a place to live based on the proximity to work.

Its easy to tell someone to live closer to they job, but its not always so easy to put it in practice...

[IJ Reilly]

I recognize that it isn't always easy. In fact, it's rarely easy. The main point I'm making is that most people don't take the true cost of commuting into account. Where I live, in Southern California, people commonly "super commute" distances of 100 miles in each direction every day. I doubt many of them understand that those 50,000 miles a year in commuting amounts to a real cost to them on the order of $20,000 a year (and rising). Keep that up for a few years, and suddenly that house in high desert doesn't look like such a bargain.

Oh, and what's so bad about a 75-year-old house? I haven't lived in a much newer one for a long time.

[stcanard]

I doubt many of them understand that those 50,000 miles a year in commuting amounts to a real cost to them on the order of $20,000 a year (and rising). Keep that up for a few years, and suddenly that house in high desert doesn't look like such a bargain.

That I agree with entirely. When I bought that condo, the other option was a condo about 50km away for $50K less. When I did the math, which involved buying a car since I didn't have one at the time, the other condo would end up costing enough more because of commuting that I wouldn't be able to buy a place!

But in the case of housing in Vancouver, it's not a matter of how much better a deal it is, but plain and simple that a large majority of people cannot afford a house at the current prices and are forced to go out of town if they are going to buy at all.

In order to buy a house in Vancouver to fit my family, in a neighbourhood where my wife and I could reasonably take transit to work, I'm looking at $700,000. To buy the same house in Richmond and drive, I'm looking at $400,000. Ignoring, again, the fact that a bank won't finance the $700,000 mortgage for me, that $300K buys an awful lot of 50km round-trip commutes. On that distance gas and maintenance cost me $7.50 on a round-trip, $1400 insurance works out to $3380 a year in commuting (that's at $1/litre) I can commute for 80 years before it becomes worth while.

Especially when you consider that transit in Vancouver hasn't escaped the "hub" mentality that all trips are anchored to the centre of downtown, so on weekends for visiting relatives, or travelling for entertainment a car is pretty much necessary.

Yes, I could take a bus to visit my parents, but given the choice of sitting a 9 year old in a car for 1/2 hour trip to see his grandparents, or spending 1.5 hours on the bus (one way) which one do you think I will choose? Every try to deal with an excited 9 year old on a bus for an hour and a half?

Oh, and what's so bad about a 75-year-old house? I haven't lived in a much newer one for a long time.

In these cases, the fact that 75 year old houses in the $600K range haven't been updated in more than 50 years. 1500 square feet, small, dank, horrible plumbing, bad insulation, and if you're lucky maybe one electric outlet per room.

Ahh, found it. Just in case you think I'm exaggerating, here's one (http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?vd=&SearchURL=%3fMode%3d0%26Page%3d1%26vs%3d1%26rlt%3d%26cp%3d%26pt%3d20%26mp%3d0-0-0%26mrt%3d-1-0-0%26Beds%3d3-3%26Baths%3d2-2%26f%3d%26ft%3dall%26o%3dA%26of%3d1%26ps%3d50%26ptgid%3d1%26aid%3d3723%252c3727%252c3725%252c3719%2 52c3724%252c3716%26MapURL%3d%253fAreaID%253d6577&Mode=0&PropertyID=3471231) . 75 years old, 975 square feet (basement is not full height), and $600K. It's price is actually low because of the fact that it fronts onto a main road so the traffic noise is really annoying.

[Silencio]

SF also benefits from it's tight confines. With nowhere to grow except up, it's able to saturate the streets with public transit far easier than others (say LA). It's the smallest county in the state, but it manages to have the best public transit of any county. Whilst Santa Cruz, as the second largest county in the state, has a pathetic public transit system unless you live near downtown or at UCSC.

Santa Cruz county the second largest in the state!? Uhh... http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/california_map.html

Interesting to see so many Santa Cruz/central coast people here. I left Santa Cruz in 1992, back when the living was cheap and easy. I'm still shocked and amazed by how much housing (and even rentals) have gone up in cost. I couldn't imagine being a student there now between the dramatic jumps in housing and tuition. (My girlfriend's nephew is matriculating there in the fall, so we have an excuse to drive down there again.) Next thing you know, someone's going to mention that the wait to get into Zachary's on a Sunday morning is 3+ hours and a Mike's Mess will set you back $20.

Back to gas: I saw a station here in SF charging $3.10/gal for regular. Welcome to the future, people.

[mactastic]

Santa Cruz county the second largest in the state!? Uhh... http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/california_map.html


My apologies... I meant second smallest.

[Roger1]

75 years old, 975 square feet (basement is not full height), and $600K. It's price is actually low because of the fact that it fronts onto a main road so the traffic noise is really annoying.


Hmm, are you sure that's not in Japanese yen?? :p

[stcanard]

Hmm, are you sure that's not in Japanese yen?? :p

Oh, how I wish! :eek:

This is an issue near and dear to my heart, because I don't want a commute (especially not across a bridge, which in Vancouver is an issue), but after a year of tromping around looking, and doing countless finance calculations, we've come to the conclusion that we simply cannot afford 1500sqft + storage in Vancouver :(

Its a distance that I can probably bike, but my wife is almost certainly going to end up back in the car. Right now she's taking transit.

[pseudobrit]

Separate from the mining efforts' costs, changing tar sand to oil costs around $11/bbl. There is now an effort to explore all aspects of both the tar sands of eastern Utah (very large reserves) and to reopen the exploration of the shale oil areas in Colorado. These are apparently economic with crude prices at or above $50/bbl.

From what I've read, it seems as though most Canadian companies that were gearing up to exploit the tar sands have cooled their attitudes after recent cost analyses scared the hell out of them.

Apparently, the extraction is not as cheap as they thought at first. Secondly, environmental cleanup will add greatly to the cost.

Perhaps the United States, with the help of "the environmental president," can overcome such obstacles (like eliminating those pesky and environmental cleanup parts of the operation) with its own resources.

God forbid Ford sell one less Explorer this year.

[Desertrat]

Driving tips: Find a Bandag tire recapper. See about getting high-durometer recaps, ala taxicabs. Then, run tire pressures up around 40 or 45 psi for any highway travel. Caveat: This ain't a rainy-weather deal for traction. Anyway, this reduces the rolling resistance of the tires, and the hard compound gives a decent total mileage.

Forget cruise control. It works backwards for economy. It lets off the throttle going downhill, and adds throttle going up. You want to do the opposite, just the old days of the Mobil Fuel Economy Run. Build up speed going downhill; ease off going up.

I'm no expert on auto trannies, but I sorta recall that Consumer Reports said that if you accelerate rather quickly (not drag strip style) through the first two or three shifts and then ease off, fuel economy is better than a long, slow acceleration to cruise speed.

I guess I've always been a cheapskate. Even my hotrods got better gas mileage than the other guys' street racers. :)

As far as the questions of where to live and what to do for money, I've always been sorta cold-blooded: How much money's in your pocket at the end of the year? What good is it if the overhead eats up your otherwise-disposable income?

Digressing, San Francisco has always been one of my most favorite cities, along with Hong Kong and Paris. I've been in many others, and they pale in comparison. I jsut can't live in the middle of that many people all wadded up together...

:), 'Rat

[zimv20]

San Francisco has always been one of my most favorite cities, along with Hong Kong and Paris.
OT: then you may like Budapest, as well.

[IJ Reilly]

Driving tips: Find a Bandag tire recapper. See about getting high-durometer recaps, ala taxicabs. Then, run tire pressures up around 40 or 45 psi for any highway travel. Caveat: This ain't a rainy-weather deal for traction. Anyway, this reduces the rolling resistance of the tires, and the hard compound gives a decent total mileage.

Forget cruise control. It works backwards for economy. It lets off the throttle going downhill, and adds throttle going up. You want to do the opposite, just the old days of the Mobil Fuel Economy Run. Build up speed going downhill; ease off going up.

You forgot to tell people to slow down. Staying within at least hailing distance of the speed limit will improve fuel economy more reliably than over-inflated tires, which reduce traction and increase the risk of blow out when they get hot. As for cruise control, I think more people should use it than do. Without it, many drivers completely lose track of how fast they're driving, leading to both excess speed and creeping.

[zimv20]

hills aside, cruise control can be quite beneficial. i made a late night trip through indiana and illinois last year, cruise on, a/c on, @60 mph and got upwards of 65 mpg with my diesel. that's a good 10-12 mph more than i normally get on the highway.

[stcanard]

You forgot to tell people to slow down. Staying within at least hailing distance of the speed limit

As discussed (possibly a little bit too much) before, this isn't 100%. The speed with maximum fuel efficiency is very much dependent on the car, in my case significantly higher than the speed limit on most highways in this area.

But if you're trying to drive above the speed limit on a crowded highway, and keep having to brake because of traffic, that will definitely hurt the milage.

[stcanard]

Apparently, the extraction is not as cheap as they thought at first. Secondly, environmental cleanup will add greatly to the cost.

Heh, at current prices its almost certainly cost effective :)

Last I read (this would have been about 6 months ago), it's not the costs that were stopping the companies, but the fight over what was more important: the petroleum of the natural gas. With current techniques you can only mine one or the other, and it's fighting through the courts which is more important.

[IJ Reilly]

As discussed (possibly a little bit too much) before, this isn't 100%. The speed with maximum fuel efficiency is very much dependent on the car, in my case significantly higher than the speed limit on most highways in this area.

But officer, I get the best gas milage at 95 MPH!

Seriously, the physics of the situation are very much against this. Your best fuel economy is most likely to occur at the lowest speed at which your car shifts into its highest gear.

[stcanard]

Seriously, the physics of the situation are very much against this. Your best fuel economy is most likely to occur at the lowest speed at which your car shifts into its highest gear.

Links, please.

I have provided links to the thermodynamics explaining why engines have a certain point where they are most efficient, and lower RPMs decrease their efficiency.

I have provided links to real-world data collected showing fuel efficiency curves across speed that match what I describe.

Can you please show me the data how in the highest gear, the wind resistance of a reasonably aerodynamic car rises faster than the increase of efficiency of an internal combustine engine rising to it's power curve? (Note that yes, it will eventually catch up, but it is not at minimum RPMs.)

Note also that it needs to be a standard, as I am well aware that automatics become increasingly inefficient at higher RPMs.

[IJ Reilly]

Links, please.

You bet. I don't see any of your links, but here's mine:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

So, for most cars, the "sweet spot" on the speedometer is in the range of 40-60 mph. Cars with a higher road load will reach the sweet spot at a lower speed.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question477.htm&url=http://tqjunior.thinkquest.org/4116/Trip_Planning/speed.htm

There is a relationship between how much gas your car consumes and how fast you drive. It is a curve and the peak is around 55 mph. When you are going too fast or too slow, you use more gas. The table below shows the speed vs. the gas mileage for cars.

(Note from the table that no size car is more fuel efficient 60 MPH than it is at 50 -- so, unless the speed limit on most of highways where you live is significantly lower than 50 MPH...)

http://www.cartrackers.com/Buyers_Guide/Consumer_Advice/Car_Care/PID.23909.272818811101.1.html

Cruise control and overdrive gears are both ways to improve your car's fuel efficiency. Overdrive reduces both fuel consumption and engine wear because engine speed decreases. Cruise control helps drivers maintain a constant speed rather than a variable speed and therefore improves gas mileage. Also, if using a manual transmission, try driving at slow rates in high gears. Driving at fast rates in low gears may consume up to 45% more fuel than is needed.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun2000/960600571.Eg.r.html

The exact speed where the maximum occurs is specific to each engine and can change with time as parts wear. Some increases in efficiency may occur as the speed increases because increased temperature removes the built-in allowances for thermal expansion and allow such items as the piston rings to seal for maximum efficiency. In general, though, the maximum efficiency is realized around the speed at which the car shifts into its highest gear.

[Desertrat]

Naw, I didin't forget speed. One thing I've seen since I first began driving is that faster costs more. :)

Most cars are optimum at the torque peak of the engine. Today's world, few cars aren't set up for the gearing to yield a 65 to 70mph cruise at or near the peak of the curve.

Thru the years: '48 Pontiac. '55 Chevy. '58 Fiat-Abarth Allemagno rdstr. '59 190 SL. '62 BelAir 4dor. '61 Austin-Healey; coverted to 13:1 327. '67 Camaro; converted to 427. 911 Porsche. 912 Porsche. '67 Lotus Elan. '85 IROC. All manner of VW Beetles and buses. Lately, my bought-new '85 Toy 4WD PU; an '84 Toy 4Runner, and "The Great White Whale", the '00 GMC 1/2-ton. All maintenance and rebuilds done by me.

IMO, it's a rare deal that something could get better fuel economy at higher wind resistance. I don't question the sincerity of belief, but I reserve the right to question the mathematical ability. :D

'Nother driving tip or two: Watch well out ahead. If you see traffic light turning orange, get off the gas pedal! Saves brakes as well as gas. If you time lights, you can avoid some of the stop/start waste. If a guy in the next block in front of you has his left-turn signal on, seek to change lanes "now", if possible, rather than run up his butt and then stop. :) (Part of my ego trip is getting more than 100K out of pads and shoes.)

'Rat

"The primary difference between men and boys is the cost of their toys."

[IJ Reilly]

Naw, I didin't forget speed. One thing I've seen since I first began driving is that faster costs more. :)

Most cars are optimum at the torque peak of the engine. Today's world, few cars aren't set up for the gearing to yield a 65 to 70mph cruise at or near the peak of the curve.

In all of the information I've ever read, it's more like 50-60. I know this disappoints people who like to drive fast and pretend that they're virtuous, but that appears to be the physics of the deal. That old devil friction.

Good driving tips, though. I play a game when I get to my freeway off-ramp. If nobody is behind me, I slip the car out of gear about 0.10 mile away and roll it the rest of the way at idle speed (yes, it's a stick). If you drive a manual, it's amazing to discover how much ground you can cover in neutral!

[stcanard]

In all of the information I've ever read, it's more like 50-60. I know this disappoints people who like to drive fast and pretend that they're virtuous, but that appears to be the physics of the deal. That old devil friction.

Actually your links are completely in agreement with mine (and both of us linkes to madsci). When you say 50-60 I'd be curious to see what age / gearing the cars are talking about. Pollution controls and politically correct tuning in the US have changed the peak mileage point significantly over the last 35 years! I also notice that you are in South California, and California pollution controls are known to be the worst of the worst for punishing speed. Fortunately Canadian regulations are way different.

Much earlier in the thread I explained why (most likely) my curve is to the right of the cars in your examples. I'm not going to go into all of the detail again, but the reference to "overdrive" gives away the main point -- the cars given in those stats are what are most common on American highways these days -- 4 speed automatic transmissions. The different gearing in the 5 speed manual pushes the curve to the right, and again you cannot ignore the huge transmission losses in an automatic.

Desertrat had exactly the right point:

Most cars are optimum at the torque peak of the engine. Today's world, few cars aren't set up for the gearing to yield a 65 to 70mph cruise at or near the peak of the curve.

If you look back at my earlier links you'll notice the torque peak on my engine is at 5500 RPM. At 130kph on a highway in 5th I'm actually well below 5500 RPM. And please note that I'm takling kilometres and not miles here!

Again, note this is not theoretical on my point, this was figured out through gas receipts on long, boring drives between Edmonton and Calgary (link to map in earlier posts again).

If you drive a manual, it's amazing to discover how much ground you can cover in neutral!

Tell me about it! But doesn't that point out that speed losses due to friction / wind resistance at highway speed is nowhere near as much as many people seem to think?

My last speeding ticket was due to slipping it into neutral down a mountain pass. Its amazing how much speed you can pick up without the engine braking you! (For the record I was clocked at 132kph, and the officer told me that had I kept it under 130 he would have let me by)

P.S. At least in BC it's illegal to cruise in neutral so be careful with that game. I've never figured out how you would get caught, but...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Hmm, are you sure that's not in Japanese yen?? :p

As said, no. But we may start to see 50 and 100 year mortgages in order for the working poor, read the middle class in major urban centers, to be able to afford the raising housing costs.

[IJ Reilly]

Actually your links are completely in agreement with mine (and both of us linkes to madsci). When you say 50-60 I'd be curious to see what age / gearing the cars are talking about. Pollution controls and politically correct tuning in the US have changed the peak mileage point significantly over the last 35 years! I also notice that you are in South California, and California pollution controls are known to be the worst of the worst for punishing speed. Fortunately Canadian regulations are way different.

Clearly, this information is current. Pollution control isn't a relevant issue. The relevant issue is gear ratios and good old basic physics.

To be honest, everything you've said so far suggests to me that you're rationalizing driving above the posted limits. We've got the same problem in the US. Everybody thinks they've got a good reason to speed.

[Desertrat]

Reason to speed? Yeah, somebody provided smooth pavement! :D

I really oughta stay out of threads like this. They get me to mumbling about getting a '90s Toyota Supra and then hitting the catalogs for an alloy small-block Chevey and then a six-speed from a junkyard. A little suspension tweaking and some "real" tires. Yup, life begins at 180.

This wasn't Red LeGrand's best idea ever, but the old junkers were fun if you could drive'em: http://www.davewolin.com/f5000.htm Mine didn't have the wing or the Webers; I bought it "in a bucket" and ran it for a season. It was great in a straight line, but Dave's spot-on about the cornering. Wasn't any worse about wiggly than several of Colin Chapman's "Loti", however. (Jimmy Clark told Colin at Riverside that the Lotus 40 was a "Lotus 30 with ten more mistakes.")

But, actually, I'm old and sedate and wouldn't do Bad Things anymore.

:), 'Rat

[Chip NoVaMac]

The relevant issue is gear ratios and good old basic physics.

Right you are. Here in the US we could be seeing cars averaging 2 to 5 mpg's better than they are now. But we are not since we have been lulled into the trap of low gas prices. Every one wants performance up till now. And at all segments of the market that gave way to lower mpg's.

We should be ashamed our ourselves. We should have held Congress with their feet to the fire to increase CAFE standards all these years. The CAFE standards should have been applied to all cars and trucks. Period.

More money should have been spent by local authorities to enforce the traffic laws on the books. Then the idea of needing "speed" and "size" to be safe would have been what it is a fallacy.

The USA needs to change its name to Greed Inc.

[crazytom]

Right you are. Here in the US we could be seeing cars averaging 2 to 5 mpg's better than they are now. But we are not since we have been lulled into the trap of low gas prices. Every one wants performance up till now. And at all segments of the market that gave way to lower mpg's.

We should be ashamed our ourselves. We should have held Congress with their feet to the fire to increase CAFE standards all these years. The CAFE standards should have been applied to all cars and trucks. Period.

More money should have been spent by local authorities to enforce the traffic laws on the books. Then the idea of needing "speed" and "size" to be safe would have been what it is a fallacy.

The USA needs to change its name to Greed Inc.

I agree completely! I have two cars: a 1991 Geo Metro (43 mpg) and a 1999 Saturn SL (29 city, 39 hwy). I've been looking for a suitable replacement for the Geo and there's NOTHING that comes even close that's under $15,000. Even Saturn has gone backwards...their couple only gets 34mpg (wtf is THAT?)... I did find the
SmartCar (http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/models.php) . I can't wait to get one! I'm drooling over 60mpg, but I'd like to wait for the diesel model that gets up to 70mpg (stupid American emissions rules are currently preventing it.) But, I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure some big corporate suits will deam that there is no demand for little, gas efficient cars, and they'll pull them from the U.S. market...

[Desertrat]

Trouble is, Chip, your view sorta ignores other folks' choices about how they spend their money.

Nowhere is it written that the US is entitled to cheap energy. You're blaming big vehicles for your cost of gasoline, and that just ain't so. China has a right to bid for oil, just as you do. Just as I do.

From the standpoint of gasoline usage, you could get rid of every sub-20mpg SUV on the road, along with 4WD Suburbans and one-ton duallies and it wouldn't have enough effect on the world price of oil to notice.

I have a little truck and a big truck. When it's tire time for my equipment, I use the big truck. Howin'ell am I supposed to get above 28mpg out of a big truck? My little truck is 4WD, without which I sometimes can't leave home or get home. Even when brand-new and with radial tires, it never beat 25 mpg on smooth pavement. With the "real" tires that let me get through mud and sharp rocks, I get around 18 to 19.

But I live with my costs: It's my absolute right to do so. It's my absolute right to be--or have been--the local sand-and-gravel guy for my community.

And if you're smart enough to make my dumptruck beat five mpg, hey, come on! I"ll take all the help I can get!

:), 'Rat

[Chip NoVaMac]

I agree completely! I have two cars: a 1991 Geo Metro (43 mpg) and a 1999 Saturn SL (29 city, 39 hwy). I've been looking for a suitable replacement for the Geo and there's NOTHING that comes even close that's under $15,000. Even Saturn has gone backwards...their couple only gets 34mpg (wtf is THAT?)... I did find the
SmartCar (http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/models.php) . I can't wait to get one! I'm drooling over 60mpg, but I'd like to wait for the diesel model that gets up to 70mpg (stupid American emissions rules are currently preventing it.) But, I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure some big corporate suits will deam that there is no demand for little, gas efficient cars, and they'll pull them from the U.S. market...

Bit more than emission rules getting in the way of diesel. Here in the states we have the view of diesel as noisy, hard in cold weather, under powered, and smokey.

Don't look for the smartCar any time soon in the US. Evidently market research is showing MB that people still want power of MPG's. Add to that given the number of SUV's on the road at this moment, the concern for safety.

With the safety issue of small cars verses big cars/trucks, we only have Congress to blame, since their hands are so far deep in the pockets of Big Money, reality never has a chance. Again we are to blame for voting these damn fools in again and again.

[crazytom]

Don't look for the smartCar any time soon in the US.

It's already happening. (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050202/sfw128_1.html)

ZAP now has U.S. compliant Smart Cars available for sale and today is hosting a demonstration to the media by appointment in the Los Angeles area.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Trouble is, Chip, your view sorta ignores other folks' choices about how they spend their money.

Nowhere is it written that the US is entitled to cheap energy. You're blaming big vehicles for your cost of gasoline, and that just ain't so. China has a right to bid for oil, just as you do. Just as I do.

From the standpoint of gasoline usage, you could get rid of every sub-20mpg SUV on the road, along with 4WD Suburbans and one-ton duallies and it wouldn't have enough effect on the world price of oil to notice.

I have a little truck and a big truck. When it's tire time for my equipment, I use the big truck. Howin'ell am I supposed to get above 28mpg out of a big truck? My little truck is 4WD, without which I sometimes can't leave home or get home. Even when brand-new and with radial tires, it never beat 25 mpg on smooth pavement. With the "real" tires that let me get through mud and sharp rocks, I get around 18 to 19.

But I live with my costs: It's my absolute right to do so. It's my absolute right to be--or have been--the local sand-and-gravel guy for my community.

And if you're smart enough to make my dumptruck beat five mpg, hey, come on! I"ll take all the help I can get!

:), 'Rat

Trouble "Rat is that as long you have yours, you don't seem to care about the rest of us. Free markets are all OK. But at the same point those that scream about the market dictating choices fail to allow the same choices in social issues like Gay marriage, living wages, and the such.

Yes, China is a "minor" issue IMO at this point. But it is or greed as a country that has allowed China's need and desire for more energy to be the problem that we have at this point.

Add to that we have the Oil Barons in control of the administration at this point. Please don't be so blind to think that if we did not have Bush and Cheney in control that we would not have had better policies in place to prevent the run up as we have had.

I support your right to have the vehicle f your choice, At the same point your choice should not be on the backs off those that may find even a 40mpg+ car hard to afford.

And try not to hide behind just the price of gas that we pay. The rising costs of ALL fuels will probably not hurt you as much as they may hurt me or even those that are trying to make ends meet by working at Walmart, since we seem set on sending any well paying jobs off to Pakistan because of lower wages.

This country is going to Hell in a hand-basket because of the attitude of "I know what is best for me, to Hell with the rest of you". You may be a minority for a real need for the vehicles you have. For most it is about status. I remember not too long ago that the Avalon got 32 to 34 real MPG's. Now we think a full size car is good with 26 MPG's.

Greed has gotten out of control, not just in cars, but in everyday life. You have outer 'burbs fighting to save "farm land" (land that is not a real part of the farming effort) just so that they don't have to live next to those that teach, protect, and sell those that want their "farm land".

You also seem to miss the point that with all the money we have wasted as a nation on wars and military build up, we could have made ourselves better able to weather situations like we now face.

I hate to say it, but I do hope that we face the hardships of a World War that my parents did. Rationing and all. Then the gluttony may end. Do I need mention, that gluttony is a "sin" according to the Bible?

[Chip NoVaMac]

It's already happening. (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050202/sfw128_1.html)

We have a differnt view on the "smartCar":

http://www.edmunds.com:80/future/smart/index.html

[IJ Reilly]

From the standpoint of gasoline usage, you could get rid of every sub-20mpg SUV on the road, along with 4WD Suburbans and one-ton duallies and it wouldn't have enough effect on the world price of oil to notice.

Now here's a fallacy worth correcting. The price of gasoline at the pump is only partially a function of the price of a barrel of oil -- less than half, IIRC. The other half is the demand for gasoline vs. the capacity of the nation's refineries, which has been particularly perilous lately. Small changes in demand (as little as one or two percent) can have a huge impact on the gasoline futures market, which has a direct impact on how fast those little numbers spin around at the gas pump. I also have to note that the gasoline retailer's margins have increased dramatically over the past year or so. Some might call that "gouging." But whatever you call it, it's is something the retailers could not do so easily if demand weren't continuing to grow in the face of rapidly increasing prices. So... reducing demand even slightly would change this picture a great deal. It's worked before, you know.

Also, I can't help noticing that if in your opinion even a radical change in US oil consumption patterns wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference in the price of oil, then certainly drilling in ANWR would make even less difference. But you are in favor of oil drilling in ANWR, aren't you?

[pseudobrit]

My car reaches its torque peak at around 1900rpm and holds it nearly flat all the way to redline. So, anything at or above 1900rpm is producing optimal torque to drive my car.

In fifth gear, I find that I hit around 55mph at 1900rpm. Therefore, 55mph would probably be an ideal mileage speed. Not to mention that cruising at lower engine speeds is detrimental to the TDI.

However, I feel extra time on the road is wasted, and I can return over 55 mpg on the highway travelling at 75mph. Hell, I've put down 800 miles on one overfilled tank (as much as 16 gallons) of mostly high speed interstate driving mixed with two days of Montréal city streets (and a lap of Circuit Gilles Villenueve).

I also inflate to around 38 psi (warm reading), and my car handles better and more predictably in all weather, including snow, than when I had them inflated to the recommended empty load of 26psi (set for comfort rather than optimum handling).

I keep detailed records of fuel purchases and mileage.

The overall lesson is: know your engine, know your car, save fuel.

[mad jew]

The overall lesson is: know your engine, know your car, save fuel.

Yeah I think you got it in one there! A little bit of intelligent driving can go a long way - pun not really intended. ;)

[stcanard]

Clearly, this information is current. Pollution control isn't a relevant issue. The relevant issue is gear ratios and good old basic physics.

Well, that was my point wasn't it? So the information is for a very different gear ratio than the one I'm using, and as such will likey be very different from my experience.

Of course pollution control is very relevant, it has a huge effect on gas milage and the regulations and controls very hugely from region to region! So trying to apply numbers generated in California to experiences in British Columbia and Alberta is pretty silly...

To be honest, everything you've said so far suggests to me that you're rationalizing driving above the posted limits.

I can see that. You also apparently don't think $300,000 is an unsurmountable difference in housing prices. You obviously have a very different background and set of opinions than me.

Oh well, c'est la vie -- chacon son gout.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, that was my point wasn't it? So the information is for a very different gear ratio than the one I'm using, and as such will likey be very different from my experience.

Of course pollution control is very relevant, it has a huge effect on gas milage and the regulations and controls very hugely from region to region! So trying to apply numbers generated in California to experiences in British Columbia and Alberta is pretty silly...

So, where was I quoting "numbers generated in California?" (Answer: nowhere)

More stringent pollution control measure may lower overall gas milage, but they have no impact on the issue we were discussing. None. Like it or not, you can't change the rules of physics no matter how hard you try. Sorry!

[Roger1]

I agree completely! I have two cars: a 1991 Geo Metro (43 mpg) and a 1999 Saturn SL (29 city, 39 hwy). I've been looking for a suitable replacement for the Geo and there's NOTHING that comes even close that's under $15,000. Even Saturn has gone backwards...their couple only gets 34mpg (wtf is THAT?)... I did find the
SmartCar (http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/models.php) . I can't wait to get one! I'm drooling over 60mpg, but I'd like to wait for the diesel model that gets up to 70mpg (stupid American emissions rules are currently preventing it.) But, I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure some big corporate suits will deam that there is no demand for little, gas efficient cars, and they'll pull them from the U.S. market...

Here's a car for ya! Runs on compressed air!

http://www.theaircar.com

BTW, how much do those smart cars sell for? I didn't see a price list on their website.

[pseudobrit]

More stringent pollution control measure may lower overall gas milage, but they have no impact on the issue we were discussing. None. Like it or not, you can't change the rules of physics no matter how hard you try. Sorry!

The problem with fuel efficiency and speed is the same I encounter on my bicycle: the faster you go, the more energy it takes to overcome the air drag. This is significant for any vehicle travelling at more than roughly 15mph.

And it's not linear. It increases as a square of your speed. Going 30mph takes four times the energy as 15mph, even though you're only going twice as fast.

I think this, moreso than the gearing factor, is the point you're trying to make.

[pseudobrit]

I should note, however that my bicycle analogy can be a little misleading.

A bicycle is the single most efficient means of power transfer in a vehicle, with only about 2% being lost to non aerodyamic drag friction. Therefore drag becomes the sole determining factor of speed efficiency.

For a motor vehicle, the power generated bleeds all over -- from internal gearing friction, alternators, driveaxle friction, to tire friction -- at a rate that far exceeds that of a bicycle. So there are many other factors to consider when calculating motor vehicle efficiency.

At high highway speeds though, drag, due to the fact that it squares itself, becomes the highest consumer of a motor's energy.

[IJ Reilly]

Exactly. The same is true with airplanes. It doesn't take twice as much energy to go twice as fast, it takes something on the order of four times as much. Reducing the coefficient of drag helps, but unless it can be reduced to zero (impossible on Planet Earth), the effects of drag can't be eliminated. It stands to reason that the greatest efficiency you're ever likely to achieve in a car comes at the lowest speed at which you can shift into the highest gear (maximizing the the ratio of drive wheel RPMs to engine RPMs). After that, you're fighting a losing battle against drag -- and the inherent inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine. Not only does it stand to reason, that's what all the sources I've read say about the subject.

[crazytom]

Here's a car for ya! Runs on compressed air!

http://www.theaircar.com

BTW, how much do those smart cars sell for? I didn't see a price list on their website.

Sweet! That'd be perfect for around town! Unfortunately, I sometimes have to drive farther than that car's range....but what a great way to thumb your nose at those OPECers!!!

I guess the Smart ForTwo goes for $12,000 to $20,000. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861/) . I'm quickly losing hope because of the U.S.'s penchant for big ***** gas hogs that Mercedes will nix any major sales in the U.S. I don't know, though. ZAP (http://www.zapworld.com/about/news/news_$100-million.asp) has been logging some pretty big numbers. $100 million in orders---that's over 5,000 cars. Anything could happen, I guess.

[Roger1]

Sweet! That'd be perfect for around town! Unfortunately, I sometimes have to drive farther than that car's range....but what a great way to thumb your nose at those OPECers!!!


It would be good for me too. Most of my driving is on roads where the posted :D speed limit is 55mph or less. And, working 22 miles from home, A single $3.00 charge would possibly last me 2-3 days.

[pseudobrit]

It would be good for me too. Most of my driving is on roads where the posted :D speed limit is 55mph or less. And, working 22 miles from home, A single $3.00 charge would possibly last me 2-3 days.

It takes a lot of electricity to store that air, which returns low horsepower ratings.
The pollution is removed from the city, but this is yet another case of moving pollution rather than removing it.

[pseudobrit]

It stands to reason that the greatest efficiency you're ever likely to achieve in a car comes at the lowest speed at which you can shift into the highest gear (maximizing the the ratio of drive wheel RPMs to engine RPMs).

This would ideally be true, but engines produce different torque ratings at different RPMs. I can shift into 5th gear at 30mph, but the engine speed is below 1900rpml. At that rate, the unique torque plateau of to the TDI engine (it almost looks like a section of an electric motor's torque band) has yet to be reached, and the turbocharger is not engaged fully. Hitting the accelerator at such low gearing simply bogs down the engine and uses excess fuel.

Furthermore, at those engine speeds and throttle inputs, excess soot is generated in the exhaust, which is recirculated via an EGR valve, and causes economy- and performance-choking hard cabron buildup in the intake manifold over a few tens of thousands of miles.

Every vehicle, due to unique aerodyamic (everyone should know the cD of their car), motor (everyone should know what the torque band of their motor looks like) and gearing performance, has a sweet spot where all the factors intersect favorably.

It's up the driver to then combine all this information with their particular commuting needs to find an ideal compromise between speed and economy.

Or, you can just ride up the ass of a tractor trailer and use his draft.

After that, you're fighting a losing battle against drag -- and the inherent inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine. Not only does it stand to reason, that's what all the sources I've read say about the subject.

Hell, even a bicycle's engine is inefficient -- we need loads of sugar to keep them running and they generate too much heat, not to mention when they go anaerobic and hit the lactate threshold.

The problem with the gasoline ICE is that it's outrageously inefficient, with something along the order of 75-80% of available power never even getting out of the motor, let alone down to the wheels.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to decide whether to take my efficient bike for a ride or take my relatively inefficient legs for a hike with my similarly inefficient dog. :)

[Roger1]

True, but depending on where my elecrtricity is coming from (solar, tidal, wind-generated, wherever :D ) the amount of pollution generated may be (or may not be) less that that produced by an internal combustion engine. As for low horsepower ratings, this particular vehicle can go appoximately 65 miles per hour, which is fine for 90% of my needs.

edit: BTW, you can your dog to be more efficient of you can get him to walk in a straight line (good luck :p )

[crazytom]

I guess ZAP has passed half a billion (http://www.zapworld.com/about/news/news_smarthalfbillion.asp) in U.S. orders for the smart (over 27,000 cars assuming an average of $18K per car)! I'd love to put my hat in the ring to get one, but my wife is going back to school for two years, so all the money we've saved up has to go to silly little things like food and mortgage payments. :(

[pseudobrit]

True, but depending on where my elecrtricity is coming from (solar, tidal, wind-generated, wherever :D ) the amount of pollution generated may be (or may not be) less that that produced by an internal combustion engine.

You don't get to cherry-pick your electric energy source unless you're generating it yourself at home.

It's like those silly slacktivism gasouts (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/gasout.htm). They do nothing to reduce the overall need for energy. There are "green" energy companies that generate electricity from only renewable sources.

The problem is that, were the grid soup, it would not be a table full of bowls (wind, solar, coal, oil, nuclear), it'd be a huge pot that we all spoon from. It doesn't matter whether you only ask for the healthy bits, because you're still reducing the amount of soup in the pot from which everyone else eats too.

In my state, coal provides the majority of power, with nuclear giving about half of that. The irony is that the coal plants spread more radioactive fallout than the nuclear plants, because coal always contains amounts of radium and uranium.

As for low horsepower ratings, this particular vehicle can go appoximately 65 miles per hour, which is fine for 90% of my needs.

Remember the old Beetle ads?

0-60? Yes. :D

I don't like the idea of driving around in a 25hp car where I live. I've had the turbo cut out on my car and reduce it to around 50-60 hp and it wasn't fun trying to keep it at the speed limit on steeper hills (it proved to be impossible on some hills). Oh, it'd go 65 easily on the flat highway. But start up a hill and look out!

[IJ Reilly]

This would ideally be true, but engines produce different torque ratings at different RPMs. I can shift into 5th gear at 30mph, but the engine speed is below 1900rpml. At that rate, the unique torque plateau of to the TDI engine (it almost looks like a section of an electric motor's torque band) has yet to be reached, and the turbocharger is not engaged fully. Hitting the accelerator at such low gearing simply bogs down the engine and uses excess fuel.

Very little is ideal when it comes to automobile engines... but we have to assume constant speeds. Clearly, if you try to accelerate at a too-high gear ratio, the engine will lug and become even less efficient. Diesel engines are also a different sort of animal; from what I understand they are very efficient at constant speeds but not nearly so when frequent acceleration and deceleration is required (especially if you add a turbocharger).

[Chip NoVaMac]

I guess ZAP has passed half a billion (http://www.zapworld.com/about/news/news_smarthalfbillion.asp) in U.S. orders for the smart (over 27,000 cars assuming an average of $18K per car)! I'd love to put my hat in the ring to get one, but my wife is going back to school for two years, so all the money we've saved up has to go to silly little things like food and mortgage payments. :(

Sorry about my previous post. Thought the smartCar was to be done by Mercedes.

[Roger1]

You don't get to cherry-pick your electric energy source unless you're generating it yourself at home.

Remember the old Beetle ads?

0-60? Yes. :D

I don't like the idea of driving around in a 25hp car where I live. I've had the turbo cut out on my car and reduce it to around 50-60 hp and it wasn't fun trying to keep it at the speed limit on steeper hills (it proved to be impossible on some hills). Oh, it'd go 65 easily on the flat highway. But start up a hill and look out!


I know I don't get to cherry-pick my energy source. The way I worded it was meant to be humorous. As for the old Beetle ads, I don't remember them, but having driven in a Beetle, that ad sounds very accurate. :D

As for low horsepower cars, I used to own a 1988 Ford Festiva. It had roughly 50 horsepower, and getting onto the highway in morning rush hour used to get my blood pumping :eek:

Now that my commute is easier, the low horsepower probably wouldn't be an issue. And at 42 mpg, I ought to start looking for another Festiva.

[takao]

The problem is that, were the grid soup, it would not be a table full of bowls (wind, solar, coal, oil, nuclear), it'd be a huge pot that we all spoon from. It doesn't matter whether you only ask for the healthy bits, because you're still reducing the amount of soup in the pot from which everyone else eats too.

In my state, coal provides the majority of power, with nuclear giving about half of that. The irony is that the coal plants spread more radioactive fallout than the nuclear plants, because coal always contains amounts of radium and uranium.

well even here it's the same (with 65%+ produced by water-powerplants in all fashions ) .. those at the rivers for constant power and those big dams for the peaks at lunch ,monring and the whole evening... and during the night they are buying power from other companies or countries to pump up the water again and somtimes they are buying the power from nuclear plants because that one is dirty cheap (which in austria caused a lot of protests towards the power companies.. austria is ovrwhelming anti nuclear power)
the remaining 35 something percent are mainlycaloric powerplants (coal,oil,earth-gas, 2-3 garbage plants *grasp* and some methan powerplants in plants which clean the water ... how are they called in english ?



Remember the old Beetle ads?

0-60? Yes. :D

I don't like the idea of driving around in a 25hp car where I live. I've had the turbo cut out on my car and reduce it to around 50-60 hp and it wasn't fun trying to keep it at the speed limit on steeper hills (it proved to be impossible on some hills). Oh, it'd go 65 easily on the flat highway. But start up a hill and look out!

doesn't the beetle have 34 hp ?(at least the one of my friend does) and please don't forget that the beetle was much lighter than the cars nowadays (i remember how we lifted the whole chassis from the rest with like 4 people and non were bodybuilders ;) )
and judging fro mthe comments i got from my mother,father and the other owners they are amusing to drive up a hill because they perform much better than you would think and of course ... being aircooled is the biggest advantage
now guess why the "new beetle" nowhere sold as bad as in germany and austria... only beaten by the Bora perhaps...;)

but for today it's MPG rating is absolute crap ... our 1989 espace needs less and that is a gas guzzler with like 4 times the HP
ironically the most fuel saving car we had were our old citroen with it's 55HP diesel without a turbo ;) thanks to plastics on the outside the thing was a big saver even with being from the 80ties

[crazytom]

Sorry about my previous post. Thought the smartCar was to be done by Mercedes.


I was wondering about that...

You're right, Mercedes makes the smartCar...it's just that ZAP has been licensed to buy them and 'Americanizing' them for sale (making them compliant with emissions, etc.). Mercedes is dragging their heels about a production line of U.S. compliant smartcars. They've completely pulled their 'SUV' line and have pushed off introducing the ForTwo (2 seater) until late 2006-07. So you won't see any smarts at any dealerships...you currently have to special order them from ZAP.

Slightly off topic, zap has an ePod (http://www.zapworld.com/cars/epod.asp) that is compatible with an iPod!

[zimv20]

from what I understand they are very efficient at constant speeds but not nearly so when frequent acceleration and deceleration is required (especially if you add a turbocharger).
i'd say it's all relative. i drive my diesel ('98 VW New Beetle TDi) aggressively in the city, with a turbo, and still get 40 mpg. it's almost all either wind up or slow down.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I was wondering about that...

You're right, Mercedes makes the smartCar...it's just that ZAP has been licensed to buy them and 'Americanizing' them for sale (making them compliant with emissions, etc.). Mercedes is dragging their heels about a production line of U.S. compliant smartcars. They've completely pulled their 'SUV' line and have pushed off introducing the ForTwo (2 seater) until late 2006-07. So you won't see any smarts at any dealerships...you currently have to special order them from ZAP.

I had heard that is that M-B is having some money woes, and is concerned that the "gas hungry" American market would not warm up to small, fuel efficient, edgy designed cars. Too bad. With a great dealer network, they could have done pretty well IMO.

[IJ Reilly]

i'd say it's all relative. i drive my diesel ('98 VW New Beetle TDi) aggressively in the city, with a turbo, and still get 40 mpg. it's almost all either wind up or slow down.

What do you get cruising at highway speeds? I suspect your penalty for local driving is somewhat greater than for a conventional gasoline engine.

[zimv20]

What do you get cruising at highway speeds?
when i'm able to set the cruise and not have to mess with it, i've gotten 65 mpg. (though a good bit of that tank particular tank went to city driving, so that 65 is lower than it actually was).

[Chip NoVaMac]

when i'm able to set the cruise and not have to mess with it, i've gotten 65 mpg. (though a good bit of that tank particular tank went to city driving, so that 65 is lower than it actually was).

All the more reason for the US to move towards diesel cars. I would have loved buying something other than a VW for a "cheap" diesel car. (Sorry, had a '98 New Beetle GLS - had nothing but problems in 3 years and 48k miles - glad to hear that you are one of the lucky ones)

[Desertrat]

takao, the engine sequence for VW Beetles (US imports are all I know about.) began with the 36hp 1,200 cc. Then a different shape of some parts and a 40hp 1,200 cc. Then 1,300 (50hp?) and then the 1,600. These were all the upright fan motors. They went to the flat-fan "Poor Man's Porsche" motor with the 1,700 cc version, but only in the later-model buses.

The Beetle got discontinued in, what, 1973 or so? I lost track. They were stilll being made in Mexico until a very few years ago, selling for $4,000 to $5,000. No anti-smog stuff or 5mph bumpers.

I bought and rebuilt numerous Beetles and buses. Cheap transportation, particularly when I found one with a blownup motor. But I never got more than around 28mpg from a Beetle unless I ran it way too lean for durability. Exhaust valve seats were a real weak spot.

You can improve the fuel consumption of a VW bus by carrying a canoe on top. True fact! :D

[mactastic]

I don't doubt it. I had a '75 VW bus for my first car when I was 16. Had a lot of fun with that car, but the aerodynamic qualities were slightly lacking. I still managed to put a whole heck of a lot of miles on it. And kegs of beer in it. :D

[Desertrat]

Well, Chip, lessee:

"Trouble "Rat is that as long you have yours, you don't seem to care about the rest of us. Free markets are all OK. But at the same point those that scream about the market dictating choices fail to allow the same choices in social issues like Gay marriage, living wages, and the such."

What I'd want for you and anybody else is that you have it as good or, I hope, even better than what I've had or have now. Don't lump me in with your screamers. However, I don't think living wages is a social issue.

"Yes, China is a "minor" issue IMO at this point. But it is or greed as a country that has allowed China's need and desire for more energy to be the problem that we have at this point."

Seems to me that you've not realized that the developing world is indeed developing, and they have the same desires for toys as you and I. You and I and a couple of hundred million others have sent enough profits to China that they can now afford cars and to build highways for them. They're tired of ox-carts and bicycles. China and India and other countries are not minor issues; their demands are what are causing the incredible rise in all commodities, these last few years. (Last year, China used some 50% of all cement used worldwide. Something like 43% of the steel, IIRC.)

"Add to that we have the Oil Barons in control of the administration at this point. Please don't be so blind to think that if we did not have Bush and Cheney in control that we would not have had better policies in place to prevent the run up as we have had."

I was reading one analyst who commented that a change in output (up or down) of merely two million barrels per day is enough to make a large percentage change in oil costs. The present world demand is 80 million bpd. So, offer the beginnings of a policy?

"I support your right to have the vehicle f your choice, At the same point your choice should not be on the backs off those that may find even a 40mpg+ car hard to afford."

The CAFE is 28.5, right? Or, near that? So, as long as the CAFE is met, for every SUV there are many that do much better. I guess we have some disagreement about "on the backs of".

"And try not to hide behind just the price of gas that we pay. The rising costs of ALL fuels will probably not hurt you as much as they may hurt me or even those that are trying to make ends meet by working at Walmart, since we seem set on sending any well paying jobs off to Pakistan because of lower wages."

Look: All my life I worked at having more than one marketable talent/skill. I also spent a ton of time prognosticating the economic future of me and, as best I could, the world at large. IOW, this oil stuff is something I planned for since over two decades back. I believed M. King Hubbert, then and now. How am I responsible for the results of others' lack of learning?

"This country is going to Hell in a hand-basket because of the attitude of "I know what is best for me, to Hell with the rest of you". You may be a minority for a real need for the vehicles you have. For most it is about status. I remember not too long ago that the Avalon got 32 to 34 real MPG's. Now we think a full size car is good with 26 MPG's."

Just because people are eat up with ego, they still have the freedom to be stoopid. People think Starbucks is neat, but the Devil will be selling icecubes before you'll find me there.

"Greed has gotten out of control, not just in cars, but in everyday life. You have outer 'burbs fighting to save "farm land" (land that is not a real part of the farming effort) just so that they don't have to live next to those that teach, protect, and sell those that want their "farm land"."

That's all about freedom of choice. A choice of where and how to live. Some folks learn tax law and take advantage of it, as the IRS encourages people to do.

"You also seem to miss the point that with all the money we have wasted as a nation on wars and military build up, we could have made ourselves better able to weather situations like we now face."

Based on the history of the US Congress after the fall of the Berlin Wall, no. Remember the "Peace Dividend"? That money went to various social programs. Government money won't ever be spent in advance of need, in planning and executing against such things as the rest of the world's demand for oil. Government only reacts to crises, just as do most people.

"I hate to say it, but I do hope that we face the hardships of a World War that my parents did. Rationing and all. Then the gluttony may end. Do I need mention, that gluttony is a "sin" according to the Bible?"

I was seven when WW II started. I remember full well what rationing was all about. (Among family mementos are two ration coupon books--coupons gone. :) ) Further, I was raised on stories of what the Great Depression was like. That's a part of why I've never been "all eat up with the I-wants", which is another way of looking at gluttony. It's also part of why I've always looked ahead.

But it's a Creator-given right that others not do as I.

'Rat

[mactastic]

You're missing out 'Rat. Sure it isn't the only place that makes good coffee, but $tarbucks makes a damn good cup of coffee. Certainly a heck of a lot better than your average truck stop or Circle K. I know it's rumored to turn you liberal, but if you can resist their lefty-brainwashing-rays you'll get more caffeine than you can handle.

[IJ Reilly]

when i'm able to set the cruise and not have to mess with it, i've gotten 65 mpg. (though a good bit of that tank particular tank went to city driving, so that 65 is lower than it actually was).

There you go, about a 40% penalty for local driving, about what I'd expect from a diesel. For a gasoline engine, it's more like 25-30%.

[zimv20]

glad to hear that you are one of the lucky ones)
not quite:
- new engine @ 4800 miles
- transmission was never quite matched right, so sometimes it goes forward when put in reverse
- numerous electrical problems, including power windows, stereo, and power surges blowing out both headlights simultaneously

it's also a '98. but i've got only 35k miles on it (30k on the replacement engine).

[zimv20]

There you go, about a 40% penalty for local driving, about what I'd expect from a diesel. For a gasoline engine, it's more like 25-30%.
ah, i get what you're saying. my "normal" highway driving, which around here does involve a lot of braking and speeding up, gets me 50-55 mpg.

but _my_ point is, even at 40 mpg in the city, it's still way better than almost everything else out there.

[IJ Reilly]

ah, i get what you're saying. my "normal" highway driving, which around here does involve a lot of braking and speeding up, gets me 50-55 mpg.

but _my_ point is, even at 40 mpg in the city, it's still way better than almost everything else out there.

I know. I was just saying that diesel engines then to excel in situations where they can be run at constant speeds. They're even beginning to design diesels for use in light airplanes for that reason (and because the leaded fuel we use now is going to disappear some day).

[takao]

I know. I was just saying that diesel engines then to excel in situations where they can be run at constant speeds. They're even beginning to design diesels for use in light airplanes for that reason (and because the leaded fuel we use now is going to disappear some day).

hm which fuel is leaded ? that of airplanes ? or do you stil lget leaded fuel at the gas stations ?

[pseudobrit]

hm which fuel is leaded ? that of airplanes ? or do you stil lget leaded fuel at the gas stations ?

Certain types of avgas are still leaded.

[pseudobrit]

not quite:
- new engine @ 4800 miles
- transmission was never quite matched right, so sometimes it goes forward when put in reverse
- numerous electrical problems, including power windows, stereo, and power surges blowing out both headlights simultaneously

it's also a '98. but i've got only 35k miles on it (30k on the replacement engine).

Mine's a 2002 Golf built in Brasil (Beetle is built in Mexico) and has fared pretty well in its 36k mi. A few odds and ends have needed tweaking and fixing, and the dealership service departments are incompetent to the point of disgusting me, but I've been able to keep after most things myself.

My worst recorded tank (I keep a logbook) was 38mpg. That's when the motor was new, colder weather was moving in (no.1 fuel [kerosene] gets mixed in to lower the gel point) and I beat the living piss out of it on that tank.

The other wonderful thing about diesels is that they get more efficient as they age. It can take well over 50,000 miles for the piston rings to fully seat.

[IJ Reilly]

Certain types of avgas are still leaded.

All avgas is leaded. (Technically, Jet-A is jet fuel not avgas.)

Most general aviation aircraft in the fleet today (average age, 35 years) were designed to run on 80/86 octane leaded fuel. That grade has almost completely disappeared from airports around the country, forcing us to run our older airplanes on the only other grade available, 100 Low Lead (LL), which despite the name has more lead in it than 80/86. It's possible to run these engines on unleaded auto gas, but few choose this route -- it's impossible to find at airports, and running it all the time can do serious long-term harm to the valves and seats. In fact even running 100LL has some adverse consequences, but they're more manageable (plug fouling, mainly).

But the end is in sight. Only one refinery in the world (in the UK) makes TEL anymore and it's only a matter of time before they quit. The problem, so far unsolved, is finding another additive that does the job of TEL.

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit, unless there's been a restart, the Beetle factory in Mexico is closed. I disremember; two or three years back?

mac, I tend to hunt for mom'n'pop cafes off the Interstates for my coffee. :) Ya gotta remember that I live in a permanent state of sticker shock, what with experience in nickel coffee and showroom new car prices under $2,000. As late as 1971 I bought a new Chevy 3/4-ton van (my first new "car") for $3,100, turn the key and drive away.

Oh: By the way, world coffee prices have risen from 650 English pounds per tonne to 1,000 per ton. Hoard now, beat the rush.

:), 'Rat

[Chip NoVaMac]

pseudobrit, unless there's been a restart, the Beetle factory in Mexico is closed. I disremember; two or three years back?
:), 'Rat

IIRC the New Beetle was made in Mexico, and the old Beetle in Brazil. In the end who knows anyhow these days? :D

[zimv20]

IIRC the New Beetle was made in Mexico, and the old Beetle in Brazil. In the end who knows anyhow these days? :D
the remaining "old" beetle plant was in mexico and, as rat said, was shut down recently (2003, iirc).

you're correct that the new beetle is made in mexico. at least it was in '98.

[pseudobrit]

pseudobrit, unless there's been a restart, the Beetle factory in Mexico is closed. I disremember; two or three years back?

I'm referring to the New Beetle production, which still takes place in Mexico as does Jetta production for the NA market.

South Africa still produces the old Rabbit (which was the original Golf everywhere but here) chassis.

[groovebuster]

The problem with fuel efficiency and speed is the same I encounter on my bicycle: the faster you go, the more energy it takes to overcome the air drag. This is significant for any vehicle travelling at more than roughly 15mph.

And it's not linear. It increases as a square of your speed. Going 30mph takes four times the energy as 15mph, even though you're only going twice as fast.

I think this, moreso than the gearing factor, is the point you're trying to make.

I was following the whole discussion about better mileages at higher speeds and I just wanted to add my 0.02€... ;)

I was driving lots of different cars in my life by now (old one, new ones, tiny ones, huge ones, most of them standards) and I never drove a car so far that had a better mileage at 75 than at 55mph. Really never. And here in Germany I really was able to collect experience on that matter since wse don't have speed limits on many parts of our highways.

The so called "sweet spot" of most cars was between 55 and 65 mph. With a turbo charged Diesel (my current car is one, 115hp) the sweetspot is even around 30 mph, cruising in the highest gear around 1200rpm. Going faster than 65 mph was consuming more gas again, no matter with which car.

Last weekend I was doing a trip with my current Diesel of about 1300km. Since I had a trailer to pull with it I had an average speed of 55mph. My average fuel consumption was 4.7 liters of gas on 100kms which equals a mileage of a little bit more than 50mpg. Not too bad considering that part of the highway goes through some medium mountains up and down. Without a trailer I would get around 55 mpg. At 75 mph on the highway I get around 43 mpg.

I also tested the mileage when going constantly 30mph. I know, not a normal situation, because normally you have stop and go traffic in a city, but I was just curious. I got 70 mpg then. In the heavy traffic of Berlin I usually get around 35 mpg.

Oh... and I am not a slow driver but also not an aggressive one. Just mentioning it since ist also affects the mileage you get.

I am quit happy with my turbo charged Diesel. Never had a more fuel efficient car so far.

groovebuster

[Desertrat]

Ah, so. New Beetles made in Mexico. Thanx.

This whole deal about where cars are made, and where parts are made, is kinda intriguing when folks go to talking about quality control.

Bits and pieces: Buick V6 motors were (are still?) made in SE Asia. Wiring harnesses for Ford were (are still?) made in Brazil. Other stuff from other countries, etc.

Then I run across a squib in Consumer Reports which says that US-assembled Hondas have fewer warranty comebacks than those brought from Japan. And, productivity in US plants for BMW and Mercedes is better than in Germany. In the April 18 Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria says more Big Three cars are made in Ontario, Canada, than in Michigan.

So how does one speak of comparative quality control between countries of manufacture? Why is it fashionable to bash the US? :) Folks holler, "I want the quality of a Mercedes!" And, "Chevys are lousy!" The first car is US-made, and the second is from Canada. Go figure...

:D, 'Rat

[groovebuster]

when i'm able to set the cruise and not have to mess with it, i've gotten 65 mpg. (though a good bit of that tank particular tank went to city driving, so that 65 is lower than it actually was).
Sorry, but I know the car you are driving myself (my uncle had one) and your numbers are just impossible. That would make 3.6l/100km in "european style" including some city traffic... Maybe your mileometer shows kilometers instead and you didn't notice. There is definately something wrong with your numbers, they are way off from what VW published themselves for this model for a constant speed of 55 mph or 65 mph and they are already very "optimistic" about numbers like that.

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

So how does one speak of comparative quality control between countries of manufacture? Why is it fashionable to bash the US? :) Folks holler, "I want the quality of a Mercedes!" And, "Chevys are lousy!" The first car is US-made, and the second is from Canada. Go figure..

The QA and the location where a car is assembled is only part of the whole story that a customer is experiencing as "felt quality". The whole engineering process how the car and all the pasrt are constructed, the materials that are used and in which way are also important.

Your statement brings something totally dieffernt to light... Mercedes was able to install their (german) high quality standards in a plant in the US, the car is well engineered and QA works in the plant and with the part makers. On the other hand Chevrolet seem to lack all of these things then.

I don't think that the location where something is manufactured really has an impact anymore. It is all depending on the company behind it with it's culture and how good the engineering and QA folks are.

Go figure... ;)

groovebuster

[skunk]

I don't think that the location where something is manufactured really has an impact anymore. It is all depending on the company behind it with it's culture and how good the engineering and QA folks are.My friend who has a garage says that Mercedes build quality has gone right downhill lately.

[mischief]

The QA and the location where a car is assembled is only part of the whole story that a customer is experiencing as "felt quality". The whole engineering process how the car and all the pasrt are constructed, the materials that are used and in which way are also important.

(snip)... Mercedes was able to install their (german) high quality standards in a plant in the US, the car is well engineered and QA works in the plant and with the part makers. On the other hand Chevrolet seem to lack all of these things then.

I don't think that the location where something is manufactured really has an impact anymore. It is all depending on the company behind it with it's culture and how good the engineering and QA folks are.

I would tend to agree. Americans are hard working and take well to an efficient system of manufacture. We're criminally bad at doing that efficiency ourselves however.

Plus there's certainly the design issue to think about:

Ford, for example has amazingly bad ergonomics and interface design in their cars. The seats are only comfortable for a few seconds, the layout of the dash and cabin are awkward as hell. Add to this a terrible reputation for design SNAFUs (like their infamous SUV suspension) and hodgepodge of parts from one model to the next and you have a car not worth owning.

Toyota, on the other hand has excellent, thoughtful design where anything you need from the driver's seat can be brushed by the fingertips in a logical progression if you simply lift one hand or the other and allow it to descend in an arc to either the gear shift or the armrest. Gotta love a cockpit you can navigate blindfolded. Open the hood and it's the same thoughtfully organized, tightly packed story: Wiring secured to surfaces in color coded, flat bundles that stay in order as they traverse the engine compartment; caps and dipsticks clear and visible; battery unobscured and easily removed; etc, etc.

Now GM has an interesting mix... They own a significant chunk of Toyota (not outright, nor controlling but quite a bit) and have some design agreements with them. As a result there are several instances of design crossover or sharing of design themes. The upshot of this is that Toyota is building better trucks and GM is building better small cars.

I think the two worst cars I've ever sat in for interface would have to be:

The previous Mustang (2002 model) V8, which had it's cockpit layout so badly layed out that rapid shifting would result in either switching the foglights on/off or turning on the rear defroster, and this was the simplest of the getting-in-it's-own-way problems with that cockpit. The Mustang is bigger and taller than the Celica of the same year but the visibility is worse.... I was disgusted. Plus on the V8 Auto model, the engine is so overpowered that shifting into Drive before disengaging the e-brake results in creep until you effectively stand on the brake pedal.

The Lincoln Navigator from a few years back ('98?). Take all of the above complaints about the 'stang and add the fact that the driver has access to SIX cupholders. SIX. What the hell is the point of SIX cupholders for the driver? One in the door, one moulded into the dash, one in the console, one that pops out under the stereo and one that flips out of the console storage compartment. All of these are paired for a total of twelve cupholders in the front seat. Rediculous. How about spending that same time/money on getting the designers to sit in the damn car for a sec and see how well they can navigate in reverse?

[IJ Reilly]

The Lincoln Navigator from a few years back ('98?). Take all of the above complaints about the 'stang and add the fact that the driver has access to SIX cupholders. SIX. What the hell is the point of SIX cupholders for the driver? One in the door, one moulded into the dash, one in the console, one that pops out under the stereo and one that flips out of the console storage compartment. All of these are paired for a total of twelve cupholders in the front seat. Rediculous. How about spending that same time/money on getting the designers to sit in the damn car for a sec and see how well they can navigate in reverse?

Actually, I think this is a perfect (if unintentional) allegory for the person who would own a Lincoln Navigator.

[jefhatfield]

Oh no! The gas prices are on the move. $2.50 for diesel and $2.45 for premium! Lets see its close to $70 to fill up my Rovers and $55 to fill up my E320 CDI.

I feel bad for people that have even more gas guzzling cars like my fathers denali and bently or one of the millions of full size SUV owners. My fathers denali would be close to $100.000 with regular fuel to fill up!

I know I shouldn't be complaining because it was me who bought 2 SUVs. But even for small cars its still expensive. Yes I know in Europe its like $5 a gallon but we have a bit of a different life style.

Does anyone know the projected gas prices

i used to worry about gas prices in the 1970s here in america but when i went to england in 1985 and saw the prices, i never again complained

we still have it very, very good in america

[mischief]

Actually, I think this is a perfect (if unintentional) allegory for the person who would own a Lincoln Navigator.

Actually, both rants are perfect allegories for their target markets. It wasn't intentional but I did see the irony the second I made the observations... let alone while ranting about them here.

"More cupholders!! More seat padding!! (Fake) leather and (fake) wood on every surface!! Automatic locks, windows, seats, rear view mirror and a TV in the back to shut the kids up!!!! "

I only object to these vehicles in that they don't spontaneously combust more often. These are the people that make me yearn for the days when we had appropriate predation with only a sharp stick and our wits for protection. The days when this sort of wanton, mindless excess with no regard or desire for quality got you quietly killed whilst you peed in the bushes around the corner from the cave entrance.

Americans may never understand that standard of living is meaningless garbage once you have water, sanitation and shelter but QUALITY OF LIFE is essential and without it no quantity of plasma TVs, heated seats, Playstations or cupholders will ever be enough.

QUALITY over QUANTITY in all things my mindless young sheep of a country. :mad:

[jefhatfield]

I thing this whole gas increase issue will end up being very good for highway safety. Higher priced gas equals fewer and fewer suv's on the road.

Am I the only person that thinks we should have a law that states if you are caught using you cell phone while speeding in an suv, you should be charged with attempted murder?

it's actually more like "suicide" when you drive an suv...remember that somewhere around 30% of all highway deaths are drivers or passengers of suv rollovers

when i first started driving, many thought that big, stiff cars like the american made boat-mobiles were the safest but there were these pesky european engineers who were toying with the idea of a crumple zone ;)

[zimv20]

Sorry, but I know the car you are driving myself (my uncle had one) and your numbers are just impossible.
dunno what to tell you, that's how the numbers calc'ed out. i'd say allow some error for reading the gas gauge. i'd gotten close to 60 before, and because this time i was driving in the dead of night on an practically abandoned highway, i could go for a long time without touching any pedals.

[mactastic]

And how much do Mom and Pop charge for a latte 'Rat? How much does $tarbucks charge for a cup of coffee? In my experience they are pretty close to the same cost for both products. Only place I've found cheap coffee is at the Circle Ks or AM PMs. And life's too short to drink that stuff!

Live a little. $tarbucks makes an excellent cup o' coffee. 2Tbsp grounds per 6oz of water. That's how coffee should be. If you can find Mom and Pops to support by all means do so. But when it's a choice between some sludge that may have been on the burner for 12 hours and the green sign... ;)

And yes, coffee prices are going up rapidly. But I don't use nearly as much coffee as I do gas, even at 2Tbsp/6oz. Thus the pain will be much less.

[mischief]

And how much do Mom and Pop charge for a latte 'Rat? How much does $tarbucks charge for a cup of coffee? In my experience they are pretty close to the same cost for both products. Only place I've found cheap coffee is at the Circle Ks or AM PMs. And life's too short to drink that stuff!

Live a little. $tarbucks makes an excellent cup o' coffee. 2Tbsp grounds per 6oz of water. That's how coffee should be. If you can find Mom and Pops to support by all means do so. But when it's a choice between some sludge that may have been on the burner for 12 hours and the green sign... ;)

And yes, coffee prices are going up rapidly. But I don't use nearly as much coffee as I do gas, even at 2Tbsp/6oz. Thus the pain will be much less.

Sacrilege!

Starbucks is the M$ of coffeeshops!! The Macdonalds of coffee!!

I have to fight tooth and nail to keep the coffee buying pubic educated as to what they're buying!

Goddammit "Grande" IS NOT A SIZE!!! A "Wet" Latte is nothing new and nothing to be proud of, it's a mark of a lazy and badly trained Barrista!! Any espresso drink is either single, double, tripple, quad regardless of cup size!!

And most of all.... An espresso drink should come out of an espresso machine, not an espresso maker. It's like getting a microwaved burger from MacDonalds. Grrr...... $tarbucks is polluting the datastream of what is otherwise a wonderfully ellegant and simple industry. It's like M$ trying to write their own 'nix to kill the opensource version.


That three dollar house blend costs them $.75. That markup is why the mom and pops started buying $4000.00 Pavoni espresso machines.

[IJ Reilly]

So the topic has migrated from one kind of go-juice to another? Not surprising somehow.

BTW, I don't drink coffee except out of occasional desperation. I drink tea -- the second most popular beverage on the planet, after water.

Also, tea is a whole lot cheaper than coffee, and better for you besides!

[takao]

offtopic:
side question: what's a "burner" ?

(from what i've heard Starbucks seems to be indeed the mcdonalds of coffee with the only difference that most people who have visited both, liked mcdonalds better... oh please mcdonalds when do you offer burgers with _real_ bread...that would really improve the taste by far)

[IJ Reilly]

offtopic:
side question: what's a "burner" ?

(from what i've heard Starbucks seems to be indeed the mcdonalds of coffee with the only difference that most people who have visited both, liked mcdonalds better... oh please mcdonalds when do you offer burgers with _real_ bread...that would really improve the taste by far)

Real meat would also help.

[mactastic]

Sacrilege!

Starbucks is the M$ of coffeeshops!! The Macdonalds of coffee!!

I have to fight tooth and nail to keep the coffee buying pubic educated as to what they're buying!

Goddammit "Grande" IS NOT A SIZE!!! A "Wet" Latte is nothing new and nothing to be proud of, it's a mark of a lazy and badly trained Barrista!! Any espresso drink is either single, double, tripple, quad regardless of cup size!!

And most of all.... An espresso drink should come out of an espresso machine, not an espresso maker. It's like getting a microwaved burger from MacDonalds. Grrr...... $tarbucks is polluting the datastream of what is otherwise a wonderfully ellegant and simple industry. It's like M$ trying to write their own 'nix to kill the opensource version.


That three dollar house blend costs them $.75. That markup is why the mom and pops started buying $4000.00 Pavoni espresso machines.

Stuff it. You have a Peete's nearby. I gotta work with what I've got.

Edit - What I mean to say is that sometimes you have to go to work with the coffee you've got, not the coffee you want. :D

[pseudobrit]

Then I run across a squib in Consumer Reports which says that US-assembled Hondas have fewer warranty comebacks than those brought from Japan. And, productivity in US plants for BMW and Mercedes is better than in Germany. In the April 18 Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria says more Big Three cars are made in Ontario, Canada, than in Michigan.

Merc makes the M Class of vehicles in Alabama, and the reliability of these vehicles have been crap since day one. BMW makes its Z series and perhaps the 3 series SUV in Spartansburg, SC which have had somewhat okay reliability. (Aside: As I was being bussed through the south a few years back I somehow ended up driving past both plants in one day)

So how does one speak of comparative quality control between countries of manufacture? Why is it fashionable to bash the US? :) Folks holler, "I want the quality of a Mercedes!" And, "Chevys are lousy!" The first car is US-made, and the second is from Canada. Go figure...

On the contrary, I don't think place of manufacture has anything to do with quality at all. As has been noted, all Mercedes-Benz vehicles have been suffering from horrid quality control and reliability took a nosedive.
Other European companies sadly seem to be falling over themselves to catch up with this suckiness.

MB shot itself back around 1995, when it stopped building cars to a [b]standard[b] and started building them to a price. It's been downhill ever since. I wouldn't buy one today, be it a junk US-made M Class or a junk German-made (C,E,S) Class.

The big three make crap cars with crap reliability. If a car excels at one and not the other (a great but unreliable car or a lacklustre but very reliable car) I'll consider it, but they seem to be lacking in both enough that I wouldn't "buy American" today.

That's been my experience and the proof is in the pudding of Consumers Union's annual report.

I'll generalise a little here, but with few exceptions: they're not fun to drive, steering is sloppy and handling imprecise, they're uncomfortable on long drives, braking is subpar, cockpit layout is counterintuitive and the inside materials are cheap feeling and break easily. They get lower gas mileage than they should and don't last as long as they should. Many, especially SUVs and trucks are massively overpriced because the market is/was too hot.

Chevys are lousy, but so is a new Mercedes-Benz.

[pseudobrit]

offtopic:
side question: what's a "burner" ?

On a coffee machine, it's the heating element underneath the pot of coffee that keeps the beverage hot after it brews.

[takao]

On a coffee machine, it's the heating element underneath the pot of coffee that keeps the beverage hot after it brews.


thx, didn't knew that they keep the coffee on those plates in the US but i'm no coffee drinker

on mercedes benz: they tried to do too much in too short of a time and now they are in trouble and it all kinda started when they fusioned with chrylser (but rather small problems compared to GM whou seriously think about shutting down Opel which ironically is 7 years older than GM and has been producing bicycles for some additional years .. )

thank god we've got a pre 1995 C-klasse ... the onlyp roblem we've had was with the non-factory software which has been installed before we've bought it ..now running with the original software...tada working fine again

[Desertrat]

I do all my own vehicle maintenance; always have. Needless to say, for the mechanics among us, nothing out there is "mechanic-friendly". Toyota used to be not so bad, for the 4-bangers, but the V-6s have the oil filter where even a video rental repo man couldn't find it.

Lotsa stuff: Change plugs? Adjust valves? What used to be a fairly quick deal now takes forty forevers. All manner of STUFF in the way!

Toyota put the clutch slave cylinder INSIDE the bell-housing! What used to be an easy fix now means an R&R on the transmission! (Others have done the same.) They're too cheap to change the transmission casting to allow relocating the slave cylinder farther from the exhaust pipe--so they change the casting and put it inside. Duh? And the '85 4WD PU is the last year of the durable front axle. They changed to double wishbone in 1986, and those things crumple if you bang a rock in the back country. Grump.

I will say I'm pleased with my '00 GMC PU XtraCab. I can drive cross country without killing my back, and it will haul a lot of stuff as well as pull a trailer. That 5.3 V8 seems to be a really good motor. 35,000 miles in the 15 months I've had it (85K total), and no problems yet. It's as close to a do-everything as I've found, except it obviously ain't a good around-town critter; too big and fat.

mac, I've back-and-forthed around the US enough that I have a fairly complete mental listing of "good" and "avoid!" cafes in beaucoup small towns. Particularly focussed on the coffee and the pecan pie. :)

'Rat

[mischief]

Stuff it. You have a Peete's nearby. I gotta work with what I've got.

Edit - What I mean to say is that sometimes you have to go to work with the coffee you've got, not the coffee you want. :D

I will admit that when there's nothing else and I must have a fix I'll patronize the accursed Green Lady of No Cleavage. ;)

However....

The best roaster in town (http://www.brewbar.com/moreblends.htm) has a web presence, so you can order by mail or UPS straight from the web by the five pound bag. I recommend the Beethoven's Blend, the Santa Cruz Dark and the Tres Americas.

The best (and most rolling blackout proof) drip coffee maker (http://www.chemex-store.com/index.html) ever made.

The best solution for Espresso (http://fantes.com/espresso_stovetop.htm#stainless) in the home kitchen short of a Pavoni (http://www.lapavoni.com/Shopping/Shopping.asp?stato=1&cat=6&lang=2).

And of course you'll need a way to get your coffee to go (http://www.thermosonline.com/?OVRAW=thermos&OVKEY=thermos&OVMTC=standard).

I should also point out that I used to work for the above roasting company and currently work as a bartender/barrista so I tend to be pickier than many. ;)

[iGary]

Regular is around 2.70 out in California.

I reserved a comoact for that very reason, and they were out at the rental place, so they offered me an Infiniti (read V8) - I was like, no I'll wait for the car wash.

I eventually got talked into a Jeep Liberty upgrade for free. Can't wait to fill it up. :rolleyes:

Now, there are all these oil wells out here - why is gas so expensive?

[mactastic]

I will admit that when there's nothing else and I must have a fix I'll patronize the accursed Green Lady of No Cleavage. ;)

However....

The best roaster in town (http://www.brewbar.com/moreblends.htm) has a web presence, so you can order by mail or UPS straight from the web by the five pound bag. I recommend the Beethoven's Blend, the Santa Cruz Dark and the Tres Americas.

The best (and most rolling blackout proof) drip coffee maker (http://www.chemex-store.com/index.html) ever made.

The best solution for Espresso (http://fantes.com/espresso_stovetop.htm#stainless) in the home kitchen short of a Pavoni (http://www.lapavoni.com/Shopping/Shopping.asp?stato=1&cat=6&lang=2).

And of course you'll need a way to get your coffee to go (http://www.thermosonline.com/?OVRAW=thermos&OVKEY=thermos&OVMTC=standard).

I should also point out that I used to work for the above roasting company and currently work as a bartender/barrista so I tend to be pickier than many. ;)

Lol, believe me, I grew up there. I've spent a fair amount of time in the local coffee joints. My wife was a barista for Peete's for a number of years, and their pretty good (or at least were 5 years ago) about training their people in the ways of the bean.

Right now we're using a Black and Decker vaccuum coffee maker. It makes a great cup of coffee. I'm always telling myself it's time to start ordering it online, but what with the vairiability in the amount we drink it's hard to pick a schedule that's adequate but not overkill. Someday...

I keep my to-go stuff in an Outdoor Research travel mug, with a Nissan thermos for backup when I need to double up. We have a pair of each of those. ;)

And yes, when I get to design our kitchen it will probably include some kind of built in espresso hardwear. Something with a goodly number of bars of pressure.

Speaking of which, it's time for a refill...

[iGary]

Lol, believe me, I grew up there. I've spent a fair amount of time in the local coffee joints. My wife was a barista for Peete's for a number of years, and their pretty good (or at least were 5 years ago) about training their people in the ways of the bean.

Right now we're using a Black and Decker vaccuum coffee maker. It makes a great cup of coffee. I'm always telling myself it's time to start ordering it online, but what with the vairiability in the amount we drink it's hard to pick a schedule that's adequate but not overkill. Someday...

I keep my to-go stuff in an Outdoor Research travel mug, with a Nissan thermos for backup when I need to double up. We have a pair of each of those. ;)

And yes, when I get to design our kitchen it will probably include some kind of built in espresso hardwear. Something with a gooly number of bars of pressure.

Speaking of which, it's time for a refill...

I'm enjoying a cup of Travelodge's best. :eek: :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

:D iGary, coming late to the party, asked, "Now, there are all these oil wells out here - why is gas so expensive?" :D

When the supply of anyuthing is farily constant, but the demand is notably increasing, Economics 101 tells us that the price will increase. Gasoline or hotel rooms or nylon undies: Alllasamee.

:), 'Rat

[iGary]

:D iGary, coming late to the party, asked, "Now, there are all these oil wells out here - why is gas so expensive?" :D

When the supply of anyuthing is farily constant, but the demand is notably increasing, Economics 101 tells us that the price will increase. Gasoline or hotel rooms or nylon undies: Alllasamee.

:), 'Rat

You think I was gonna read all 7 pages of this thread? :p :D

[Roger1]

You should've read it. It's a good thread. At least it was until somebody hijacked it and started talking about <GAG> coffee .




:p

[mactastic]

Ah nothing stays on topic for 5 pages... Besides, 'Rat brought it up! :p

[IJ Reilly]

Ah nothing stays on topic for 5 pages... Besides, 'Rat brought it up! :p

So, what about them Dodgers? :D

[jelloshotsrule]

while i am all about reducing gas use, increasing gas prices even higher affects *primarily* those who can afford it least. in other words, joe suburban accountant/lawyer/doctor/etc can still afford to drive their suv everyday by themselves, as the extra 30 bucks a fill doesn't put a dent in his pocketbook.

whereas, joe janitor who's been forced to live further and further from his job in the city because of skyrocketing housing costs (especially bad in DC area), driving his 87 buick gets hit incredibly hard by the rising costs.


in the end, higher gas costs still may have the effect of promoting increased efficiency and reduction in consumption, but i still think that there are so many other factors that affect how much one drives (cost of living in urban areas as many have discussed, lack of public transport, etc) that unless governments and city planners get their acts in gear to solve all the issues, the gas price issue won't help as many as it will hurt...

[Thanatoast]

I heard a rumor that new formulations of gasoline about to be put into production would drive the price up to around four dollars a gallon by next year. The guy I heard this from is selling his WRX and looking into a Prius, so take that as you will. Will $4-gallon gasoline finally get our attention?

Does everyone think this price would drive us more towards drilling in ANWR and Bush's energy bill or more towards conservation and alternative energy. Regardless, if it happens we're screwed for the next 5-10 years anyway.

[IJ Reilly]

Don't expect much from city planners. They have no power to do anything of significance in our country (by design, really). I know, because I used to be one. I gave it up out of the constant frustration of having no constituency to support what I was trying to accomplish anywhere in the political infrastructure.

[mactastic]

Don't expect much from city planners. They have no power to do anything of significance in our country (by design, really). I know, because I used to be one. I gave it up out of the constant frustration of having no constituency to support what I was trying to accomplish anywhere in the political infrastructure.


I'll second that. Sad thing is, the City and Regional Planning majors I knew in college were definetly idealistically driven to do something about the problems facing cities. Unfortunately, even I knew most of them were doomed to careers of frustration.

BTW, nice of you to stop by Jello... haven't seen you down here in the sewer for a while. ;)

[pseudobrit]

Does everyone think this price would drive us more towards drilling in ANWR and Bush's energy bill or more towards conservation and alternative energy. Regardless, if it happens we're screwed for the next 5-10 years anyway.

No, no. 5-10 years? When it comes to oil, we're screwed forever.

All the really cheap stuff's gone. There's enough total to go around, but it gets increasingly difficult and more expensive to pull it up.

Enough to fuel cars? At any price, yes, but that price will not be low enough to support America's current state of energy use.

Since we're in no position to grow out of this phase, we will continue to consume this increasingly expensive oil for quite some time until rapidly rising oil prices, falling wages and inflation conspire to create a separating point where more and more people fall out of the oil flow, and to a greater extent, the energy flow.

We are facing a crisis in this nation. It looms large over us, but we don't give a ****, 'cause we're still living like it's 1957 or 1997.
I think in the near future, perhaps in ten years, somewhere between 50-70% of the average American's income will be going to pay for healthcare and energy costs combined.
Disposable income on the scale we've become accustomed to will be a thing of the past for many Americans.

[mischief]

I think in the near future, perhaps in ten years, somewhere between 50-70% of the average American's income will be going to pay for healthcare and energy costs combined.
Disposable income on the scale we've become accustomed to will be a thing of the past for many Americans.

But you can be happy in feeling secure under the new regime citizen.

[jelloshotsrule]

who is it that restricts the city planners? i don't know much about all that so educate me! hah

i remember someone here being a city planner of some sort... was it "big"? hmm i forget. anyways..


i think $4/gallon will definitely get people rethinking things. i think even now some people are doing so, but again i think most of these are people who can afford to pay over list prices for priuses, etc. and/or buy them as a second car. the people who can barely keep their old cars running certainly won't consider buying a new car anytime soon.


ps. i think i've been steering clear of political stuff because i just got too overwhelmed during the election, working for a campaign, etc... glad to see i was missed. or something. hah.

[IJ Reilly]

I'll second that. Sad thing is, the City and Regional Planning majors I knew in college were definetly idealistically driven to do something about the problems facing cities. Unfortunately, even I knew most of them were doomed to careers of frustration.

A person wouldn't take on a career like planning without starting with some basic sense of idealism -- but even overlaying that idealism with a healthy dose of pragmatism born of experience doesn't prepare a person for the sad realities of planning in the real world, especially in California. City planning literally lacks any constituency. Hardly anyone -- including politicians, developers, environmentalists or regular citizens -- are actually in favor of planning if it requires them to give up a single thing, which by definition it must, but nobody is prepared to concede anything. Just about every land use decision boils down to a hair-pulling, fist-fighting contest between completely selfish interests with little or no vision of the larger picture.

Some people seem not to mind. Or maybe they don't notice. I had to get out or eventually I'd have killed myself or somebody else.

[takao]

i think $4/gallon will definitely get people rethinking things. i think even now some people are doing so, but again i think most of these are people who can afford to pay over list prices for priuses, etc. and/or buy them as a second car. the people who can barely keep their old cars running certainly won't consider buying a new car anytime soon.

i doubt it.. because the price gonan raise slowly most people will moan "meh i've gotta puy a handfull of bucks more a months but that's not so much after all"
as far as i rember in the last 7 years the prices here increased by 30%...
even in germany where it is more expansive than here: do they drive more slowly to conserve fuel: those that have to: yes absolutly
but the big majority no ****** way: they are stil ldriving insane high speeds and even a diesel stops to be fuel efficient at 140 mph ...

(since more than over 20 years i think the average fuel consumption per car has actually gone up up little the last year and that's with gasoline who is even more like 5-6 $ a gallon in germany

[skunk]

even a diesel stops to be fuel efficient at 140 mph ...I should probably ease off a bit then...
:D

[Roger1]

So, what about them Dodgers? :D

I have one, it gets 14 mpg on a good day. But it's great for hauling stuff in.

:D

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit, as a generality, we in the US can afford higher gasoline prices (up to some point, obviously). The effect on the economies of many other, much poorer countries, could well be catastrophic. For us, inconvenience as to buying toys. For them, food.

City planning: Can fairly easily work well in highly centralized cities, or strip cities like San Francisco or Manhattan. For a sprawling city with hills and a lake or two, it can easily be a nightmare for all concerned. Austintatious comes to mind for this latter.

As far as any sort of planning and Mr. Justaguy, the national emotion right now for many is "five acres, five miles from town" with all the ramifications thereof. Way off here in the middle of nowhere, we're seeing a tremendous percentage increase of new residents. Few of them have any sort of rural background, much less desert wilderness experience--and we haven't really had a "normal" Terlingua summer since 2002.

'Rat

[skunk]

It would be interesting to see what would happen to the US economy if you paid the same for gas as we pay in Europe: it would go down the tubes sharpish, if you ask me.

[Desertrat]

I'd venture there would be a recession, sure. I'm not so sure about "down the tubes". The reason is twofold: First, only 44% of a barrel of oil is for transportation fuel. Much of our oil-based portion of the economy is based on what our petro-chemical and chemical folks do with that other 56%. Plastics is a major US export, e.g.

In the 1970s, we did dramatic changes as to "What is a car?" We went from around ten mpg as a national average to nearly 20 mpg before the feds came up with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) idea. Gasoline prices here in September of 1978 were around 54 cents per gallon, up from around 30. A year later they had gone to around $1.08 at the same station. That's a notable percentage change on top of other increases.

I guess I'm the guy who coined the term, "Inertia of large systems" to describe changes in economic patterns in the US. That is, it takes a while to change directions, here, but when the change gets going, don't stand in the way. Sorta like a VLCC on the high seas. Everybody thought the price of oil would forever continue to increase, back in the 1970s. We started doing all manner of economizing, and oil prices tumbled. Ask any long-time Odessa, Texas, resident, or any banker involved in pushing loans to Mexico that were based on repayment from oil sales.

I don't expect to see $10 oil again, but I'd bet that in a year or six we'll see a lot of gasoline from tar sands and shale oil; possibly from direct conversion of natural gas, and from coal. We'll also see darned few gas-hog type pickups and SUVs on the road as compared to today. Fuel cell cars and Prius types...

'Rat