 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Subaru Cars / September 2008Interesting MPG experiment
I've been getting around 20MPG on my Subi Outback ('97). After reading an article on increasing your mileage I tried driving 55 at all times where the speed limit was 55 or higher. Drove my girlfriend nuts, but I wanted to see what would happen to the mileage. Well, my MPG went from 20 to 27, and I used the AC a lot during that time. The car is also loaded with crap for work, and I removed the cross members from the roof rack. Tire pressure was 32 all the way around. Depending on where I go I doubt I'll be driving that slow all the time, but at least I know my car is capable of much greater mileage than I've been getting. I think the article said that 45 mph got the maximum mileage. > Depending on where I go I doubt I'll be driving that slow all the time, but > at least I know my car is capable of much greater mileage than I've been > getting. I think the article said that 45 mph got the maximum mileage. Hi, 45 mph might still get some folks seriously irritated at you, but here in SoCal, people overall have definitely slowed down since the gas pumps started reading $4/gal and more. There are a LOT fewer cars on the road most of the time, too, so it's not so hard to play around w/ varying speeds. It wasn't my Subie, but on three recent trips, holding to 60 in a vehicle that's turned in just over 25 mpg/avg for 100k miles, the average for the trips was 26.9-27.7, w/ a high tank on the last one of 33 mpg. Slowing down can certainly save some gas... I read an article in the paper yesterday that traffic fatalities have dropped something like 9% in the US as folks slow down, too. Rick > I've been getting around 20MPG on my Subi Outback ('97). After reading an > article on increasing your mileage I tried driving 55 at all times where the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > at least I know my car is capable of much greater mileage than I've been > getting. I think the article said that 45 mph got the maximum mileage. I drive the speed limit now and try not to exceed it and am getting better mileage. Most of my driving is local, suburban and I cut back on rapid acceleration or deceleration. There is no sense accelerating to a line of traffic stopped at a light and it extends brake life. > I drive the speed limit now and try not to exceed it and am getting > better mileage. Most of my driving is local, suburban and I cut > back on rapid acceleration or deceleration. True, but it makes sense to accelerate at 3/4 of full throttle, because if you are too easy on the throttle, the pistons have to work against the throttle valve in your inlet manifold. Trick is open that valve as far as possible but not too wide, and get to cruisng speed as quick as possible. This can get you another 5% off. >There is no sense accelerating to a line of traffic stopped at a >light and it extends brake life. Better yet: try to pace it to get there just as the light turns green again. 'Keep it rolling' is a very good fuel saver! Gerard ( from Europe where fuel is REALLY expensive, close to $ 10,- / gallon ). > I drive the speed limit now and try not to exceed it and am getting > better mileage. Most of my driving is local, suburban and I cut > back on rapid acceleration or deceleration. True, but it makes sense to accelerate at 3/4 of full throttle, because if you are too easy on the throttle, the pistons have to work against the throttle valve in your inlet manifold. Trick is open that valve as far as possible but not too wide, and get to cruisng speed as quick as possible. This can get you another 5% off. >There is no sense accelerating to a line of traffic stopped at a >light and it extends brake life. Better yet: try to pace it to get there just as the light turns green again. 'Keep it rolling' is a very good fuel saver! Gerard ( from Europe where fuel is close to $ 10,- / gallon ). > I've been getting around 20MPG on my Subi Outback ('97). After reading an > article on increasing your mileage I tried driving 55 at all times where the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > at least I know my car is capable of much greater mileage than I've been > getting. I think the article said that 45 mph got the maximum mileage. Yeah, I've been doing that since the beginning of the year up here too. It's amazing how such a simple behaviour change results in such a huge mileage improvement. We've been told about slowing down since the 1970's, and it finally took $4+ gas to get us to obey it. Up here in Canada there was a report that the local police forces are definitely noticing everybody has slowed down, and fewer tickets are being issued all across the nation. Yousuf Khan >> I've been getting around 20MPG on my Subi Outback ('97). After reading >> an article on increasing your mileage I tried driving 55 at all times [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Yousuf Khan Yeah. Most cars are geared for a balance of city and highway where highway speeds are considered 65-70 MPH (100-110 KPH). Hence, their most efficient speed is 70-80 KPH (45-50 MPH). That's where you will get the best gas mileage. Because air is a fluid and the amount of power required to increase speed is a square of the speed, there is a huge drop in gas mileage from 50-70 MPH. I usually avoid the huge drop in gas mileage by shifting into 5th gear. Driving at 45 to 50 in most cars is not very feasible in fifth gear on highway that is not perfectly flat. The laws of fluid motion not withstanding, the last time I was able to accurately test any vehicle was on many trips between LA and Portland 30 years ago. I found my Peugeot which could hardly be driven at 55 in 5th gear got about the same mileage at 80 mph as at 55 mph. Driving at 70mph got me the best mileage, though at that time that was well over the speed limit. Could have been something about the shoebox dynamics of the styling. Except for the very newest crop of cars, most people could improve their mileage by simply reverting to vehicles made before the early nineties. > Yeah. Most cars are geared for a balance of city and highway where highway > speeds are considered 65-70 MPH (100-110 KPH). Hence, their most efficient > speed is 70-80 KPH (45-50 MPH). That's where you will get the best gas > mileage. Because air is a fluid and the amount of power required to > increase speed is a square of the speed, there is a huge drop in gas mileage > from 50-70 MPH. >I usually avoid the huge drop in gas mileage by shifting into 5th > gear. Driving at 45 to 50 in most cars is not very feasible in fifth [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > improve their mileage by simply reverting to vehicles made before the > early nineties. That may have been true back in the day. But most 5-speeds I have driven in the last 10 years do just fine at 60 KPH (35 MPH). I doubt you would find too many made before the early '90s with better mileage as today's cars under the same conditions. With a 97 Impreza being the newest car I've owned, I can't refute your first statement, but I can guarantee that with the 11 year old subie, it would have been miserable trying to keep going at 35 mph in 5th. My 90 prizm/corolla always got 40mpg in non-ethanol months which is something I haven't heard repeated in the newer models. Hearsay was that some change in the mid-nineties dropped mileage a bit on most cars. > That may have been true back in the day. But most 5-speeds I have driven in > the last 10 years do just fine at 60 KPH (35 MPH). > > I doubt you would find too many made before the early '90s with better > mileage as today's cars under the same conditions. > With a 97 Impreza being the newest car I've owned, I can't refute your > first statement, but I can guarantee that with the 11 year old subie, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that some change in the mid-nineties dropped mileage a bit on most > cars. Because or required safety features, the cars got a bit heavier. But that was mostly offset by efficiency gains in the engines I guess the obvious question is "why would anyone want a car that could be driven at 35mph in 5th gear?" That is not an improvement as near as I can tell. > Because or required safety features, the cars got a bit heavier. But that > was mostly offset by efficiency gains in the engines > I guess the obvious question is "why would anyone want a car that > could be driven at 35mph in 5th gear?" That is not an improvement as > near as I can tell. Hi, I've gotta agree w/ you on that one! Some of this stuff seems like a case of the dumbing down of drivers and a lot of the people involved w/ the automotive industry. As Tony Hwang mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there's an "optimum" range for an internal combustion engine to produce the greatest power and torque per unit of fuel consumed. It's an rpm thing, not a vehicle speed thing. So, while engines are more efficient than they were 20, 40 or 60 years ago, they still have to be run within whatever range they're designed for. Can't say I know of any small to medium sized cars where 35 mph should be done in much past 3rd gear. And from personal experiments, one often gets better mileage at a given vehicle speed by keeping engine revs up. Now if I could just convince the guys who designed the "brain" behind the one auto I own of that fact, instead of the trans constantly "hunting" from 35-40 mph and up, trying to decide whether it should be in 3rd, 4th or 5th! Doesn't save any gas, does tear up transmissions. Oh, well... Rick >> I guess the obvious question is "why would anyone want a car that >> could be driven at 35mph in 5th gear?" That is not an improvement as [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Rick I don't disagree with either of you. But, you're right; it is an RPM thing. Whether a car can optimally travel at low speed is a gearing thing. Part of the reason is left over from the double-nickel days; there was no reason to make a car more efficient at high speed when it isn't legal to drive them at high speed. And since the posted speed limit in North America is 80 MPH or less, that is what they have done. At 80 KPH (45 MPH), a small amount of the engine's available power is used to overcome drag. By 100 KPH (64 MPH) the majority of the car's power is used to overcome drag. By 75 MPH, a very high percentage is used to overcome drag; air acts like any fluid and any linear increase in speed requires and exponential power increase. The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the car can go in high gear without the engine chugging; which for most North American cars is around 35-40 MPH; which, surprisingly enough, is the average speed a driver in North Amercan does over a long period of time. That's why most of the EPA highway tests are done at those speeds as an average. In Europe, cars are geared differently (even if they are the same models available in North America) since the speed limits are substantially higher, and there are places where there are none at all. >The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the car can >go in high gear without the engine chugging; which for most North American [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >available in North America) since the speed limits are substantially higher, >and there are places where there are none at all. The optimum engine speed for fuel economy is the maximum torque RPM. That said,today's engines are VERY flexible that way. Maximum torque goes from something like 1800 to 3000 rpm on some current engines. My 2003 PT cruiser is not one of those - max torque is at 4000 RPM and max HP at 5600. NO WAY that vehicle will be run at 4000 RPM cruise The 2.5 liter duratec in my wife's Mystique produces the same peak torque at 4200 rpm - but the torque curve is a lot fatter with the variable intake geometry. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the car >>can [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > variable intake geometry. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** Not so. At peak torque the engine is using a great deal of fuel. I have an 04 STi. At 4000 RPM (its peak torque) it is burning fuel at 60 litres/hr at 100% load, and 20 litres/hr at light loading. Its best gas mileage is at about 80 km/hr where it burns 7.2 litres/hr. That works out to about 31 MPG (imperial gallons). I have hooked up the monitor to my wife's Forester as well. Although the differences are not as great, her car still gets it best mileage at around 80-85 km/hr. >>>The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the car >>>can [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >well. Although the differences are not as great, her car still gets it best >mileage at around 80-85 km/hr. The engine produces maximum hp/hr per lb of fuel at maximum torque rpm. This is a well known proven fact. Now running it at full load at this speed is a different story all together. The gearing is not necessarily set up to provide maximum fuel economy at this speed on the road - onn an STi I can almost guantee it is not - it is geared for PERFORMANCE. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>>The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the car >>>>can [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > rpm. This is a well known proven fact. Now running it at full load at > this speed is a different story all together. Wind is a full load for any vehicle, and without considering it the numbers are meaningless. Take a test drive and try it...my OBW does about 30 mpg if I drive at 64 mph on a trip....as slow as I can safely drive on the highways here. At 70 mph, I get about 27 mpg. At 80, about 23. All cars have the about the same curve, even your STi. The *only* way you get better mileage at 80 mph is if you drive a torpedo-shaped car, which has no wind resistance, and the STi doesn't qualify. That's a proven fact, too. :-) -John O >>>>>The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the car >>>>>can [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >-John O I've tried it - many times . It works. The 1975 Celica did over 50MPG in fifth gear at about 80MPH, which had the engine at it's torque peak. At 60 it would not do 40MPG, in any gear. In 1976 they changed the gear ratio, and 50MPG was impossible. Otherwise, the vehicle was virtually identical. The aerodynamics on the GT fastback were pretty good. No Soob has aerodynamics - particularly the ones with the boy-racer scoops and tails. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>>>>The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the >>>>>>car [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >> > I've tried it - many times . It works. You're saying that you violate the laws of thermodynamics, and you just can't do that. -John O >>>>>>>The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the >>>>>>>car [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > -John O I agree. By 80 MPH a very high proportion of the work done by the engine is lost to drag in any car. >>>>>>>The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the >>>>>>>car [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > >-John O Not violating the rules of thermodynamics. And back the beginning of June I drove my PT cruiser 300 miles at 62MPH kph and got 34 MPG (Canadian)(waterloo to Barrie and back plus a couple short trips) A couple weeks ago I did it again (waterloo to Windsor- 60-62MPH and 300 miles, 34MPG. ANd the return trip, at the same speed, same mileage. This weekend I did 300 miles at 50MPH and got 28MPG (Canadaian) 2.4 liter automatic (4 speed) At 50MPH it feels like it is lugging. At 60 it runs freely and accelerates easily. In 2 weeks we will find out what it does on a really long trip , at different speeds. Waterloo to Montreal will likely be about 70mph to avoid being run over. From there to Quebec City, ant then on to Riviere de Loup will likely be 60MPH, and across New Brunswick likely closer to 55. Cape Breton will be 50-ish, and PEI likely closer to 45 ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>>The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the car >>>>can [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > for PERFORMANCE. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** It is not a proven fact. You are thinking of thermal efficiency. You are completely disregarding drag which is a very much more significant factor. The thermal efficiency of a modern gas engine is between 25% and 30%. To put that in layman's terms, every 100 gals you burn, only 25-30 is actually converted to work. The rest is lost to heat. So, yes, it has its best thermal efficiency at peak torque. However, the efficiency does not drop significantly unless the engine is chugging at the lower end (incomplete fuel burn) or pinging at the other end (predetonation). Everywhere else, drag is the most important factor for the fuel economy of a car. At low speed, most of the work the engine is doing is translated into movement of the car. As speed increases, drag increases exponentially, and so does the percentage of work used to overcome drag. At 40 MPH, about 10% of the work the engine is doing is to overcome drag. By 55 MPH about 30% the work the engine is doing is to overcome the drag. By 80 MPH, its more like 65%. by 100 MPH, it is like 90%. An STi, at peak torque in 6th gear, is doing nearly 100 MPH. At that speed gas mileage would seriously suck. >>>>>The optimum speed for the best gas mileage is the mimimum speed the car >>>>>can [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >An STi, at peak torque in 6th gear, is doing nearly 100 MPH. At that speed >gas mileage would seriously suck. You did not read my message very well. I said the ENGINE - I'll quote it:"The engine produces maximum hp/hr per lb of fuel at maximum torque rpm. This is a well known proven fact". I also said, earlier: "The optimum engine speed for fuel economy is the maximum torque RPM." Many vehicles are not geared properly to allow the engine to run at this RPM without being heavilly loaded, or without the drag being too high. It takes a very well designed car, aerodynamically, to allow maximum VEHICLE fuel economy at maximum torque RPM. The gearing and aerodynamics on the 1975 Celica GT just happened to be well enough matched that the car DID get over 50MPG at 80MPH constant speed. (2AM Sunday morning departure from Waterloo Ontario to Peterborough Ontario - 2 adults in the car - 80MPH STEADY - did not put my foot down to pass anybody, and never slowed below 75. It is about 155 miles, and the one way trip took about 1/4 tank of fuel. Return (round) trip took roughly 1/2 tank. I am /was a VERY steady driver. NAVEX rallying demands it, and I rallied competetively for 3 years - 4-3-2 finish in the province. Economy runs require the same kind of discipline. The trip to Peterborough was to "pit crew" for Taisto Heinonen and Tom Burgess and the Team Toyota RA42 coupe in the fall of 1979 (I believe) Tall Pines rally. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** I have installed a trip computer on my 2001 Forester 2.5 AT. See measured gas mileage driving highway with constant speed for at least 15 miles: MPH MPG 37 39 50 34 62 28 68 26 81 21 >I have installed a trip computer on my 2001 Forester 2.5 AT. > See measured gas mileage driving highway with constant speed for at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 68 26 > 81 21 That makes sense. >I have installed a trip computer on my 2001 Forester 2.5 AT. > See measured gas mileage driving highway with constant speed for at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 68 26 > 81 21 Nice test. Sounds like we're talking drag here. So, what about a car like a Ferrari that isn't shaped like a shoebox? Would the best mileage be at "relatively" higher speeds? And yes, I do realize nobody buys a Ferrari to save money on gas. > Nice test. Agree. > Sounds like we're talking drag here. So, what about a car like > a Ferrari that isn't shaped like a shoebox? Would the best mileage be at > "relatively" higher speeds? And yes, I do realize nobody buys a Ferrari to > save money on gas. Actually, aerodynamics isn't a visual art. IOW, some remarkably unappealing lines can have quite low drag. For example, the Giulia Super is boxy, yet has a CD around 0.3 - much lower than you'd expect from looking at it. They reckon it has a lot to do with small details like the fillet at the base of the windscreen, etc. So don't assume that the shoebox is necessarily all that bad. The CD gets multiplied by the frontal area - go bigger/higher, you get more drag for the same CD... obviously. >> Nice test. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >The CD gets multiplied by the frontal area - go bigger/higher, you >get more drag for the same CD... obviously. OK - just back from 17 day road trip with 2.4 liter PT Cruiser - 4 adulta and luggage (approx 1000 lbs total load) 6231km. 626.23 liters total. Average fuel economy 29MPG (imperial) Best tank 34MPG - on 2 tanks. 29, 29.5 and 30 on 3 other tanks. 28 on 5 tanks, 25 and 26 on 5 more. Interestingly, the 28mpg tanks were the lowest speed steady driving sections of the trip - running 100kph +/- 10 on generally level to gently rolling roads. The 25 and 26 mpg tanks were in slow driving areas, generally with fair to severe hills. The 34MPG tanks were on high speed sections - long runs of 117 - 123 KPH including some very hilly country (like between Calais Maine and Stowe Vermont and between Hartland and Shediac New Brunswick), and the 29-30mpg sections were in the hills with manual downshifting . ALL of the high MPG runs were with the engine running over 2800RPM - some significantly so (4000 RPM up hills at half throttle or less) while the low mileage sections were generally under 2500 RPM - only downshifting when fairly heavy throttle caused the engine to downshift - otherwize "lugging along) at 2200-2400 RPM. Interestingly, if I manually downshifted going up a hill with my foot into it but not hard enough to automatically downshift, barely maintaining speed, I had to get my foot WAY out of it to avoid gaining significant speed, even on 6-10% grades. At 3400 RPM in third the throttle was almost closed, compared to almost wide open at 2600 in overdrive. This is the way I drove in the hilly areas where I got the best mileage. Anything under 2800 RPM, or better yet 3000+, power output (torque) is so low the engine is lugging and hard on fuel. The increase in engine efficiency at higher speeds more than made up for the extra drag from speed on the less than perfect, arodynamically, PT Cruiser. The best mileage I have gotten on this car previously, driving at a steady 100kph (62MPH) on the VERY level drive between Waterloo and Windsor Ontario on the 401 was 28mpg (with 4 adults). Paying a little less attention to smooth starts, and passing a few cars, between Waterloo and Barrie ontario, I got 26 (alone in the car, with no load). Around town I get 24 (roughly 50/50 town streets and "expressway", but trips of 15K or less each) I suspect with 1/4 the load I could acheive in the neighbourhood of 42MPG with this car at 117-120KPH on a trip- and it is not nearly as aerodynamic as the 1975 Celica GT. Narrower 15 inch tires instead of the low profile "fatties" supplied from the factory would add another couple MPG at 40PSI. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>> Nice test. >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Hartland and Shediac New Brunswick), and the 29-30mpg sections were > in the hills with manual downshifting . I got that good with an STi on a round trip from Halifax to Toronto and back driving at 110-115 (2800-3000 RPM) > ALL of the high MPG runs were with the engine running over 2800RPM - > some significantly so (4000 RPM up hills at half throttle or less) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > efficiency at higher speeds more than made up for the extra drag from > speed on the less than perfect, arodynamically, PT Cruiser. That's really weird. I get in the 8.8/100 (34 MPG) with the Forester at 90 KPH. It drops to 10/100 (30 MPG) at 110. > The best mileage I have gotten on this car previously, driving at a > steady 100kph (62MPH) on the VERY level drive between Waterloo and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > couple MPG at 40PSI. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** I seriously doubt you could. The best I can get with the Forester (2.5L) is around 2000 RPM (75 KPH) at around 8.2/100 (36 MPG) on flat ground. Did it on the prairies for nearly 400 km. > I seriously doubt you could. The best I can get with the Forester > (2.5L) is around 2000 RPM (75 KPH) at around 8.2/100 (36 MPG) on flat > ground. Did it on the prairies for nearly 400 km. FWIW: I have recently drove from Chicago to Phoenix - 1800 miles - and my MPG was varying from 19 closet to Chicago to 21 in NM and AZ. And I was ridding very steady 55MPH on cruise control and towing medium U Haul trailer loaded really well by MB E320T 4Matic also packed up to the roof. I do know if that 2MPG difference is coming from the different gas (ethanol?) which or the altitude. Here is a nice tool http://www.tdiclub.com/misc/conversions.html: 19 MPG = 12.3 l/100km = 22.9 impMPG 21 MPG = 11.2 l/100km = 25 impMPG Andy <snipped for brevity> > You did not read my message very well. I said the ENGINE - I'll quote > it:"The engine produces maximum hp/hr per lb of fuel at maximum torque > rpm. This is a well known proven fact". Engine speed is nearly irrelevant for vehicle fuel economy in modern engines. They are relatively efficient over a wide range of RPM. > I also said, earlier: "The optimum engine speed for fuel economy is > the maximum torque RPM." [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It is about 155 miles, and the one way trip took about 1/4 tank of > fuel. Return (round) trip took roughly 1/2 tank. I can't believe that at all. The car would have to be nearly aerodynamically perfect or only operating on two cyclinders to get that kind of mileage at 80 MPH. > I am /was a VERY steady driver. NAVEX rallying demands it, and I > rallied competetively for 3 years - 4-3-2 finish in the province. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Tall Pines rally. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** That may be true, but no matter how steady you are, you cannot overcome physics. >> I also said, earlier: "The optimum engine speed for fuel economy is >> the maximum torque RPM." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > aerodynamically perfect or only operating on two cyclinders to get that > kind of mileage at 80 MPH. 80 can be 60 with a 20 tailwind. ;-) -John O >>> I also said, earlier: "The optimum engine speed for fuel economy is >>> the maximum torque RPM." [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -John O True > Now if I could just convince the guys who designed the "brain" behind > the one auto I own of that fact, instead of the trans constantly > "hunting" from 35-40 mph and up, trying to decide whether it should be > in 3rd, 4th or 5th! Doesn't save any gas, does tear up transmissions. > Oh, well... I think you want a CVT. Yousuf Khan > > That may have been true back in the day. But most 5-speeds I have driven in > > the last 10 years do just fine at 60 KPH (35 MPH). > > > I doubt you would find too many made before the early '90s with better > > mileage as today's cars under the same conditions. My 2000 OBW usually gets shifted to 5th when I reach about 80kph (50mph), until then 4th is the gear I can sustain it at. It really doesn't matter when you shift into 5th or 4th, as long as you stay below a certain RPM, you're doing fine. I usually use 3000RPM as my rule of thumb. On my OBW @ 100kph (60mph), it reaches exactly 3000RPM in 5th. This seems to be the sweet spot right now. Yousuf Khan > > I've been getting around 20MPG on my Subi Outback ('97). After reading an > > article on increasing your mileage I tried driving 55 at all times where the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Yousuf Khan New laws will be passed to create more violators to maintain the revenue stream. Dave >> I've been getting around 20MPG on my Subi Outback ('97). After reading >> an article on increasing your mileage I tried driving 55 at all times [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Yousuf Khan Not good. That means they'll lower the speed limits again because they're not getting enough revenue from speeding tickets. :-( > Depending on where I go I doubt I'll be driving that slow all the time, but > at least I know my car is capable of much greater mileage than I've been > getting. That's great! Please stay in the right lane. :-) > Please stay in the right lane. Hi, LOL... Most of us who are "slowing down" do stick to the right. Now, if you can just persuade those who DON'T want to slow down that passing is done "ON THE LEFT" (in the US and Canada ;)) we'll all be happier. AND safer. Saw a good case of "Stupidity kills" a week or so ago when some fool thought he'd pass, on the right, at a high rate of speed, up a steep hill. Rear bumper of the 18-wheeler he hit pretty much took the whole top of the car off. Dunno if they pulled the body out of the car in one or two pieces... Rick >> Please stay in the right lane. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > top of the car off. Dunno if they pulled the body out of the car in one > or two pieces... But it's perfectly legal, last time I read the Motor Vehicle Act, to pass on the right. If it was possible to pass on the right, and you're in the left-hand-lane, especially if you're in a truck with poor visibility around you, dude.. I feel nothing but sympathy for that poor driver. Consider the possibility that he was speeding for a reason: how do we know if his pregnant wife was or wasn't just rushed to hospital and he was trying to get to her? How do we know whether his son was in trouble and called for help? In many cases I've seen, the people who crash when they speed tend not to have a lot of experience speeding, in part because the tax-collectors, er sorry cops, are so draconian on speeders. Then one day they need to speed to save a life, or prevent harm to family, and they end up making mistakes like the one you saw. It's not always stupidity: dude, you don't leave the scene of an accident you witnessed. We need to stop to try to help! We need to do something when we see these sorts of horrible tragedies and not just think people deserve their fate: dude, nobody deserves to die. Our mentality needs a shift: consider what would've happened if someone witnessed us having a near-fatal accident and shrugged their shoulders and then took off and left us there to bleed. People look at the STi I drive, and I know for a fact they're rooting for me to crash. They deliberately cut me off, they close gaps when I try to lane change, they speed up (regularly well past the speed limit) to prevent me from merging in front of them (though I have the right-of-way when my lane ends,) and the part that tells me they want me to crash: they'll pull these stunts in times when, if I don't merge successfully, I'll drive off a cliff or hit parked cars. The mentality is to claw-back-your-neighbour, born of hate and spite and maybe jealousy, and we really need to work to stop it, man. So what if someone speeds? How many accidents are caused by speeding and speeding alone? Now, compare those numbers to alcohol-related incidents, or drug-related. Or, compare them to mechanical failure. Come on, people: crashes are always a tragedy, no matter what the cause. Let's treat them as such. > People look at the STi I drive, and I know for a fact they're rooting for me > to crash. Hi, Yeah, of course they are! Learn to drive and I'll bet you find yourself in far fewer of these "situations." People "root for crashes" at NASCAR races... on the road, it ain't no race. I see quite a few "wannabe racers" (sadly for the marque, more than a few are driving WRXes and STis) on the road, and generally give them plenty of room. Why? Experience and observation tells me their drivers are far more likely to try to use their right foot instead of their brain to manuever thru tricky situations. The only "tragedy" when such drivers crash is that innocent people may be hurt. Otherwise, it's just Darwin having his jollies. Or, to quote a local traffic helicopter pilot, "I see a LOT of crashes every day. I DON'T see many 'accidents.'" DUUUUUDE! Rick >> People look at the STi I drive, and I know for a fact they're rooting for >> me [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are far more likely to try to use their right foot instead of their > brain to manuever thru tricky situations. I see a lot of them too. I've taught my kids to watch for this special kind of moron and give them space. Most of them seem to think they're still playing a rally game on their X-Box. -John O >>> People look at the STi I drive, and I know for a fact they're rooting for >>> me [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >-John O And most of them would not last very long in the "real world" of rallying, either. Posers and wannabees. AKA aggressive drivers, AKA idiots. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > I've been getting around 20MPG on my Subi Outback ('97). After reading an > article on increasing your mileage I tried driving 55 at all times where the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > at least I know my car is capable of much greater mileage than I've been > getting. I think the article said that 45 mph got the maximum mileage. Hmmm, Every engine has an optimal cruising speed by design. This is where the most efficiency is achieved. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.