Nation Wide 55 MPH Speed Limit [Archive]

View Full Version : Nation Wide 55 MPH Speed Limit

n0ov

03-23-2008, 07:17 PM

I can't drive 55 (because we can't afford the gas)

Anyone want to make a bet when the idea of posting a Nation Wide 55 MPH Speed Limit comes back into play?

Besides the potential benefit of fuel savings, here's some other thing that reducing the speed limit would do.

1. Increase local revenue --- speeding tickets are expensive

2. Increase revenue for the Insurance companies -- speeding tickets are expensive.

3. Increase sales in RADAR detectors

4. May help reduce speeds on the interstates down to 65 mph -- most folks believe they are safe as long as they drive no faster than 10 mph over the posted limit

5. Government can brag they did something to reduce America's dependency on oil (they believe slower speeds = increased fuel economy)

6. Could breath new life into the CB Industry --- Smokey & the Bandit, part IV

w0bst

03-23-2008, 07:45 PM

1. Increase local revenue --- speeding tickets are expensive

2. Increase revenue for the Insurance companies -- speeding tickets are expensive.

3. Increase sales in RADAR detectors

4. May help reduce speeds on the interstates down to 65 mph -- most folks believe they are safe as long as they drive no faster than 10 mph over the posted limit

5. Government can brag they did something to reduce America's dependency on oil (they believe slower speeds = increased fuel economy)

6. Could breath new life into the CB Industry --- Smokey & the Bandit, part IV

I don't know how making insurance companies richER is going to help me.
And #3 just means more money going to china & taiwan. Unless they ban the import of radar detectors; paving the way for Americans (or more likely illegal immigrants) to at least assemble the damn things.

n0ov

03-23-2008, 08:52 PM

I don't know how making insurance companies richER is going to help me.
And #3 just means more money going to china & taiwan. Unless they ban the import of radar detectors; paving the way for Americans (or more likely illegal immigrants) to at least assemble the damn things.

Insurance companies --- rates increase when you get caught speeding. Also, all the racing and panic stopping when they see the police are likely to increase accidents.

Radar detectors --- CB and radar detectors were key items to detect and avoid speed traps in the 70's

KI6NNO

03-23-2008, 08:59 PM

It didn't work last time, it won't work again. :rolleyes:

ka5s

03-23-2008, 09:16 PM

I can't drive 55 (because we can't afford the gas)

Anyone want to make a bet when the idea of posting a Nation Wide 55 MPH Speed Limit comes back into play?

Besides the potential benefit of fuel savings, here's some other thing that ...

Drive slower,save gas. Even truck drivers are slowing down (http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/03/22/news/nation_world/doc47e551af2dd7e230285524.txt?sPos=1). Who needs a law?

Cortland
KA5 [55!] S

w0bst

03-23-2008, 09:33 PM

Insurance companies --- rates increase when you get caught speeding. Also, all the racing and panic stopping when they see the police are likely to increase accidents.

Radar detectors --- CB and radar detectors were key items to detect and avoid speed traps in the 70's

Ok maybe you didn't read what I wrote ;) How exactly does that help me?

WA6MHZ

03-23-2008, 09:45 PM

I can't think of a subject that makes me CUSS more (except EBAY!!!) NO 55!!! If you want a speed limit, make it 150! Any car going over 150 can afford the ticket. Most cars will do 100 with out any appreciable decrease in gas mileage. Or even 80. I probably see less than a MPG change in my fuel usage going from 55 to 85. I see more mileage change when I go SLOWER because of momentum decrease. Once the car is up to speed, its weight carries it along the course until it starts to go up a hill. Then I loose momentum. So I go 65 or 70 up hills, 85 or 90 down hills. On the straightaway, I see about 85 as optimum speed, as carefully researched watching my MPG gauge. Slower and I get worse gas mileage. I reduced my gas mileage by taking off my HF antennas by about 3 MPG. Drag slowed me down. If they changed it back to 55, it would be the worst idea since Prohibition, or the 1st 55 limit. Leave it where it is at, or, if anything, RAISE it!!!! Damned if I will go slower!! You wanna stop me? Shoot a RPG at my car!

WB2WIK

03-23-2008, 09:51 PM

Doubt it will happen.

We have 75 mph speed limits on most of our interstates here in CA and it's routinely exceeded by almost everybody.

Like many modern cars, mine electronically calculates m.p.g. in real-time, updated continuously, and can display either that (updates about every second) or "average" m.p.g., which is m.p.g. to date based on the last RESET you pressed.

I don't really see any savings at 55 mph compared with 70 mph -- it's equivalent.

We have enough traffic jams as it is -- if cops pulled over speeders for no other reason than they were speeding, that would cause considerably more traffic jams. Nobody would be happy, and voters would start electing all new representatives at their first opportunity.

WB2WIK/6

n7rjd

03-23-2008, 09:53 PM

Lowering the speed limits will do nothing other than turn me into an outlaw. I really don't think I am capable of driving 55 and staying awake at the same time. There are too many miles and miles of nothing between the dead buffalo and the fallen cow out here.

Seriously the federal government has no business in the states' speed limits. As much as I hate to admit it this is one area I have to give Bill Clinton credit. While I'm sure it was done to win favor with one group or another he released the choke hold the government had on the states to abide by the speed limits the feds wanted or lose federal highway monies.

I enjoy my 75 speed limits. I agree with recent changes Wyoming has made to their laws regarding speed violations and points against your license. Basically they will write tickets for anything from 1 mph over and up however the first few miles over (I don't remember exact cut offs) are a freebie in that they do not go on your record and do not register points against your license. You will still pay a fine. Once past these cut offs you are fair game and will pay the fine plus have the offense hit your record and points register against your license.

Now if we can just get those darn jackalopes to slow down. Those little buggers are like lightning when they've been drinking. :D

ka5s

03-23-2008, 10:15 PM

I can't think of a subject that makes me CUSS more (except EBAY!!!) NO 55!!! If you want a speed limit, make it 150! Any car going over 150 can afford the ticket. Most cars will do 100 with out any appreciable decrease in gas mileage. Or even 80. I probably see less than a...

OK. No 55. We'll copy Japan and make it 45. With lights on top of the vehicle to let cops know when someone is speeding!

Not that it's easy to speed on the the 5 in LA at rush hour.

Cortland
KA5 [rental car} S

WA6MHZ

03-23-2008, 10:26 PM

n7rjd

03-23-2008, 10:31 PM

I can't think of anything that would SUCK as bad as having a light on your vehicle's roof to let others know you are speeding. WHAT IS WRONG with the Japanese?? How do they put up with it. The first thing I would do with the car is do some serious WIRE CUTTING!!!!!

Kinda makes you wonder who would be in a hurry to replace a burned out bulb.

How many traffic cops does it take to change a light bulb? :D

ka5s

03-23-2008, 10:43 PM

Here's a link (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm) to a good discussion of the best speed for a particular vehicle.

And here's another.LINK (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99540.htm)

Lots of info (http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-203567.html) out there!

Cortland
KA5[save money]S

N2RJ

03-23-2008, 11:27 PM

[SIZE="4"]
5. Government can brag they did something to reduce America's dependency on oil (they believe slower speeds = increased fuel economy)

They are right to some extent, but the key is more efficient driving habits. That means no jackrabbit starts and hard braking. Speed is fine, as every vehicle has a different speed at which they'll get optimum fuel economy. I've seen mine top out in FE around 60-65 MPH.

But somehow I feel as though Americans' habits won't change because I see far too many people on the road racing (not just driving fast, but racing).

These days the automobile is more of a pen15 extension rather than a mode of transportation.

KE7JFA

03-23-2008, 11:28 PM

I think 55 is a great idea and should make it MANDATORY.
I do the limit at 75 someone passes me at 90.
I do 65 and someone passes me at 80.

These fools endager my family and my life and hope they do lower it and give speeders a 500.00 ticket to boot.

N2RJ

03-23-2008, 11:32 PM

OK. No 55. We'll copy Japan and make it 45. With lights on top of the vehicle to let cops know when someone is speeding!

Wow, I didn't know Japan had that now!

I do know that in some Japanese (as in JDM) cars I've driven, there is a "bell" which goes off once you exceed 110 km/h. It's a light ding, ding, ding, not really annoying but a reminder that you are going too fast.

I used to enjoy taking my boss's Nissan Cefiro for a spin, going up to 180 km/h along 30 miles of highway with the "bell" dinging all the way. :D

kq9j

03-23-2008, 11:41 PM

No more Federal regulations. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Especially not if they live up here where I do. I have to drive 2 hours before I even get ON a freeway. With the way the highways are laid out today, 65 mph is not unreasonable. I love it when I go to the Twin Cities and jump on Interstate 35 where it is 70 mph. There are some 2-lane highways where 55 is too fast. On a freeway 70 or 75 is not unreasonable. The state and local governments need to regulate this, not the Feds. For the previous poster, there are already laws regulating speed in place. If they are not being enforced, complain to your local law enforcement agency. In a lot of places the sheer volume of traffic, however, means stopping somebody going a little bit over the limit creates more of a hazard than it eliminates.

KE6SHJ

03-24-2008, 01:09 AM

How about a nation wide boycott on gas prices and everyone in the US not drive anything for a day or two. Yeah the economy will take a huge hit but hell its already in the crapper so what would it hurt....... :p

W5HTW

03-24-2008, 01:46 AM

It really would not make much sense in any way, except for the fact that accidents at 80 mph are more serious than accidents at 50 mph.

But today cars are much better design, economy wise, than they were in the 1970s and early 1980s. They can get the same mileage at 80 they did at 55 in 1978. Cars are also safer, and one is far more likely to survive a high speed crash than in a 1978 car.

Most western interstates, and a lot of non-interstate but 4-lane divided highways, have speed limits of 75 mph. Many 2 lane roads have speed limits of 65 to 70.

The nation has changed, cars have improved dramatically, and though roads have not so much, there are indeed more miles of good roads now than there were in 1978.

Most of us are well equipped to drive 75 on a regular basis. Where we fail is in city traffic, with the darned cell phone stuck to our ear, the hamburger in our mouth, fumbling with the CD player, and applying lipstick or shaving. On the open road we nearly all do pretty well, unless we get overtired or start drinking.

In other words, 75 today is easily equivalent to 55 in 1980. But we have far more traffic to move, far more people on the highways, and we are more rushed in general. That means 55 would be gridlock.

Even interstates through cities now have higher speed limits, yet with less total accidents. True, the accidents may be more serious, but improved traffic handling and improved cars have resulted in less accidents total. Interstates through nearly every city are at least 65 and often 70, and occasionally 75. Slowing traffic on I-20 between Dallas and Fort Worth, for example, would create a parking lot. Or a set of bumper cars. Or both.

I think national safety experts, including government ones, are well aware of the dangers, and the lack of feasibility, of reducing speed limits. I don't see it as an issue likely to come up. It serves no economy purpose, but would greatly hamper traffic movement.

In my opinion, the point is moot.

w6ire

03-24-2008, 01:59 AM

ai4ep

03-24-2008, 02:07 AM

just leave things just as they are.

might increase the FINES for speeding. --- $500.00 on first offense ..or pick up litter along 5 miles of roadway for one full year.

we got some real trashy folks in Alabama, car insides are clean but roadsides are trash filled....with 90% of it thrown out at night when no one can see you do it. Reason I know this ---video camera area of cleaned up roadway one afternoon, next morning at 8 am it looked like we had never been there in just ONE night ( weekend ) .

I rest my case.

good pizza is DiJorno and you cook it yourself and spend about $6....spend time on computer while it cooks for 22 minutes....8 slices of pizza = about 4 meals @ 2 slices per meal.

KW4MW

03-24-2008, 02:39 AM

55 MPH is a bad idea - it didn't work in the '70s and it won't work today.
Besides I get better gas mileage in the 65-75 range then I do at 55.

KI4PEQ

03-24-2008, 03:28 AM

W6QT

03-24-2008, 04:40 AM

Takes a while to stop a moving hunk of steel on the freeway. Slower traffic is probably better for a lot of reasons.

n7rjd

03-24-2008, 05:04 AM

we got some real trashy folks in Alabama, car insides are clean but roadsides are trash filled....with 90% of it thrown out at night when no one can see you do it. Reason I know this ---video camera area of cleaned up roadway one afternoon, next morning at 8 am it looked like we had never been there in just ONE night ( weekend ) .

That's because everybody drives with their windows down and it all gets sucked out. It's what you could call the Alabama vacuum cleaner. :D

wb6mmj

03-24-2008, 05:18 AM

That probably wouldn`t bother the people in Los Angeles who drive the Freeways, They are lucky to get their vehicles up to 20 MPH on those Freeways.

KD7ZRT

03-24-2008, 05:39 AM

In other words, 75 today is easily equivalent to 55 in 1980. But we have far more traffic to move, far more people on the highways, and we are more rushed in general. That means 55 would be gridlock.

Increasing the speed of traffic increases the required vehicle spacing more than proportionally, resulting in fewer vehicles per hour.

http://www.swedetrack.com/diag2.gif
(1.25 persons/vehicle)

k0ews

03-24-2008, 11:19 AM

It's a grand and novel idea, but really, market economics takes care of it. Gas becomes expensive, demand drops, supplies increase, and prices become lower. They put in speed limits of 55 back in the mid-70s, and gas still went up in price.
Some folks are willing to get 10 mpg with their SUV or light truck, and fork out 70 dollars a fill. Who am I to tell them otherwise? It's not my money.
I drive a fuel effecient car, and when it warms up, I'll be riding my bicycle to work, or my motorcycle. I don't drive if I don't have to, and if I can, I share a ride with a friend. If every American did all of those things, it would be way more effective than a speed limit which nobody pays attention to anyway.

K8YZK

03-24-2008, 12:20 PM

As another said it didn't work the first time, won't work now. I remember the bs ad's the government was playing on tv at the time about it saving gas,money and lives.
As far as truck drivers, here in Michigan they raised the speed for Semi's from 60 to 65 on the interstates last year, so if they are doing 70-75mph they are speeding anyway.

My Vette gets better mileage doing 70-75mph then it does at 55.

Kurt

K1CJS

03-24-2008, 01:17 PM

Drive slower,save gas. Even truck drivers are slowing down. Who needs a law?

People who want to save gas and money will. The others will more than likely keep going--and keep handing over their paycheck to Dubya and his cronies.

You don't think so? Look at the recent news stories about Exxon and Mobil, and why they aren't pumping more crude oil. They want to keep prices UP to fatten their profit margins and please their investors. The little guys have to get the gas and so push those profits up. They will just have to suffer--and pay--unless they slow down.

KE7JFA

03-24-2008, 01:45 PM

Hey now don't blame SUV's on their terrible mileage.

There are plenty of those big giant okie pickups that get like 9 mpg!

N1BHH

03-24-2008, 01:50 PM

Slowing down is possibly a good thing, but truck drivers slowing down? I beg to differ. Ask the people of Everett, Massachusetts about truck drivers. They never slow down to a reasonable speed. This one guy just filled up his tanker and went around Sweetser Circle which has seen many similar accidents.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14777524/detail.html

Another reason for gasoline tankers to be made smaller:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

Don't these tanker drivers need a lesson in slowing down. The above two examples don't show me that they are slowing down. Why did they travel over the speed limit to begin with, anyway? Don't they know the volatility that gasoline poses?

If you travel level-headed and are not a "Lead Foot Lorraine" then you don't have a reason to be of concern over gasoline prices. When you drive, don't drive around aimlessly. Go where you have to go, but don't take any side routes. You'll save yourself some money in the long run. If you drive a Lincoln Navigator or a Hummer, then that's your fault for buying a gas-guzzler.

n4cd

03-24-2008, 02:06 PM

I can't think of a subject that makes me CUSS more (except EBAY!!!) Any car going over 150 can afford the ticket. Most cars will do 100 with out any appreciable decrease in gas mileage. Or even 80. I probably see less than a MPG change in my fuel usage going from 55 to 85. !

Any idiot doing 150 mph should be locked up and the car confiscated. Sorry. As far as I can tell, there is no reason for a car to do over 80 mph. Period. (other than a police car to catch the ones who modify their car to go over 80mph).

And no, most going 150 mph likely cannot afford a lot of $2000 tickets (the first time) in most jurisdictions - and in places like TX, about $5000 for the second, and $10,000 for the third with a year in jail. And for the next five years, a couple thousand surcharge on their drivers license each year.

Most cars do not get the same mileage at 75 as they do at 55. Plain simple laws of physics. There is no 'momentum'. HOrse manure.

There is a lot of wind resistance. Unless you drive an ultra sleek 3 foot high Lamborghini or equivalent, the main thing determing the gas mileage will be the 'drag' of the car going through the air - determined by the styling and the frontal area of the car, and any obtrusions such as mirrors, bumpers and antennas.

If you are in hilly territory, you'll do a lot of 'work' moving the car up hills. Yes,most gas is used for 'acceleration' but maintaining high speed against a high wind (drag) takes a lot of HP. If not, every 40 HP VW would get up to 150 mph....since according to you and the momentum theory, you keep accelerating forever. The rest of us know that isn't true. When the drag of the car exceeds the HP of the engine, the car can go no faster. That is why a '55 VW bug isn't going to do 100 mph with its stock 36 HP engine, and why it takes a couple hundred horsepower to get over 120 mph in a 3000-4000 lb car, and a really big engine to get up to 180 mph (400+ HP). Otherwise, by your theory of momentum and 'no more gas needed at 100 mph), those VWs would eventually get to 150 mph with 36 HP engines.

I would really hate the 55 mph limit again. It didn't work last time.

When gas gets more expensive, and you see folks slowing down voluntarily, you know they are doing so to save money. Now, time is money for most. Another 2 or 6 hours on the road on a trip is money. If you take 5 days instead of 4 to get somewhere, that is a motel and meals on the road ($$$$$). Maybe same cost for trip, but now you waste a day.

The trucks are slowing down. They get 10% better fuel mileage at 52-53 than they do at 58-60. Truck companies are setting speed regulators back. The costs are hurting them. They ARE slowing down.

When it happens to the public, you'll know gas prices are 'too high'. Meanwhile, don't mess with speed limits. If you want to get 'unelected' as a Congressperson, vote for speed limits at 55.

The only way we'll get them is when the shortages start in 3-4 years as supply doesn't keep up with worldwide demand. Then you'll get an amazing amount of BS out of Washington DC to try and solve 'the problem' and it will only make things worse.

K1CJS

03-24-2008, 02:23 PM

..........The trucks are slowing down. They get 10% better fuel mileage at 52-53 than they do at 58-60. Truck companies are setting speed regulators back. The costs are hurting them. They ARE slowing down.

When it happens to the public, you'll know gas prices are 'too high'. Meanwhile, don't mess with speed limits. If you want to get 'unelected' as a Congressperson, vote for speed limits at 55.

The only way we'll get them is when the shortages start in 3-4 years as supply doesn't keep up with worldwide demand. Then you'll get an amazing amount of BS out of Washington DC to try and solve 'the problem' and it will only make things worse.

Trucking companies are looking to set the speed governors of those trucks lower, but there are drivers who will get a friendly mechanic to reset them. An extra couple hundred dollars will make most any mechanic 'friendly'.

One thing is plain though. The BS has been and is coming out of Washington. Ethanol from corn is ending up costing us more--the resulting 'mandatory' 10% in fuel pushes gas mileage down, the ethanol manufacturing process takes fuel to begin with, and finally the diversion of corn from foodstock to fuel drives the prices of feed corn up. This causes an increase in costs for the livestock and the resulting higher price of meats.

Yep, Dubya did himself proud--right in line with the 'Reagan economic revolution'.

K9YLI

03-24-2008, 02:31 PM

Appearantly no one remembers the second world war.
speed limit everywhere was 35..
and with rationing, no one drove over 35. period.
I know from experience that my 70 blazer with 350 4 barrel, would get 14 mpg in nromal driving. ONe deer season the road was icy and traffic went at 35 max. I got about 32 mpg for the 90 mile trip to Woodruff.
I had a instant mpg calculator on a 78 chevell.
pullling a flat faced trailer to texas and back got 9mpg loaded or unloaded at about 58 mph. going home empty dropped speed to 52 mph and mileage went up to 14 mpg.
Want to save gas and lower the price..
speed limit 35 max..
tickets $1000 and double every ticket you get.
issue tickets at 36 or above so every one drives no more than 32 just to be on safe side.
set the cruise control so you can enjoy the country side.
50% instant drop in fuel usage.
totally terrify the oil producers......

n6yg

03-24-2008, 03:02 PM

Any idiot doing 150 mph should be locked up and the car confiscated. Sorry. As far as I can tell, there is no reason for a car to do over 80 mph. Period. (other than a police car to catch the ones who modify their car to go over 80mph).

And no, most going 150 mph likely cannot afford a lot of $2000 tickets (the first time) in most jurisdictions - and in places like TX, about $5000 for the second, and $10,000 for the third with a year in jail. And for the next five years, a couple thousand surcharge on their drivers license each year.

Most cars do not get the same mileage at 75 as they do at 55. Plain simple laws of physics. There is no 'momentum'. HOrse manure.

There is a lot of wind resistance. Unless you drive an ultra sleek 3 foot high Lamborghini or equivalent, the main thing determing the gas mileage will be the 'drag' of the car going through the air - determined by the styling and the frontal area of the car, and any obtrusions such as mirrors, bumpers and antennas.

If you are in hilly territory, you'll do a lot of 'work' moving the car up hills. Yes,most gas is used for 'acceleration' but maintaining high speed against a high wind (drag) takes a lot of HP. If not, every 40 HP VW would get up to 150 mph....since according to you and the momentum theory, you keep accelerating forever. The rest of us know that isn't true. When the drag of the car exceeds the HP of the engine, the car can go no faster. That is why a '55 VW bug isn't going to do 100 mph with its stock 36 HP engine, and why it takes a couple hundred horsepower to get over 120 mph in a 3000-4000 lb car, and a really big engine to get up to 180 mph (400+ HP). Otherwise, by your theory of momentum and 'no more gas needed at 100 mph), those VWs would eventually get to 150 mph with 36 HP engines.

I would really hate the 55 mph limit again. It didn't work last time.

When gas gets more expensive, and you see folks slowing down voluntarily, you know they are doing so to save money. Now, time is money for most. Another 2 or 6 hours on the road on a trip is money. If you take 5 days instead of 4 to get somewhere, that is a motel and meals on the road ($$$$$). Maybe same cost for trip, but now you waste a day.

The trucks are slowing down. They get 10% better fuel mileage at 52-53 than they do at 58-60. Truck companies are setting speed regulators back. The costs are hurting them. They ARE slowing down.

When it happens to the public, you'll know gas prices are 'too high'. Meanwhile, don't mess with speed limits. If you want to get 'unelected' as a Congressperson, vote for speed limits at 55.

The only way we'll get them is when the shortages start in 3-4 years as supply doesn't keep up with worldwide demand. Then you'll get an amazing amount of BS out of Washington DC to try and solve 'the problem' and it will only make things worse.

I have already slowed down voluntarily. With so many people driving big SUV's drag is a major factor in fuel consumption.

Using Chevron fuel and driving 55mph My explorer averages around 22 mpg and at 65 it averages 18. As much as I drive reducing my speed to 55 results in a significant savings. Using AM/PM gas the same truck gets 19 and 16. If you include the ATM fee AM/PM gas while appearing cheaper is actually more expensive.

If I use AM/PM gas instead of Chevron and drive 65 instead of 55 on the freeway I see a 6 mpg increase in fuel consumption.

Now lets look at my Camaro Z28.. The difference in fuel consumption between 65 and 55 is hard to measure. Again the difference between Chevron and AM/PM fuel is more dramatic then the speed difference.
Using Chevron fuel and averaging 65 mph the Camaro gets 20 MPG that's 2mpg better then the explorer and the Camaro has a larger engine. Now when using AM/PM gas the same Camaro only averages 16. The higher concentration of Ethanol in AM/PM fuel really shows up in consummation measurements

KD6NIG

03-24-2008, 03:37 PM

The trucks are slowing down because most of the larger ones can simply program the computers in them to "narc" on them for 65 instead of 70, for example. You send out a message to the drivers that you're doing this, and they will have to slow down or face the boss.

I don't think 55 would be a good idea. I wouldn't raise the limits but I know in my 2 vehicles they do best on gas mileage between 60-75. I used to drive 5 over but now I'm finding myself setting the cruise to the limit and staying there. Anything about 75 and I start to see a drop in mileage, but I drive 4 cyl vehicles and when you get around 80 the RPMs start getting a bit higher, thus more consumption. They are geared for 2000-2500RPM @ 70 usually. Beyond that the savings starts going away. When the speed limits were lower the gas savings went down because most everything was geared for efficency at 55 not 65-70 now.

I didn't know CA had 75 zones. I had heard they were looking at it for some sparse stretches but didn't know it had been enacted. Everything around here freeway is 65 with 70 on the sparser or more straighter sections of I-5.

The truck drivers aren't slowing themselves down though. Its likely the large companies mandating it. If a truck has a computer in it tracking it, they can track everything and set paramaters. I know they are being more picky about idle time too-one driver told me last week the bonuses for having low idle time are going up-because its cheaper to pay the driver the bonus than to pay for the diesel to idle. A lot of trucks have gensets on them now too that come on to keep the cab warm and make power-those have really been becoming more prevelant now with the higher prices. You can justify a $10,000 genset when it saves that much in a year on diesel for idling.

Diesel seems to be pretty expensive across the board. Its $4.08 here at most of the truck stops. A guy came in earlier this morning and showed me a fuel tag from Nebraska. $4.03. For 150 gallons- $606. Ouch.

But most everything coming in here now is coming on the rail, then being moved the short hop from Lathrop to here in Tracy. 95% of our inbounds are containers on frames now from the rail.

Its going to be an interesting summer.

n4cd

03-24-2008, 08:04 PM

The truck drivers who pay for their diesel are slowing down. It's coming right out of their profits. Those who drive for a company and pass on the expenses need to watch their mileage. If others are doing it for less diesel for the same route, they'll be in trouble. Many have GPS tracking now.

Many of the independents are fading away quickly. Many have poor business skills and now saving pennies is everything.

The sales of large trucks and vehicles are dropping. Many buying new cars will finally think about gas mileage as an important decision factor.

wb6mmj

03-24-2008, 09:44 PM

KV1M

03-24-2008, 09:54 PM

You should see the tiny cars here in the UK.
Most do 120+ and they get great gas mileage.

G0GQK

03-24-2008, 09:55 PM

You do realise that if the 55 mph speed limit was imposed across the whole of the USA it would take 54.5 hours to drive from left to right, or right to left, whichever way the wind was blowing, without any pit stops !

As far as diesel engined trucks driving slower to save fuel, they wouldn't save much fuel or money. Incidentally, some might be interested to know that on Saturday the price for diesel at one of my local filling stations was 118 pence per litre ! The price in the US now is probably about 38 pence a litre, or liter, if you insist. That is £5.31 pence per Imperial gallon so its now costing about 13 pence a mile in a car which achieves 40 miles per gallon. If someone is unfortunate to own a US gas guzzler in the UK, the cost per mile will be 34 pence per mile if the vehicle does 15 miles per Imperial gallon. The US gallon is smaller than ours.

G0GQK

nq6v

03-24-2008, 10:30 PM

I just topped off my mains in my 95 Freightliner conventional. I just finished a pull from Houston, Tx. to Phoenix, Az. Just to experiment, I kept on running way past my needle registering empty.

Dropped load, and ran empty to Casa Grande, Az. on the way to Nogalas, Az. to load produce going ? Find out when I get the BOL.

It cost me almost $1000 to fill my mains, down over 250 gallons. I then topped off my reefer tank. It took over 20 gallons. Since I do not put untaxed fuel in my reefer tank, I just continued fueling.

$1125.

There are articles in the trucker magazines. Sinse the big carriers are responsible for their printing, and are the major source of ads in them, they have a lot to say about what drivers are permitted to read in them.(A 3 day shut down attempted by some drivers of the entire North American fleet got no publicity, since the big carriers saw no advantage in such an act. Needless to say, it went nowhere. Control the press, and you control mass behavior.) The magazines have been slowly cluing drivers on an attempt to start a nationwide truck speed limit of 65, with mandatory governing and maximum cruise control settings of a few mph over that, to allow safe passing of slower vehicles. This would lower the limit in many states, but raise it in others like Ca. and Or. They are getting drivers ready for acceptance of such a push in lawmaking, whenever drivers know it or not.

In Ca. trucks routinly go 60mph plus, and are ignored by most CHP. I usually go 57 on flat treeaign, for my cruise control drops out just under 55, and my speed drops going up small grades. On roads with slightly hillier grades, I go 59. Just to keep the cruise control from dropping out. CHP just blow past me. I usually do not even know they are there until I see them go by. I do see them pull over trucks for speeding. Appearently many drivers feel they must break the law more than others, and are caught.

I cna agree with a nationwide speed of 65. For all vehicles, with goveners installed in all new vehicles to limit speed and cruise control settings to just a few mph over that, to permit safe passing of slower vehicles. Period.

But 55? SCREW 55!

KD0DKI

03-24-2008, 11:23 PM

kd8hho

03-24-2008, 11:52 PM

It doesn't matter the speed 2000rpm is the number for my Jeep.
Temperature and humidity have a play in it as well.
In Minnesota we get some cold weather, several times this year it was below -20F. At -0F my mpg was 15+
At less than +20F I get 16-17mpg
At more the +20F and 80% humidity the millage jumps to 18-19
Yes I track this with a spreadsheet after every fill.
id like to see the spread sheet.

there is so many factors on fuel consumption
air temp, humidity, RPM, drag,ect ect.. allmost need to be a rocket scientist to figure it all out :eek:

K0RGR

03-25-2008, 12:19 AM

I still believe that 55 is a reasonable speed limit for places like New York. It keeps them from escaping faster...

I would still like to see an American Autobahn from Omaha to San Francisco - built German style - extra wide, banked for 100+ MPH and no expansion joints.

But, barring that, I'd like to see a major increase in AMTRAK facilities and trains. We took AMTRAK to California this Christmas, and it was OK. Much cheaper than flying, or the bus, even. I don't think the airlines will be getting much of my money anymore, if there is a train that goes there. The problem is that the schedules suck due to low ridership, and many routes are full all the time.

Another idea would be a way to form 'land trains' - long strings of passenger cars pulled by a single semi-tractor across states like Nebraska. You pay $50, and connect your car. The next thing you know, you wake up refreshed at the Wyoming border.

I was stuck in traffic jams for 2 hours last night trying to get across the Twin Cities - two big accidents tied us up for many miles.

n0ov

03-25-2008, 03:41 PM

I lived in upstate New York in the late 70's -- let me tell you that is one big state. 55 mph speed limit was a great revenue generator for the State Police

(Many more miles of interstate that Minn)

KB1NIV

03-25-2008, 04:33 PM

I don`t understand why ,here in the U.S., the big three keep pushing Pick-Up Trucks and SUV`s. Can`t they build small cars?
I guess they still don`t get it after all these years.
Japan has the right idea. Build them small and efficient and build them to last.
If the big three are having money problems, that is why.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been specializing in Pickup Trucks and SUVs for two reasons - that is what the new car buying public has historically wanted and the profit margins are much higher on these than on passenger cars. The manufacturer can gross up to $10,000 on a high end Pickup Truck or SUV but only grosses $300-$400 on a low priced subcompact such as the Chevrolet Aveo5 SVM.

My mother has a 1997 Geo Metro which is still in great shape and still gets about 37-40mpg combined highway and city driving. I think Suzuki built the car and GM rebadged it.

I bought a 2007 Aveo5 SVM in late October 2006 and have been very happy with it. I get around 29 mpg in the warm weather (80% city driving) and around 26mpg in the cold weather (higher ethanol winter gas formulation). It cost me approx. $11,000 less than a Prius with its wildly inflated mpg figures and I don't have to worry about the resale vaule of the Prius going in the dumpster when the next generation of hybrid batteries comes.

KB9BVN

03-25-2008, 04:40 PM