Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle
-
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
The CAFE standards in 2007 called for a 30% improvement over 15 years. They are now calling for a 40% improvement in 4 years. And can we stop pretending these little 4 cylinder engines really perform as well as a 6 or 8? They don’t.
The Brad
-
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
One reason is that we no longer reward outstanding achievement.
Now we reward outstanding skin color and gender and pronouns and that sort of thing.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
The CAFE standards in 2007 called for a 30% improvement over 15 years. They are now calling for a 40% improvement in 4 years. And can we stop pretending these little 4 cylinder engines really perform as well as a 6 or 8? They don’t.
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
The CAFE standards in 2007 called for a 30% improvement over 15 years. They are now calling for a 40% improvement in 4 years.
That's how it works. It gets easier over time.
And can we stop pretending these little 4 cylinder engines really perform as well as a 6 or 8? They don’t.
Not everyone should look to long-haul truckers or their Bullitt DVD to determine their vehicle performance needs.
Please love yourself.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
The CAFE standards in 2007 called for a 30% improvement over 15 years. They are now calling for a 40% improvement in 4 years.
That's how it works. It gets easier over time.
And can we stop pretending these little 4 cylinder engines really perform as well as a 6 or 8? They don’t.
Not everyone should look to long-haul truckers or their Bullitt DVD to determine their vehicle performance needs.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
The CAFE standards in 2007 called for a 30% improvement over 15 years. They are now calling for a 40% improvement in 4 years.
That's how it works. It gets easier over time.
And can we stop pretending these little 4 cylinder engines really perform as well as a 6 or 8? They don’t.
Not everyone should look to long-haul truckers or their Bullitt DVD to determine their vehicle performance needs.
If you take the value of somebody else’s opinion about my vehicle needs and add $4,53, you could buy a gallon of gas.
The Brad
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
The CAFE standards in 2007 called for a 30% improvement over 15 years. They are now calling for a 40% improvement in 4 years.
That's how it works. It gets easier over time.
And can we stop pretending these little 4 cylinder engines really perform as well as a 6 or 8? They don’t.
Not everyone should look to long-haul truckers or their Bullitt DVD to determine their vehicle performance needs.
If you take the value of somebody else’s opinion about my vehicle needs and add $4,53, you could buy a gallon of gas.
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
If you take the value of somebody else’s opinion about my vehicle needs and add $4,53, you could buy a gallon of gas.
Maybe hire an “efficiency expert” to figure out what your vehicle needs really are, as opposed to your vehicle “wants.” Those “efficiency experts” were all the rage in the ‘80s.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
Well, since the majority of cars will have to be 2 seaters to get that kind of mileage, that means Karla, Finley, and I will be taking 2 vehicles whenever we go out… Wonder how many more trips to the grocery store I’ll need to take per week since a loaf of bread will be about all the cargo my trunk will be able to support…
Biking to buy groceries is fun.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
Biking to buy groceries is fun.
Say, do you mount the grocery basket in front or at the back of your bike? Or both, with two baskets?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
Biking to buy groceries is fun.
Say, do you mount the grocery basket in front or at the back of your bike? Or both, with two baskets?
@Axtremus said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
Biking to buy groceries is fun.
Say, do you mount the grocery basket in front or at the back of your bike? Or both, with two baskets?
Dunno if you're serious, but in case you are: I've four. Two panniers in the front, two in the back.
I always fill up the rear ones first, and only use the two in the front if I have to. Front panniers much more radically change the feeling of steering, so I avoid doing that if I can.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
The CAFE standards in 2007 called for a 30% improvement over 15 years. They are now calling for a 40% improvement in 4 years.
That's how it works. It gets easier over time.
And can we stop pretending these little 4 cylinder engines really perform as well as a 6 or 8? They don’t.
Not everyone should look to long-haul truckers or their Bullitt DVD to determine their vehicle performance needs.
If you take the value of somebody else’s opinion about my vehicle needs and add $4,53, you could buy a gallon of gas.
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
The CAFE standards in 2007 called for a 30% improvement over 15 years. They are now calling for a 40% improvement in 4 years.
That's how it works. It gets easier over time.
And can we stop pretending these little 4 cylinder engines really perform as well as a 6 or 8? They don’t.
Not everyone should look to long-haul truckers or their Bullitt DVD to determine their vehicle performance needs.
If you take the value of somebody else’s opinion about my vehicle needs and add $4,53, you could buy a gallon of gas.
I thought we were talking about a national policy, not what you personally need?
-
A turbo four generally does not last and today's engines are very hard for a mechanic to rebuild. So, you tell your customer he has to buy a crate motor from the manufacturer for five or six grand, and it will cost $1200 to drop it in the car.
Yep, that's saving energy.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
The CAFE standards in 2007 called for a 30% improvement over 15 years. They are now calling for a 40% improvement in 4 years.
That's how it works. It gets easier over time.
And can we stop pretending these little 4 cylinder engines really perform as well as a 6 or 8? They don’t.
Not everyone should look to long-haul truckers or their Bullitt DVD to determine their vehicle performance needs.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@LuFins-Dad said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I think we often look at these directions with the eyes of current technology. For example, in 1975, the average fuel economy for all vehicles in the US was about 12-13 miles in a gallon.
If you told someone then that by 1990, the government would have said that the overall fuel economy would be have to more than double that (for example, up to 26 miles in a gallon), I am sure alot of people would have said "no way!!". Vehicles reached that, were safer, more comfortable, etc.
I dont see any reason why the requirements suggested cannot be met, and still keep a safe comfortable vehicle.
The CAFE standards in 2007 called for a 30% improvement over 15 years. They are now calling for a 40% improvement in 4 years.
That's how it works. It gets easier over time.
And can we stop pretending these little 4 cylinder engines really perform as well as a 6 or 8? They don’t.
Not everyone should look to long-haul truckers or their Bullitt DVD to determine their vehicle performance needs.
Lots of pickups on the rural route. People out here use them for a lot of things...Hauling building material, firewood, towing trailers of one kind or another.
I know the mpg standard is to be averaged over a manufacturer's fleet, but these new standards will kill the pickup.
-
The devil is in the details. In this case, the percentage of electric vehicles in each portfolio will be how they get there.
@Mik said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
The devil is in the details. In this case, the percentage of electric vehicles in each portfolio will be how they get there.
Yep.
-
@Axtremus said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
Biking to buy groceries is fun.
Say, do you mount the grocery basket in front or at the back of your bike? Or both, with two baskets?
Dunno if you're serious, but in case you are: I've four. Two panniers in the front, two in the back.
I always fill up the rear ones first, and only use the two in the front if I have to. Front panniers much more radically change the feeling of steering, so I avoid doing that if I can.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
Dunno if you're serious, but in case you are: I've four. Two panniers in the front, two in the back.
I always fill up the rear ones first, and only use the two in the front if I have to. Front panniers much more radically change the feeling of steering, so I avoid doing that if I can.
Nice! It’s not something I think regularly about, and I had to Google pictures of “bicycle panniers” to get a sense of what you’re talking about. But I appreciate your answer and the opportunity to learn something new from this exchange. Thanks!
-
Easiest way to increase your gas mileage and save money is to decrease speed. Obviously, if you are just driving around the town, different methods are required.
"Speed Kills MPG
Unfortunately, it's true. Your car's gas mileage decreases once it gets past its optimal speed. For most cars, this is around 55-60 mph. This means that every time you go over this speed, you're essentially wasting gas and money - and creating unnecessary greenhouse gases.
You'd be surprised to learn that a slight decrease in your highway driving speed can significantly reduce your gas consumption, while only adding a few minutes to your travel time.
How much?According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph - 8% less efficient at 65 mph - 17% less efficient at 70 mph - 23% less efficient at 75 mph - 28% less efficient at 80 mph
image url) -
I don't believe that is true. My car gets 22 around town and 27.2 on the highway. Where I typically drive 80 MPH. I do not believe I would get over 30 MPH if I drove 55. It also depends on transmission - how the power gets transferred to the wheels.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
I looked at my last fill-up.
During this tank, I drove up to visit D2 near Milwaukee. About a 200 mile round-trip, mostly on interstates at 75mph-plus.
The remainder of my driving was around town.
I drove 353 miles on that tank.
Here's my gas receipt.
About 25.8 mpg.
-
Easiest way to increase your gas mileage and save money is to decrease speed. Obviously, if you are just driving around the town, different methods are required.
"Speed Kills MPG
Unfortunately, it's true. Your car's gas mileage decreases once it gets past its optimal speed. For most cars, this is around 55-60 mph. This means that every time you go over this speed, you're essentially wasting gas and money - and creating unnecessary greenhouse gases.
You'd be surprised to learn that a slight decrease in your highway driving speed can significantly reduce your gas consumption, while only adding a few minutes to your travel time.
How much?According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph - 8% less efficient at 65 mph - 17% less efficient at 70 mph - 23% less efficient at 75 mph - 28% less efficient at 80 mph@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
"Speed Kills MPG
Unfortunately, it's true.
Your car's gas mileage decreases once it gets past its optimal speed. For most cars, this is around 55-60 mph. This means that every time you go over this speed, you're essentially wasting gas and money - and creating unnecessary greenhouse gases.
You'd be surprised to learn that a slight decrease in your highway driving speed can significantly reduce your gas consumption, while only adding a few minutes to your travel time.
Unfortunately, I doubt it.
its optimal speed
Optimal for what? I'm not driving my car because I want to save fuel, I'm driving it because I want to go from point A to point B. I optimize my trip by arriving sooner.
significantly reduce
Significant for whom? A few ounces of fuel are not significant, at least not for me.
Easiest way to increase your gas mileage and save money is to decrease speed.
Not if you are in Northern Virginia and there are a hundred people bumper-to-bumper behind you. The best way to save fuel and lower emissions is to go as fast as you can in order to maximize the number of people who make it through the red light. If you go slow and a hundred more people miss the green light then you are all sitting there burning fossil fuel, waiting. And you waste all the momentum you had built when you have to brake to stop.
Slow speed is probably the reason for most road rage, forget fuel economy, slow speed kills.
-
I don't believe that is true. My car gets 22 around town and 27.2 on the highway. Where I typically drive 80 MPH. I do not believe I would get over 30 MPH if I drove 55. It also depends on transmission - how the power gets transferred to the wheels.
@Mik said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
I don't believe that is true. My car gets 22 around town and 27.2 on the highway. Where I typically drive 80 MPH. I do not believe I would get over 30 MPH if I drove 55. It also depends on transmission - how the power gets transferred to the wheels.
If I remember, driving around town is always less for a gas car, because of the power required to start the car (and weight of the car) going from a stop.
I think the graph shown is true if you are going a steady speed.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Killing Off the Fossil Fuel Vehicle:
"Speed Kills MPG
Unfortunately, it's true.
Your car's gas mileage decreases once it gets past its optimal speed. For most cars, this is around 55-60 mph. This means that every time you go over this speed, you're essentially wasting gas and money - and creating unnecessary greenhouse gases.
You'd be surprised to learn that a slight decrease in your highway driving speed can significantly reduce your gas consumption, while only adding a few minutes to your travel time.
Unfortunately, I doubt it.
its optimal speed
Optimal for what? I'm not driving my car because I want to save fuel, I'm driving it because I want to go from point A to point B. I optimize my trip by arriving sooner.
significantly reduce
Significant for whom? A few ounces of fuel are not significant, at least not for me.
Easiest way to increase your gas mileage and save money is to decrease speed.
Not if you are in Northern Virginia and there are a hundred people bumper-to-bumper behind you. The best way to save fuel and lower emissions is to go as fast as you can in order to maximize the number of people who make it through the red light. If you go slow and a hundred more people miss the green light then you are all sitting there burning fossil fuel, waiting. And you waste all the momentum you had built when you have to brake to stop.
Slow speed is probably the reason for most road rage, forget fuel economy, slow speed kills.
@Copper Here is an article that tries to incorporate the "time function" into the equation.
(https://www.wired.com/story/is-there-an-optimal-driving-speed-that-saves-gas-and-money/)
