Ask the Car People.SM


How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?

795 messages,  Last post on Apr 01, 2013 at 9:05 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Automotive News

Messages Page 70 of 81

#683 of 795 Ah, Memories! by hpmctorque

Jan 09, 2013 (8:30 am)

Thanks for posting that.

#684 of 795 Re: Something to think about [gagrice] by fintail

Jan 09, 2013 (8:32 am)

Replying to: gagrice (Jan 08, 2013 5:01 pm)
Many factors at play, from different tax policies to different tolerance of corporate shenanigans, to more motorists and different residential development patterns.

#685 of 795 a little relief in 2013 by steve_ HOST

Jan 12, 2013 (8:08 am)

"Hamburger, health care and taxes are all set to take a bigger bite out of the family budget this year. But drivers' annual gas bills are expected to drop for the first time in four years.
 
Forecasters say ample oil supplies and weak U.S. demand will keep a lid on prices. The lows will be lower and the highs won't be so high compared with a year ago. The average price of a gallon of gasoline will fall 5 per cent to $3.44, according to the Energy Department."
 
After price spikes, gas could get cheaper in 2013, thanks to ample supplies, feeble US demand (Yahoo)

#686 of 795 drag, speed and fuel economy by steve_ HOST

Jan 27, 2013 (2:36 pm)

"How much does your fuel economy fall -- and how much does your fuel cost rise? -- if you drive at 60 m.p.h. rather than 50? How about 70 m.p.h.? 80?
 
Would you believe a 41% decrease in fuel economy from 50 m.p.h. to 80? That's like paying $1.38 more per gallon of gasoline, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's website Fueleconomy.gov.
 
There wasn't much correlation between decreasing fuel economy and the vehicles' frontal area and aerodynamic drag."
 
Mark Phelan: The faster you go, the less m.p.g. you get (Detroit News)

#687 of 795 Re: drag, speed and fuel economy [steve_] by fintail

Jan 27, 2013 (3:44 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Jan 27, 2013 2:36 pm)
I guess it is believable. 80 is 60% more than 50, so using 40% more fuel doesn't sound bad. In marginal terms, more efficient. Of course, probably a distinct minority of highways the US allow long term 80mph cruising anyway.
 
Here's my own anecdotal experiment, using a 2012 MB E350 with a 7 speed auto:
 

#688 of 795 Re: drag, speed and fuel economy [steve_] by gagrice

Jan 27, 2013 (3:53 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Jan 27, 2013 2:36 pm)
Those are not statistics you would want to wave in front of this lame administration. They would pull a Nixon on US and we would be back to 55 MPH on the highways. For those that time is meaningless it may be worthwhile to look at. If you travel 500 miles a day on a trip the difference would be more than 3 hours behind the wheel. I usually cruise 70-75 when it is posted 65 or 70 MPH. I checked a tank once staying right at 60 MPH from Phoenix to Yuma taking the old highway. My mileage did not improve even 1 MPG over my normal driving habits. Not worth the risk of falling asleep at that slow of a pace.

#689 of 795 Re: drag, speed and fuel economy [gagrice] by xwesx

Jan 28, 2013 (11:52 am)

Replying to: gagrice (Jan 27, 2013 3:53 pm)
I have to agree with you on that. Plus, gearing plays a big role, so not every vehicle is going to see that 40% between 50 and 80.
 
Heck, at 55 mpg, my 1969 C20 gets 15 mpg. I never knew that, because I never went 55 for any appreciable length of time. Even traveling a 55 mph road at 60, I tended to get 12 mpg. At 65, I get 10.5-11. Above that, and it drops like a rock. So, over ten miles-per-hour, my fuel economy dropped 36 percent. I don't think there are many, if any, vehicles made today that would see that same impact between 55 and 65 mph.
 
I think the best answer is "know thy vehicle." The driver always needs to balance speed, safety, and time, so adding optimal (acceptable) fuel economy within those variables doesn't really add too much more complexity to the decision.

#690 of 795 Good news for US by gagrice

Feb 02, 2013 (5:26 pm)

CHU is gone... Hopefully Obama does not pick a more zealous anti vehicle person for the job.
 
Chu’s departure had been widely expected and follows announcements by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that they are leaving.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/energy-secretary-steven-chu-resigns/2013/- 02/01/9809fd8a-6c8f-11e2-8f4f-2abd96162ba8_story.html?wpisrc=al_politics_p

#691 of 795 gas is approaching $4 again fast by steve_ HOST

Feb 05, 2013 (8:29 am)

The WSJ list a bunch of reasons why.
 
"Problems with pipelines transporting crude around the nation have been the main driver of the 12% rise in U.S. crude futures over the last seven weeks. Crude is responsible for 68% of gasoline prices.
 
[A] sluggish economy and more fuel-efficient cars have put a lid on consumption."
 
Super storm Sandy lowered inventories.
 
"The Northeast gasoline shortage has squeezed the futures higher for the contract, which is used as a yardstick for gasoline prices across the nation."

#692 of 795 Re: gas is approaching $4 again fast [steve_] by xwesx

Feb 05, 2013 (10:35 am)

Replying to: steve_ (Feb 05, 2013 8:29 am)
Uh huh. Plus the guys that make tons of money on oil want to make their money on oil. The consumer will pay; oh, yes, they'll pay.

Messages Page 70 of 81

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement