Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Putting the brakes on speedy motorway driving

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Mugu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 07:57 AM
Original message
Putting the brakes on speedy motorway driving
BERLIN (Reuters) - The northern city of Bremen became the first state in Germany to introduce a speed limit on its motorways on Wednesday, breaking a taboo in a country proud of its fast cars.

The 120 kph (75 mph) limit in Bremen will affect just 60 km of road because the city state is so small.

"This is a good day for traffic safety and we are also sending a signal about protecting the environment and climate," said Reinhard Loske, Bremen's environment minister.

"Our goal is to introduce a general speed limit on motorways in the whole of Germany together with other states," added Loske, a member of the Greens who share power in Bremen with the Social Democrats (SPD). It is unclear how successful he will be.

Complete article at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSL0989687420080410
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. back in the price freeze era I had a big assed mercury with a hugh engine
and by driving 55 I could get 20 mpg guaranteed. Guaranteed in the fact that if I had a hundred miles to go I could put in five gallons and have enough to get there no problem. I was on the hiway yesterday and I drive 60 or so and I noticed hardly any cars or trucks for that matter pass me where as not too long ago I would be like being passed like I was setting still sometimes. I don't like the idea that being forced to slow down but by slowing down it does save gas and lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. A HUGH engine?? Seriesly, I had a chevy with a 454ci big block
V-8 that only got about 13 mpg.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. to todays standards only, 390 CI
my friend had a 67 chevy and it was hardly ever driven because it only got about 12 or so mpg, hell, he couldn't afford to drive it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. At the time I had that car, gas was only 65 cents / gallon!
So it wasn't as bad as today. It would cost me $75 to fill it up today! :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. 10 years ago we bought a new f150
I worked construction so needed the big truck but anyways it cost me 20 bucks to fill it up where yesterday I put thirty bucks in it and didn't even get to the half way mark. The f150 gets 15 mpg if I don't crowd it any, needless to say it doesn't get driven much anymore.
I wonder though why it is that the 69 390 ci engine in a big assed car could get better gas mileage than a '98 f150 short bed with the 5.4, which is 329 ci, could. I also wonder if maybe they aren't dumping in more gas than is needed and letting the catalytic converter burn it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. A couple of possible reasons.
I assume the weight of the truck is more than that of the 69. I know it would probably be more than my 74 monte carlo, though mine was an automatic. Was the 69 a four on the floor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. no it was the big all the bells and whistles one, mercury monterey four door hard top
I think it was called. I think the weight was about the same. We even compared the mileage with and without using the air conditioner and didn't see any difference, or not enough to make us not use it. I also wonder if maybe the gas is not as good now as it was then if that is possible. Maybe I should mention we had a 74 390 f100 right before we bought the one we have now that got close to 20 mpg and that was with me mashing on that loud pedal pretty hard quite often too. It would run off and hide from this '98 and the '98s no slouch either. In fact in '98 popular mechanix rated one like our truck as the 13th quickest through the quarter mile vehicle one could buy here in the states then, said it would have been much better had they been able to put on stickier tires, just couldn't keep 'em hooked up. I'm an old motor head from a long way back and I sure hated to see all those big blocks go by way of the dodo. What beautiful sounds they made. I hated to see it but glad they're gone as the damage to the enviroment was too great. Our next auto should be at least a hybrid or maybe even a total electric one if they ever start selling them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. Big engines turning at low rpm can be quite fuel efficient..
Final drive ratio has a lot to do with it.

My daughter has a 97 Explorer with the 5.4 OHC V8, an overdrive automatic and the digital MPG readout..

If you keep it under 70 mph you can get 22 mpg on the highway, there is almost no difference at all mpg wise between 55 and 65 mph.

At 65 mph the engine is turning only about 2,000 rpm.

As long as the terrain is fairly flat, use the cruise control as much as you can.. In hillier terrain where the cruise control wants to kick it out of overdrive on the uphill slopes you are better off to drive without the cruise and slow a bit on the uphills so the overdrive stays engaged.

The trick to getting better around town mileage is conserving your momentum.. Coast as much as you can and slow as little as possible for corners and such.

What really surprised me is that the truck gets considerably better mileage at an indicated 65 mph constant than at 35 mph constant.. The tranny won't shift into overdrive until 46 or 47 mph and that makes a very big difference in the fuel efficiency.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC