I'm going to be honest here and probably win the prize for worst violator of fuel economy. I drive a minimum of 50 miles a day back and fourth to work and 200 miles one way every time I go home.

Most speed limits here are 65 on highways and 75 on the interstates, but you can drive anywhere in the state doing 73 in a 65 and you won't get stopped. At night I average between 73 and 85 if I've got somewhere to go like home. Worse that speed is very inconsistent. It involves speeding up in places where there is no oncoming traffic and no chance of meeting a cop and then back down to 73 when headlights appear and then speeding up again when I either know its not a cop or the vehicle has passed. In addition it seems like I always have a mountain pass I have to drive over.

I tend to live and work out of my 3/4 ton, 4 wheel drive truck so it is always crammed with clothes, food and a tool box with a couple hundred pounds of tools in it. It is also very high profile and we are famous for our wind in this state so those are also negative factors. And of course what makes it even worse than that is when you work in the oilfield someone else is usually paying for your gas so you don't pay much attention to it.

I may have to actually start thinking more in terms of gas mileage and emissions, but when you've worked 12 hard hours and have a three or four hour drive to just get home, its hard not to be in a hurry. There is also another factor to consider other than as mileage. That is the number of hours since you slept last, and number of hours behind the wheel. On average I know of abut half a dozen roughnecks who die in car wrecks every year, and in most cases it's not that they were going to fast. It's that they went to sleep just trying to make it back home.

 

hijo de puta!! no joda conmigo, pendejo

 

2000 323i actually. I wish I had an M3. Those things are sweet.

 

You just made my shit list for the night tenguy.

 

f It hurts too much to hold it in!!!

 

come on BB you are in college and can't figure it out. Simple you push the right buttons, I never saw a car they werent labelled on.

 

You just made my day. Thank you, this is what I live for.

Actually, I was making a bit of an example for those who thought the MLK jr joke was funny.

Some of my best friends are we...... er Mexicans.

 

Well if I didn't give up my Expedition I would have you beat. I'm clocking 140 miles a day round trip. Speed ranging from 85-25 and back up again. You go through brakes quickly traveling the Garden State Parkway.
I hate that when you are starting to doze off and start seeing things in the road!

 

I know the feeling well. Actually I've stopped pushing it to that extreme. I'll actually pull over and sleep these days, but damn sometimes its like I'm only a few miles from home, but thats better than not making it at all.

 

Good philosophy to have, mate.

 

I don't know what the actually stats are, but I would assume the majority of one car crashes on rural highways are probably due to drivers falling asleep. Good to be cautious.

Either from exhaustion, chemical influence or boredum.

 

I'd actually be very surprised if this turns out to be true. It's not about computer controls...it's about overcoming wind resistance. That's the dominant factor in determining fuel economy, and it rises exponentially with speed. The immutable laws of physics are at work.

 

It's either drivers falling asleep or doing something to distract themselves (cell phone, GPS system, cheeseburger, hunting for a CD...

Result: car vs. tree.

 

You drive 140 miles a day, and you drive an Expedition? I'm beginning to question your judgement...

 

An arrow has less wind resistance than a brick, aerodynamics play a large part in this. That and the effort needed to overcome inertia and to sustain momentum combine to determine the power required. The onboard computer constantly monitors the emissions at several points in the entire mechanism, the load on the engine in RPM, etc. It then commands the changes in fuel air, ignition timing, transmission ratio to obtain the optimum performance and efficiency.

There are many other factors, roll resistance of the tires, terrain, temperature and humidity, just to name a few.

 

Stupid computer!

 

Something tells me a Cadillac is closer to a brick than an arrow, aerodynamically speaking. But even if a car is as aerodynamic as possible, it's still true that wind resistance is the dominant factor.

I don't dispute your point about emissions, by the way. But the thread was about fuel economy, and about how one may combat the high price of gasoline.

 

Yes, indeed the older Cadillac is closer to the brick. However, even the most aerodynamic vehicle has to overcome the factors of, roll resistance, inertia and weight in determining the effort needed to reach and sustain any speed. As the weight, terrain, turns stops and starts factor in, the aerodynamics begin to lose effect. The advent of the computerized engine and transmission controls have made the new larger vehicles (such as the Cadillac CTS) as fuel efficient as smaller ones (Honda S2000), without the devises.

The optimum would be a light, aerodynamicly shaped vehicle with low roll resistant tires and computerized engine & transmission controls.

 

Although I drive a Prius most of the time I do it simply to keep from spending as much money. If gas went back down I would go back to a gas hog in a flash.

And, yes I remember when 55 was made the law and Texas refused to comply to that stupid law.