Am I Missing Something Here?

I really liked my 1979 Honda Civic 1200cc. I was the funnest of my cars to drive and it got 40mpg.

I've been waiting for another car that can meet my main design criterium of elegance. Car design has been going in the wrong direction of overdesign and gadget glut for a long time now.

1986 Honda CRX slightly modified (intake, exhaust, headers etc.)... 53 MPG... with Tech from 1986! I know it's possible I've driven one, it's strange that more than 20 years later we are proud to get 35 MPG out of a off the showroom floor 2011 vehicle... emissions control? I wonder how emissions saved compares to fuel saved for environmental impact.

That CRX was just about at peak for mpg in a mainstream car in the USA as far as I can remember!

Do you guys have any idea what would happen to the economy if we started seeing 53 MPH.

Un-believable!

Now stop this nonsense talk and go on about your business, stop trying to stir up trouble.

Seriously though, having started driving in the early seventies and having been very much into vehicle repair and modifications and an avid reader of Poplar Mechanics, Popular Science, Drag Racing Monthly, and anything else automotive related I could get my hands on, I thought we would have seen 53 MPH as the norm a decade or two ago.

Do oh - meant 53 MPG

Ronseto, this is a good question coming from inside the "system".

The basis of the problem in the USA is that some years ago, when "fuel efficiency" targets were established in the USA, somehow the figure was related to "ton miles/gallon". and thus larger (heavier) vehicles were able to move more tons of vehicle around "efficiently".

[Think of the difference of a 2 ton SUV getting 30 mpg and thus claiming 60 ton miles/galon and a 1 ton sedan getting 50 mpg. The SUV claims better efficiency by the baseline measure selected for regulation, while the sedan uses less fuel to actually move people around.]

The real measure should have been "passenger miles/gallon" or "vehicle miles/gallon" so that you became efficient at moving people, not metal.

When fuel costs there become as volatile as the rest of us need to cope with, the average person in the street will not need regulators to make choices for them. The hip pocket nerve will educate the masses and car manufacturers will very quickly learn the lessons (or leave the game).

I bought an '82 Ranger pickup off my Dad in 1987. It had a 2.3 L 4 cylinder that was carburated, had only 8 valves and was pretty basic. It had a manual transmission and could easily get 28 mpg on the highway. In talking to other Ranger owners, who had automatic transmissions, they typically got about 23 to 25 mpg.

Fast forward to 2005, and I have an opportunity to buy a brand new pickup. Toyota's were too expensive, so I went for the Ranger. I had to buy the automatic so my wife could drive it if she needed to. 2.3 L, 16 valve, fuel injected. Wouldn't you think it would do better than 25 mpg? Even with a tail wind? While drafting off of a semi?

I really can't understand why, over 23 years, Ford could add those details and 'improvements' to an engine and not get any real mpg increase.

I sold the Ranger to my son and bought a Corolla. 35 mpg down the Jersey Turnpike!

All the Regulation and mandates just makes me sick. There is absolutely no reason that with the technology we have today we couldn't manufacture vehicles that push the 60-100 MPG threshold. It's all about $$ and bureaucratic nonsense. The engineering world's hands are tied by politicians in this sector.

Indeed, a small car is more nimble and can avoid accidents easier, too.

When I started driving 60 years ago, there were many small cars around that got 30+mpg; MG, Ford, Fiat, Citroen, Hillman, Renault were a few. Nothing like that exists today. It's apparent Americans don't take fuel economy as a high priority; rather they want size, speed and style. As long as they can afford the fuel, that probably won't change much.

What about something like the Volkswagen Golf (Rabbit)?

Isn't that sold in the US? I believe that the blue motion versions do 70+ MPG. Although the non blue motion version have very good economy too!

They might be smaller than a lot of American cars but they will match / beat them for speed and style is all a matter of perception!

For many, many years (more than a decade), beginning in the late 1970's, when I was still driving, I drove an MG midget. Not because of the fuel economy (which was great- > 30 mpg as long as I stayed out of the city center), but because it was fun. Speed? One does not need excessive speed when one has the ILLUSION of excessive speed- 90 mph (downhill with a good tail wind), when ne is only 6 inches off the pavement, can be quite invigorating! Never had an accident in that auto- mostly because I had to be especially defensive in my driving due to the fact that I was mostly invisible to other drivers. Style? Worked for me. Seemed to impress the ladies I wanted to impress (another motivation that no longer drives my choices...).

Point is, you are right. Nothing like that being produced today...

Agreed

The US car companies have traditionally built huge, cheap cars with crude engines because fuel was cheap and turnover high. It made good economic sense at the time but the economy has changed. Oil prices aren't going back down.

The Europeans instead use small engines with turbos to give fuel economy and acceleration when necessary.

Interestingly the car companies resisted most modern safety features until they were forced by legislation. Now everyone expects them as a matter of course.

I think that you have to compare the USA with Europe in some ways.

Yes in Europe we do have smaller engined cars but these are tuned in a way to make them a more powerful than the engine size would suggest.

More limited parking? Where? I have never not been able to park when i go down to town (I live in a seaside town that is full of tourists in the summer) and I currently drive a people carrier. Alright I usually have to pay to park but thats not too bad!

Having been in the US a number of times I don't think we have much narrower streets maybe parts are more twisty but it depends where you go as I have been on some very narrow streets in the US too.

Driving distances? Europe might not be as big as the US but it depends what you mean by extreme distances.

So while they might be factors i think that one of the most important factors is the price that we pay for fuel here. Why buy a big thirsty V8 (i would love to have one tho) when i can buy a turbo diesel that will cost less to buy and cost a lot less to run.

In the US diesel is more expensive than gasoline. Is that the same case in Europe?

Yes diesel is more expensive than petrol here too. By up to 10p per litre but that is more than made up for by the fact that you have to reduce the number of times you fill up as you go a lot further on a full tank.

"If the government wants us to use less gasoline, let the price approach what they pay in Europe or Asia. The market will take care of the rest."

The thing is, we don't pay, or need to pay, anywhere near the price of what fuel is in Asia or Europe because we have plenty of resources here, if we would be allowed to get them by drilling close offshore, drilling in ANWR in Alaska or any number of places where the oil and coal are much more readily available than the deepwater drilling where the producers were forced to by needless regulation. Allow refineries to be built to handle a greater amount of crude. Allow more nuclear plants to be built. There is much existing technology that can produce enough to increase our capacity of energy for good value, if they are allowed to.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't seek more efficiency in the engineering and mechanics of propulsion, we should. And when people come up with viable options, by way of manufacturing and economically feasible, the market will be there to use the products. Until then we need to help our economy by having affordable fuel, which will stimulate the national economy which is great for everyone, except for maybe the people who want to see us return to the Stone Age.

There was a comment made that there is also corporate malfeasance in energy/technology use. That is true. It is to some companies benefit to have an inflated price of product because of a lack of supply. Instead of making the whole country float higher they just want their individual ships to float higher ("a high tide floats all ships"). So they may keep certain inventions or technologies under wraps because they benefit more when they control a limited supply of those goods. A good example of that is here in Kansas where an entrepreneur designed and built a revolutionary new style of combine which was much more productive, more efficient for a greatly reduced initial and operating cost. He was made an offer by an existing well-known manufacturer that he couldn't/didn't refuse and they put the design on the shelf because they didn't think they would make as much money or lose billable hours for repair/parts or whatever. That kind of thing has taken place with other inventions such as fuel injectors, carburetors or other technologies which would greatly enhance fuel and manufacturing efficiency.

We shouldn't look at the economy as a zero-sum-gain mindset. Let's not look at the economy as a fixed size of "pie". We can grow the "pie" by increasing our capacity to produce, which brings more jobs, which brings more money for consumable products, etc. If we simply drive up the price of fuel/energy without as the same time increasing people's ability to pay for those goods, we will simply "rob Peter to pay Paul" and people will cut out something they are currently spending their limited money on.

I hope it somehow works out that way as far as ever coming up with more resources to propel prosperity. Alas, it appears that humanity is in a situation looking more and more like it is not smart enough to maintain itself even close to the level of advancement it is presently at.

Many cities in So Fla are working with developers to have "city centers" that allow much more confined living without having to drive some where.

True, but hasn't the auto industry spent billions in advertising to convince as many consumers as possible that bigger is better? Hasn't the oil industry spent similar amounts to convince the gullible public and their elected representatives that inefficient use of cheap subsidized fuel is somehow good for the economy? The writing has been on the wall since the first oil shocks back in the 70's. We are all fools for letting this nonsense go on for so long - government, industry, voters, and consumers alike.

Your argument makes sense if you assume that people are rational and well informed. I don't see much evidence to suggest that this assumption is true.

So, how do you explain people still choosing to smoke cigarettes? The government and other social media outlets all say smoking is harmful to you. The cigarette manufacturers tell us on the package that they are harmful, and still there are new smokers starting every day. So how quickly do you think people will change for an issue that is not likely to happen in their lifetime?

I am not saying that you are wrong, just that you are unrealistic to expect change quickly. I will influence my children, and the decisions I make will influence my children. And I will also influence the decisions that my children make. The same will hold true for most of us. But all of our children have the ability to make their own decisions.

"So, how do you explain people still choosing to smoke cigarettes?" Exactly my point- it doesn't matter how much money you throw at your propaganda campaign, whether trying to convince people what sort of car they should drive or whether they should smoke or not. People make their own decisions. Period. Whether it is good for them in the long run or not. Spending billions on trying to influence people to by big, inefficient cars is exactly the same as spending billions on trying to convince people not to smoke.

I can tell you from personal experience that the price of cigarettes has helped many people quit smoking

I sold my pick up when gas reached $2/gallon

I replaced it with a small station wagon, that gets 30+ MPG, plenty of room [8foot boards fit with the tailgate closed]

Money is a great motivator.

Is not what the people want, is what they are push to wish. In the newspaper, on the third, etc page you see: Lets go green, Earth day, fuel efficiency and later on in other section under the title "The car of my dreams", a car review where the guy tells you that the car is perfect, and that he checked the model with the biggest engine and, that was the top of the line, much better then the smaller engine. Besides, a lot of features are not present for the models with the smaller engine, so if you need certain feature, you have to buy "big"

What you say is true however, there are other ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. For example, if the price of gas were $10/gal. driving would be seriously reduced. In fact, I suspect that as the cost of driving is lowered by creating more efficient vehicles, more people will drive and our dependence on foreign oil might increase.

Hey guys,

I haven't read all the comments yet (but will). The major problem I see with bringing up prices at the pump to force better cars and reduce dependance on foreign oil is that driving your car is the least of your worries. The problem comes with everything else you need to live.

Whenever the price of fuel goes up, so does the price of milk, bread, clothing, trades, etc. Now the price of fuel might come back down by 1-2$/gallon but have you ever seen the prices of commodities come back down?

So you end up being a lot poorer even though you're paying the same as 'before' for fuel. We'll end up eliminating the middle class: poor people and rich people only.

Well said 'ronseto'!

We have already reached the optimum for extracting energy from gasoline for the internal combustion engine. If we are to continue with our love affair with 'bulk', 'speed' and driving distances, we should start evaluating alternatives to hydrocarbon fuel.

Think of a scenario where you pull up to a filling station and pop up the lid of a standardized compartment in your vehicle and a robotic arm at the station reaches in and replaces the expended fuel/battery module with a freshly charged one in about the same time it takes you to fill up your tank and drive on. Please note that the module would be the property of the fuel company. You only pay for the fuel/electric charge you used. The rechargeable module could be from different companies but standardized that will fit all vehicles similar to the A, AA,AAA,C,D, 9 VOLTS etc. batteries in use now. For bigger vehicles, you will take more modules (compare to a bigger tank).

Currently the other non hydrocarbon 'fuel' for automobiles is electricity and the electric vehicles are already on the road so it would be easier to explore this avenue. The storage battery modules are evolving very rapidly and before long, we could reach a 300 mile range on a charge- looks promising!!.

How do we generate electricity without burning hydrocarbon fuel? There is wind, solar and nuclear. All these are viable and in use right now. The amount of energy needed for all applications is so huge that wind and solar cannot meet (I will not go into the pros and cons). Nuclear energy is dangerous; or is it? It has been in wide use globally for almost 50 years now and we even have nuclear powered marine craft. There have been 3 disasters (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the current event in Japan)-the worst imaginable have already happened from natural and man made causes. There has been tragic life and wealth loss but mankind has already borne the loss and life has continued on (I am confident from what we know so far that the Japanese event will be controlled without heavy loss to humankind) - to evaluate we need to use the mind and keep emotions aside for a while.

Now let us compare benefit to loss ratio from these 3 events and other natural and man made disasters. Without going into detailed discussion, I will just take the example of 'Katrina'. This was a combination of natural and man made disaster. If the levies did not fail, New Orleans will be the same as it was before. Lives affected by Katrina and Three Mile Island can be compared and the result is obvious. Did we abandon New Orleans? Did we rebuild the levies? Why are we so paranoid about nuclear power? The only unresolved issue is the disposal of spent fuel. Currently it is safely being stored and can continue to be so for a long time to come in the future. The new generation nuclear units are far safer than the ones which have been in operation to almost 50 years. There are new compact modules units already designed which will minimize the risk further. The effort should now be focused on spent fuel disposal/reuse.

What does the CR4 community say to the above? It would be a creative discussion and I invite comments on the subject.

·The storage battery modules are evolving very rapidly and before long, we could reach a 300 mile range on a charge- looks promising..."

This is inconsistent with the information I have been tracking. Storage battery technology does not appear to be advancing as rapidly as one would like. This is the major limitation for not only electric automobiles, but for wind and solar solutions as well...

http://www.technologyreview.com/video/?vid=409

You might like this.

Unfortunately, I very seldom find REAL information in videos...My information comes from trying to buy batteries for alternative energy solutions (solar, wind, and mini-hydro). For the most part, marketing claims are inconsistent with real world performance. Give me test data (including honest environmental constraints), and real-world demonstration documentation that support your marketing claim. Read the actual literature provided by battery manufacturers, paying especial attention to the disclaimers. It may be true that the latest technology is not yet readily available on the market, but my reviews of available technical literature of supposed advances in storage technology do not instill much confidence in the direction most are pursuing...

I agree that currently only one car (Nissan) has a 100 mile range but if the modules are standardised, one could carry more modules for a longer distance or refuel more often. A few years ago the storage battery did not have the capacity that we have now and I have confidence in the research going on. If we could reach 200 miles on one charge, it will already be practical for long trips (for safe driving it is recommended that you take a break every 200 miles or so). The purpose of my post is to discuss the viability of electric vehicles and nuclear power replacing hydrocarbon fuel.

"A few years ago the storage battery did not have the capacity that we have now..."

This is, quite frankly, inconsistent with my experience...

More importantly, however, is life expectancy- how many charge/recharge cycles can the battery handle before it dies? How much "rough handling" can a battery handle before the internals break up (I don't worry so much about this for my applications, because they are usually fixed in place- however, an automobile is going to subject a battery to a whole range of external vibrations). Operational temperatures? Very critical for not only life expectancy and storage capacity, but for the rate at which one can extract the stored energy.

The storage capacity of batteries is a function of the quantity of active materials in the battery- to get more capacity, you have to increase the weight.

Irecently came across a wet-cell battery design from an affiliate of Excide guaranteeing a battery life of 20 years- very expensive, but worth considering. Until one reads the fine print. To achieve the warranted life expectancy, one had to insure that ambient temperature never exceeded 72 ºF, and one had to adhere to a very strict charging regime, including periodic reconditioning, while limiting discharge levels to nor more than 50% of rated capacity. To claim a replacement under warranty, one had to have extensive records proving that the criteria had been adhered to. Not something one is going to have for a battery used in an automobile...

My new laptop gives me about the same number of hours on battery that the first laptop I ever purchased did, and I still expect to have to replace it every two years. While it is true that my newer laptop consumes more energy (as evidenced by the fact that it gets much hotter than the older one), such battery technology is only barely able to keep up with demand. Interestingly, the electrical specifications of the old and the new battery are not all that different...

You have valid comments and they make perfect sense but before the laptop battery was developed, you would have needed a much bulkier and impracticable battery to give you the same amount of run time. All I am asking is consider the electric option and put your thoughts in developing such a battery and support the research in this area. At one time the laptop was very expensive and bulkier. In fact not very long ago the laptop was just an idea. Will it not be a good idea to focus on something that may be possible in future? I remember when Texas Instruments came up with the 4 function pocket calculator, it was a wonder.

I'm not convinced alternate systems will make driving cheaper. Electric vehicles are still a long way from becoming a practical means. The battery charging infrastructure will be enormous and hasn't even started yet. Bio diesel costs more than plain diesel, batteries still have to be developed that have a long recycle life, charge quickly and are cost effective. After a new set of batteries has been installed, will the cost be less than the amount of gasoline that would be replaced?

I agree that currently electric vehicle is not cheaper than gasoline/diesel powered vehicle. The world at this time is in an economic slump but gasoline is close to $4 a gallon. Once the economy starts booming(if ever it will), the gas could go double this price( when gas was around a buck, no one could imagine it will cross $4(2008), then electric powered vehicle will make sense or we will have to downsize our vehicles and control our speeds and fall out of love with traveling by personal vehicle for long distances. Before that happens and we are caught between a rock and a hard place, it may be a good idea to start discussing and accelerate research into this area. Mineral hydrocarbon fuel is limited and we can not grow enough corn to supply demand for synthetic fuel which is also not cheap to produce.

So far I get the feeling that the forum is not in favor of alternate fuel and nobody likes electric vehicles but I still believe that our future is in electric powered vehicles. I know that it will take time to develop the system that I referred to earlier and we have a long way to go before we reach the stage of full replacement of gasoline and a lot of research and development has to take place but should the scientists and engineers not be thinking about this alternative now?

Finding and developing alternative methods of power to internal combustion engines is a good idea, keep plowing forward with research and development; and in the meantime increase the supply side of the existing sources of energy, i.e. oil, coal, nuclear, etc. These are known entities and we know where the oil and coal is. Take the needless beauracratic reins off and let companies develope those sources and the means to process the oil. The consumer price drops, economies grow in capacity, more money is available for R&D of even newer technologies.

In the end we all win. The consumers, you and I as drivers, companies who need energy in manufacturing, mass transit, airlines, the trucking industry, railroads, etc. Everybody comes out ahead. Our environment benefits because we will always be looking for better, cleaner and more efficient ways to use the sources of energy available. If you provide a product that doesn't work very well or as touted to be, the consumer will be disenchanted and the result of that is a great deal of ill will is generated toward that product or industry.

The key is not to get the cart in front of the horse and dictate that we will/should use a particular kind of energy generation before it works well. Make it workable at a price everyone can live with and the consumer markets will follow wholeheartedly with their pocketbook.

"...should the scientists and engineers not be thinking about this alternative now?"

Many of us are. For instance, my intense interest in storage technology. And the fact that I have voluntarily given up my personal vehicle (of course, I happen to live where that is a viable option, although not without it's own frustrations).

Electric vehicles just shift the issue away from the conscience of the vehicle user- it does not address the essential problem that the world wants more cheap energy than what is currently available. Electric vehicles are not a new concept. The first patent for an electric vehicle was issued in the early 1800's, shortly after Volt developed his battery concept, and long before there were convenient means to recharge them. Around the turn of the century, electric cars outnumbered alternatives (internal combustion, steam) by a wide margin. Ford not only explored the concept of an electric vehicle, he even owned a battery patent. If they were such a good idea, why did the world move away from them? It is interesting to examine the issues that led to the demise of the popularity of electric vehicles 100 years ago- not much has changed. Why would one expect them to be a reasonable solution today when they weren't acceptable 100 years ago?

1. When electric cars were popular, range was limited, but so were driving venues. People just did not drive that far (The roads between major metropolitan areas were less than pleasant for a Sunday drive).

2. Keeping the battery charged...

Note, 100 years ago, speed and style were defined somewhat differently then they are today, but nothing much has really changed with the technology available back then.

Hi Kajibaba,

"the worst imaginable have already happened from natural and man made causes."

If civilization somehow declines to the point where it cannot provide the stringent care required to keep past and present reactor core contents safe, I see a possible scenario where most of it ends up contaminating the environment. Then earth could become too radioacive to sustain human life.

It all come down to what you want and what you are willing to pay for it.

I drive a Toyota Highlander Hybrid- strong V6, 4700 lbs, 7 passenger 4x4. It can do 0-60 in less than 6 seconds and gets 28 MPG in town or on the highway. Not bad, for that type of vehicle but not GREAT.

If Toyota built it with a smaller in-line 4, it would still get 0-60 in NEARLY 6 seconds (lots of electric drive power at both ends and a strong battery) but would likely get close to the 44 MPG that I have gotten with my Camry Hybrid (5-passengers).

BUT- Toyota's sales group has apparently decided that WE want that beef, so no 4-cylinder Highlander Hybrid. Good news is- If they realize the we DO want both performance AND high mileage, they can just put the 4 from the Camry into the Highlander and we all win.

Fuel efficient personal vehicles will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The only thing the "Cash for Clunkers" program did is:

1) Help car dealers sell a few more cars. Good for them.

2) Decommission many perfectly good trade-in vehicles which could no longer be sold.

3) Enable people to travel further on their gas dollar in their fancy new wheels. Same consumption (maybe more now that there's this fancy new car to travel in). The only reason this would reduce fuel usage is because people have new car payments digging into their discretionary income.

The only ways I can see to reduce consumption are:

1) Increase the price of fuel so nobody can afford to buy it (Another "poor people's" tax.)

2) Rationing.

3) Efficient, Viable, Attractive public transportation options.

4) A ban on Mega Malls and encouragement of more local Mom and Pop stores so folks don't travel so far for their shopping, entertainment, etc.

That first sentence could easily change to its opposite in meaning if people could rethink the concept of what a personal vehicle should be, mainly much smaller and lighter. Indeed, it would have less comfort, but the time and place convenience of that compromise is better than nothing.

I like point 4). The local produce market is a great alternative to the shopping center.

As far as I can see, as long as the cost of fuel continues to remain fairly constant relative the American's earning power, there will not be any drastic change to more efficient cars. The States are trying to change us by charging more to register bigger cars, but the new car owner does not always see this for the first year because the initial cost is rolled into the cost of the car.

We know smoking cigarettes is deadly. We have known it for decades. But we still see our children and grand children smoking. It has taken generations for the enlightenment. It will also take some generations for America to change driving habits.

Just my opinions.

I gave you a GA because what you say is very true. As long as Americans can come up with the $ to fuel their cars, they will not change. It's only when the cost to drive replaces other day-to-day living,(food, housing I-fones, etc) will the public clamor for something to be done.

Actually there is a rather sad story that should be answered by our government on the murder of Stan Meyers and his hydrogen engine design. Stan Meyers developed an engine that produced hydrogen on demand. He developed spark plugs that efficiently completed this task along with his invention. After demonstrating his hydrogen generator to the patent office to prove his point, he was the victim of political uneasiness from auto manufactures and the oil industry. He had created the ultimate machine and was murdered for his works. Imagine if everyone had a car that ran on water, and the only exhaust gases are just steam and oxygen.

Our government and big business had the answer to our problem in waste pollutants from the automobile and simply ignored the fact because the oil industry would loose money from non-usage of gasoline fuels. Charles Pouge was another such individual murdered for his development of a carburetor that produce nearly 100mpg on fuel. His theory and proto-type was based on the principle breaking down the gas molecule to its least significant bit, thus thermal warming of the fuel to vapor before introducing it to the combustion chamber.

And our government along with the big auto and fuel industry giants should be prosecuted for their demise of 2 of the greatest inventions ever to be revealed to the world. Greed of money and control is the evil behind several inventions that have been scooped up and shelved because it would help the world.

Maximo

I'll have what your smoking...

you are repeating an urban legend

you are arguing that all the auto manufacturers are willing to forgo a huge competitive advantage, to benefit the oil companies

the level of secrecy & cooperation required would be unprecedented

I thought we dealt in reality here?

There is no controversy over GA's

They are just entertainment of no particular relevance to quality...

As someone who as avidly fought that emissions make it better BS from an early age I have found that in many cars and pickups over the years that the further you get away from that crap equipment the better the fuel economy gets but unfortunately there is a limit to what you can do with gasoline simply due to its inherent combustion characteristics.

For me that limit lead to the next logical step of switching to a different cheaper fuel that is better capable of being converted into mechanical energy cheaply and efficiently through engine design changes.

By going to propane that costs around half as much per gallon along with the proper engine changes it can be burned more efficiently than gasoline while yielding equal power despite having less energy per volume than gasoline has.

So what is the point of chasing a 5% fuel efficiency gain on a $4 a gallon fuel when a different fuel that can produce the same power and mileage but at half or less the costs on the cost per mile numbers?

My Mazda has now had a good deal of longer term driving done with it and the average fuel economy has leveled off at around 22 - 24 MPG now. Compare $1.80 a gallon fuel to $3.80+ a gallon fuel on a cost per mile basis and for me the propane mileage on may Mazda is like having it get a equivalent to 46 to 51 MPG on gasoline(and there is no emissions system loses and BS to deal with either)

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/59332

tcmtech -- Your mention of propane cost in ND prompted me to do a little research. I found a website that had some very interesting information but only covered 24 Northeastern and Midwestern states. That was it. Propane prices in the rest of the country seem to be locked up in secrecy except for occasional out of date anecdotes.

http://www.propane-prices.com/statelinks.html

You are fortunate in your state to enjoy propane costs that are about the lowest in the nation. Go toward the coasts and the prices almost double while wholesale prices increas by a factor around 1.3.

I had a lot of difficulty finding tabulated propane price information for western states even though there is a Western Propane Gas Association.

http://www.westernpga.org/

There is a very, very fishy smell about this and I 'm not referring to the odorant that is used in propane gas. I think propane would make an excellent motor fuel. But I'm beginning to feel like there is such a monopolistic control (Sherman and Clayton act violations) over the propane market that exclusive reliance on it as a motor fuel would be a bad decision unless you were a fleet operator with considerable negotiating power.

Lucky you are to live in a place where apparently there is some local market force that greatly dampens the retail price gouging of the propane distribution industry.

I think this is a small corner of the things that Ronseto is "missing". But it sure pulls my chain.

Ed Weldon

I just paid $2.49/gal for a propane fill up

Propane is a great and clean fuel for IC engines. The problem is: it has half the energy of gasoline; therefore requiring large tanks in vehicles. There is no highway tax on propane now, but if it started to replace gasoline, highway taxes would be added and we would not be any better.

Excellent link...

Encourage people to slow down; so they won't need such high powered, heavy vehicles with all kinds of safety features to protect people in 70 mph crashes. And the ones who don't want to go slow all the time would still be able to drive up to their capabilities under the right conditions for a reasonable price or even no price on certain highways at certain times.

Create controlled access autobahns. Any speed allowed for safety certified vehicles and drivers with proper high speed driving certifications. Without the certs you can drive the current maximum speed. But you'll still have to pay a small premium. Better you stay in the slow lane with all the cheapskates.

You will have a transponder in your car that records your speed using GPS technology. Any time you drive over 40 mph you will pay a premium based on how much time you have saved while driving at the higher speed. So the highway is posted at 60. You have a 100 mile trip. At 40 mph it will take you 2.5 hours with no charge.

If you drive at 50 avg. you will finish in 2.0 hours. You saved 30 minutes and will be charged, say 50 cents for every minute saved, or $15.00. At 60 avg. it would be 1 hour 40 minutes. You saved 50 minutes; you're charged $25.00. Or maybe the premium will be 33cents from 40 to 50 and 66 cents 50 to 60. Or whatever formula the highway managers think is best.

If you drive at 80 avg. you are 20 miles over the posted limit. Your trip takes save 1.25 hours; you saved 1.25 hours or 75 minutes. If you are certified for that speed you are charged 50 cents/minute or $37.50 total.

But if you are not certified for more than the speed limit of 60 you will be charged a premium that amounts to a fine. The premium rate covers the any time at speed over your license certified maximum. It goes up at an exponential increasing rate for every mile per hour for every unit time at the higher speed.

Let's say you drive at 60 which is your highest certified speed. Most of the time you pay the base rate per minute saved. And let's say the speed measuring increment is one minute between GPS readings. But at one time you wanted to pass a slow moving line of traffic and got your speed up to the point where your average was 70 mph for one incremental minute in the continuous speed readings in the transducer computer. Lets say the penalty amount was one dollar per mile per hour over your limit and that only applies to that one minute you were speeding. You were speeding 10 mph over your certified limit for one minute. That makes $10.50 for that one minute. Not bad but enough to make you think twice before exceeding your license limit.

But suppose you decide to drive the 100 mile entire trip at 70 taking about 86 minutes and saving 64 minutes. Had you stayed at 60 the cost would have been $25.00 to save 50 minutes. But at 70, 10 over your license limit, the cost would be $672.00. A serious fine.

Unfair? The message is that if you want to go fast you'll have to prove you can do it safely and then you'll still pay a modest premium to burn all that extra gas, etc. Even if you go out and do a short high speed run it's not going to break the bank nor is it likely you'll be that much of a safety hazard up to a point. But if you choose to drive hour after hour at a speed you are not certified safe at; then you are going to pay for creating that hazard.

The transponder saves all the data and the first station that pings it gets the data for your monthly bill. The transponder would also reply with a readout any time you asked for it. The transponder would read a code on your license so it knew who was driving the car. And then allow it to start. Whoever's license is there would be responsible for the car and what it does. And speeding fees would be assigned to that person. Highway patrol could ping any car's transponder at any time to confirm that the person in the driver's seat matched the license description. Some secondary and deep rural roads could have high speed limits and very low speed premium rates appropriate to local conditions. An city thoroughfares might have thresholds considerably lower primary highways and freeways. And some absolute maximums on aggregate punitive fees could send you in front of a judge with the a variety of judicial remedies at his disposal.

Big brother at work? Yeah. ………. But driving is a privilege that should come essentially from your demonstrated ability to drive safely via driving record, certifiable training, personal physical and mental condition and capabilities of your vehicle. The technology is all there to do it.

Personally I think most mature car enthusiasts would like a properly set up program like this, especially with graduated speed licenses. Imagine the ego value of having a little flat screen monitor on the rear of your ride that displayed a number like 125 when your driver's license was in the transponder slot. And how careful you would be to keep the right to display that number.

And about bikes……. The same general type of program; but the constants would reflect the particular impact, capabilities and limitations of the machines and their riders.

And BTW, all data collected from this system should be private and not allowed for disclosure to insurance companies or employers on other than company owned, leased or rented vehicles. I doubt if insurance companies especially would ever become sophisticated enough to use this information properly. I don't see how you could keep the driver's license speed certs private from the insurance companies. They could always limit their coverage to a particular speed regardless of the cert. And eventually the certification system would evolve to the point where it was viewed by actuaries as a serious indicator of lower risk. If it didn't or couldn't then likely it would ring up as a failure to be replaced by something else.

Ed Weldon

1. You will never get this past the privacy advocates. No way you can "secure" such data.

2. Remember back when the federal government tried to set a national speed limit of 55 mph? Did it work? Cops would let you slide at 5 mph over, so everyone started driving 10mph, so the cops let you slide at 10 mph...Before the law, the speed limit was generally 70 on the open road. After the law was implemented, it was 80...

3. Houston to El Paso, crossing one state, takes 12 hours at 80 mph, more or less (there is some time in that number to stop for gas). Do you really want to spend 16 hours of driving through nothing but miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles?

4. Pass this by our friends up north in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas...What do they have to say about this?

1. And you will never get tax increases past the Republicans......

2. Yes I remember the 55 speed limit. People saw no need for it and voted that position. So what's new? That was then when people could afford big fast cars and gas was so cheap that even people on welfare could afford it and the big cars. How long do you think that will last in our world?.

3. States can do any laws they want. Speed limits can fit the conditions. A 4 lane highway 100 miles east of El Paso is a whole lot safer at 80 than the old Henry Hudson Parkway in New York. Out of state drivers would just obey a posted speed limit. I think the only useful thing the Feds could do on this would be to set a standard for the transponder interface in new cars.

4. See 3. above.

This is a solution. I have a feeling a lot of people would like this solution in the more densely populated states and areas. the numbers I put up in my post are just examples. They could be set however people thought would work well. There is no reason why some of the positive cost factors in the fee structure couldn't be negative. Like you get credits for driving at or near the most mileage efficient speed. Details, details. Isn't the objective to make driving more energy efficient and, for most, more carbon neutral.

Ed Weldon

I don't like the idea at all and would hate to have any GPS technology in my car as it really does seem to smack of big brother.

However I do have another question, why set the baseline at 40mph? That is not the most fuel efficient speed.

"I don't like the idea at all and would hate to have any GPS technology in my car as it really does seem to smack of big brother." Andy K

It can be a "pay to play" deal. Sweeten the pot enough with negative "fees" that lots of people will go with the transponder deal. So the money paid into the pot by the guys who want to go 65 goes out of the pot to the guys who go 40 or 45 or whatever. If you don't want to play then you drive under the old regulations. Make the transponder removable or just able to turn on and off. No reason I can think of why it would have to be permanent installation in any car. Go take a liesurely drive to the in laws house on a Sunday afternoon and the "hot dogs" will pay for your gas.

Enough people changing driving habits and the car manufacturers will build to their needs.

"However I do have another question, why set the baseline at 40mph? That is not the most fuel efficient speed." Andy K

At 65 your car has 2-1/2 times the kinetic energy as it does at 40. That directly affects the amount of protection that your car must provide. More weight, bidder engines, somewhat more frontal area, bigger engines, more original cost. 40 is kind of arbitrary. The idea is to slow traffic down so cars can be smaller. The folks in the UK got along fine with their small cars for most of the last century until they decided to imitate the USA. Smaller cars sell well in developing countries where there are fewer high speed highways. I think you'll have a hard time building a case for better overall economy on the travel time savings. IMHO most people's time isn't worth that much.

As to most efficient speeds, the manufacturers tune the cars for the speeds people drive. Mileage in my 10 year old Toyota pickup is the same whether I drive 55, 60, 65, or 70. It has a lot more "cam" than their older trucks. That's how they raised the HP rating from 120 to 140. At low speeds it can barely pull a straw out of a soda bottle. At 35 and 40 it gets worse mileage. All in the tuning. That's what the US market wants.

Ed Weldon

Wrong thread ED sounds like a toll road

You have outlined a different smart highway

another element is the distance of the journey. Don't you hate when someone jumps out in front of you only to get off at the next exit? you should get a variance for the hypothetical Houston to ElPaso trip. The further from your destination the more time you get to spend in the fast lane

Cars could be fitted with governors that would detect the drivers qualification, a button to over ride, [a turbo button as it were].

anyone who didn't want the technology could pay a higher registration fee [ & insurance ]

Garth - Still tooting the same horn. "Sell the highways" kinda wore out. So I found another soapbox.

We all know what the Texans would do. Like I said before, let the states decide. The car manufacturers will bellyache about 50 different states, but that's just a smokescreen. The smart ones will make and sell whatever they can make money on. If there is a different chip for each state they can handle that very easily. They could even program them to detect which state the car is in (using GPS) and make adjustments.

I think the governors are already there in most modern cars with diagnostic ports. They're just waiting for a reprogrammed control chip. Older rides might be more of a challenge. Probably impractical to implement any kind of speed control other than the driver's right foot.

About reg. and insurance fees. Put them on a per mile basis above some fixed cost. The insurance companies already do that on a rough "take your word for it" basis. Ditto motor fuel taxes.

Ed Weldon

If you are going to tax usage with the purpose of modifying behavior, perhaps the best place to do this would be urban centers, where the results of excessive usage are more evident. Limit access to city centers with "entry tolls", with an alternative of frequent shuttle services from various, conveniently located parking centers. Sort of like shuttle buses to the airport terminals from the parking areas. You insist on taking your car into the city, you pay an exorbitant toll. You chose to park and ride, you realize significant savings...Might be hard to get people to adjust at first, but properly implemented and hyped with the appropriate propaganda about cleaning up city air, saving hassles with traffic jams, etc, it just might work. Of course it could also spell the final death throes for a city center already in decay...The idea is to induce less reliance on the personal automobile.

The idea is to induce less reliance on the personal automobile.

"Reliance" is probably not the best way to describe the relationship of driver to vehicle. Most people I know would prefer to drive their own car than to take public transportation. This goes also for car pooling. Even with traffic and fuel costs, people prefer the privacy of their own vehicle. They are sheltered inside their own little world and don't have to relate with the outside world. When I lived in New York City, I had door-to-door public transportation available, but I chose to drive to work for the above mentioned reasons. I would arrive at work refreshed ready to face the world. Taking public transportation meant being stuffed into a subway car like sardines and emerging sweaty and tired, and that was before starting work; not a good way to start a day in my view. Off course some people are not comfortable driving in traffic or driving at all, but I don't have any problem driving. I am very relaxed and have racked up over 3 million miles since I started driving.

So you drove instead of using the subways? Look at all of the flashers that you missed out on. We won't even talk about the groping that you missed. What a sheltered life you must have led.

The island you would have known as Welfare Island has been renamed Roosevelt Island, and is connected to Manhattan by cable car trams, and automobile use is discouraged on it. I have not been there in a few years now, so I have not seen how the experiment worked out.

Remember this was back in 1955. I used to drive a 1952 MG roadster, top down during good weather and scoot between the buses, taxis and big rigs. Nothing like a little competitive driving to get the adreniline going.

You are absolutely correct- people would probably pay more for the luxury of using their private car rather than face the agonies and stresses associated with public transportation. I probably should have been more clear in my original presentation of the idea- I don't think most of the fuel consumption in the United States is for high-speed travel. Putting enforceable speed limits into effect would have minimal effect on overall consumption. Finding ways to encourage people to utilize their automobiles less in urban settings would have a more profound effect, if you could come up with a scheme that would work. One of the issues I have had for a long time is zoning laws. Allow mixed-use zones, so that one could have a grocery or a neighborhood bar or fast-food restaurant or ice cream parlor within easy walking distance, and maybe people would stop jumping in their cars to run down to the corner for a loaf of bread. I also prefer living within "walking distance" of the office- walking to work is a lot more pleasant than public transportation or fighting traffic (actually, for me, "walking distance" to the office turns out to be one flight of stairs, but not everyone is that lucky!).

San Francisco is trying the behavior modification thing probably earlier than most due to their peculiar political mix. Ideas like entry tolls and a new crackpot parking meter thing are not playing well and appear DOA.

I guess the wealth redistribution scheme that is my latest straw man may have a bit better chance especially if enough people see themselves as winners.

But the way things are turning in America these days a minority can wield unusually high veto power over any new idea. This is in large part due to the way the media tries to give equal emphasis to each side; even though there may be a huge unbalalnce between the two. The one extremist nut on the short side of a controversy makes good entertainment. The more extreme the better.

Ed Weldon

They ended up dropping the 55 speed limit after finding that it didn't have any overall impact on our fuel consumption.

Rather than the speed driven, I feel that far more gas is wasted on a daily basis by having the freeways around every one of our metropolitan areas turn into parking lots full of idling cars every morning and afternoon.

I mentioned this on another thread, but without government involvement. That was having all large employers stagger their hours of operation so everyone wasn't on the road at the same time. Just mixing it up in half hour increments, I think would work wonders. 7-4, 7:30-4:30, 8-5, with the last batch working 9-6. Even if this was government mandated, I think it would be a welcome mandate if people could get to work in 20-30 minutes rather than an hour or more. Everyone wins.

Actually they did this in Pascagoula, Mississippi at the Ingall Shipbuilding facility. With 11000 plus employees living within a 25 mile radius, it works pretty good. Traffic jams don't occur until they try to merge with I-10 traffic.

If the transponders are removable, I could go for that. I would just attach the transponders from my vehicles to a bus that was stopped. As the bus runs its rout, I would be collecting the rewards as I whip along at 80 MPH. Dirt bags like me will always find ways around the speed bumps.

You would have to leave your drivers license in the slot. Or carry it with you while you ride the bus. There might be social value in that activity. Another incentive to use public transit. I'm pretty sure an algorithm could be developed to detect a pattern of known public transit routes at calculate a suitable adjustment to the credit you receive or even pay you a rebate.

Ed Weldon

Many years ago when I was beginning my engineering career, I read an article in an airline magazine. The title of the article was "The Engineering Mentality" and it represents a point of view that most of us are stuck in. The premise of the article is that our society is used to an infinite supply of everything. An example is the growth of airports which is based on flight traffic studies and engineering projections. Airports are designed and constructed to accommodate predicted and unrestricted access to air tavel. We are so used to having an infinite supply of everything we desire, that the thought of restricted airline service, gas pumps, etc. is outside the scope of our imagination. "If we build it they will come" Very little thought is given to, if we don't build it, they won't come, but we will save a bunch of resources.

We have been on a roll from the early 1940's up til around 2000. Some of us haven't accepted an end to the horn of plenty and maybe they never will. Good living is a hard thing to give up and even harder for those who are just starting to enjoy a short lived taste of the good life.

I don't know, either, if that formula exists.

However, one formula is clear to me from the posts I've seen so far:

My mileage on my old vehicle > EPA mileage on new ones

I loved my '60s - '90s but I do have a record of mileage and they don't hold a melted candle to current ones. BUT HEREIN LIES THE POINT:

Who can AFFORD the "current ones?"

Politics aside, corporate mpg-robber-barons aside, the cost of modern vehicles will be apparent not shortterm, but over the haul: their electronics are of limited life, their lightweight/fuel-efficient design featuring even more limitation.

You are only missing one thing here: Politics drives vehicle design (pun intended); politics "saved" GM; politicians don't drive, they are driven, and on our tab; "we" drive big gas-guzzling SUVs because they bespeak "class."

We have met the enemy... It won't matter who/what is President. It won't matter who/what bail's out GM; it won't matter who/what makes the LEAST gas-guzzler.

As always, it will only matter whose lies the buyers most believe. I suspect we'll have no better idea in 2012 than now.

Sheep being led to slaughter won't know either.