I can't drive 55

mommymushbrain · #21 09/01/05, 06:50 PM

I think it's kind of dangerous to be running so slowly with everyone else going so much faster. All it takes is one guy not paying attention to how slow you are going to ram right up your bumper.

I'd rather have my hubby, who drives I-540 at 75-80 mph, coming home safe and sound than worrying about gas mileage.

HankSnow · #22 09/01/05, 06:57 PM

Hang in there, Jim. Nothing wrong with driving 50-55.

On days when I commute, I drive a 1990 Tercel 1.5L 4-cyl, 5 speed to the train station. The rest of the time, my wife drives the old you-know-what box to volunteer at the community center. It's got 145,000 and still going strong. Gets 35-40 MPG when we tool along on the back roads, around 30 or a tad less in the little town driving we do.

Got this car for the kids when they were in HS, but my wife loves that car. I'm 6'5" though, so I'd hate to go cross country in that econobox.

foxtrapper · #23 09/02/05, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterpine

Personally I would like some brillian scholar to actually determin which really uses less fuel. ;Driving 100 miles( in 1 hour) at 100 MPH or driving 100 miles (in 2 hours) at 50 miles per hour. How to figure this out is way beyond me this morning! I mean if my car gets 20 mpg- at what speed is it getting 20 mpg? I found myself putting my car in neutral yesterday going down the mountain. Still had breaks and steering and stuff but the car was just running in idle for about 6 miles or 1/2 hour. I wonder if that helped...sure was fun!

Having done that quite a few times, I can answer that slower saves fuel.

Toodling the Blueridge parkway from end to end at about 40mph, my bike gets about 50 mpg. Driving across Canada at a steady 100mph, my bike gets about 25 mpg.

My truck can get 25 mpg driving at 60 mph. When I drive it at 90 mph (it won't go 100), I get 12 mpg.

The optimal fuel saving speed and condition varies, but generally seems to be around 40mph.