The Brilliant Hillary Clinton Pushes for a 55MPH Speed Limit in the US

[3-Wheel Drive]

You may burn less gas going by slower, but you will burn more gas by going for longer periods of time, do to reduced pace. The ultimate difference can't be enough to outway the massive money and effort required to enact this.

And someone has to drive those utilty trucks out to all the signs to change them, and trucks burn gas .

 

[YSSMAN]

...Most American cars are geared so that they get better gas mileage at highway speeds, as most travel from place to place in the US is done above 60MPH. But even at 80MPH, most of the GMT800 trucks are spinning about 2,000 RPM on the 5.3L V8, and will return around 22-24 depending on the model.

I would dare to say the same thing for most German cars as well, as there is that whole autobahn thing... Whatever that is, lol.

But yes, I would agree with you SVT. If we would losen our laws on emissions in some places, we could get cars like the Citroen C4 that get phenominal gas mileage at a good price. The problem is, there are people who would consider the cars acceleration performance nearly unsafe (anything above 10 seconds is a bit unsafe in the US, unless of course it is a truck or SUV). Added to that is the small size of the car, as the case is with H2s driving around, a wreck with a Fit and a Hummer wouldnt be pretty...

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

Actually the Fit would probably win in a wreck with an H2 . And the new H3 barely has enough power to get out of its own way. Hummer claims its inline five has "the power of a V6 with the fuel economy of a four", but its really the economy of a six with the power of a four.

\Hummers suck

 

[Rogue Ssv]

Agreed.
A Fit, by the way, would OWN the H2. Try a SmartCar Roadster.

 

[YSSMAN]

If youre using your Hummer the right way, all the power to 'ya. But being that most of the folks who have them won't ever see a dirt road, it is dissapointing. Rolling on 26" wheels, it just looks stupid.

On the H3 however, I would disagree. They should have just gone with the 4200 I6 or the 4800 V8. Both are pretty cheap, would fit easily, and get the better fuel mileage they are looking for.

 

[MustangSVT]

But yes, I would agree with you SVT. If we would losen our laws on emissions in some places, we could get cars like the Citroen C4 that get phenominal gas mileage at a good price. The problem is, there are people who would consider the cars acceleration performance nearly unsafe (anything above 10 seconds is a bit unsafe in the US, unless of course it is a truck or SUV). Added to that is the small size of the car, as the case is with H2s driving around, a wreck with a Fit and a Hummer wouldnt be pretty...

I understand what you're saying. My opinion is a car such as the Citroen C4 is much better suited to daily driving than cars such as the current Honda Civic, Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla and such. My family owned a Ford Focus sedan from '01 to '04, and the Citroen C4 my buddy owns is way better. Just as comfortable at the least, has sensors for parking that work excellent, buttons on the wheel like on a bimmer/merc that control the cd player and all that, and even with 1.6l 4cyl, it still has 110-115hp or something like that, and at the least it felt as fast as the 2.0l 130hp Focus my dad owned. This may also be due in part to 95-98 octane fuel over there.

Anyway, the whole thing about power is overrated IMO. I'm in Canada and I own a '98 Jetta. This thing is said to have 115hp from it's 4cyl 2.0l, and it's 7 years old, so some of those horses have prolly ran away, maybe it makes 100hp. I still get off faster than most people from intersections, and I don't push it that hard, I shift at 2300rpm most of the time, if I shift at 3300-3500rpm and just push it a little bit, I'll be ahead of everyone in terms of accel. Besides, the most you'll be driving in the city (at least over here anyway), is 100km/h on the 80 zone, maybe 120 on the 100 zone, and my crappy car can handle that no problem.

Btw, there's a C4 with 2.0l 16v that has 180hp (albeit a tad more expensive of course), does 0-100km/h (0-62mph) in 8.3 second, and claimed 33.6mpg overall. The 1.6l one I was talking about does 0-62mph in 10.6second.

http://www.channel4.com/4car/road-tests/full-specification.jsp?version_id=3555

Anyway, this is kinda getting off topic. Back on the original topic, what they should do is at least follow the europeans more, get better fuel and more efficient cars. And back on the original thing, 55mph isn't the optimal speed. I would bet that in american cars, the gearing is made for the optimal highway speed (let's say 2300-2500rpm mark? in the top gear) is probably somewhere between 75mph to 85mph, I'm willing to bet closer to 80-85mph, maybe just around 80. Definetely not 55.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

That was also in an automatic, AND an SUV which has neither a gearbox with gears that are capable of very high speeds (and thus are really low rpms at 70-80mph) or any aerodynamic effeciency.

In a manual car, you'll find a whale of a difference.

PS C&D sucks.

EDIT the speed limit around Indianapolis (as in, around the edges of the city) is about 95

95? mph? hahahaha! that's funny.
The good state of Indiana has a speed limit maximum of 70mph. poss. 65, but if I remember correct, it was 70.
Either way, all the states between PA and Colorado (99.9% sure in America, Montana tried no speed limit, but people died when they hit moose and such) have no higher than 75, and that's only Colorado

No matter, any car will see decreased gas milage at speeds, simply because it takes more power to go from 50-70 than 70-90. air force increases disproportionatly to speed.
Most people who see increased milage at higher speeds (over 70) simply do to the fact that it's easier to maintain speed, without all the slowing and speeding that'll ruin an otherwise great run.

 

[neanderthal]

lead sled beat me to it.


i find it amusing that many of you choose to lambast her because she is either democratic, female, the wife of a former president, but mostly because she is proposing reducing the speed limit.

i find it equally funny that NO ONE here has actually acknowledged that if everyone was to drive at 55 we would be saving a ****load of gas.

FACT. if every one was to drive at 55mph, we would be saving a bunch on imported oil. period.

undeniable. incontrovertible. indubitable. irrefutable. infallible. fact. period.

regardless of how many of you may whine about your car getting its best economy at "x" speed, or "y" speed, if you lower you speed you are less likely to use more gas. consumption goes up with the square of power/ speed. sure, things like gearing and gradients, and torque all play a part. so your gizmobile may actually get good milage at whatever sped you think is prudent thats way over the speed limit, but if you lower the speed on any given car you are more likely to save gas.

no one has actually refuted that. ergo, what she is proposing is true.

in specific instances, (i'll use my car since i know it) you can get better fuel economy at a higher speed. in my car is at anything over 3000rpm in top gera on level ground. this translates to above 65mph, closer to 73. but thats only true for the way i drive. someone else who has more of a leadfoot would not get the best fuel economy at that same speed.

anyway. instead of attacking her person, which is base, and baselessly pontificating, how about refuting what she said with evidence. general evidence, evidence whose truism cannot be disputed. not specific evidence which only applies to your car when you are driving it.

 

[a6m5]

And you beat me to it. I was just going to say that small increase in mpg by millions of drivers will add up. I'm pleased that Hillary Clinton is at least voicing her ideas, but at the same time, I'm glad that she's taking all this beating from everybody. I really don't want this Socialist to become the first female President of the U.S.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

Not that I want speed limits lowered, in fact, I wish they were close to doubled, BUT,
Fun Fact: the best mileage I ever got was running 20-25mph in 4th gear (to slow for 5th) in an icestorm. it was so great, that, over the 50 mi or so I drove like that, it took a tank that wouldve made 410 miles, last 440. I saved almost an entire gallon in just 50 miles (if that)
And yes, I know EXACTLY what I would have gotten, it was on the last trip of a couple that included, 1. 1800miles, and back. 2. 1200 miles and back. 3. 1200 miles.<--- that's where I acheived OVER 40+ by driving like an idiot. (Saw at LEAST 100 wrecked cars next morning, including a U-Haul not unlike the one my brother was driving behind me, on it's roof, and 2 SUV's spun out, in a straight line right in front of me) <--just a fun story.

P.S. I'm leaving the country if Hillary becomes pres.

 

[Tornado]

undeniable. incontrovertible. indubitable. irrefutable. infallible. fact. period.

Which has already been denied, controverted, etc. It is a fact with older cars. However, with newer cars, most gearboxes a set to be cruising at a good speed at 75-80 MPH. If you try to go much slower, and the cams lobe, which can damage them (at worst) or spit out fuel (at best). Also:

You may burn less gas going by slower, but you will burn more gas by going for longer periods of time, do to reduced pace. The ultimate difference can't be enough to outway the massive money and effort required to enact this.

and:

As far as I know, the real optimal fuel efficiency highway cruising speed will depend on the car gearing and RPM, but 55mph is definetely not the most efficient.

 

[TheCracker]

A speed limit of 55 is fine for someone who spends their time sat in the back of a limo been driven by a chauffeur isn't it?

For everyone else who has to drive themselves about its just going to mean their journeys are going to take longer and frustrate them to the point that they'll become irrational and therefore more dangerous to other road users!

 

[95GTIVR6]

I wouldn't mind a speed limit change to 55, buy would rather see a law put in place requiring a special permit to drive a large truck or SUV on a daily basis. A special licence plate that law enforcement could use to make sure you have the NEED to drive a large vehicle.

Yeah, yeah, maybe this is too communist for some, but there are WAY too many SUV's with only one person driving them, most of the time to the office. While getting rid of trucks all together is absurd, placing limits on who can drive them and WHEN, seems to make more sense to me.

Also, car manufacturers ceasing the sale of excessively large vehicles to the public could also reduce gas consumption if special permits wont fly. Allowing heavy duty trucks (i.e Ford F350, Chevy 3500 etc.) only to be sold to businesses and companies, like construction contractors, could reduce the number of large vehicles on the road.

Maybe enforcing laws like Japan has in place, where you must prove you have a place to park you vehicle before you are allowed to buy one (and if not, and you STILL want to drive, be limited to a vehicle that cannot exceed a certain mph) would work...only enchanced to fit the large-area United States.

Just some ideas.

 

[Delirious]

Also if i am correct, Hilary would want to bring a bunch of censorship to a lot of video games...which I am sure a bunch of you would not like.

 

[the Interceptor]

I don't want to get into the discussion of what is reasonable and what is not. Just some information I gathered, cause I like to monitor my fuel consumption (or rather of my car) as well:

With an average of 90 kph (56 mph) on the Autobahn, my car does 42 mpg.
With my usual average of 130 kph (80 mph), it does 29 mpg.

Just for the ones that say there's no difference. It's a 5-speed BMW 323i by the way.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Famine]

There's talk in the UK of raising motorway limits to 85mph - and about time too.

I dread to think how long it'd take to get from city to city in the US at 55mph - it'd take you 4 and a half hours to do the journey I'm doing tomorrow night in 3 and a quarter.

neanderthal - not really true, let alone incontravertible. An engine lagging at 1,000rpm in 6th for 55mph is far less efficient, in terms of fuel usage and exhaust product, than the same engine at 1,350rpm in 6th for 75mph.

IMADreamer - Ethanol is not more expensive at the pump, but to produce. It costs $1.74 a gallon to make, compared with $1.05 for premium unleaded petrol/gasoline, but where gas/petrol is taxed at the pump, ethanol is subsidised. It's also less efficient - 77,000BTUs of thermal energy per gallon, compared to 137,500BTUs per gallon for petrol.

 

[Carl.]

I'm starting to understand you...

 

[TheCracker]

I'm starting to understand you...

I don't know, my wife might want to enforce a draconian speed limit - but i still wouldn't touch Monica Lewinski with yours!

 

[Carl.]

Isn't being driven insane, well, being driven insane?

and besides...

or

...

 

[YSSMAN]

Maybe if Hillary would have included laws to draw back the restrictions on diesel engines, allowing the Europeans (GM and Ford as well...) to import their more efficent diesel cars to the US for sale. Being that diesel sales rose 80% over 2005, it is a good case for doing so.

Because as it stands right now, with the new laws going into effect for the 2007 model year, only the new Mercedes E320 BluTec will be able to be sold in the US.

 

[TheCracker]

or

...

When you put it that way....


...she's best of a bad bunch i suppose.

 

[Danoff]

The point of speed limits is safety, NOT fuel economy.

this is just a horrible ploy to try to look away from the obvious fact that gas companys are raping each American citizen.

Take an economics course.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Seen as a few Brits have given their tupence already I'll add mine.

America has so many laws that must be met before a car can be legally imported already why don't they add one more?

Would a law saying that cars must be able to cruise a 'x' speed using between 'a' and 'b' revs be so impossible if implemented by say 2012? And if a car cannot, or won't be meet this standard then you pay a premium on the retail price?

 

[zoxxy]

...Didnt they just raise the speed limit in parts of Texas to almost 80MPH because so many people were speeding?

Hahaha, that's the stupidest thing ever! Great way of solving the problem.

 

[Danoff]

Hahaha, that's the stupidest thing ever! Great way of solving the problem.

Texas has the most boring highways in the country. Honestly they could eliminate the speed limit altogether there... like Montana.

 

[Pupik]

Although I can't stand Hillary Clinton, I take everything the New York Post states with a grain of salt (the size of a boulder).

Has anyone actually travelled at 55 mph on an interstate haighway for any length of time? It's a legal sedative, that's what.

 

[a6m5]

I dread to think how long it'd take to get from city to city in the US at 55mph - it'd take you 4 and a half hours to do the journey I'm doing tomorrow night in 3 and a quarter.

Between most big cities, major streches will have speed limit between 65 - 70, where I live. And most drivers will be crusing at 5 - 10 mph faster than that, if not more.

 

[YSSMAN]

...I usually do 65MPH down my street, which has a posted speed limit of 55MPH. The problem is, 55MPH seems too slow for me. Maybe its because I'm a good driver, but it just isn't fast enough...

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

The bottom line with is:
We tried it before. It failed. Why try again? During its inaction in the '70s, people sped because 55 was too slow to them. Why would today's drivers with their faster, better handling cars cars be any different? I know I don't. I usually do 60-65 on 55 posted roads. And I know I'm not the only one.

 

[neanderthal]

Which has already been denied, controverted, etc. It is a fact with older cars. However, with newer cars, most gearboxes a set to be cruising at a good speed at 75-80 MPH. If you try to go much slower, and the cams lobe, which can damage them (at worst) or spit out fuel (at best).

the cams lobe? huh?

its a fact that it take more gas to go faster. newer cars are a lot more aerodynamic than older cars. thats where most of thier gains come from.when a big blocky 4000lb car like a W211 mercedes E350 has a Cd in the mid twenties and can get fuel economy in the near thirties you have to ask yourself how did they do that. its not all engine.

also newer cars have engines that are far more flexible; adjustable cams, intakes, timing and so on which makes the engines almost as good on the bottom end as they are at the top. and chips with more computing power than those of early spaceships. even some space ships from the early 80s.

while its generally true that newer cars can get very good fuel economy at higher than 55, its also generally true that going slower will use less fuel. old or new car.

famine.

true. but few cars are geared for that outside of 0.50 overdrive equipped cars like vettes and vipers.

dont get me wrong, im not saying that 55 is the optimum fuel economy speed. its generally true that it will result in less consumption. but in the case of my car it wont.