I bet more people are killed on back roads and two lane highways than on Interstate Highways. If I had to travel from NJ to Florida without using Interstate Highways it would take much longer and use more gas even with the lower speed.
We have scening Highway 1 going along the coast with beautiful views most on the way. It is always tempting to take it while going on vacations, but in some areas 25 mph average is very common. If you are driving 300 or more miles, you better take long vacations to use it.
Pessimist sees dark tunnel, optimist sees a light at the end, realist sees lights of coming train.Engineer sees 3 idiots on the tracks.
Kajtek1 wrote: We have scening Highway 1 going along the coast with beautiful views most on the way. It is always tempting to take it while going on vacations, but in some areas 25 mph average is very common. If you are driving 300 or more miles, you better take long vacations to use it.
Hubby and I had this discussion this morning. Removing stop and go traffic (lights, etc) from the picture, does it really consume more fuel if you take longer? If you are driving a set number of miles and at Xmph and you get 12 mpg and at Ymph you get 15 mpg aren't you still using less gas at speed Y regardless of how long it takes?
Assuming you are on a major interstate that just flows along nicely (ya, pipe dream, I know!), isn't it reasonable to assume one could use less gas than on a secondary highway when you factor in stop and go with lights, traffic, etc, and more difficulty in keeping a constant speed? Constant slowing down, speeding up and idling eat fuel. Also consider that backroads often create a longer distance to your destination and thereby wipe out any fuel savings.
I'd like to see someone take the same trip both ways and calculate their fuel economy. I'm an interstate person myself mostly because we usually don't have the time to mosey as we are trying to get somewhere in a short amount of time. My hope is this will change at some point, although with my personality type I'm guessing not. I find neither is more or less dangerous than the other, just different, and to think otherwise can be dangerous in itself.
Getting off the interstates doesn't mean you have to go through every small town. We do lots of them by choice. We never travel long enough to "have to be somewhere" by a certain time. Hurry up and go isn't part of our RV style. Their are lots of scenic byways and they all eventually get you where you want to go. On some trips we never made it to our destination because we had so much pleasure and fun trying to get there and visiting some great 'unknown' places.
Crowe wrote: Hubby and I had this discussion this morning. Removing stop and go traffic (lights, etc) from the picture, does it really consume more fuel if you take longer? If you are driving a set number of miles and at Xmph and you get 12 mpg and at Ymph you get 15 mpg aren't you still using less gas at speed Y regardless of how long it takes?
Assuming you are on a major interstate that just flows along nicely (ya, pipe dream, I know!), isn't it reasonable to assume one could use less gas than on a secondary highway when you factor in stop and go with lights, traffic, etc, and more difficulty in keeping a constant speed? Constant slowing down, speeding up and idling eat fuel. Also consider that backroads often create a longer distance to your destination and thereby wipe out any fuel savings.
I'd like to see someone take the same trip both ways and calculate their fuel economy. I'm an interstate person myself mostly because we usually don't have the time to mosey as we are trying to get somewhere in a short amount of time. My hope is this will change at some point, although with my personality type I'm guessing not. I find neither is more or less dangerous than the other, just different, and to think otherwise can be dangerous in itself.
Here's my experience. I have a computer in my Buick sedan that calculates everything but the gross national product. It has a real time fuel mileage calculator.
I will sometimes set it to zero and on a road and a couple of things I've noted:
gas consumption rises significantly when I'm starting the Buick from absolute stops, such as a traffic light or a stop sign. It takes energy to push 4000 (or 2000 for that matter) lbs. from a dead stop to speed. I can see the mileage figure plunging bit by bit in these circumstances.
the best mileage are runs at steady, (cruise control works best) uninterrupted speeds...ie; no stops, no accelerating, then slowing down, then accelerating. Best 'steady, absolutely consistent 'speeds for great mileage seem to be aroun 40 to 50 mph. I have found a no traffic . flat, no hills, road, where I once tested my Buick with it's 3800 V6 at a steady, unwavering 42 mph (put the cruise control on) that returned an unbelievable 44 miles per Canadian gallon, which as you know is 20 % bigger than the American gallon. This mileage figure is significantly better than the transport Canada gas mileage estimate of 39 mpg, for this car. Remember I'm talking Canadian gallons.
Now my 'testing' is not real world, but it does show the type of driving that works best for mpg. In fact I think cities should have their traffic lights synced to avoid the stop and go as much as possible, which contributes tremendously towards poor mileage.
I think running on busy highways or freeways is not that economical, because cars pretty well have to run at traffic flow speed. I recall my wife and I coming into the Twin Cities freeway, one friday afternoon. The speed limit 65 mph, our speed just keeping pace with the traffic flow...85 mph. Those speeds are not going to return good mileage.
Not for nothing, but I have a lifelong friend that recently retired as a 737 Captain from a major U.S. airline with 22,600 hours total flying time. He was ferrying his "airport car" that he kept at the airport in Houston, Texas back to his home in Mission Viejo, California the other week when he stopped at my home in Dallas for a visit. I asked him of his plans to do a little sightseeing by car since he had a lot of time now that he was retired. I gave him the most direct route back to Omaha where we had grown up, to do some visiting of old friends. He expressed a strong fear of driving any two-lane highways out there in seeing the country. He said he would drive more miles just to stay on the Interstate system of travel. I thought to myself about it, and I guess he's fearful of the center line deal, which is of course always a danger. I always regarded him as a very safe pilot, as I was his very first passenger when he got his pilot's license in 1973. I've always been fearful of flying, and still am, however, I'm still going to travel many of the four-lane non-Interstate highways when travelling by car or my coach.
Offline
.jpg)
