Speeding on the highway adds a surprising amount to your fuel costs.

With gas prices rising, gas-saving advice abounds: Drive more gently, don't carry extra stuff in your trunk, combine your shopping trips.

This is all sound advice but there's one driving tip that will probably save you more gas than all the others, especially if you spend a lot of time on the highway: Slow down.



In a typical family sedan, every 10 miles per hour you drive over 60 is like the price of gasoline going up about 54 cents a gallon. That figure will be even higher for less fuel-efficient vehicles that go fewer miles on a gallon to start with.

The reason is as clear as the air around you.

When cruising on the highway, your car will be in its highest gear with the engine humming along at relatively low rpm's. All your car needs to do is maintain its speed by overcoming the combined friction of its own moving parts, the tires on the road surface and, most of all, the air flowing around, over and under it.

Pushing air around actually takes up about 40% of a car's energy at highway speeds, according to Roger Clark, a fuel economy engineer for General Motors.

Traveling faster makes the job even harder. More air builds up in front of the vehicle, and the low pressure "hole" trailing behind gets bigger, too. Together, these create an increasing suction that tends to pull back harder and harder the faster you drive. The increase is actually exponential, meaning wind resistance rises much more steeply between 70 and 80 mph than it does between 50 and 60.

Every 10 mph faster reduces fuel economy by about 4 mpg, a figure that remains fairly constant regardless of vehicle size, Clark said. (It might seem that a larger vehicle, with more aerodynamic drag, would see more of an impact. But larger vehicles also tend to have larger, more powerful engines that can more easily cope with the added load.)

That's where that 54 cents a gallon estimate comes from. If a car gets 28 mpg at 65 mph, driving it at 75 would drop that to 24 mpg. Fuel costs over 100 miles, for example - estimated at $3.25 a gallon - would increase by $1.93, or the cost of an additional 0.6 gallons of gas. That would be like paying 54 cents a gallon more for each of the 3.6 gallons used at 65 mph. That per-gallon price difference remains constant over any distance.

Engineers at Consumer Reports magazine tested this theory by driving a Toyota Camry sedan and a Mercury Mountaineer SUV at various set cruising speeds on a stretch of flat highway. Driving the Camry at 75 mph instead of 65 dropped fuel economy from 35 mpg to 30. For the Mountaineer, fuel economy dropped from 21 to 18.

Over the course of a 400-mile road trip, the Camry driver would spend about $6.19 more on gas at the higher speed and Mountaineer driver would spend an extra $10.32.

Driving even slower, say 55 mph, could save slightly more gas. In fact, the old national 55 mph speed limit, instituted in 1974, was a response to the period's energy crisis.

It was about more than just high gas prices, though. The crisis of the time involved literal gasoline shortages due to an international embargo. Gas stations were sometimes left with none to sell, and gas sales had to be rationed. The crisis passed, but the national 55 mph speed limit stayed on the books until the law was loosened in the 1980s. It was finally dropped altogether in 1995. (The law stuck around more because of an apparent safety benefit than for fuel saving.)

Despite today's high gas prices, don't expect to see a return to the national 55 mph speed limit. The law was unpopular in its day, and higher speeds have become so institutionalized that even the Environmental Protection Agency's fuel economy test cycle now includes speeds of up to 80 mph.

Driving 10 miles per hour faster, assuming you don't lose time getting pulled over for a speeding ticket, does have the advantage of getting you to your destination 50 minutes sooner on that 400 mile trip. Whether that time difference is worth the added cost and risk is, ultimately, up to you.

Found this online, not sure I can go between 50-60 on the highway, but it was interesting how much ur mpg goes down when u break 60..

lets see..., drive 80-85, and be home on my couch instead of driving 65 & still 10 miles away. I'll take being at home with my family.

I have more money than time, so I'll live with the lower mpg(which still is 19 mpg .)

lets see..., drive 80-85, and be home on my couch instead of driving 65 & still 10 miles away. I'll take being at home with my family.


Yeah, there's nothing better that an extra 2-3 minutes of quality family time! :D :p

10 miles = 2-3 mins? @ the recommended 65 mph. that would be a little less than 10 mins.

Being home with the kids for an additional 10 mins a day is better than spending it avoiding jacka*s truckers for an extra 10 mins a day. :D

Well, getting stopped going 20 mph over the speed limit is going to cost you a lot more than those 10 minutes.
20 points on you record = 2 month suspension of your driving privileges in your state I believe.
My state is jail time. It's considered reckless driving.

Well, getting stopped going 20 mph over the speed limit is going to cost you a lot more than those 10 minutes.
20 points on you record = 2 month suspension of your driving privileges in your state I believe.
My state is jail time. It's considered reckless driving.

not in my state. thanks for the heads up though.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anyone's point, just curious and did a little math. If I have a daily commute, and want to get home 10 minutes faster than someone driving 60 mph: for a 60 mile commute, I'd have to drive at 72 mph. For a 30 mile commute, I'd have to drive 90 mph. Yikes. And if I had a 10 mile commute, I'd pretty much have to drive the speed of light, and Einstein would predict my RL would distort which would definitely cause body wrinkles.;) Did I really say that!

I have a 150 mile round trip daily commute.

Another way to save on gas is to ALWAYS TRAVEL IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION.
You see... the earth is traveling beneath us (at my local latitude, around 700mph, IIRC) in an easterly direction, so it's easier for our Ridgelines' tires to roll to the west because of the decreased resistance, than trying to "catch up with" the earth, as it moves away from us to the east. Hence, go west for better gas mileage.

This is also why so many laid-back people in the U.S.(i.e. car enthusiasts) eventually end-up in California.
They have less of the self-control that is required to keep them "planted" in their native easterly locations.

And haven't we all noticed a resultant "pull to the left" as we drive our RL's to the north, and a similar "pull to the right" while traveling south?

It's amazing how this simple fact has been stripped from all of the (so-called) "comprehensive" mpg studies!

Corealis was a close-minded fool. :rolleyes:

:eek: :eek: :eek: ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

That's ridiculous. How am I gonna get home????

:D :D :D

That's ridiculous. How am I gonna get home????

:D :D :D
"I moved to my new home at the end of a one way cul de sac. Now I can't get out." -Steven Wright

The original article says "Mountaineer driver would spend an extra $10.32..." over a 400 mile trip to travel at the higher speed. If I'm going 400 miles in a day, that's $10 well spent. Besides, unless everyone slows down, I'm sure not going to be the rolling traffic slug.

ya, see, the earth is ROUND...

What sayest thou?!?!? Heresy! Round?!?!? Confess! Next we shall hear of speech flying across the air and talking boxes of metal and lights! :eek:

:p ;)

What sayest thou?!?!? Heresy! Round?!?!? Confess! Next we shall hear of speech flying across the air and talking boxes of metal and lights! :eek:

:p ;)

VIMH, it's worth reading the posts every day just to see your stuff. :D
Tom

VIMH, it's worth reading the posts every day just to see your stuff.
Tom

:o

I know. He always trumps my posts and I hate him for that.

For every Costello there has to be an Abbott.

Besides, he ripped that off from an Altoids commercial... DINTCHA???

:o It may perchance have been on the talking picture box when'st I penned aforementioned outburst... It is apparent thou watcheth as much picture box as I :eek: :D

Another way to save on gas is to ALWAYS TRAVEL IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION.
You see... the earth is traveling beneath us (at my local latitude, around 700mph, IIRC) in an easterly direction, so it's easier for our Ridgelines' tires to roll to the west because of the decreased resistance, than trying to "catch up with" the earth, as it moves away from us to the east. Hence, go west for better gas mileage.

This is also why so many laid-back people in the U.S.(i.e. car enthusiasts) eventually end-up in California.
They have less of the self-control that is required to keep them "planted" in their native easterly locations.

And haven't we all noticed a resultant "pull to the left" as we drive our RL's to the north, and a similar "pull to the right" while traveling south?

It's amazing how this simple fact has been stripped from all of the (so-called) "comprehensive" mpg studies!

Corealis was a close-minded fool. :rolleyes:


Good. Very, very good!!! :)

... relatively speaking. Either way, your kids will be older.

Ain't nuthin' wurse than Old Relatives! :p

HELP ME! I can't stop myself!

Found this online, not sure I can go between 50-60 on the highway, but it was interesting how much ur mpg goes down when u break 60..

We need a 3 lane system here in the US to save energy. Here's how my plan would work.

The Right Lane
Speed Limit - 60 mph
Who's it for? Anyone who wishes to listen to their IPod, talk on their cell phone, drive a vehicle with more than 6 wheels, have purple hair or wear a Fedora.

The Middle Lane
Speed Limit - 70 mph
Who's it for? Anyone who wishes to economically get where they are trying to travel. The speed limit would be 70 mph, not 69, not 71. Cruise control would be mandatory.

The Left Lane
Speed Limit 85-90 mph based on road conditions.
Who's it for? People who are specially licensed to drive in the left lane. The driving test for left lane drivers would include tests for vision, hand/eye coordination, and actual driving ability. You would also have to own a left lane approved vehicle. This would preclude 68' Ramblers, 67 Ford Pickups and just about all Chrysler vehicles made before 1999. Driving in this lane would also cost you more because you would be taxed for left lane usage. This would be a flat tax, not some sort of sliding tax.

My plan has merit but it will never happen. Why? It makes sense!

ChrisM, if the goal of your system is to save energy, I don't see how it makes sense.

ChrisM, if the goal of your system is to save energy, I don't see how it makes sense.

The whole premise of my idea is that having to speed up and slow down on the freeway wastes a lot of energy. Driving at constant speeds saves energy.

People who want to drive slowly should keep right.

People who want to be "green" would stay in the middle lane and people who wanted to go faster would keep left.

All lanes would have a minimum and maximum speed limit hence no speeding up or slowing down. I also suspect that most wrecks will happen in the right lane.

All this information of course was contained in the original version of my post which I accidentally deleted. I clicked the part of my little finger mouse pad on my laptop that makes you back to the previous webpage and everything that I had typed just magically dissapeared. :mad:

It's the little things in life like accidentally deleting posts that keeps companies like Logitech and Dell who make keyboards and laptops in business. Otherwise there wouldn't be any reason to get new one because the old ones would have never broken because you would have no reason to throw them. :mad:

I figured that was your premise, but I also strongly suspect that any gains made in lanes 1 & 2 would be negated in lane 3. Especially when the person with the purple hair on their cell phone wanders over into lane 3. :D

I figured that was your premise, but I also strongly suspect that any gains made in lanes 1 & 2 would be negated in lane 3. Especially when the person with the purple hair on their cell phone wanders over into lane 3. :D

Opps. Forgot to mention that lanes 2 & 3 would have to pay extra carbon taxes for increased emissions. Lane 3 cars would have to meet ULEV 2 emissions standards.

I don't have a fix for Ms. Purple Hair wandering over into lane 3. Taser her perhaps? (J/K)

Slow down...

Even with the "girlie" SUV the CR-V I still like to go fast at times. But, almost everyone including my friends (and one rude cop one day) accuse me of going TOO slow and either being too cautious or too risky.

We need a 3 lane system here in the US to save energy. Here's how my plan would work.

The Right Lane
Speed Limit - 60 mph
Who's it for? Anyone who wishes to listen to their IPod, talk on their cell phone, drive a vehicle with more than 6 wheels, have purple hair or wear a Fedora.

The Middle Lane
Speed Limit - 70 mph
Who's it for? Anyone who wishes to economically get where they are trying to travel. The speed limit would be 70 mph, not 69, not 71. Cruise control would be mandatory.

The Left Lane
Speed Limit 85-90 mph based on road conditions.
Who's it for? People who are specially licensed to drive in the left lane. The driving test for left lane drivers would include tests for vision, hand/eye coordination, and actual driving ability. You would also have to own a left lane approved vehicle. This would preclude 68' Ramblers, 67 Ford Pickups and just about all Chrysler vehicles made before 1999. Driving in this lane would also cost you more because you would be taxed for left lane usage. This would be a flat tax, not some sort of sliding tax.

My plan has merit but it will never happen. Why? It makes sense!

Wow! Segregation AND profiling!:eek: :eek: Anybody got the phone number for the A.C.L.U. ? Maybe a visit from "AL & JESSIE" is in order?;) I can see the "trust-fund" babies lining up in front of your house already! :D

Forgot to mention that lanes 2 & 3 would have to pay extra carbon taxes for increased emissions. Lane 3 cars would have to meet ULEV 2 emissions standards.

Still doesn't wash. Increased carbon taxes do not save energy, which was your stated goal. Your goal sounds more like "I wanna drive faster." :)

The Left Lane
Speed Limit 85-90 mph based on road conditions.
Who's it for? People who are specially licensed to drive in the left lane. The driving test for left lane drivers would include tests for vision, hand/eye coordination, and actual driving ability. You would also have to own a left lane approved vehicle. This would preclude 68' Ramblers, 67 Ford Pickups and just about all Chrysler vehicles made before 1999. Driving in this lane would also cost you more because you would be taxed for left lane usage. This would be a flat tax, not some sort of sliding tax.

My plan has merit but it will never happen. Why? It makes sense!

I saw a doc a few weeks ago about the Autobahn. Very similar down to the tests, capable vehicles, exhorbitant fees, and left lane exclusivity (by law).
But you're right... it'll never happen on the roads in this country, in OUR lifetimes. :rolleyes: It DOES make sense.

I usually keep it between 80 and 85 on the highway. I will be sure not to go faster and lose more MPG.

I try to keep my RL at 70 to 75 mph on the highways. The cops won't bat an eye at me and I average 20 to 21 mpg.

I try to keep my RL at 70 to 75 mph on the highways. The cops won't bat an eye at me and I average 20 to 21 mpg.

I do the same and experience simaler mpg.

Still doesn't wash. Increased carbon taxes do not save energy, which was your stated goal. Your goal sounds more like "I wanna drive faster." :)

I do want to drive faster and carbon taxes don't save energy but Washington DC believes they do hence they must. :rolleyes:

If I have to buy carbon taxes to drive in the left lane, someone else is saving that carbon emission, not me. If the carbon tax wasn't a "one to one" thing it might actually work but from what I understand it is. I think the way that it should work is that the person who pays the carbon tax should have to pay for the conservation of more carbon emissions than he is paying for. For example if I am paying a tax because my vehicle is emitting 50 lbs of carbon, I should have to pay to conserve 70 lbs of carbon.

Wow! Segregation AND profiling!:eek: :eek: Anybody got the phone number for the A.C.L.U. ? Maybe a visit from "AL & JESSIE" is in order?;) I can see the "trust-fund" babies lining up in front of your house already! :D

Don't forget the AARP.

Yep, there are a lot of limitations to my plan. I am a firm believer that people should only attempt what they are capable of. A blanket drivers license IMHO is just ludicrous. Our licensing system takes into account that with this one license you can handle all driving situation and conditions thrown at you on any street in the US and for that matter the world. It just doesn't compute. The only limitations are that you wear glasses if can't pass the vision test. Why not take a reaction speed test and apply that to driving in rush hour traffic?

I think that any US driver can go over to Germany and drive on the Autobahn. Our licensing system is akin to playing T-Ball while theirs is closer to playing minor league baseball. They just don't compare.

Let's face it, our drivers licensing system's purpose is not to license our citizens to drive. It's purpose is to document and catalog the population of our country. It has been a national ID card since they started putting pictures on them years ago even though they are issued by the state.

I better shut up before I am put on a national watch list.

I found that most German drivers, while having to go to a class and test and all that fancy smashy stuff, were horrible drivers! Yeah you can go 120MPH or faster, but you have to be responsible when you do, and I found most male German drivers go through a strange metamorphasis around 90, turning from a recognizable human being into a overly large male member!

GUYS,
I like ChrisM 's way of thinking...he makes perfect sense to me!
Jim

They are the same people
only further from home
on freeways fifty lanes wide
on a concrete continent
spaced with bland billboards
illustrating imbecile illusions of happiness

The scene shows fewer tumbrils
but more maimed citizens
in painted cars
and they have strange license plates
and engines
that devour America


- Lawrence Ferlinghetti, “In Goya's Greatest Scenes We Seem to See”

The Left Lane
Speed Limit 85-90 mph based on road conditions.
Who's it for? People who are specially licensed to drive in the left lane. The driving test for left lane drivers would include tests for vision, hand/eye coordination, and actual driving ability. You would also have to own a left lane approved vehicle. This would preclude 68' Ramblers, 67 Ford Pickups and just about all Chrysler vehicles made before 1999. Driving in this lane would also cost you more because you would be taxed for left lane usage. This would be a flat tax, not some sort of sliding tax.

My plan has merit but it will never happen. Why? It makes sense!

In 1964, one of my classmates was proudly displaying his "trophy". A ticket for "speeds in excess of 150mph". In the Texas pan handle, in his new XKE, he was doing around 100 when he passed a little B/W Dodge parked in a side road. Figured in for a penny, in for a pound, road was clear, so he hit the gas. After a few minutes topped out, at 160 on the Jag speedometer, the Dodge pulled up behind him, with the lights on. The patrol man said he had personally had it over 200. I decided right there, that I was never going to try to outrun the cops.

Anyway, if you can get an old Highway Patrol Chrysler vehicle, it would probably qualify for the third lane.

In 1964, one of my classmates was proudly displaying his "trophy". A ticket for "speeds in excess of 150mph". In the Texas pan handle, in his new XKE, he was doing around 100 when he passed a little B/W Dodge parked in a side road. Figured in for a penny, in for a pound, road was clear, so he hit the gas. After a few minutes topped out, at 160 on the Jag speedometer, the Dodge pulled up behind him, with the lights on. The patrol man said he had personally had it over 200. I decided right there, that I was never going to try to outrun the cops.

Anyway, if you can get an old Highway Patrol Chrysler vehicle, it would probably qualify for the third lane.
Ah, the ol' Intercepter Package with Push Button Automatic. I personally drove a '66 Dodge old KHP car with new tires at 150 on the Turnpike (briefly) and it still felt like it had "poop in its pants."

Ah, the ol' Intercepter Package with Push Button Automatic. I personally drove a '66 Dodge old KHP car with new tires at 150 on the Turnpike (briefly) and it still felt like it had "poop in its pants."

They had these in CT when I was growing up. 440 six pack, 2" duals. Nasty. Every single one of them that I saw on the road was belching oil. They were driven hard.

Now I know its hard to fight against science but then science is about tests and findings and tests and more tests, right? :eek:

I will give you my scenario on how the faster I drive the better fuel economy I get. And this is no lie what so ever.:cool:

Now I do own a Ridgeline but that gets driven by my wife in the city. My ride is a 2002 Grand Prix Gt 2 door. When i worked in city the mileage per tank (65l) tank was 450-500 Km's.

Then Life changed and I took a job in a brand new Store in Waterloo. Living in London Ontario that was 110 km door to door once I found the shortest and least stopped route on Google earth.

This was also before the (loose your car for a week and insurance up the yahoo law which the province created called Racing) so driving above 150 was the norm down certain stretches of highway. Not only did it take me 1 hour to drive door to door my mileage was 650-700km's in the summer. Now the 150 threshold only happened maybe 10 % of the time but the majority of the trip was on Highway 401 traveling 130 on avg.

Now here is the kicker. Me and a Buddy being die hard Cowboys fans got the opportunity to see the game in Green Bay Wis. Driving from London through Port Huron - wrap around the lake in Chicago and then up the other side of Lake Huron. speed limit was higher most of the trip MPH But cruising a high majority of the time at MPH. I was getting over 800 kmh per tank. This is no lie.

My theory is that overdrive was created to get better fuel economy. When you find the sweet spot of your engine ( horsepower to fuel economy ratio) you will have the best fuel economy. Thus the longer you cruise at a steady speed which is your sweet spot the better economy you get. Overdrive gets you faster speeds with lower incremental increase in rpm. thus the higher the rpm in overdrive the even higher the speed. Thus an increase in fuel economy up to and including your sweet spot. Over this and mileage drastically changed the other way.

Now I know my car's aero dynamics and weight is drastically lower than my wifes RTL. but this is how I see it. This is how I found it. Science or not.

Joe. Rant off.:)

By the way the Ridgeline has a standard 5 speed automatic . Both 4th and 5 are Overdrive. When we do take it on the highway it usually is going pretty fast as well. But A good idea on fuel economy I do not have as it has never really gone very far. Except for the time we drove it home from West Virginia where we bought it.

Want more crazy? The football game was Sunday night football 8pm eastern time start. We left for the game at 6 in the morning Sunday and came back on the Monday. We picked up our ridge leaving Thursday night 3 days before that. Stayed over night just past Pittsburg. Picked up ridge in Fredricksburg West VA which is just south of Washington DC. on the Friday at noon. Started back right away and stayed overnight someplace in Ohio. And was home Saturday afternoon after some time doing paperwork for importing the ridge. the very next morning it was off to Wisconsin.








Speeding on the highway adds a surprising amount to your fuel costs.

With gas prices rising, gas-saving advice abounds: Drive more gently, don't carry extra stuff in your trunk, combine your shopping trips.

This is all sound advice but there's one driving tip that will probably save you more gas than all the others, especially if you spend a lot of time on the highway: Slow down.



In a typical family sedan, every 10 miles per hour you drive over 60 is like the price of gasoline going up about 54 cents a gallon. That figure will be even higher for less fuel-efficient vehicles that go fewer miles on a gallon to start with.

The reason is as clear as the air around you.

When cruising on the highway, your car will be in its highest gear with the engine humming along at relatively low rpm's. All your car needs to do is maintain its speed by overcoming the combined friction of its own moving parts, the tires on the road surface and, most of all, the air flowing around, over and under it.

Pushing air around actually takes up about 40% of a car's energy at highway speeds, according to Roger Clark, a fuel economy engineer for General Motors.

Traveling faster makes the job even harder. More air builds up in front of the vehicle, and the low pressure "hole" trailing behind gets bigger, too. Together, these create an increasing suction that tends to pull back harder and harder the faster you drive. The increase is actually exponential, meaning wind resistance rises much more steeply between 70 and 80 mph than it does between 50 and 60.

Every 10 mph faster reduces fuel economy by about 4 mpg, a figure that remains fairly constant regardless of vehicle size, Clark said. (It might seem that a larger vehicle, with more aerodynamic drag, would see more of an impact. But larger vehicles also tend to have larger, more powerful engines that can more easily cope with the added load.)

That's where that 54 cents a gallon estimate comes from. If a car gets 28 mpg at 65 mph, driving it at 75 would drop that to 24 mpg. Fuel costs over 100 miles, for example - estimated at $3.25 a gallon - would increase by $1.93, or the cost of an additional 0.6 gallons of gas. That would be like paying 54 cents a gallon more for each of the 3.6 gallons used at 65 mph. That per-gallon price difference remains constant over any distance.

Engineers at Consumer Reports magazine tested this theory by driving a Toyota Camry sedan and a Mercury Mountaineer SUV at various set cruising speeds on a stretch of flat highway. Driving the Camry at 75 mph instead of 65 dropped fuel economy from 35 mpg to 30. For the Mountaineer, fuel economy dropped from 21 to 18.

Over the course of a 400-mile road trip, the Camry driver would spend about $6.19 more on gas at the higher speed and Mountaineer driver would spend an extra $10.32.

Driving even slower, say 55 mph, could save slightly more gas. In fact, the old national 55 mph speed limit, instituted in 1974, was a response to the period's energy crisis.

It was about more than just high gas prices, though. The crisis of the time involved literal gasoline shortages due to an international embargo. Gas stations were sometimes left with none to sell, and gas sales had to be rationed. The crisis passed, but the national 55 mph speed limit stayed on the books until the law was loosened in the 1980s. It was finally dropped altogether in 1995. (The law stuck around more because of an apparent safety benefit than for fuel saving.)

Despite today's high gas prices, don't expect to see a return to the national 55 mph speed limit. The law was unpopular in its day, and higher speeds have become so institutionalized that even the Environmental Protection Agency's fuel economy test cycle now includes speeds of up to 80 mph.

Driving 10 miles per hour faster, assuming you don't lose time getting pulled over for a speeding ticket, does have the advantage of getting you to your destination 50 minutes sooner on that 400 mile trip. Whether that time difference is worth the added cost and risk is, ultimately, up to you.

And if I had a 10 mile commute, I'd pretty much have to drive the speed of light, and Einstein would predict my RL would distort which would definitely cause body wrinkles.;) Did I really say that!

Well actually, it would just appear to be shorter to those watching you drive by, but think of how much younger you would be? then again, think of how much older the wife will look .... there is the wrinkles you are talking about. :eek:

I agree with smokinjoe when you find that sweet spot you optimize your fuel econony even if your not going much slower. This often times even moving with the flow of traffic on the highway.