I recently noted the showboating, racing, and revving has all but disappeared in my area.Only cuz it's now too expensive. Expect that bad behavior to resume as soon as diesel prices fall.
I'm getting 45MPG with a full-size luxo-barge. That's why I had it built, for the mileage, and it would have been even better if the EPA hadn't nixed the diesel-electric powerplant I wanted in it.
They don't put 2 & 2 together. They buy cars based on emotions, not logic. Look at any car advert today. I was watching hockey with my dad tonight and they had ads for Hondas on there. They talked about them being fuel efficient, but only listed "518-mile range", no mention of actual MPG. Pretty **** poor.
For that matter, when is the last time a person (maybe yourself) checked your tire pressure? That's arguably the most important thing you can do to improve fuel economy with an already-functioning car.
Be glad you have health on your side. When your weeks are scheduled based on which hospitals, doctors, and medical appointments you have, you end up driving a lot.That sounds brutal.
Another advantage of being retired is the ability to drive only as much as necessary.
Some sources say 14 gallon tank for a 2026 Hybrid crv, so theoretically 37mpg under ideal conditions...Although, I highly doubt it'll even hit 30mpg under practical conditions, and there might be regulations in place restricting the "mpg" ratings on anything besides purely gasoline powered vehicles.
No way a box like that can hit 37 mpg. We seemingly forgot all we learned about aerodynamics in the last 20 years. Also, it's hilarious how people these days consider 37 mpg "good". We had vehicles which did better than that after the first fuel crisis in the 1970s using 1970s technology. We should only have improved upon that, to the point now only 75 to 100 mpg would be considered good, while 50 mpg would be average. We would win twice. With less demand for fuel the price would drop. And we would use far fewer gallons of this lower-priced fuel.
Yep. Almost nobody needs a pickup, and very few need an SUV, much less the huge versions of these which sell like hotcakes. A minivan can do almost everything an SUV can except go off road, while offering better efficiency (and a more attractive style).
They're not mutually exclusive. You can make a higher traction low-friction tire. The drawback? It wears out quite a bit faster. There's probably a sweet spot where the fuel savings is equal to or greater than the cost of replacing the tires more often. Really this efficiency/ economy tradeoff goes for any tire type. You even see it with bike tires. The bike tires which last 10,000 miles (this is very long for a bike tire) often have worse traction than the 3,000 or 4,000 mile tires. That said very few riders hit the traction limits of their tires anyway. I almost never do. I can when turning but I'm afraid small amounts of sand or dirt on the street will cause the tire to break loose before I'm at the dry pavement traction limit. It is fun sometimes going up against the limits in a parking lot a few hours after a heavy rain. I can lean the bike at something like a 45 degree angle, which means I'm cornering at 1g.
Actually, a CR-V can probably hit that on the highway. I know a lot of folks with CR-Vs, and they're "okay" on gas. Most of the "Crossover" SUVs are just cars.No way a box like that can hit 37 mpg. We seemingly forgot all we learned about aerodynamics in the last 20 years. Also, it's hilarious how people these days consider 37 mpg "good". We had vehicles which did better than that after the first fuel crisis in the 1970s using 1970s technology. We should only have improved upon that, to the point now only 75 to 100 mpg would be considered good, while 50 mpg would be average. We would win twice. With less demand for fuel the price would drop. And we would use far fewer gallons of this lower-priced fuel.
Yep. Almost nobody needs a pickup, and very few need an SUV, much less the huge versions of these which sell like hotcakes. A minivan can do almost everything an SUV can except go off road, while offering better efficiency (and a more attractive style).
They're not mutually exclusive. You can make a higher traction low-friction tire. The drawback? It wears out quite a bit faster. There's probably a sweet spot where the fuel savings is equal to or greater than the cost of replacing the tires more often. Really this efficiency/ economy tradeoff goes for any tire type. You even see it with bike tires. The bike tires which last 10,000 miles (this is very long for a bike tire) often have worse traction than the 3,000 or 4,000 mile tires. That said very few riders hit the traction limits of their tires anyway. I almost never do. I can when turning but I'm afraid small amounts of sand or dirt on the street will cause the tire to break loose before I'm at the dry pavement traction limit. It is fun sometimes going up against the limits in a parking lot a few hours after a heavy rain. I can lean the bike at something like a 45 degree angle, which means I'm cornering at 1g.
Out of curiosity, where do you live?
Northern New England, in the town center of a regional hub town. Car-free through five full Winters. The roads get plowed very quickly, here.
Congrats. That's very awesome. I think if you can get a job in one of those older town squares (or work remotely, I guess), that also seems like a feasible option.
Tunnel vision..
.
You have lost your mind!
.
Indeed. I live on the edge of the populated center of a regional hub town of about 12K people, with about 7500 in the "urbanized area". The old Walmart used to be closer, but the new Walmart is only 5 miles away, easily reachable by bicycle (although the don't have a proper bicycle rack).
+
