Ready for 55 again?

What are tags?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

CarGuru > Driving > Ready for 55 again? 4 April 2005 21:56:54

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

ha ha ha... loh mlya....da…
ha ha ha... loh mlya.... da, da... imenno you!!!!

da da da.....
da da da.....

They have birthday today:

YJlady

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
On 28 Oct 2005 02:52:39 -0700, littleboyblu87@yahoo.com wrote: What state is that? In TX, I…

Happy New Year!
Hi Viatologists, The Worldwide Highway Library would like to wish all viatologists a warm, happy New…

ETHANOL: HOW BRAZIL BEATS THE…
I guess America is so involved in fighting terrorism that forgets to prepare herself for a fuel crisis…

Recent forum topics:

...96 Accord tranny issue
I have a 1996 honda accord ex automatic. on a cold start the car shits gears realitively fine. however…

i just want to find out how…
i just want to find out how much it will cost to change an ignition to a 2001 pontiac grand am and can i…

What is causing my 97 Toyota…
What is causing my 97 Toyota Camry to hesitate like it is about to stall?

94 Dodge Intrepid
How do I go about finding and unsticking or replacing the gas float on a 94 Dodge Intrepid. I ran out of…

Recent forum comments:

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
Well, I passed on the 4th roadtest. The examiner said I should have passed it the first time. I have…

RE: turn signal problams
Try a new flasher because it's cheaper. If that doesn't work then you probably need a new turn signal…

RE: Chevy 305 Timing Chain…
Sprucing up a low mileage 305 chev. Crank sprocket has one keyway. Looking at the front end how many…

RE: 95 maxmia
my 95 Nissian Quest jerks A Lot:-? when it warms up and I push on the accelerator, I was told…

RE: 4x4 usefulness
I live in the mountains of colorado, and most of the time I am able to get by with my very powerful…

Модератор:

Administrator


Ready for 55 again?
Fbloogyudsr 31 March 2005 00:09:38
	I ran across this interesting article about a report that the International Energy Agency has just released. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/655B03B0-32C2-4BF7-A3E8-F7EFD8144333.htm The complete report is at http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/2005/oil_demand/background.pdf Here's an interesting quote from the article (paraphrased from the report): "But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed restrictions (nb: the report says 90kph - about 55mph) and compulsory driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) or more stringently on cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%). In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study. "Policing costs are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments for existing police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We assume this cost at one officer per 100 000 employed people." As an example that means that the US workforce, currently around 138 million people, would need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may seem an optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put off." Floyd Rogers
		Add comment


223rem 31 March 2005 00:18:40 [ permanent link ]
	Meanwhile, my friends living in Europe drive much faster than us in cars with much smaller engines and with much better fuel economy. Why cant I cruise at 100 mph in a car with a 3 liter engine and my buddy in France can with his 1.4 liter Peugeot?
		Add comment


Brent P 31 March 2005 00:55:11 [ permanent link ]
	In article <114m1s6m6h8jrba@corp.supernews.com>, fbloogyudsr wrote:> cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on > corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%) Time to change a plate on one car to an even number. In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be > needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the > cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study. That's always the point, _CONTROL_ of the population. Ever notice how the solution is always more monitoring, more control?
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 31 March 2005 01:30:58 [ permanent link ]
	In article <114m1s6m6h8jrba@corp.supernews.com>, fbloogyudsr <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote:>I ran across this interesting article about a report that the International >Energy Agency>has just released.>http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/655B03B0-32C2-4BF7-A3E8-F7EFD8144333.htm>The complete report is at >http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/2005/oil_demand/background.pdf> Here's an interesting quote from the article (paraphrased from the report):>"But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed >restrictions (nb: the report says 90kph - about 55mph) and compulsory >driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) or more stringently on >cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on >corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%). Great, so I'd need two cars, one for the odd days and one for the even days. Or, if I'm less scrupulous of the law, two license plates. The report seems to based on be a bunch of estimates pulled from the nether regions. Consider -- they claims savings of 500,000 barrels per day by a driving ban for 1 in 10 days. Insane. Even assuming the ban was actually widely observed, it would simply shift most travel to the other 9 days (including commutes; many employers would probably operate on weekends so people could make up a missed day). They also claim a > 1,000,000 barrel per day savings for a 90km/hr speed limit. Uhh, guys, we've been there and done that here in the US. Didn't really work all that well. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Ulf 31 March 2005 01:34:09 [ permanent link ]
	223rem wrote:> Meanwhile, my friends living in Europe drive much faster than> us in cars with much smaller engines and with much better fuel> economy. Why cant I cruise at 100 mph in a car with a 3 liter> engine and my buddy in France can with his 1.4 liter Peugeot? He can't. The speed limit on the French freeways is 130 km/h (80 mph), and they have recently started enforcing it. Besides, driving a 1.4 liter car at 100 mph would kill the fuel economy. I drove 100 mph in my BMW for 60 miles last weekend, and I had problems maintaining my speed in the steeper inclines despite the rpms being right at the engine's sweet spot. With a 1.6 liter engine I doubt it would even have been possible. Ulf -- ulf.cc
		Add comment


C.H. 31 March 2005 03:09:49 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:38 -0800, fbloogyudsr wrote: [nonsense] It is a common misconception that 55mph either saves gas or improves safety. And the reason of these control freaks to demand a 55mph speed limit is not their concern for the environment or energy consumption but the desire to control people. Chris
		Add comment


Magnulus 31 March 2005 04:26:06 [ permanent link ]
	I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at 75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a reality check.
		Add comment


Dtj 31 March 2005 05:07:33 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:38 -0800, "fbloogyudsr" <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote: In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be >needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the >cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study.> "Policing costs are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments >for existing police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We >assume this cost at one officer per 100 000 employed people."> As an example that means that the US workforce, currently around 138 million >people, would need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may >seem an optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put >off." Interesting stupidity. Let's see, we will allow people to work 10% less, and increase taxes by 50%, thereby making all of our citizens happier while increasing the standard of living.
		Add comment


Arif Khokar 31 March 2005 05:13:32 [ permanent link ]
	Magnulus wrote: I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at> 75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a> reality check. And if you think that driving 60 mph doesn't take significantly more time over the long term as compared to 75 or 85 mph, then you really need a reality check.
		Add comment


John F. Carr 31 March 2005 06:01:27 [ permanent link ]
	In article <LmH2e.8811$f%4.4623@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at>75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a>reality check. If wind resistance, or rolling resistance, or any sort of friction that increases with ground or air speed, is the key to fuel economy then the optimum speed is zero. But the optimum speed of a car is over 40 MPH. So a superficial understanding of wind resistance leads one to the wrong conclusion. -- John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)
		Add comment


C.H. 31 March 2005 06:15:08 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:26:06 -0500, Magnulus wrote: I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. On the contrary. If you think driving at 75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving> at 60 mph, you need a reality check. Wind resistance is not everything. Unfortunately from everything you posted here one can only conclude that you lack even the very basics necessary to understand fuel economy, so explaining to you why 55mph is not the optimum for most cars would be an exercise in futility. Come back when you have mastered the basics. Chris
		Add comment


Fbloogyudsr 31 March 2005 06:46:21 [ permanent link ]
	"C.H." <trapspam@trapspam.org> wrote> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:26:06 -0500, Magnulus wrote:>> I guess you don't know what wind resistance is.> On the contrary.> If you think driving at 75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving>> at 60 mph, you need a reality check.> Wind resistance is not everything. Unfortunately from everything you> posted here one can only conclude that you lack even the very basics> necessary to understand fuel economy, so explaining to you why 55mph is> not the optimum for most cars would be an exercise in futility.> Come back when you have mastered the basics. Look at this, Mangulus: http://members.cox.net/alg3/DyВnamometer%20test%20report.htm Be sure to look at the torque/HP curves. Floyd
		Add comment


Paul 31 March 2005 07:09:22 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:38 -0800, fbloogyudsr , one of an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters said the following in rec.autos.driving... Here's an interesting quote from the article (paraphrased > from the report): "But the most hardline emergency proposals> come in the form of drastic speed restrictions (nb: > the report says 90kph - about 55mph) and compulsory > driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) > or more stringently on cars with odd or even number > plates. They would be banned from the roads on > corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%). <snip> One of my cars plates ends in an odd number and one with an even number. Law legally subverted. This would just be another way for the criminals in government to rape people's wallets. SIEG HEIL!
		Add comment


Magnulus 31 March 2005 08:16:32 [ permanent link ]
	"John F. Carr" <jfc@mit.edu> wrote in message news:424b59f7$0$563$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...> If wind resistance, or rolling resistance, or any sort of friction> that increases with ground or air speed, is the key to fuel economy> then the optimum speed is zero. But the optimum speed of a car is> over 40 MPH. So a superficial understanding of wind resistance> leads one to the wrong conclusion.> And I never said cars should be travelling at 20 miles per hour.
		Add comment


Magnulus 31 March 2005 08:23:07 [ permanent link ]
	"C.H." <trapspam@trapspam.org> wrote in message newsan.2005.03.31.02.15.08.713950@trapspam.org...> Wind resistance is not everything. Unfortunately from everything you> posted here one can only conclude that you lack even the very basics> necessary to understand fuel economy, so explaining to you why 55mph is> not the optimum for most cars would be an exercise in futility.> Come back when you have mastered the basics. What is the optimum speed for fuel economy, then, pray tell? Are you denying that wind resistance increases significantly the faster you go above about 40 mph or so? Remember, we are talking about national policy (not specific cars), the original intent of the 55 mph speed limit was to reduce fuel usage to mitigate the effects of the oil embargo by the Arabs. Some cars or trucks might get better fuel economy at 65 mph, some might get better at 45. They had to pick a number that, in 1970's, was a good compromise. Today, if they were picking a number, it might be 60 or 65... who knows (then again, maybe it would be 55 with all the boxy SUV's on the road). But nobody can seriously believe that going faster than a certain speed doesn't start sucking up fuel.
		Add comment


Scott en Aztln 31 March 2005 08:27:10 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:30:58 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: Great, so I'd need two cars, one for the odd days and one for the even>days. Or, if I'm less scrupulous of the law, two license plates. Hmm... my car's license plate has NO numbers on it at all. That's either really, really good or really, REALLY bad... -- Sloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
		Add comment


Magnulus 31 March 2005 08:27:59 [ permanent link ]
	FWIW, I would never support limiting people driving on certain days based on their license plates. That would be too draconian. What if somebody had an emergency? Too many hassles from being pulled over by cops. The government in the 70's went the route of only letting certain odd or even numbered license-plated cars fuel up on certain days- that makes more sense. But we really aren't in a fuel crisis like that. A better strategy would be to increase CAFE and eliminate the SUV/truck loophole, or increase fuel taxes gradually (and spend the money only on roadwork or public transportation).
		Add comment


Brent P 31 March 2005 10:57:35 [ permanent link ]
	In article <oTK2e.5376$vK6.805@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus wrote: What is the optimum speed for fuel economy, then, pray tell? There isn't one. For your car it might be 65mph, for mine it might be 75mph, for carl taylors truck it might be 45mph. It depends on so many factors that it is different for many vehicles. What really is the killer is -acceleration-. Lane discipline can save more fuel than any speed limit could.
		Add comment


C.H. 31 March 2005 11:45:47 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:23:07 -0500, Magnulus wrote: "C.H." <trapspam@trapspam.org> wrote in message> newsan.2005.03.31.02.15.08.713950@trapspam.org...>> Wind resistance is not everything. Unfortunately from everything you>> posted here one can only conclude that you lack even the very basics>> necessary to understand fuel economy, so explaining to you why 55mph is>> not the optimum for most cars would be an exercise in futility.>> Come back when you have mastered the basics.> What is the optimum speed for fuel economy, then, pray tell? If you knew the first thing about cars you would know that this depends on the car. For your soot generator it may be 55mph, for my car the sweet spot is around 75. Are you denying that wind resistance increases significantly the faster> you go above about 40 mph or so? No, otherwise I would have written that. Chris
		Add comment


C. E. White 31 March 2005 17:46:27 [ permanent link ]
	"John F. Carr" wrote:> In article <LmH2e.8811$f%4.4623@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,> Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> > I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at> >75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a> >reality check.> If wind resistance, or rolling resistance, or any sort of friction> that increases with ground or air speed, is the key to fuel economy> then the optimum speed is zero. But the optimum speed of a car is> over 40 MPH. So a superficial understanding of wind resistance> leads one to the wrong conclusion. Rolling resistance is linear (or close to it). Within reason, the power required to overcome rolling resistance goes up directly with the speed (which means it has almost no effect on fuel economy). The efficiency of engines with a throttle plate are greatly affected by the position of the throttle and the speed of the engine. There will be a speed at which you get the best bang per unit of fuel (aka the highest specific fuel consumption (sfc), the least fuel required per horsepower hour). This will not be at idle (sfc is almost 0 there) and it will not be at maximum engine speed. In the sort of normal working range for most modern engines it is going to be in the 1500 to 3000 rpm range. The difference between the max sfc and min sfc in the normal operating band for most engines is less than 15%. Aerodynamic resistance (the force needed to overcome drag) increases as the square of the speed. Generally, below 50 mph, rolling resistance is the predominate force you need to overcome. Above 50 mph, aerodynamic drag is the predominate force. And this force increases as a square of the speed. So below 50 or so, running the engine at the point that produces the highest sfc will likely produce the highest fuel economy. This very easily can be 45 mph. Once you are above 50 mph or so, the aerodynamic drag increases rapidly. You engine's sfc may still be increasing but it is not going to matter much as the power required goes up very rapidly. With a very aerodynamic shape, proper gearing, and a some engines types, it is possible the best fuel economy might be achieved around 60 mph, but I think it is highly unlikely that there are any production vehicles that achieve their best fuel economy above 65 mph. The effects of aerodynamic drag are just too dominant. I could see a purpose built vehicle geared in such a manner that the fuel economy would be higher at 70 than at 60, but this would most likely be a vehicle impractical for every day use. I've waged this battle before (and been lampooned for making this argument, but oh well...It still moves) - see http://tinyurl.com/6k6rs . Ed
		Add comment


C. E. White 31 March 2005 19:16:16 [ permanent link ]
	fbloogyudsr wrote: Look at this, Mangulus:> http://members.cox.net/alg3/DyВnamometer%20test%20report.htm> Be sure to look at the torque/HP curves. Unfortunately the link does not work. Ed
		Add comment


C. E. White 31 March 2005 19:19:25 [ permanent link ]
	Magnulus wrote:> FWIW, I would never support limiting people driving on certain days based> on their license plates. That would be too draconian. What if somebody had> an emergency? Too many hassles from being pulled over by cops.> The government in the 70's went the route of only letting certain odd or> even numbered license-plated cars fuel up on certain days- that makes more> sense. But we really aren't in a fuel crisis like that. A better strategy> would be to increase CAFE and eliminate the SUV/truck loophole, or increase> fuel taxes gradually (and spend the money only on roadwork or public> transportation). Persoanlyl, I think we should drop CAFE altogether. SUVs exist primarily as a way around CAFE. Any way you look at it, CAFE is a form of rationing, and rationing almost always generates a black market. Better to increase the gas taxes, at least then some of the money would stay in this country. Ed
		Add comment


Magnulus 31 March 2005 19:41:17 [ permanent link ]
	"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message news:424C14FD.74D2F48D@nospam.com...> Persoanlyl, I think we should drop CAFE altogether. SUVs> exist primarily as a way around CAFE. Any way you look at> it, CAFE is a form of rationing, and rationing almost always> generates a black market. But if you make trucks and cars have the same standards, there is nowhere else the "black market", as you call it, can go, short of buying a large commercial vehicle. Nobody is going to drive 10,000 lb. vehicle to work- and if they do, they probably have a really good reason. If you had a unified CAFE standard, light trucks would go back to being a niche market, just like they were in the 70's and early 80's. Manufacturers would have less incentive to make over half their sales SUV's or trucks. And those they did sell would have to be fuel efficient. CAFE doesn't prohibit certain kinds of vehicles. It just says, on balance, the average vehicle has to get a certain MPG that a manufacturer is selling.
		Add comment


Brent P 31 March 2005 19:48:47 [ permanent link ]
	In article <rNU2e.1837$UW6.1574@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus wrote: But if you make trucks and cars have the same standards, there is nowhere> else the "black market", as you call it, can go, short of buying a large> commercial vehicle. Nobody is going to drive 10,000 lb. vehicle to work-> and if they do, they probably have a really good reason. There will be some technicality in there. It's politics. It will then be exploited. If fuel economy is such a great concern lower income taxes and raise fuel taxes. That way conservation would be encouraged as a way to avoid taxes. However, government doesn't like to change taxes only add new ones and increase existing taxes.
		Add comment


Fbloogyudsr 31 March 2005 20:19:40 [ permanent link ]
	"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message news:424C1440.4317AB34@nospam.com...> fbloogyudsr wrote:>> Look at this, Mangulus:>> http://members.cox.net/alg3/DyВnamometer%20test%20report.htm>> Be sure to look at the torque/HP curves.> Unfortunately the link does not work. For some reason there's a optional hyphen between the y-n in Dynamometer when you click on it. Maybe this one will be better: http://members.cox.net/alg3/Dynamometer%20test%20report.htm Floyd
		Add comment


C. E. White 31 March 2005 21:02:59 [ permanent link ]
	Magnulus wrote:> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message> news:424C14FD.74D2F48D@nospam.com...> > Persoanlyl, I think we should drop CAFE altogether. SUVs> > exist primarily as a way around CAFE. Any way you look at> > it, CAFE is a form of rationing, and rationing almost always> > generates a black market.> But if you make trucks and cars have the same standards, there is nowhere> else the "black market", as you call it, can go, short of buying a large> commercial vehicle. Nobody is going to drive 10,000 lb. vehicle to work-> and if they do, they probably have a really good reason. Actually at least three people I work with drive vehicles with the necessary GVW to work (Hummers H2s, Excursions, F250's, Seirra HD all meet this requirement). I wager if you apply car standards to SUVs, but still allow a loophole for heavy duty vehicles, heavy duty vehicle sales will go through the roof. I have a strong belief that taxing fuel is the best way to encourage a movement to smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. Trying to play both sides with bogus rules like CAFE, just distort the market. CAFE has been a failure. Changing it won't fix it. Ed
		Add comment


John F. Carr 31 March 2005 21:12:21 [ permanent link ]
	In article <424C14FD.74D2F48D@nospam.com>, C. E. White <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote:>Persoanlyl, I think we should drop CAFE altogether. SUVs>exist primarily as a way around CAFE. SUVs were invented as a way around CAFE. They will continue to exist after its repeal because drivers want them. -- John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)
		Add comment


C. E. White 31 March 2005 21:26:01 [ permanent link ]
	fbloogyudsr wrote:> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message> news:424C1440.4317AB34@nospam.com...> > fbloogyudsr wrote:> >> Look at this, Mangulus:> >> http://members.cox.net/alg3/DyВnamometer%20test%20report.htm> >> Be sure to look at the torque/HP curves.> > Unfortunately the link does not work.> For some reason there's a optional hyphen between the y-n in Dynamometer> when you click on it. Maybe this one will be better:> http://members.cox.net/alg3/Dynamometer%20test%20report.htm> Floyd Thanks, that works. But I don't understand what you are trying to show. The BSFC numbers all appear to be at WOT. When cruising at 65 or 85, I doubt if you are at WOT. To make some estimate of fuel economy versus speed, you need a chart showing engine load versus speed, and then another chart showing fuel consumption for a given engine speed and load. Here is something for the "my vehicle gets better mileage at 85 than 55" fans. Manufacturer's go through a lot of fine tuning to get the best possible CAFE numbers. Neither of the driving cycles involves speeds higher than 55 mph. What are the chances that any manufacturer would design a setup where the engine has a really great sfc well above 55? I am sure they do everything they can to adjust the sfc to obtain good numbers in the CAFE tests. For a car to get better fuel economy at 85 than 65, the sfc would have to increase by at least 50% at the higher speed. I have seen a few sfc charts, and most show a total variation in the normal engine operating range of less than 15%. It is illogical to expect a production car to get better mileage at 85 than 65 (or 70 than 60). I know lots of people are sure their car does so, but I am sure that if they could conduct a careful test under controlled conditions, they would find it is not true. I have no doubt that for some vehicles driving a steady 85 on a lightly loaded interstate can produce better mileage numbers than trying to maintain 65 in heavy traffic, but I also have no doubt if you drove 65 on the same lightly loaded interstate you'd get better mileage than when driving at 85. I have no desire to return to the 55 mph speed limit. I think it can be counterproductive if saving fuel is the goal. Lower speed limits with the same traffic load increases the traffic density. Increased traffic density increases speed variations and can lead to stop and go conditions. As soon as you are in a situation where you are constantly making speed changes, fuel economy drops like a rock. A friend of mine had the best way to increase fuel mileage - drive your car to minimize brake usage. Using the brakes hurts you twice - once when you burn off speed slowing down, and again when you have to accelerate back to your previous speed. Ed
		Add comment


Alex Rodriguez 31 March 2005 22:30:31 [ permanent link ]
	In article <1112247340.043050.38590@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, xeton2001@yahoo.com says... If people had any brains, they'd be demanding the 55. It would save>thousands of lives a year and prevent tens of thousands of injuries and>save billions of $ in medical bills and property damage. And then>there's the gas savings. People have brains. That is why they realize just how stupid 55 NMSL was. It's not going to happen again as easily as it did in the past. If your limited skills only make you feel comfortable driving at 55, fine. Keep doing 55, just do it legally by staying in the far right lane. ------------- Alex
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 31 March 2005 23:09:14 [ permanent link ]
	In article <LmH2e.8811$f%4.4623@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at>75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a>reality check. Such simple models don't work. I know for a fact that my 1991 Miata's fuel consumption was fairly flat between 60 and 75mph. At 85mph, definitely dropping off and at 90mph you could just about see the gauge drop. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Magnulus 31 March 2005 23:10:46 [ permanent link ]
	"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message news:424C2D43.950D4AD1@nospam.com...> Actually at least three people I work with drive vehicles> with the necessary GVW to work (Hummers H2s, Excursions,> F250's, Seirra HD all meet this requirement). How much does an H2 weigh? I wager if you> apply car standards to SUVs, but still allow a loophole for> heavy duty vehicles, heavy duty vehicle sales will go> through the roof. I was thinking of exemptions for large busses, commercial tractor trucks, etc. Not for Excursions or Suburbans. I have a strong belief that taxing fuel is> the best way to encourage a movement to smaller, more fuel> efficient vehicles. Trying to play both sides with bogus> rules like CAFE, just distort the market. CAFE has been a> failure. Changing it won't fix it. Increased fuel taxes are regressive though, and don't necessarily lead to better fuel efficiency. Look at the 70's. Detroit failed to respond to the oil crisis, so the Japanese and Germans took a chunk out of the auto industry. If it happens again, it mighth destroy Detroit. Not that I care really if Detroit dies (IMO, they deserve it), but it would be very painful on the average consumer to have fewer good choices for automobiles if gas reaches $3.00-4.00 per gallon. You can also blame magazines like Car and Driver and Motortrend. They have alot of influence in the industry, but their values don't necessarily reflect what is practical or even needed by most drivers. American cars could do with a little less horsepower and a little more fuel economy. Horsepower per litre is the highest its ever been, so we should be building smaller engines. The original VW Beetle had a 40 horsepower engine, so did the original Jeep. Has driving really changed so much that cars with less than 100 horsepower just are unsuitable? In Europe, you can get many cars with less than 100 horsepower... and very good fuel economy.
		Add comment


Magnulus 31 March 2005 23:11:33 [ permanent link ]
	On many roads 55 mph is the speed limit for trucks, even if cars can go faster.
		Add comment


Big Bill 31 March 2005 23:42:31 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:57:35 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: In article <oTK2e.5376$vK6.805@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus wrote:> What is the optimum speed for fuel economy, then, pray tell? > There isn't one. For your car it might be 65mph, for mine it might be >75mph, for carl taylors truck it might be 45mph. It depends on so many >factors that it is different for many vehicles. > What really is the killer is -acceleration-. Lane discipline can save >more fuel than any speed limit could.> As well, wind resistance is far lower than most people think. Since many 100 HP cars can do 100 MPH, a quick use of a calculator will show the HP needed to drive at 50 MPH is very low. (Yet, many people say they want more HP. Do they intend to drive 200+ mph?) Accelleration requires torque, not HP. This is not well understood, this is certainly not being explained in car ads, which emphasize HP instead of torque. Truck ads, though, do emphasize torque much more. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Big Bill 31 March 2005 23:52:45 [ permanent link ]
	On 31 Mar 2005 17:12:21 GMT, jfc@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote: In article <424C14FD.74D2F48D@nospam.com>,>C. E. White <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote:>>Persoanlyl, I think we should drop CAFE altogether. SUVs>>exist primarily as a way around CAFE.> SUVs were invented as a way around CAFE. They will continue>to exist after its repeal because drivers want them. SUVs started in the 1920s (Carryall). Their current popularity is due to CAFE rules, though. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Fbloogyudsr 31 March 2005 23:54:56 [ permanent link ]
	"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote> Thanks, that works. But I don't understand what you are> trying to show. I'm merely pointing out to our new friend Magnulus that a blanket statement like "you always get better mileage at slower speeds" is incorrect. Floyd
		Add comment


Brent P 1 April 2005 00:00:43 [ permanent link ]
	In article <d2lo41dkok1veqva3bhegv7joa0nu0rtdo@4ax.com>, Big Bill wrote: SUVs were invented as a way around CAFE. They will continue>>to exist after its repeal because drivers want them. SUVs started in the 1920s (Carryall).> Their current popularity is due to CAFE rules, though. Every time someone challenges me on that fact, I point to the numerous decades SUVs were on the market and never reached any significant popularity. That their popularity trend begins shortly after CAFE's racheting upwards in the mid 80s. If SUVs were really a superior vehicle that people 'need' they would have found them somewhere between 1940 and 1985 at the very least. The evolution of SUVs into station wagons only drives the point home even further that CAFE is the cause.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 1 April 2005 00:01:57 [ permanent link ]
	In article <eVX2e.13778$vL3.9529@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote: You can also blame magazines like Car and Driver and Motortrend. They>have alot of influence in the industry, but their values don't necessarily>reflect what is practical or even needed by most drivers. American cars>could do with a little less horsepower and a little more fuel economy. They reflect the values of their readers or their advertisers, though. C&D would lose a lot of their readership if they started singing the praises of asthsmatic underpowered econoboxes. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 1 April 2005 00:10:55 [ permanent link ]
	In article <68ko41lltjqoatd6cnrg9akrbc97vqr1bt@4ax.com>, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote: As well, wind resistance is far lower than most people think. Since>many 100 HP cars can do 100 MPH, a quick use of a calculator will show>the HP needed to drive at 50 MPH is very low.>(Yet, many people say they want more HP. Do they intend to drive 200+>mph?)>Accelleration requires torque, not HP. This is not well understood,>this is certainly not being explained in car ads, which emphasize HP>instead of torque.>Truck ads, though, do emphasize torque much more. Acceleration requires torque at the drive wheels, which is a function of gearing and engine....(wait for it)....HP. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Big Bill 1 April 2005 00:36:46 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:10:55 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: In article <68ko41lltjqoatd6cnrg9akrbc97vqr1bt@4ax.com>,>Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:> As well, wind resistance is far lower than most people think. Since>>many 100 HP cars can do 100 MPH, a quick use of a calculator will show>>the HP needed to drive at 50 MPH is very low.>>(Yet, many people say they want more HP. Do they intend to drive 200+>>mph?)>>Accelleration requires torque, not HP. This is not well understood,>>this is certainly not being explained in car ads, which emphasize HP>>instead of torque.>>Truck ads, though, do emphasize torque much more.> Acceleration requires torque at the drive wheels, which is a function>of gearing and engine....(wait for it)....HP. No. Torque is the measure of the force applied to produce rotational motion. HP is not included there. HP (in a vehicle) is a function of torque and... (wait for it)... time. All definitions of horsepower include time; none of the definitions for torque include time. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


C.H. 1 April 2005 02:55:14 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:32:49 -0700, Big Bill wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:10:34 -0800, "C.H." <trapspam@trapspam.org>> wrote:> Acceleration depends on the integral of the torque curve between shift>>points, not the maximum torque. Usually peak torque will not be in that>>range.> Acceleration depends on torque. Yes and no, it depends on torque in a specific rpm range, not peak torque that you will find in data sheets. You're talking about the rate of acceleration.> Which is OK, but it doesn't change what I wrote. You were talking about acceleration and acceleration is more or less proportional to the integral over the torque curve between the shift points. Btw, what is the difference between acceleration and 'the rate of acceleration'? Whether you measure sustained gs or s from 0 to 60 doesn't really matter, both do not depend on peak torque. Chris
		Add comment


Jim Yanik 1 April 2005 06:13:07 [ permanent link ]
	tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:TfCdne4MRZ52y9HfRVn-ow@comcast.com: In article <d2lo41dkok1veqva3bhegv7joa0nu0rtdo@4ax.com>, Big Bill> wrote: > SUVs were invented as a way around CAFE. They will continue>>>to exist after its repeal because drivers want them.> SUVs started in the 1920s (Carryall).>> Their current popularity is due to CAFE rules, though.> Every time someone challenges me on that fact, I point to the numerous> decades SUVs were on the market and never reached any significant > popularity. That their popularity trend begins shortly after CAFE's > racheting upwards in the mid 80s.> If SUVs were really a superior vehicle that people 'need' they would> have found them somewhere between 1940 and 1985 at the very least. The> evolution of SUVs into station wagons only drives the point home even > further that CAFE is the cause. > I note that automakers are now making essentially "station wagons" that are just lowered SUVs,trying to lose the undesirable handling characteristics of the taller vehicles. But fuel prices will take their toll on them,too. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
		Add comment


Jim Yanik 1 April 2005 06:17:44 [ permanent link ]
	russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in newspydnV0Kt_1H19HfRVn-gA@speakeasy.net: In article <LmH2e.8811$f%4.4623@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,> Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:>> I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think>> driving at >>75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a>>reality check.> Such simple models don't work. I know for a fact that my 1991 Miata's> fuel consumption was fairly flat between 60 and 75mph. At 85mph,> definitely dropping off and at 90mph you could just about see the> gauge drop.> My ancient 94 Integra GSR got 30 MPG on my last trip Orlando to Jacksonville,doing 75-85 mph,one passenger. I get around 22-25 mpg in town,aggressive driver,depending on outside temp and use of airconditioning.It really sucks power from the VTEC motor. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
		Add comment


laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 1 April 2005 07:56:06 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:30:31 -0500, Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote: In article <1112247340.043050.38590@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >xeton2001@yahoo.com says...> If people had any brains, they'd be demanding the 55. It would save>>thousands of lives a year and prevent tens of thousands of injuries and>>save billions of $ in medical bills and property damage. And then>>there's the gas savings.> People have brains. That is why they realize just how stupid 55 NMSL >was. It's not going to happen again as easily as it did in the past. >If your limited skills only make you feel comfortable driving at 55, >fine. Keep doing 55, just do it legally by staying in the far right lane.>------------->Alex Nothing stupid about saving thousands of lives and billions of $ a year. Only psychopaths are against the 55.
		Add comment


laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 1 April 2005 07:57:47 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:11:33 -0500, "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote: On many roads 55 mph is the speed limit for trucks, even if cars can go>faster.> Been that way for decades and i think it's stupid. SL should be the same for all vehicles but the penalties should be MUCH greater for truckers caught speeding.
		Add comment


laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 1 April 2005 07:59:26 [ permanent link ]
	On 31 Mar 2005 14:21:56 -0800, Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com wrote: Actually, if people had any brains, they'd be demaining stricter>licensing and driver training. Which certainly explains why you're>against it. I've explained this before. How do you train people not to speed or run red lights??? Everyone knows it's wrong - they do it because the penalties are so slight. Throw reckless drivers in prison and they'd shape up. Stop being a criminal coddler.
		Add comment


Arif Khokar 1 April 2005 10:09:26 [ permanent link ]
	C.H. wrote: Btw, what is the difference between acceleration and 'the rate of> acceleration'? Acceleration is rate of change of velocity. Jerk is rate of change of acceleration.
		Add comment


C.H. 1 April 2005 10:31:17 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:09:26 +0000, Arif Khokar wrote: C.H. wrote:> Btw, what is the difference between acceleration and 'the rate of>> acceleration'?> Acceleration is rate of change of velocity.> Jerk is rate of change of acceleration. Bill was not talking about 'rate of channge of acceleration' or acceleration but of 'rate of acceleration' being something different than 'acceleration'. Chris
		Add comment


John David Galt 1 April 2005 11:38:37 [ permanent link ]
	fbloogyudsr wrote:> Here's an interesting quote from the article (paraphrased from the report):> "But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic > speed restrictions (nb: the report says 90kph - about 55mph) and > compulsory driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) or more > stringently on cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned > from the roads on corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%). Yet another reason to get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.
		Add comment


Magnulus 1 April 2005 18:29:39 [ permanent link ]
	"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message newspydnV0Kt_1H19HfRVn-gA@speakeasy.net...> In article <LmH2e.8811$f%4.4623@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,> Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> > I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving 75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a> >reality check.> Such simple models don't work. I know for a fact that my 1991 Miata's fuel> consumption was fairly flat between 60 and 75mph. At 85mph,> definitely dropping off and at 90mph you could just about see the> gauge drop. The Miata probably has a lower coefficient of drag. The 55 mph NSL was a compromise for the times when many cars had poor coefficients of drag. Most newer cars don't seem to lose much fuel economy until they get over 60-65 mph.. SUV's might be a different story, as they are so boxy shaped and the ride height is so high, I wouldn't be surprised if their optimum speed was below 60 mph.
		Add comment


Magnulus 1 April 2005 18:36:17 [ permanent link ]
	"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:9pmdnSp0MY6oytHfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...> They reflect the values of their readers or their advertisers,> though. C&D would lose a lot of their readership if they started> singing the praises of asthsmatic underpowered econoboxes. That's true but they hold a harmful amount of influence in the auto industry. I don't begrudge somebody dirving a sports car, but holding all cars to the standards of a Corvette is ridiculous. It would be similar to reading an article on CPU/graphics card overclocking to try and figure out what's a good PC to do your taxes with. I have read of alot of performance mods to PC's that involve water cooling, peltier coolers, etc. But none of them are applicable to the average person. Similarly, horsepower really is overblown for what most cars need. Getting over 10 seconds to go to 0-60 is not the end of the world, but the car mags sure make it sound like it.
		Add comment


Magnulus 1 April 2005 18:55:16 [ permanent link ]
	SUV's rise has very little to do with CAFE, and more to do with: - cheap fuel prices in the 80's, after about 1983 or so. - lax energy policy (CAFE was actually relaxed in the late 80's due to the whinings of Detroit, with threats of job losses. This is Detroits classic tactic to respond to CAFE and air pollution laws- that, or bring up the "safety" issue by implying that cars that are energy efficient will necessarily be small and unsafe). - marketting to a narcisistic demographic, the baby boomer, who had been the first generation spoon fed Madison Avenue through the television. Insecurity about aging also made them vulnerable to the marketting for the SUV- a vehicle that could haul around your children, hidden away under tinte windows, all the while projecting a youthful, sporty image. The funny thing is the bad nature of SUV's, especially the lack of safety, was publicized for years. The Suzuki Samurai in the late 80's, early 90's had a reputation for rolling over and it was a news story alot. But people didn't stop and think that other similar vehicles would have the same problem. People are just too stupid, I guess, in general.
		Add comment


Magnulus 1 April 2005 19:00:54 [ permanent link ]
	With the exception of extreme speeding, it's not a crime to drive fast or run a red light. It's a civil violation, just like jaywalking, etc. Throwing people in prison would be counterproductive. To be honest, everybody has probably driven over the speed limit or accidentally run a red light at some time, at least technically. It's more like marking off points off a test in school- it's a punishment, but for a mistake and not a crime. If somebody is truely driving very recklessly, the law does allow LEO's to haul you off to jail already.
		Add comment


Scott en Aztln 1 April 2005 19:04:29 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:31:17 -0800, "C.H." <trapspam@trapspam.org> wrote: On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:09:26 +0000, Arif Khokar wrote:> C.H. wrote:>> Btw, what is the difference between acceleration and 'the rate of>>> acceleration'?>> Acceleration is rate of change of velocity.>> Jerk is rate of change of acceleration.> Bill was not talking about 'rate of channge of acceleration' or>acceleration but of 'rate of acceleration' being something different than>'acceleration'. I guess Bill has been right all along. We really don't understand what he wrote. -- Sloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
		Add comment


C. E. White 1 April 2005 19:32:46 [ permanent link ]
	Matthew Russotto wrote:> In article <LmH2e.8811$f%4.4623@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,> Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> > I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at> >75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a> >reality check.> Such simple models don't work. I know for a fact that my 1991 Miata's fuel> consumption was fairly flat between 60 and 75mph. At 85mph,> definitely dropping off and at 90mph you could just about see the> gauge drop. How can you tell that the mileage is fairly flat between 60 and 75? Unless you have some very specialized equipment, and you are running the test under very controlled conditions (same road, same direction, same wind conditions, same traffic conditions - none is good), you cannot "know" this. If you believe that on a particular trip where you can drive 75, you get almost the same mileage as on another particular trips where you can only drive 60 - then I can believe that. But if you are saying you get the same mileage under the exact same conditions whether you drive 75 or 60, I am not a believer. I have tried to look at this analytically. Here are approximate drag power calculations for a 1991 Miata Cd = coefficient of drag = 0.36 (from http://hem.passagen.se/shazam/mi_history.htm) AF = Frontal area = 66.1" x 47.3" = 3,127 sq in = 21.7 sq ft (it might be slightly more or less) (2.0 sq meters) (not exactly correct, since the car is not a box, but it will do for this comparison) V = vehicle velocity (1 miles per hour = 0.44704 meters per second) DA = density of air = .002377 slugs/cubic foot (1.225 Kg/m3) at sea level Drag Power = AFCd(V*3)DA/2 = (2.0 sq meters)* 0.36 * (V*3) (1.225 Kg/m3) / 2 = 0.44 * (V*3) Kgm(2)/sec(3) = 0.44(V*3)Nm/s Speed Drag Power mph m/s nm/s HP 30 13.4 1,059 1.4 40 17.9 2,534 3.4 50 22.4 4,945 6.6 60 26.8 8,469 11.3 70 31.3 13,492 18.0 75 33.5 16,541 22.1 80 35.8 20,188 26.9 85 38.0 24,143 32.2 90 40.2 28,656 38.2 100 44.7 39,309 52.4 105 46.9 45,505 60.7 110 49.2 52,320 69.8 115 51.4 59,784 79.8 Aerodynamic drag is only part of the power consumption. The other part is rolling resistance. The force to overcome rolling resistance can be represented as: FR = UW Where: U = coefficient of rolling friction, somewhere in the 0.01 to 0.015 range for most cars W = weight of the car I'll use 2300 lb. for the weight and 0.01 for the coefficient of rolling friction. FR = 0.01 2300 = 23 lb = 102 N The power required to overcome rolling resistance is therefore: Speed Rolling Resistance Power mph m/s nm/s HP 30 13.4 1,371 1.8 40 17.9 1,831 2.4 50 22.4 2,291 3.1 60 26.8 2,741 3.7 70 31.3 3,202 4.3 75 33.5 3,427 4.6 80 35.8 3,663 4.9 85 38.0 3,888 5.2 90 40.2 4,113 5.5 100 44.7 4,573 6.1 105 46.9 4,798 6.4 110 49.2 5,034 6.7 115 51.4 5,259 7.0 So combining the two factors - Rear Speed Wheel Engine mph m/s HP HP 30 13.4 3.2 4.8 40 17.9 5.8 7.8 50 22.4 9.7 12.4 60 26.8 15.0 18.6 70 31.3 22.3 27.1 75 33.5 26.7 32.4 80 35.8 31.8 38.4 85 38.0 37.4 45.0 90 40.2 43.7 53.4 100 44.7 50.8 60.8 105 46.9 67.1 79.9 110 49.2 76.5 91.0 115 51.4 86.8 103.1 I used 85% for the drive line efficiency, and added 1 hp for power to address the accessories (power steering / alternator / other) when guesstimating the engine horsepower. My numbers aren't too bad. Mazda claimed 116 HP for the engine and testers got top speeds around 113 mph. I may be too low on the rolling resistance, or too high on the drive line efficiency (I used 85%), or I might not be allowing enough hp for the accessories (I used 1 hp) or maybe the car weighs more than 2300 lb. I can easily jiggle these numbers within a reasonable range to match the reported HP and top speed. For instance if I use a 2500 lb weight, 0.015 for the coefficient of rolling friction, 82% for the drive line efficiency, and assume the accessories are drawing 5 hp at 115 mph, the rear wheel horsepower at 115 mph is 91.2 Hp and the engine horsepower required is 116. I know my numbers are not perfect, but the trend is reasonable. Assuming you agree with the trend, if not the exact numbers, it can be seen it takes about 40% more engine power to go 75 versus 60. If you spread the total energy used over a mile, at 60 miles per hour it takes about 614,000 ft-lb of energy to move the car one mile. At 75 miles per hour it will take around 916,000 ft-lb of energy to move 1 mile. Do you really believe that the engine efficiency increases enough as the rpm increases from around 3000 to around 4000 rpm to compensate for all the extra energy required? The torque peak for your Miata engine is around 5500 rpm, so in neither case are you at the most efficient speed. A gallon of gasoline includes somewhere around 90,000,000 ft-lb of energy. Engine efficiencies for converting gasoline into work output are generally in the range of 30%. So you might guess that a gallon of gasoline could do around 27,000,000 ft-lb worth of actual work. At 60 miles of hour this would translate into about 44 miles. At 75 (assuming the efficiency was still around 30%), this would only be 29 miles. To get the same mileage at 75 as at 60, the efficiency would have to increase from around 30% to 45%. This is not reasonable. Maybe the efficiency could increase by 5%. In this case, a gallon of gas could move the car around 34 miles at 70 mph. Please don't get hung up on the exact numbers. I am only trying to illustrate trends. The relative numbers are what is important. Ed
		Add comment


C. E. White 1 April 2005 19:43:08 [ permanent link ]
	Big Bill wrote: Accelleration requires torque, not HP. This is not well understood,> this is certainly not being explained in car ads, which emphasize HP> instead of torque.> Truck ads, though, do emphasize torque much more. Except for "Hemi" ads..... Despite all the Chrysler blowing, the Hemi has about the same torque as the larger engines available in Fords or Chevies, and it get worse fuel economy. However, this isn't stipping them from selling like hot cakes. Ed
		Add comment


C. E. White 1 April 2005 19:54:18 [ permanent link ]
	Matthew Russotto wrote:> In article <eVX2e.13778$vL3.9529@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,> Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> You can also blame magazines like Car and Driver and Motortrend. They> >have alot of influence in the industry, but their values don't necessarily> >reflect what is practical or even needed by most drivers. American cars> >could do with a little less horsepower and a little more fuel economy.> They reflect the values of their readers or their advertisers,> though. C&D would lose a lot of their readership if they started> singing the praises of asthsmatic underpowered econoboxes. We could rename them Consumer Reports... Ed
		Add comment


Big Bill 1 April 2005 20:16:07 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:55:14 -0800, "C.H." <trapspam@trapspam.org> wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:32:49 -0700, Big Bill wrote:> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:10:34 -0800, "C.H." <trapspam@trapspam.org>>> wrote:>> Acceleration depends on the integral of the torque curve between shift>>>points, not the maximum torque. Usually peak torque will not be in that>>>range.>> Acceleration depends on torque.> Yes and no, it depends on torque in a specific rpm range, not peak torque>that you will find in data sheets.> You're talking about the rate of acceleration.>> Which is OK, but it doesn't change what I wrote.> You were talking about acceleration and acceleration is more or less>proportional to the integral over the torque curve between the shift>points.> Btw, what is the difference between acceleration and 'the rate of>acceleration'? Whether you measure sustained gs or s from 0 to 60 doesn't>really matter, both do not depend on peak torque. Accelleration is the simple increasing of speed. The rate if accelleration is a measurement of how fast that accelleration is occuring. They are definitly the same thing.> Chris -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Big Bill 1 April 2005 20:17:24 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:09:26 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote: C.H. wrote:> Btw, what is the difference between acceleration and 'the rate of>> acceleration'?> Acceleration is rate of change of velocity. No, rate of change of accelleration is a measurement of how fast accellerqation is taking place. Accelleration is only a change of speed.>Jerk is rate of change of acceleration. ??? -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Big Bill 1 April 2005 20:20:38 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:43:08 -0500, "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote: Big Bill wrote:> Accelleration requires torque, not HP. This is not well understood,>> this is certainly not being explained in car ads, which emphasize HP>> instead of torque.>> Truck ads, though, do emphasize torque much more.> Except for "Hemi" ads.....> Despite all the Chrysler blowing, the Hemi has about the>same torque as the larger engines available in Fords or>Chevies, and it get worse fuel economy. However, this isn't>stipping them from selling like hot cakes. > Ed I'm old enough to remember the real Hemi. The current Hemi isn't like the real Hemi; it's more hype than HP. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Big Bill 1 April 2005 20:25:33 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 03:59:26 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 14:21:56 -0800,>Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com wrote:> Actually, if people had any brains, they'd be demaining stricter>>licensing and driver training. Which certainly explains why you're>>against it.> I've explained this before. How do you train people not to speed or>run red lights??? Everyone knows it's wrong - they do it because the>penalties are so slight. Throw reckless drivers in prison and they'd>shape up. Stop being a criminal coddler. It's not that difficult; it's done in other countries. The Autobahn, for example, has a much lower crash rate than Americak Interstates. One factore is the fact that fines there are applied differently. Instead of setting them low (because there are crying babies who say that the poor are unfairly pounished by a high fine - Boo Hoo), they use a sliding scale - the higher your income, the higher your fine. It's part of a working system. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Arif Khokar 1 April 2005 21:21:22 [ permanent link ]
	Big Bill wrote: On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:09:26 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>> wrote: Acceleration is rate of change of velocity. No, rate of change of accelleration is a measurement of how fast> accellerqation is taking place. "You obviously haven't read what you yourself wrote." "You said 'rate of change of accelleration' (sic), which denotes that the amount of acceleration is changing over time." IOW, jerk. First you have position. The derivative of position with respect to time is the definition of velocity. The derivative of velocity with respect to time is the definition of acceleration. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is the definition of jerk. Accelleration is only a change of speed. Rate of change of velocity with respect to time. Jerk is rate of change of acceleration. ??? Search for the term in google (be sure to include the word acceleration in your search term). A person driving a car on a straight road at a constant speed of 70 mph will have a constant velocity, zero acceleration, and zero jerk. If that person then floors it, after, say 2 seconds, he'll have positive acceleration and negative jerk.
		Add comment


Paul 1 April 2005 23:04:42 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:00:54 -0500, Magnulus , one of an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters said the following in rec.autos.driving... With the exception of extreme speeding, it's not a > crime to drive fast or run a red light. It's a civil> violation, just like jaywalking, etc. Throwing people > in prison would be counterproductive. To be honest,> everybody has probably driven over the speed limit or> accidentally run a red light at some time, at least > technically. Actually, IMO, putting speeders in jail instead of a fine is not a bad idea. Take the profit motive out of speeding "offenses," that you have now in practically all juristictions and make it actually cost governments money and they won't be anywhere near as zealous with the speed enforcement as they are now, except for the truly dangerous drivers out there.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 1 April 2005 23:13:31 [ permanent link ]
	In article <sWc3e.4036$UW6.1215@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message>news:9pmdnSp0MY6oytHfRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...>> They reflect the values of their readers or their advertisers,>> though. C&D would lose a lot of their readership if they started>> singing the praises of asthsmatic underpowered econoboxes.> That's true but they hold a harmful amount of influence in the auto>industry. I don't begrudge somebody dirving a sports car, but holding all>cars to the standards of a Corvette is ridiculous. Then don't read C&D. person. Similarly, horsepower really is overblown for what most cars need.>Getting over 10 seconds to go to 0-60 is not the end of the world, but the>car mags sure make it sound like it. The people who buy a car for basic transportation don't read car magazines. If they take recommendations from any magazine, it's probably "Consumer Reports". -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 1 April 2005 23:19:52 [ permanent link ]
	In article <424D699E.96935F54@nospam.com>, C. E. White <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote:> Matthew Russotto wrote:>> Such simple models don't work. I know for a fact that my 1991 Miata's fuel>> consumption was fairly flat between 60 and 75mph. At 85mph,>> definitely dropping off and at 90mph you could just about see the>> gauge drop.> How can you tell that the mileage is fairly flat between 60>and 75? Unless you have some very specialized equipment, and>you are running the test under very controlled conditions>(same road, same direction, same wind conditions, same>traffic conditions - none is good), you cannot "know" this. Long interstate trips, all of the above factors at least similar. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


C.H. 1 April 2005 23:51:36 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:04:29 -0800, Scott en AztlГЎn wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:31:17 -0800, "C.H." <trapspam@trapspam.org>> wrote:> Bill was not talking about 'rate of channge of acceleration' or>>acceleration but of 'rate of acceleration' being something different than>>'acceleration'. > I guess Bill has been right all along. We really don't understand what> he wrote. Ack. Chris
		Add comment


Arif Khokar 2 April 2005 02:11:35 [ permanent link ]
	Scott en AztlГЎn wrote: I guess Bill has been right all along. We really don't understand what> he wrote. Are you referring to what I wrote, or what Bill wrote?
		Add comment


Scott en AztlГЎn 2 April 2005 06:42:44 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:11:35 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote: Scott en AztlГЎn wrote:> I guess Bill has been right all along. We really don't understand what>> he wrote.> Are you referring to what I wrote, or what Bill wrote? Both. -- Sloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
		Add comment


Scott en Aztln 2 April 2005 06:44:01 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:21:22 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote: First you have position.> The derivative of position with respect to time is the definition of >velocity.> The derivative of velocity with respect to time is the definition of >acceleration.> The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is the definition of > jerk. And here I thought "Big Bill" was the definition of a jerk. ;) <Sorry, couldn't resist!> -- Sloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
		Add comment


Big Bill 2 April 2005 20:37:42 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:21:22 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote: Big Bill wrote:> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:09:26 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>>> wrote:> Acceleration is rate of change of velocity.> No, rate of change of accelleration is a measurement of how fast>> accellerqation is taking place.> "You obviously haven't read what you yourself wrote."> "You said 'rate of change of accelleration' (sic), which denotes that >the amount of acceleration is changing over time." IOW, jerk. Are you calling me a jerk, or trying to use jerk as some term to describe a certain rate of accelleration?> First you have position.> The derivative of position with respect to time is the definition of >velocity.> The derivative of velocity with respect to time is the definition of >acceleration.> The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is the definition of > jerk.> Accelleration is only a change of speed.> Rate of change of velocity with respect to time. No, acceleration is a change in speed. Rate of acceleration is the rate of change in speed.> Jerk is rate of change of acceleration.> ???> Search for the term in google (be sure to include the word acceleration >in your search term). I did; it';s a mechanics term. I'd not ever heard it used that way. > A person driving a car on a straight road at a constant speed of 70 mph >will have a constant velocity, zero acceleration, and zero jerk. If >that person then floors it, after, say 2 seconds, he'll have positive >acceleration and negative jerk. Yes, he will. However, the rate of acceleration will depend on many factors. Serach on Google for the difference between "acceleration" and "rate of acceleration". -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Big Bill 2 April 2005 20:38:32 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:16:07 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:55:14 -0800, "C.H." <trapspam@trapspam.org>>wrote:> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:32:49 -0700, Big Bill wrote:>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:10:34 -0800, "C.H." <trapspam@trapspam.org>>>> wrote:>>> Acceleration depends on the integral of the torque curve between shift>>>>points, not the maximum torque. Usually peak torque will not be in that>>>>range.>>> Acceleration depends on torque.>> Yes and no, it depends on torque in a specific rpm range, not peak torque>>that you will find in data sheets.>> You're talking about the rate of acceleration.>>> Which is OK, but it doesn't change what I wrote.>> You were talking about acceleration and acceleration is more or less>>proportional to the integral over the torque curve between the shift>>points.>> Btw, what is the difference between acceleration and 'the rate of>>acceleration'? Whether you measure sustained gs or s from 0 to 60 doesn't>>really matter, both do not depend on peak torque.> Accelleration is the simple increasing of speed.>The rate if accelleration is a measurement of how fast that>accelleration is occuring.>They are definitly the same thing. Oops... They are definitely NOT the same thing. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Big Bill 3 April 2005 03:02:03 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:59:32 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote: Big Bill wrote:> No, acceleration is a change in speed.> Since you obviously did not understand what I wrote, I suggest you read >up on basic physics.> Yes, he will.>> However, the rate of acceleration will depend on many factors.>> Serach on Google for the difference between "acceleration" and "rate>> of acceleration".> You keep bringing up the term "rate of acceleration." What is it a rate >of? Rate, to me, indicates that one thing is changing per a change of >something else. Rate of acceleration is what it sounds like: it's the rate at which something accelerates. To say, "That car is accelerating" means it's gaining speed. To say, "That car's rate of accelleration is 10 feet per second squared" means it is gaining speed at a defined rate. Why is this so difficult?> For example:> He's moving at a rate of 60 miles PER hour.>The engine is running at a rate of 3000 revolutions PER minute.>He's accelerating at a rate of feet/secondВІ PER ? -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Scott en Aztln 3 April 2005 08:26:17 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:59:32 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote: Big Bill wrote:> No, acceleration is a change in speed.> Since you obviously did not understand what I wrote, I suggest you read >up on basic physics.> Yes, he will.>> However, the rate of acceleration will depend on many factors.>> Serach on Google for the difference between "acceleration" and "rate>> of acceleration".> You keep bringing up the term "rate of acceleration." What is it a rate >of? Rate, to me, indicates that one thing is changing per a change of >something else. He could simply be being redundant. Acceleration == the rate of change of velocity per unit time. Rate of acceleration == the rate of the rate of change of velocity per unit time. Kinda like how Windows 2000 says "Based on NT Technology" when it boots up (where "NT" stands for "New Technology"). Or "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" which means "The The Angels Angels of Anaheim" when you replace all the Spanish words with the English equivalents. -- Sloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
		Add comment


Big Bill 3 April 2005 19:04:41 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:26:17 -0800, Scott en AztlГЎn <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote: On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:59:32 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>>wrote:> Big Bill wrote:>> No, acceleration is a change in speed.>> Since you obviously did not understand what I wrote, I suggest you read >>up on basic physics.>> Yes, he will.>>> However, the rate of acceleration will depend on many factors.>>> Serach on Google for the difference between "acceleration" and "rate>>> of acceleration".>> You keep bringing up the term "rate of acceleration." What is it a rate >>of? Rate, to me, indicates that one thing is changing per a change of >>something else.> He could simply be being redundant.> Acceleration == the rate of change of velocity per unit time. You're wrong. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. Here, I'll help: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+acceleration&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official or: http://tinyurl.com/6633t> Rate of acceleration == the rate of the rate of change of velocity per>unit time.> Kinda like how Windows 2000 says "Based on NT Technology" when it>boots up (where "NT" stands for "New Technology"). Or "The Los Angeles>Angels of Anaheim" which means "The The Angels Angels of Anaheim" when>you replace all the Spanish words with the English equivalents. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Arif Khokar 3 April 2005 20:00:55 [ permanent link ]
	Big Bill wrote: Rate of acceleration is what it sounds like: it's the rate at which> something accelerates. According to the cite you posted in response to Scott, one of the definitions there was rate of change of velocity with respect to time. In other words, acceleration is the rate velocity changes (which is what I've been saying all along). In fact, if I change the definition search term from "acceleration" to "rate of acceleration, guess what the first and only result is? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3A+rate+of+acceleration&btnG=Search Believe it or not, it's called "jerk."
		Add comment


C. E. White 4 April 2005 17:39:07 [ permanent link ]
	Big Bill wrote:> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:43:08 -0500, "C. E. White"> <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote:> Big Bill wrote:> > Accelleration requires torque, not HP. This is not well understood,> >> this is certainly not being explained in car ads, which emphasize HP> >> instead of torque.> >> Truck ads, though, do emphasize torque much more.> > Except for "Hemi" ads.....> > Despite all the Chrysler blowing, the Hemi has about the> >same torque as the larger engines available in Fords or> >Chevies, and it get worse fuel economy. However, this isn't> >stipping them from selling like hot cakes.> > I'm old enough to remember the real Hemi.> The current Hemi isn't like the real Hemi; it's more hype than HP. Do you mean the mid-60's on 426 Hemi, or the 50's 241/ 276 / 291 / 315 / 325 / 331 / 354 / 392 Hemis. The old hemi's (from the 50's and 60's) were not really as great as people seem to remember. The "awesome" 426 Hemi was a lousy street engine. I saw on interesting quote tht sums up my thoughts on the new "Hemi": "The Hemi design combustion chamber is one of the poorest designs for emissions - why do you think it took so long to get it into production? It almost did NOT make emissions test requirements even with the modifications. ... Today's Hemi is that (a "Hemi") in name only. [Editor's note: Bob is referring to the head design. It is not a true hemispherical head, but looks vaguely like a hemispherical head with parts filled in.]" The new hemi is more like a Ford Boss 302 than a 426 Hemi of the 60's. And I don't see why people are so excited by it. What does it do, that a Chevy small block doesn't do better? http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html Ed
		Add comment


Big Bill 4 April 2005 21:19:34 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 09:39:07 -0400, "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote: Big Bill wrote:>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:43:08 -0500, "C. E. White">> <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote:>> Big Bill wrote:>> > Accelleration requires torque, not HP. This is not well understood,>> >> this is certainly not being explained in car ads, which emphasize HP>> >> instead of torque.>> >> Truck ads, though, do emphasize torque much more.>> > Except for "Hemi" ads.....>> > Despite all the Chrysler blowing, the Hemi has about the>> >same torque as the larger engines available in Fords or>> >Chevies, and it get worse fuel economy. However, this isn't>> >stipping them from selling like hot cakes.>> > I'm old enough to remember the real Hemi.>> The current Hemi isn't like the real Hemi; it's more hype than HP.> Do you mean the mid-60's on 426 Hemi, or the 50's 241/ 276 />291 / 315 / 325 / 331 / 354 / 392 Hemis. > The old hemi's (from the 50's and 60's) were not really as>great as people seem to remember. The "awesome" 426 Hemi was>a lousy street engine. I saw on interesting quote tht sums>up my thoughts on the new "Hemi":> "The Hemi design combustion chamber is one of the poorest>designs for emissions - why do you think it took so long to>get it into production? It almost did NOT make emissions>test requirements even with the modifications. ... Today's>Hemi is that (a "Hemi") in name only. [Editor's note: Bob is>referring to the head design. It is not a true hemispherical>head, but looks vaguely like a hemispherical head with parts>filled in.]"> The new hemi is more like a Ford Boss 302 than a 426 Hemi of>the 60's. And I don't see why people are so excited by it.>What does it do, that a Chevy small block doesn't do better?> http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html> Ed Figures be damned! That 426 Hemi was an awesome engine on the street. Just because figures show that it shouldn't have been, doesn't mean it wasn't. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


C. E. White 4 April 2005 21:42:38 [ permanent link ]
	Big Bill wrote: Figures be damned! That 426 Hemi was an awesome engine on the street.> Just because figures show that it shouldn't have been, doesn't mean it> wasn't. Depends on what you mean by awsome. They were not great for daily drivers. Lousy fuel economy, high maintenace, poor part throttle response. THe guy next to me at work actually owned one. He claimed he could burn rubber atalmost any speed by flooring it. I think for most people the 440 was a lot more driveable. And, for most of the street racers in my area, Chevies were faster. Now maybe this was a limitation of the cars they were installed in. I do fondly remember that the local Dodge/Chrsyler/Plymouth dealer had a Hemi Cuda and a 440 Challenger - just before the dealership folded. I wish I'd been able to buy that Hemi Cuda (or for that matter the Boss 429 Mustang a local dealer ordered, or the one Boss 302s I saw in a dealership). All I could afford was a Pinto ;( Ed
		Add comment


Brent P 4 April 2005 21:56:54 [ permanent link ]
	In article <42517C8E.9777FFB1@nospam.com>, C. E. White wrote:> the one Boss 302s I saw in a dealership). All I could afford> was a Pinto ;( Shoulda put a V8 in it http://www.google.com/search?q=V8+pinto
		Add comment

CarGuru > Driving > Ready for 55 again? 4 April 2005 21:56:54

	see also: Re: golf automatic transmission Are B5 rear wheel bearings a known… Re: replace shift lever stop on A2 GTI?		pass tests:		see also:

Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

Ready for 55 again?

Add new comment