http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-gop-challenges-pelosi-for-gas-price-pl an-2008-04-22.html

So what's the plan? This is the #1 problem in the american ecomony right now. Why housing is a mess but this effects everyone. I am 100% for researching alternative ways of fuel BUT we need results now and not in 10 years when alternatives are found. 2 years almost in the congress and have not pushed any bills to the presidents desk to be signed or veto'd?

There is no plan. It was political BS, as usual.

The price of shipping is out of sight, resulting in the most necessary commodity, food, pricing itself higher and higher.

Oil profits will be protected by Bushed, and McSame's proposal to forgo gas tax revenues over the summer will only make things worse, since we are already borrowing the money we need to maintain the mess overseas. Gas is approaching $4 and demand is starting to reflect consumer reductions in usage, but the trucking industry and air freight are just going to pass the increases on to the consumer.

It's a mess and the administration is poised to do nothing certainly not anything that caps oil profits, although that in itself won't stop the oil producers from releasing the stranglehold they have.

Lose - lose. Solution: 1-21-09

The GOP has a plan, and that's to continue to borrow from our future to fund a today that we can't afford. Let's just elimnate the federal tax on gas which will cost us more in the long term than it will save in the short term. I'm beginning to think that the criticism of McCain not understanding the economy is correct!

Other than capping prices on gas, like China and other countries do, there's nothing that can be done. This is the free market at work, so enjoy your $4 gas.

And, part of the reason gas is so high is thanks to our falling dollar, which is directly linked to the mismanagement of our economy and the war in Iraq, both direct results of the leadership of George W. Bush.

Ahh the answer I expected... Just more of the same... No Solutions..... I don't think either party has a solution to this mess.

David, how much was gas when Bush took office in 2000?

Vitalogy, that is a stupid question. You know the answer I shouldn't have to answer that question.... Here is what I say should have been done 6-10 years ago. We know there is Oil off the coast of California, In the Gulf region, In Alaska. There was a area in the gulf where it was actually coming up and into the water and populating but oil companies could not touch it. We should have started building the resources in this country then to start tapping those resources. We should have also major initiative in this country at the same time something similar to the Manhattan project to research a permanent source of renewable energy. Right now the solution from the GOP is just give tax cuts(which I am for) and drill for more oil and the Demo's say let’s just research new resources why everyone is getting bent over and screwed for the next 10-12 years. That is why I said neither party has a acceptable solution. I just hope it finally breaks the American economy before it breaks me.

The reality is that more production is leaving the market than is coming in. This is a Peak Oil issue, coupled with extremely high demand from growing nations, like China.

Additionally, the rate of discovery has slowed considerably.

We can't drill out of that, can't refine out of that either.

So, it's down to building out alternatives and conservation. The good news on alternatives is there are plenty of them and they are viable.

I might be a contrarian on the conservation issue. Frankly, if we go on a big conservation movement, China will just buy more! So, I don't favor that generally speaking. We need to simply use what we are using smarter.

To me, that means significant investment in alternative infrastructure, which we need oil to build by the way! Totally agreed David. The catch is that it's going to have to be more than a Manhattan type of thing. The number of sources and their applicability are diverse enough that one think tank full of smart people isn't going to do the job.

What will is serious build outs, New Deal style, just like we did for our current infrastructure. It won't be cheap, but it will mean work and where we are doing a lot of work, we are building a lot of wealth, so there are gains on the tail end, just like there were on the last big effort.

That alone is going to give us a lot of good paying jobs and boost our economy. There is no spend solution, no borrow solution, no low tax solution, no low pain solution to these things. It's just a lot of work, dollars spent, then returns captured.

As we ride through oil peaking, and I don't think anybody seriously can argue that we aren't doing just that right now, the next wave of alternatives are going to be in serious demand, just like every other thing we pioneered.

So, we either do that, capture the gains and leadership position from that, or concede and let somebody else do it.

For what it's worth, I think any serious movement along these lines is going to have to be a forced thing at first. Big business isn't going to like it, but they will deal and then make their money from it, JUST LIKE THEY HAVE EVERY OTHER TIME.

Our falling dollar, weakened manufacturing and R & D position started with Reagan, and has continued since. Undoing New Deal types of national policy has hurt us really big.

All that outsourcing is coming home to roost too. We've outsourced nearly everything we know how to do and that just sucks because we now find ourselves in a position where we just can't add the value we used to and with that comes the inability to build wealth and carry our weight in the world.

That has absolutely got to change. No matter how painful it is, it must happen.

I can think of no better platform to do it on than alternative energy. The returns look to be absolutely huge and that's the kind of stuff that builds nations for 50 years or so. We need it bad.

One upside to this, that leverages the outsourcing already done (and not likely to come back) is that component level manufacturing for research and development purposes can easily happen here. We've still the skills and facilities here to get that done.

Once proven, we can leverage offshore labor and build fairly complex systems cheaper than we could before. IMHO, that's a damn good thing.

Also, having done the work and secured the leadership position on that, we can very easily scale and export the results of it, capturing those gains too.

We are highly likely to evolve into a systems level nation, not a component level one. I can't see that as being all bad as there are TONS of good jobs to be had at that level, just as there were for component level stuff. (widgets)

We've just got to reach acceptance on these things so there is enough momentum to go and get after them.

Wouldn't hurt to boost up education / retraining dollars either. All of those out of work manufacturing and engineering people can easily be retreads for the next effort. Dollars very well spent IMHO. Hell, I am a great manufacturing type person. Can't find anyplace to make money with the skills though. SO, I retreaded into computers and am very highly likely to retread again into training and consulting for the coming move, if it happens. Others can do the same. When that happens we have more people adding value and that makes us richer as a nation and all of that means big business growth.

Can't get the growth by cutting taxes, or spending without having that spending directly tied to building wealth and that's done by making sure our efforts are attached to real value adds, not just funny money on paper ones.

That's innovation applied to real labor over time folks. There is no way out but that. None, nada.

If you are having trouble realizing where the returns can be, let's take food -vs- your price at the pump.

Say gas hits 5$ per gallon. For your average person driving an average 30mpg car, this is not all that big of a deal. A 1000 dollar per year gas bill, right now at $3 per gallon might end up being $1500. Net increase of 500 dollars right.

Say that person makes 50K per year. That's just a small fraction of income. It goes from 2 percent to three percent. Not the end of the world. So we skip a few movies and such and it's all good. No harm done really.

Now, look at food and goods!

The cost of shipping multiplies across nearly everything we buy. Why? BECAUSE WE OUTSOURCED THE SHIT!

So, take food and goods and let's say that's 1000 per month, for a total of 12K per year. That's a far bigger slice of that 50K income per year, right? That's 23 percent.

Now with gas at $5 per gallon, let's say those costs go up by half. (which is about what we've seen over the current Presidency, BTW) Now, that's 12+6, for a total of 18K per year, and a far bigger slice of one's income.

That's pain. 36 percent worth of pain. That's pain enough to force some serious life choices, like not being able to pay for health care, losing a home, you know those kinds of things that none of us want to talk about, kind of pain.

If you want to add some salt to the wound, think about our falling dollar too. That means less overall buying power to start with, meaning that 50K has less punch than it did before this whole mess started.

(which is why we need to be building wealth as a nation. Until we deal with that failure to pull our own weight, our buying power will continue to drop, leaving us no outs.)

If it were me, I would actually pay the $5 right now, if that would keep commercial fuel costs lower. I will take the smaller multiplier over the larger one any day.

If we do our alternative build outs, those will impact the larger goods and food multiplier. Get things shipping on bio-diesel, rail, whatever works right? Now we see the larger multipler come into play for everybody and the returns are delivered to everybody and those are just huge.

Additionally, that lower multiplier on goods alone means better margins for those people manufacturing here, meaning they can pay better wages and make better business investments for growth.

Again, just huge.

Our daily cost at the pump is the smallest impact thing, yet it sees a ton of attention.

David, simply drilling for more oil in Alaska and only the California Coast would only put a tiny dent in oil prices. There isn't enough oil there to make a significant difference in supply, especially as demand from India and China continues to increase exponentially.

Raising CAFE standards a few years ago might have been a wise idea. Bush of course had no interest in any such thing nor did the Republican Congress. At least this Congress has done that. But what's the point of Democrats in congress wasting political capital to push bills they know will be filibustered in the Senate or vetoed by Bush?

We need an Apollo Project for fuel efficiency in America. Develop not only alternative fuels but ways to get much more out of the fuels we have now. Shoot for a 100MPG car or even more. Let's remember, many of the technologies that took Americans to the moon simply did not exist before Apollo. It takes intent and leadership and a lot of investment money.

We also need to invest more in public transit systems that work. Portland has a good one but it could be much better so many more people would use it.

Andrew

A simple as it sounds, we need an alternate source of energy. I suspect the reason we aren't seriously working on it has to do with political contributions. Does anyone think Exxon wants an alternate source of propulsion developed?

Not any more than the paper industry wanting hemp to be legalized.

But change is inevitable. And some wallet licking Republican will never lead the charge.

IMHO, we need multiples.

We need solar, nuclear, wind, bio-fuels, water, etc...

Each one is going to have to be matched to it's region for a best case utilization plan.

Agreed on Exxon. IMHO, that action alone means we need to hand it to somebody else to develop. Ideally, those people actually doing the developing.

For transportation, bio-fuels are viable right now. They just need infrastructure.

" And some wallet licking Republican will never lead the charge."

And which Democrat has stepped forward with a plan? Clinton. Don't think so. Jimmie Carter. Don't think so. Any political contributions in their pockets from the industry? Probably.

What will happen is that we'll use up a few more years doing nothing while the Democrats blame the Republicans.

A 55 MPH speed limit will cut consumption quite a bit.

And would be a complete waste of time.

In a peak oil scenario, all oil pumped will get used period.

If we use less, others use more. They will use it to compete with us and that's just how it is.

If we conserve without linking that effort to very serious uses of oil for alternative build outs, we then lose ground to other nations.

It's ugly, but just how it is.

Our price isn't going to change much, no matter our consumption level.

***Besides, my best MPG is about 62 MPH! We are well past the days of heavy Detroit steel determining where peak energy use is.

How about this? Got a heavy ass car? Great, you drive 55. I'll drive the 62 and get over 40MPG in my 1989 car.

We can't get consumption down enough by driving 55 or higher mileage cars. We need an alternate source. We can build and atomic bomb, we can fly to the moon. We can damn well figure out a different energy source. It's about money and political contributions.

We have the best Congress and Presidency that money can buy.

What will happen is that we'll use up a few more years doing nothing while the Democrats blame the Republicans.

Sounds like YOU guys back when Clinton was in office for 8 years.... SAME OLD SHIT!

Yup, let's just keep it going until gas gets to $6.00 a gallon.

I say $10.00!!!! I own tons of BP and Chevron stock!!

"I say $10.00!!!! I own tons of BP and Chevron stock!!"

So, you're part of the problem.

GD RIGHT!
I'm getting as much as I can baby! What's wrong with that??? Getting Liberal on me DJ??

The price of oil is high not because of supply or demand, but because of two main reasons: 1) The Iraq war and instability caused by the Iraq war in the middle east has added a premium to the price of oil. 2) The price of oil has increased, along with all other commodities, as a result of people hedging against inflation and a falling US dollar. Continued interest rate cuts will further this trend.

Drilling for more oil will not solve the problem, as supply right now is not the cause of the record prices.

For once I can say I can agree with KSKD.... (Beat head with piece of wood to make sure I am still alive) But I don't think the parties will see it the same way we do. Sad but true. :-(

The Iraq war and instability caused by the Iraq war in the middle east has added a premium to the price of oil.

DING DING DING

Where in the hell are all those oil profits that DUHbya and Co. were raving about at the beginning of the war?

@David Sweet! (High fives! How long did that take huh? I did a head check too!)

Agreed back on the current parties

Hate to plug Obama again, but he is running on reform of this kind. Being not owned by large corporate, he might drive some change. This is one of my biggest draws to the guy. We don't get a motivational, fresh start kind of candidate every day.

...that is, if he remains unowned.

BTW: If the modifications I want to make on my car were legal, I would get nearly 50 MPG highway, and a high 30's city.

...if it were a GEO, add 5-10MPG to that. I know an unmodified GEO, made before 92, will get the ~35 / 50 right now, if it's not driven hard.

That's 1989 tech guys, in both instances. Alternative fuels, plus some common sense application of existing tech in cars, maybe conversion kits, and the transport problem is handled for most ordinary people, leaving oil for the commercial / heavy equipment uses. Aircraft too.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question! Any of you EXTREMER neo-CONers want to answer it???
And where the HELL is Bin Laden???

A 55 MPH speed limit will cut consumption quite a bit.

And generate huge revenues for municipalities and state coffers.

Remember back in the 70's when we had that ridiculous speed limit. Nobody drove it. I know I didn’t unless there was a cop nearby.

To quote Sammy; "I can't drive.....55!"

I agree. 55 MPH limit is not only unenforceable but will not cut consumption. It will just cause more traffic which is probably the biggest guzzler of fuel out there. The solution is exactly what Obie is calling for, a huge investment in infrastructure. Look how long it currently takes to get our roads and bridges repaired and replaced.
If we could put just the money sent to Iraq that has been lost to corruption, think how many more lanes for traffic we could create. Lessening consumption is best achieved by cutting the commuters time spent going 10 mph, not by putting in a 55 mph speed limit which is clearly irrelevant to the majority of miles being driven.

KSKD is also correct that there are alternate energy sources being developed and have been in development for some time. The book "The Clean Tech Revolution" by Ron Pernick (a local boy BTW) is a good start.

http://www.thecleantechrevolution.com/

There is a HECK of a consumption drop between 75 and 55. We're not talking pennies here.

Fleet owners and wise individuals will recover the recent fuel price hikes by adjusting their speed. (ps: the speed limit is 65 anyway ) BS about it being unenforcable doesn't matter, the one that drives at a prudent speed will be the one less effected by higher costs. As gas hits $4 and beyond, backing off the throttle will be a viable option.

Speed limit +9.

My time is more valuable than the dollar or two I'll save out of a tank of gas by going 55.

Lead, Follow or get the heck out of the way!!!

"the dollar or two I'll save out of a tank of gas"

Its more than that. Upwards of 20% of your gas tank. I didn't do the math, but if gas keeps going up there will be a point where you'd have to work longer to pay for the extra gas spent for the time you "saved".

At speeds over 60 mph a heck of a lot of fuel is wasted overcoming wind resistance -- not something easily solved.

Besides, in these days there are other ways of "saving time" without being fuelish! (this includes moving closer to work or paying someone else to drive the vehicle if your time is too valuable.

If you really, really, absolutely have to drive fast, get a NASCAR gig or buy a motorcycle. See if you can beat 164 MPH (Oregon State Police most recent videotaped odo EBR evidence).

TH!NK

(Norway is the country that brought us Henrik Ibsen, The Nobel Prize, black metal, paperclips, cheese slicers, aerosol spray cans and a-ha. Now, the descendants of the first Europeans to explore America are returning on a mission to revolutionize our transportation. It is ironic that this is an idea developed then almost scuttled by Ford. They are the very same company that toured the VW plant in the late 40s, said it was "not worth a damn" and left. Within a few decades, there were more Beetles produced than the Model T. Detroit is a very shortsighted place.)

If you really, really, absolutely have to drive fast, get a NASCAR gig or buy a motorcycle. See if you can beat 164 MPH (Oregon State Police most recent videotaped odo EBR evidence)

Yeah, I saw that on the news a couple of weeks ago! Crazy!

If I ever bought a bike, it would have to be one that sounds like a big Harley. I don't want one that sounds like a chain saw!

Not enough protection on a bike. Give me a bunch of steel around me and I'm happy.

I'm a VERY impatient driver. It aggravates me to no end to be stuck behind someone doing 10 mph below the speed limit!

I just like to go fast!

I suppose I need to lay off the caffeine in all the diet Choke I drink!

Fast does not necessarily eat gas, it depends on how the car is set up. Some cars start eating gas above 60 mph, while others don't.
Revs, rear axle ratio, and elevation all play a part in addition to static wind resistance. If it is designed aerodynamically, it can limit the effects of wind resistance.

My former car reached peak gas mileage around 62. My current auto hits that wall at close to 75 mph.

If you constantly hit the accelerator hard because your car is basically gutless, that hurts your mileage a lot.

I've always had "fast" cars and suffered mileage loss except for my current automobile, which is faster than anything I ever owned before and gets 19 mpg city and 29 hiway. I drive it like there is a raw egg between my foot and the pedal, except when I really need to or want to get on it. I leave the ASC on so if I do get on it too hard, it won't burn out the tires which it goes through too quickly IMHO anyway.

The average person is wasting more gas in traffic than speeding.
People are sitting in traffic for longer periods of time. When you don’t move, your gas mileage drops to zero!

"If you constantly hit the accelerator hard because your car is basically gutless, that hurts your mileage a lot."

Moderate acceleration is good for 5MPG extra in nearly ANY car. Many will do 10MPG.

Mandatory MPG average and real-time displays would help with this. If you've had a car that features one of these, it's very easy to see where the gas goes and change up your driving.

Coupla things-

Those of you who think your peak mileage is 62 MPH are just mistaken. I will bet you $100 that you get better mileage doing 35. It's just physics.

Also, a 55 MPH speed limit would not increase congestion. Bear in mind that as speeds increase, so does following distance, so the actual traffic density goes down. There's a sweet spot right around 35 MPH where you get the most cars down the road per unit of time. Above or below that, the car-moving efficiency of the road starts to drop.

In certain types of heavy traffic, where you slow down but don't have to stop, it actually improves fuel economy. On days where traffic is such that I spend most of my time between 30-50, I get the best economy.

The recent advancements of "smart cruise control" technology have gotten me thinking. What if we were to go one step further and outfit cars with totally automated control. The car would not only handle gas and brake on it's own (as some cars already do), but also would be capable of keeping itself in the lane.

We would do away with the carpool lane and instead reserve one lane for cars that were under automated control. It would greatly improve traffic density (since automated-control cars could travel much closer together) as well as efficiency (because the cars would effectively "draft" each other), not to mention safety - designed properly, the computer wouldn't make mistakes and would have lightning-quick reflexes. You could kick back with the paper or watch a movie during your commute, and you wouldn't have to give up your precious single-occupant vehicle. All merging would be automated, so at the push of a button, you would be out of the "train" and back in control for the last mile home.

If we could go one step further and physically couple the cars, then we'd have an even bigger step up in efficiency because half (or more) of the cars could totally shut down their engines and ride for free. The engines that were still operating would do so at greater overall efficiency because operating nearer to full load is inherently more efficient.

Just something that's been rolling around in my head for a while. Technology is getting to the point where it's feasible... the only obsticle is overcoming the human factor.

"Those of you who think your peak mileage is 62 MPH are just mistaken. I will bet you $100 that you get better mileage doing 35. It's just physics."

Not true. As I wrote, it depends on how the car is geared and obviously, what gear you are in. I'd love to take your money, but a mileage curve is NOT linear. It's not "simple" physics. It is, in fact, quite complex. Accelerating uses more gas just as releasing pressure on the pedal uses less gas. I can achieve peak mileage at a certain rpm, and depending on what gear I'm in it will be a different speed. So peak gas consumption efficiency (gallons/rpm) occurs at 5 different places in a 5 speed transmission, but it is clearly a bigger number the faster you are going up to the limit. So, e.g. at 3250 rpm in 5th gear you are at peak mileage at 65 mph or 3250 in 4th at 58 mph you get the same peak in usage per rpm but its less distance covered per unit time. Actually, it's not the same rpms in every gear due to the torque curve also not being linear.

A car could probably be designed/modified that gets better MPG at 35MPH than 65, but as Andy has noticed, the cars we drive are not designed (especially with overdrive transmissions) to be the most fuel efficient at 35MPH.

Andrew

If I am in a traffic situation where I can drive with the engine at low RPM, moving about 35 or so is pretty huge MPG. Less distance though, so it averages out.

However, on the freeway, this is not possible, for basic traffic flow reasons. In that scenario, the gear ratio and power band of my particular car end up hitting the sweet spot at the 62 MPH or so.

Clearly, that's gonna vary, but that's where my car is.

I've actually run a number of tests on the long commute back and forth to Seattle...

Just saw the other posts. 'nuff said.

Norway also has Huge personal taxes. Someone else spends your money to benefit everyone......

"Someone else spends your money"

Are you talking about Bush or Norway?

Are you talking about Bush or Norway?

Neither, I think.

He's predicting the future here if the Dem's win.

Taxes skyrocket and social programs flourish.

re: fuel mileage.

Regardless of what one sets their axle ratio/transmission/engine set up, there's a force at 70 MPH that isn't present at 55 MPH.

If your factory car's sweet spot is at 65 or above, you can change the axle ratio so that its down to 55mph and you'll get even BETTER mileage.

Another thing, half the personal vehicles on the road are pickups and SUVs -- these things are considerably effect by wind resistance.

Yeah I don't know that high taxes, with good benefits is a bad thing, compared to these Republican clowns spending our future today, on a war that isn't doing us any good.

Say the taxes consumed a fair amount of income, but I don't have to worry about healthcare and other basics. What's the difference between that and having a weak dollar and too many burdens to cover?

Either way, liquid cash is very low to none.

Higher taxes, given they are attached to real value adds, don't impact liquid cash, for a lot of people, all that much.

Add: I would much prefer more choice, of course.

Here's the kicker though: For a whole lot of people right now, they don't have any real choices. For the dollars they make, whatever their taxes are, the burdens they are faced with are too many and or too high to allow for liquid cash and make good choices.

Gotta fix the car, or see the doc about that chest pain. Keep the lights on, or pay the mortgage / rent. Lots of people facing those things today. The numbers are going up too.

Say the taxes are cut in half. With the weak currency and inflation, it's not a significant change, compared to the growing burden costs.

Also, lower taxes very likely means more burdens in that war / military spending has already committed a large chunk of tax dollars, forcing cuts elsewhere.

Those are false cuts and a false perception of our government burden being too high.

40 percent of the taxes, and growing, is tied directly to military / war spending, most all of which is Republican choices made for us, that take our other life choices away.

Anyway, given where we are headed, the situation some people find themselves in here does not compare favorably to those living in highly socialized societies.

Those numbers are growing too, not shrinking. We won't see that trend reversed until we see policy changes that are more than just little tweaks here and there.

Skep, you are right on the wind factors.

I had a Chevette (yeah, I know --scary) that had a modified gear ratio in the rear differential. As shipped, 55 was a pretty horrible speed for the car overall, as shipped.

Engine RPM was too high at that speed, leaving the thing unable to actually run at anywhere near it's peak efficiency.

After the rear end change, second gear was just perfect at 25-40. In town milage was easily 30MPG, and that was on a 78 model car.

On the freeway, 55 was very good. Engine was at moderate RPM. Didn't have peak power at that RPM, but torque was plenty good. Driven with care it would hit 40MPG. Average was very high 30's.

Not too bad for that time period.

The real winner was moderate highway driving though. Third gear @ 45 or so, was very high MPG. I don't have good numbers, but it was higher than the freeway was. I used to do a school commute that had that kind of driving on it. Consumption was at it's lowest in that car, with that kind of driving being the higher percentage.

IMHO, doing conversions and modifications to existing cars would do a lot of good and extend the useful service life of many existing cars.

Gear ratios are the hardest of these, but really hold a lot of potential. I don't quite understand why auto makers don't offer options in this area. I do understand not making more flexible systems --that's a cost thing, though it's not anywhere near the cost of a hybrid, so that's a wash.

However, selling an economy model, with slightly different CAM structure and well placed gear changes and ratios, keeping the power / torque consumption curves of the engine in mind, would make a lot of sense going forward.

All existing American models, being sold today and performing in the 30's could easily perform in the 40's with these changes alone.

Ugh...

Well . . . we like vrooom! And changing axle ratios isn't cheap, and if you've 4x4, you've 2 of them -- about $1500 if you've a full size truck.

I'm gonna be doing a bit of experimenting of my own . . . I've a 1997 Chev Tahoe that average 11-12 mpg and has never exceeded 13 MPG. Im gonna take the 350 5.7 and auto (4L80e) out and sell them and buy a used (NV4500) 5 speed manual and mid-80's non-turbo 6.2 diesel and install them (its all bolt in). With no computers on the engine and trans, and a mechanical fuel distributor pump, it should average 22 - 23 MPG as did light 1/2 ton pickups of the 80's did with the engine.

Yes, it may be slow, but it'll be faster than my current ride -- a Ford 4x4 Escape with 4 cylinders and 5 speed that also gets 22 - 24 MPG.

And before you comment about the "crappy" 6.2, keep in mind I already own one, and used to own a 6.5 turbodiesel, and a Ford 7.3 Powerstroke, and 2 VW Jetta diesels . . . and yes, I know the price of diesel fuel.

Well you're still getting more bang for your buck paying $4.20 a gallon for diesel at 22-23 MPG than you do paying $3.60 (or whatever it is in Portland now) a gallon for gas at 11-12 mpg. A much better bang for your buck at 35-45 MPG on those Jettas (my ex's Jetta TDI was GREAT!)

It makes me glad I have my Saturn. I made it to Spokane from Portland on one 10-gallon tank, doing 80+ most of the drive up last weekend.

Hey Brian, Make sure to watch for Boston tickets to go on sale shortly for the July 11, 2008 concert in Boise at the Idaho Center Amphitheatre. Pretty sure Styx will be with them.

Boston AND Styx (WITH Dennis)?! Hmmm ... might be time to hop a plane!

Boise is not that far from Spokane is it? They will be in Seattle on the 10th if thats easaier. They are leaving California on the 8th so i'm still hoping they will stop in Clark County on the 9th on their way north. (Not sure about the Dennis thing though, just a rumor at this point).

(Ex-owner of 2 diesel VW Jettas here. Including a TDI.)

Boise is roughly 500 miles from Spokane ... Portland is actually a little closer. It's a LONG drive.

Seattle would be much closer, I imagine the White River Ampitheatre in Auburn? That's more feasible for me.

Besides, Boise in the summer ... yecch.

The show in Seattle is at the Marymoor Amphitheatre.

Current VW TDI (and 6.2 diesel Suburban on occasion) driver here.

And I stand by my statement that 35 MPH is always going to get you better MPG than 50, 55, 62, or whatever. I don't claim it's a linear relationship, but the dominating factor in the equation, beyond a certain speed, is always going to be wind resistance. It increases exponentially(as the cube of velocity IIRC), so as soon as you get moving faster, the drag from wind is much, much greater than any other loss.

Andy, you are correct that for each gear, there's a certain RPM where you're operating at peak efficiency (usually near the torque peak). Where you're not correct is believing that peak efficiency in each higher gear is more efficient than the last - due to the exponential increase in wind resistance.

For example, in my TDI (which reports real-time MPG), creeping along at idle in 2nd gear, I'm getting about the same mileage as cruising in 5th at 60 MPH! This is because, due to my low speed, the accessory drag on the engine and rolling resistance of the car is taking a large proportion of the fuel's energy relative to what's going into making the car move. As speed increases, efficiency increases, but so does wind resistance. At a certain point the wind resistance(increasing exponentially) starts to exceed the other factors, and MPG starts to drop. It's basically a bell curve, centered around 35 or so. That number, of course, would vary a bit depending on the gearing and drag coefficent of the car(among other things).

What most people (the 55-60 MPH drivers) try to aim for is the fast end of the top 80% or so of the bell, just before you "fall off the cliff" of exponentially increasing wind resistance. This is the best tradeoff between maximizing fuel efficiency and *time* efficiency.

It's a mostly academic question though, since nobody in their right mind will drive 35 for any appreciable distance.