Real hypermilers would have avoided the hill to start with.

I have a different name, for those who do this...."short-timers".

 

:laugh: Power steering and power brakes are for sissies.

I have made a conscience effort to watch my starting and stopping speeds and not letting my jeep exceed so many RPMs. I am stretching it out about an extra week (maybe a little more). That is a huge difference.

You've obviously, never driven near Gallipolis, OH. One foot on the break, one of the gas and dodge, everything else.

 

:lol:

Real hypermilers would have avoided the hill to start with.

 

 

They either successfully complete the downhill stretch without starting their engine -or- they wrap themself around a tree and fly off to that great hypermiler garage in the sky.

 

Either way, they save gas! :thumb: :lol:

Did you read the article in the USA Today last week about the hypermilers? I put my vehicle in neutral going a couple hills last week to give it a shot :lol: Not for me.

 

 

When I was in high school, my boyfriend and my cousin (his best friend), drove souped up Vegas. When we would come from Grayson County to Louisville, they'd try to make it to Louisville before buying gas, because it was cheaper. We always drove Dixie Hwy from E-Town to Louisville. When we got to Muldraugh Hill, we'd always turn off the car and coast as far as we could, because we'd be almost out of gas by then. :lol:

Since the increase in demand is coming from China, et. al., I don't see where this will alleviate American fuel costs. Maybe I'm missing something.

Since the increase in demand is coming from China, et. al., I don't see where this will alleviate American fuel costs. Maybe I'm missing something.

I think H is just pointing out that even if we can't reduce our cost per gallon, we can reduce our consumption, thereby reducing our total cost.

When I was in high school, my boyfriend and my cousin (his best friend), drove souped up Vegas. When we would come from Grayson County to Louisville, they'd try to make it to Louisville before buying gas, because it was cheaper. We always drove Dixie Hwy from E-Town to Louisville. When we got to Muldraugh Hill, we'd always turn off the car and coast as far as we could, because we'd be almost out of gas by then. :lol:

 

 

Souped up Vegas, huh? You are a courageous woman, RM!

Slowing down from 70mph to 65 results in a fuel consumption improvement of something like 8% and there are plenty of people who waste gas by driving around on under-inflated tires. When was the last time you checked your tire pressure?

Some vehicles run at optimum above 65 or 70mph, some below.

Since the increase in demand is coming from China, et. al., I don't see where this will alleviate American fuel costs. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

Most believe China is headed for a steep decline after the olympic economic boost. Nobody, expected them to raise their gas prices before the olympics and they did two weeks ago.

Chrysler is shutting down some truck/suv plants announced today... making room for more fuel efficient vehicles. Ford has already done this... once we get up to 5-6 dollar gas automakers might lay all the suvs to rest.

Agreed and here is a question. How do most Americans, drive less. Do many of us, just take off for Sunday drives.

 

I can see maximizing a trip to the grocery, combined with other errands but the amount of starting/stopping/turning off and on the vehicle, would absolve any reduction in usage and proably increase, how often we fill up.

 

We really want to fix the problem, get the billionaire's to agree, they are already set for life and then some....:sssh:

As I pointed out in a thread in the Gen Forum, I have been doing the consolidation of errands, changing my driving style, and keeping my vehicles in top shape since the prices went over $2/gal. I spend less for fuel and maintenance on my vehicles now, than I did 5 years ago. Now, if I could diet to reduce hauling weight, I'd be rich!

Souped up Vegas, huh? You are a courageous woman, RM!

 

 

Yeah...I was much safer when the boyfriend got a MachII for his birthday. :lol:

780,000 x 2 = 1.56 million. 1.3M is almost twice 780K. We could save nearly twice the projected output of ANWR tomorrow, not in 19 years.

And in the best case scenario, production from ANWR would peak at 1.45 million barrels per day. Again, I ask, why can we not conserve and replace declining production?

 

Over the long term, our civilization will decline if we do not learn how to tap more energy per capita. Historically, civilization has advanced by harnessing ever more energy, not through conservation.

 

I am not opposed to prudent conservation efforts because it make no economic sense to waste energy. However, an energy plan that begins and ends with conservation is the kind of plan that Jimmy Carter devised. It is a pessimistic view of the future of mankind and the only reason for pessimism is the total lack of leadership by our elective representatives.

And in the best case scenario, production from ANWR would peak at 1.45 million barrels per day. Again, I ask, why can we not conserve and replace declining production?

 

Over the long term, our civilization will decline if we do not learn how to tap more energy per capita. Historically, civilization has advanced by harnessing ever more energy, not through conservation.

 

I am not opposed to prudent conservation efforts because it make no economic sense to waste energy. However, an energy plan that begins and ends with conservation is the kind of plan that Jimmy Carter devised. It is a pessimistic view of the future of mankind and the only reason for pessimism is the total lack of leadership by our elective representatives.

 

I guess it all depends on how you define progress. The Native Americans were referred to as barbarians by their European conquerors and one of the telling facts of their "barbarism" was that they were not familiar with the sword.