The motor home people claim that the rubber is formulated these days with UV resistant additives to stop external rotting and that Nitrogen fill reduces the internal deterioration caused by the oxygen. At $3,000 a pop for a set of tires, the cost of nitorgen is small plus they are filled to 110 psi which is easier with nitrogen than most small compressor can supply in adequate quantity. Signed: the other Staber Dearth.
When I was in Scotland 2 years ago, I rented a Peugeot 308 diesel and it got 70MPG!! I thought the fuel gauge was broken at first but I did end up putting in 8 gallons of fuel after driving all over the country for a week. It can be done, we just have to convince the oil companies that sleeping with the auto makers of the world is not a "good thing".
There's no problem getting over 55mpg from a car provided you are willing to shape the body to minimize aerodynamic drag. I've been driving a 92 Honda Civic that I converted into a streamliner in 2005 and have since put over 160,000 miles on it in the course of my daily driving. The stock vehicle used to get gas mileage in the mid-40's, but since I streamlined it has maintained a lifetime average of 72mpg in mostly highway driving. The engine is the stock Honda engine, all I did was reshape the body to lower the Cd from .31 to .16 (as calculated by coast down testing). On 80mph interstate trips it averages over 60mpg and averages around 80mpg on trips at 60mph. The car is called the Aerocivic (google it).
Seriously I have been in Automobile business in one way or another for over 32 years, and have seen the claims people make about 100 MPG +++ Carburettor, the Priuses that get 80 MPG or even 110 MPG, and so on.
But then I also test drive cars for major OEM's in Nevada near Las Vegas at 110 to 120 F heat with A/C on both on highway at 45 MPH and I-15 At 70 MPH.
The lattest biggest fuel economy disapointment was the FIAT 500 rated at
by EPA (combined/city/hwy).
My real MPG over more than 10,000 test miles was 30.2 with A/C on and 32.1 with A/C off (5 speed MT).
In the exactly same distance and road test in 1999 with EFI YUGO (no A/C) the MPG was 45.0 - no "latest technology" that the 500 FIAT claims for the multi air engine technology.
But there is one catch the YUGO emission levels were 5 to 7 times higher, so the "clean air" definitely costs MPG.
The only car I have ever driven over the same road course was the HONDA Insight that with A/C got 42 MPG and with A/C off 50.3 MPG
1990 GMC 3500 LWB Cargo Wan with 5,200 lbs in it (about 2,500 over GVWR) gets 14.4 MPG - driving it EMPTY gets 14.9 MPG
So at anything over 45 MPH the aerodynamics matters far more than the vehicle weight, which is only a factor during acceleration and out of 250 miles drive the 16 miles that is uphil (more or less compensated by another 16 miles that are downhill).
SMART and FIAT 500 are in effect TOO SHORT and terrible at 70 MPH in cross winds or when passed by a bus or semi traveling at close to 80 MPH.
Also have driven more than one GEO on the same course - none ever got 50 MPG !! not even close......... (87 octane California Reformulated Gasoline with 10% oxygenates used in all test vehicles).
Prius gerts 42.0 MPG on the same drive, yet I know lot of "owners" that claim to be getting over 60 MPG - but claim is one thing and instrumented vehicle with $4,500 data acquisition another, and you just can not "overestimate" the MPG, the data gets recorded for every second of the test drive - a "lead" foot will make 40% MPG difference in short and fast city run, but not all that much on the highway - there the limitation is what Highway Patrol will tollerate (usually not much over 82 MPH).
Who is choking over 54 mpg? Nearly 20 years ago I had a 4 dr, 1.1 liter, stick shift GEO, built by Suzuki and marketed in US by GM that got 50-51 mpg day in and day out for 180,000 miles!! I surveyed other owners that reported the same results. I also checked the oddometer for accuracy and it was very close. Other than radial tires it was just a plain old internal combustion engine without 14 computers on it. I could even change the spark plugs on it.
It is obvious to me that they have been doing engineering in reverse.
You have verified my assertion, which is that most people equate the sole cause of global warming with the United States use of petroleum, never even considering that there could be a different mechanism causing the warming. You can defend the EPA if you wish, but the fact is that in order to keep existing they must keep demonstrating how much they are doing, which means creating all kinds of new rules. That is no different than any employee having to show that they are delivering value, in order to keep their jobs.
And about the sun: I have not heard or read any assertions that just possibly there is an increase in solar output causing the temperature rise. Have you heard or read any such statements?
What has been very agressively ignored in the concern about global warming is the energy output of the sun. For starters, we know very well that there has been "a bit of a change" in the previously observed sunspot cycle, which should tell us that something is different from what it used to be. Now consider what would happen here if the output were to increase by 0.01%. Could we accurately measure this change? Do we have any previous measurements to compare it to? Has anybody bothered to look at any of this data? It certainly looks like the answer is no on all thre acounts. My point being that assuming that mankind, and the USA public in particular, are the sole cause of the quite small changes in the earths temperature.
So the only reason to artificially raise fuel prices would be to force another tax on all of us who use our own transportation means.
It would undoubtedly be possible to realize a large increase in fuel economy by using the same technology with smaller and lighter vehicles, however we have those in the EPA who keep adjusting the emissions. Presently the biggest enemy of really high mileage vehicles is our own EPA. WE all need to realize that.
Although plastics make up only about 11% of all US municipal solid waste, many are actually more energy-dense than coal. Converting these non-recycled plastics into energy with existing technologies could reduce US coal consumption, as well as boost domestic energy reserves, says a new study.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.