Jeep Patriot Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

What's your most comfortable "crusing speed"/top speed

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
#21 ·
kanus said:
Is that graph for a Patriot? If so, for what transmission and drive? How did you obtain the information to draw the graph?

I'm looking for a graph like that for my 5 spd FWD. I'd love to buy a Scangauge so I could make my own graph, but I'm not sure I can justify it.
Click to expand...
No it is not specifically for the Patriot. It was a generic compilation. But if this thread were any indication, America could stop importing Middle-Eastern oil if everyone would just slow down.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#23 ·
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#24 ·
HoosierRon said:
No it is not specifically for the Patriot. It was a generic compilation. But if this thread were any indication, America could stop importing Middle-Eastern oil if everyone would just slow down.
Click to expand...


Here we go again - blaming all of America's ills on the automobile. Maybe if airplanes, trains, boats, industry, government, etc stopped using oil we wouldn't need to import any. Maybe if our government had developed a real energy program back in the 1970s, we wouldn't be having this discussion. For the record, Americans did not want a 55mph speed limit in 1974 and do not want one now.
 
#26 ·
Don't mean to add politics to the forum, but it was Nixon and Ford that implemented the 55 mph speed limit after the 1973 oil embargo. I am all for energy independence, but I don't think big oil will allow it. Imagine all the energy just a few miles below our feet, wind and tidal energy not being utilized. Then remember all the conservation in the world, and 55,000 gallons spilled into San Fran bay, and another 500,000 spilled into the Black Sea just over the weekend. And don't even get me started on greenhouse gases, all those chinese coal plants, whatever we do over here is for naught.
 
#27 ·
For the record...

I am not an environmentalist. I am not a liberal. I do not blame the automobile for all of America's woes. I don't think lowering the speed limit to 55 would do anything except generate a lot of cash for municipal police departments.

My interest solely is in reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. We cannot endlessly trade our wealth for products which we consume. I am all for drilling in ANWR and on the continental shelf. I am for corn ethanol (as far as that will go, which is not much farther). I am for investment in cellulosic ethanol. I am for biodiesel. I am for investment in algae diesel. I am for getting the GM/DC/BMW two mode hybrid in every vehicle (it increased the Tahoe's city mileage by 40%). I am for Belt Alternator Systems ("mild hybrids") in every car. I am for slowing down.

While it takes a lot of coal and natural gas to make ethanol, it takes relatively little diesel fuel and gasoline. In fact, for every BTU from diesel fuel or gasoline used, we get 7.34 BTUs in the form of ethanol. This is a great way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Go buy a flex fuel vehicle.

You people act as though it is evil to not say "nuttin' I can do, so I'll just send all of my money to OPEC."
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#28 ·
If you slow down on the highway it will save gas, this not debatable, it has been proven. Translated to lower speed limit, the reasoning would be lowered gas consumption by all. I'm not advocating anything, just stating facts.

Whether you take to the right, the left, pro-environmentalists, global warming theorists, anything you do to save on emissions is a good thing, no matter how you spin. So what if the global warming theory is debunked one day, we wouldn't have done a bad thing by practicing conservationism. We end up saving money too by increasing our MPGs as a result of driving slower.
 
#29 ·
In my book, global warming already has been debunked. Yet I still am in favor of slowing down, as I said before, solely to promote energy independence. If people want to slow down because they think it will save the planet, God bless them. As for me, I am not so ambitious. I just want to save my country.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#30 ·
It is my hope that the high prices will keep the
big old polluter cars & smoking trucks off the road.!!!!!!
I'm happy to PAY a percentage more for a whole lot
less traffic. These out-dated smoking cars&trucks need
to be recycled . Yes,the days of basically free fuel is gone.
It's now up to the responsible drivers to realize this & step up
&update their wasteful cars & trucks.
 
#31 ·
$1.02.3 today for a litre of regular gas here in Toronto OR, the reason I bought the Patriot instead of the Commander. But that is OT.

I am trying to do better but I find myself tending to stay with the flow to some degree. This means if the flow is 10 - 15 over, so is me.

In the greater Toronto area, there is a toll route called 407. A few weeks back I had been in the slow lane doing 120kmh (the posted limit is 100) and a guy passed me on the right shoulder after he flashed me with his brights. [Shaking head] - I'm in the SLOW lane doing 20 over!!! Maybe I'm just not built for these times.
 
#32 ·
HoosierRon said:
For the record...

I am not an environmentalist. I am not a liberal. I do not blame the automobile for all of America's woes. I don't think lowering the speed limit to 55 would do anything except generate a lot of cash for municipal police departments.

My interest solely is in reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. We cannot endlessly trade our wealth for products which we consume. I am all for drilling in ANWR and on the continental shelf. I am for corn ethanol (as far as that will go, which is not much farther). I am for investment in cellulosic ethanol. I am for biodiesel. I am for investment in algae diesel. I am for getting the GM/DC/BMW two mode hybrid in every vehicle (it increased the Tahoe's city mileage by 40%). I am for Belt Alternator Systems ("mild hybrids") in every car. I am for slowing down.

While it takes a lot of coal and natural gas to make ethanol, it takes relatively little diesel fuel and gasoline. In fact, for every BTU from diesel fuel or gasoline used, we get 7.34 BTUs in the form of ethanol. This is a great way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Go buy a flex fuel vehicle.

You people act as though it is evil to not say "nuttin' I can do, so I'll just send all of my money to OPEC."
Click to expand...



Why not get cities to fix all those mistimed traffic lights so we aren't burning gas and going nowhere? Why not convert most stop signs to yield signs?
 
#33 ·
If you slow down on the highway it will save gas, this not debatable, it has been proven. Translated to lower speed limit, the reasoning would be lowered gas consumption by all. I'm not advocating anything, just stating facts.



Not totally true. Going too slow causes fuel consumption to increase. That's why "city" gas mileage is lower than "highway" gas mileage. Lower speeds translate into more lost time (i.e. lost productivity). That's why airplanes are so popular. They guzzle gas, but they get you there quickly.
 
#34 ·
RAMBOY said:
If you slow down on the highway it will save gas, this not debatable, it has been proven. Translated to lower speed limit, the reasoning would be lowered gas consumption by all. I'm not advocating anything, just stating facts.



Not totally true. Going too slow causes fuel consumption to increase. That's why "city" gas mileage is lower than "highway" gas mileage. Lower speeds translate into more lost time (i.e. lost productivity). That's why airplanes are so popular. They guzzle gas, but they get you there quickly.
Click to expand...
Not true. The reason that city mileage is worse it all the Starts & Stops. Acceleration is where you burn most of your gas. Once you're up to speed it takes very little gas to keep you @ speed.
 
#35 ·
RAMBOY said:
Not totally true. Going too slow causes fuel consumption to increase. That's why "city" gas mileage is lower than "highway" gas mileage. Lower speeds translate into more lost time (i.e. lost productivity). That's why airplanes are so popular. They guzzle gas, but they get you there quickly.
Click to expand...
I would disagree on your idea that slower highway speeds results in the same affect that city gas mileage does. City gas mileage is decreased from stopping and going, more time on the gas, giving the car gas to accelerate results in burning more gas, it is unrelated to the speed at which you are going. I'm comparing say 55 MPH at a long distance versus 70 MPH at a long distance, you will get better mileage. Just take a look at your RPMs, which correlates as well, lower RPMs are gonna mean lower consumption.
 
#36 ·
ben said:
I would disagree on your idea that slower highway speeds results in the same affect that city gas mileage does. City gas mileage is decreased from stopping and going, more time on the gas, giving the car gas to accelerate results in burning more gas, it is unrelated to the speed at which you are going. I'm comparing say 55 MPH at a long distance versus 70 MPH at a long distance, you will get better mileage. Just take a look at your RPMs, which correlates as well, lower RPMs are gonna mean lower consumption.
Click to expand...


Not true. Many people report getting better mileage at 65-70 than at 50-55. This is due many times to the engine lugging at lower speeds, especially true with larger engines. Driving 40mph in 5th gear in a vehicle with a manual transmission is inefficient, even though the engine rpms are very low.
 
#37 ·
Acceleration is where you burn most of your gas. Once you're up to speed it takes very little gas to keep you @ speed.




O.K. What are local governments doing to reduce traffic congestion which causes a lot of unnecessary acceleration/deceleration? Why not use those "red light cameras" to instead streamline traffic flow in urban areas?
 
#38 ·
RAMBOY said:
Not true. Many people report getting better mileage at 65-70 than at 50-55. This is due many times to the engine lugging at lower speeds, especially true with larger engines. Driving 40mph in 5th gear in a vehicle with a manual transmission is inefficient, even though the engine rpms are very low.
Click to expand...
Do you just make this stuff up or are you only repeating what others make up. Regardless of what "many people report", we have the laws of physics. The amount of power needed to push a car down the road = av+bv squared + cv cubed. a=rolling resistence, drag of brake pads and wheel bearing friction. b= pump loses. c=areodynamic drag (not drag coefficient). v=velocity.

Do the math and you will see that the power required to move a vehicle down the road at 70 mpg is significnatly higher than the power needed to move a car down the road at 50 mph. Again, using the formula, we see that this is not true when increasing the speed from 1 mph to 2 mph, and from 2 mph to 3 mph. This is because c is so low. But as c increases it is multipled by the cube of the velocity. But the time you get to 40 mph, cv cubed is the dominant number.

Engines convert the potential energy of gasoline into kinetic energy. The more power needed to move a car down the road = the more energy that must be converted = more gasoline consumed.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#39 ·
HoosierRon said:
Do you just make this stuff up or are you only repeating what others make up. Regardless of what "many people report", we have the laws of physics. The amount of power needed to push a car down the road = av+bv squared + cv cubed. a=rolling resistence, drag of brake pads and wheel bearing friction. b= pump loses. c=areodynamic drag (not drag coefficient). v=velocity.

Do the math and you will see that the power required to move a vehicle down the road at 70 mpg is significnatly higher than the power needed to move a car down the road at 50 mph. Again, using the formula, we see that this is not true when increasing the speed from 1 mph to 2 mph, and from 2 mph to 3 mph. This is because c is so low. But as c increases it is multipled by the cube of the velocity. But the time you get to 40 mph, cv cubed is the dominant number.

Engines convert the potential energy of gasoline into kinetic energy. The more power needed to move a car down the road = the more energy that must be converted = more gasoline consumed.
Click to expand...

:beerchug:
 
#40 ·
HoosierRon said:
Do you just make this stuff up or are you only repeating what others make up. Regardless of what "many people report", we have the laws of physics. The amount of power needed to push a car down the road = av+bv squared + cv cubed. a=rolling resistence, drag of brake pads and wheel bearing friction. b= pump loses. c=areodynamic drag (not drag coefficient). v=velocity.

Do the math and you will see that the power required to move a vehicle down the road at 70 mpg is significnatly higher than the power needed to move a car down the road at 50 mph. Again, using the formula, we see that this is not true when increasing the speed from 1 mph to 2 mph, and from 2 mph to 3 mph. This is because c is so low. But as c increases it is multipled by the cube of the velocity. But the time you get to 40 mph, cv cubed is the dominant number.

Engines convert the potential energy of gasoline into kinetic energy. The more power needed to move a car down the road = the more energy that must be converted = more gasoline consumed.
Click to expand...



You have engine power confused with the power at the wheels. The engine torque is multiplied by the transmission, torque converter, axle ratio, etc. All of these factors determine which vehicle speed is most efficient.

I guess actually recording better mileage in a vehicle at 65mph vs 55 is too much for some bookworms.
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
About this Discussion
40 Replies
22 Participants
Last post:
viprjrgirl
Jeep Patriot Forums
posts
678K
members
55K
Since
2006
Join our community to discuss the Jeep Patriot & Jeep Compass. Find answers to all your Jeep Patriot technical questions.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Jeep Patriot General Discussion Engine and Drivetrain Newbie Check-In Suspension and Tires Electrical and Audio