must be a government conspiracy

[comptiger5000]

Superchow - Living farther away from an urban area usually means you'll get better mpg from the same vehicle as well, assuming you aren't driving to an urban area regularly. The more open roads are helpful there.

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by superchow

The thing is this - higher gas prices force the population to reduce their gasoline consumption. If this is by driving less or by using less for the same distance is up to people. Or, another way to put it: The higher your mpg, the further you can live from a dense urban area.

They have studies that prove this very fact. If one gets a more econonical car they just drive more miles. I think as you mention it boils down to disposible income. Until it really hurts people won't make the change.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Lazarus

They have studies that prove this very fact. If one gets a more econonical car they just drive more miles.

But if you think about it, it's obviously not linear. If someone buys a car that gets twice the mpg as their old one, they may drive 10% or 20% more, but they won't double their driving, because that takes time away from things they'd rather be doing. And of course there's an upper limit: there are only so many hours in a day.

The other thing is that this country needs to get away from the idea that people need to commute to work every day. A lot of jobs, like mine, can be done without leaving home, so that it's perfectly possible to live in a rural area while holding down a job, or jobs, in a city hundreds of miles away, or even (and I've done this) on a different continent. Sending a few electrons or photons that distance is a lot more energy-efficient, and much quicker, than shipping a body.

[texanidiot25]

There isn't a huge mass of companies that offer "virtual" offices to my knowledge.

[comptiger5000]

No, there aren't. However, due to the nature of a lot of jobs, many more companies could offer telecommuting options if they wanted.

[rbrowning]

There are some that think that raising gas prices to "force" a reduction in driving is a good thing. But like all actions there are unintended consequences that are sometimes worse than the problem you are trying to fix.

"No More Ingham County Road Patrols?" is the news headline from our neighboring county.
Here is a link to the article.
No More Ingham County Road Patrols?

But the sherrif's department isn't the only one under financial distress, the schools are too.
"School bus service cut for fall in Royal Oak"
School bus service cut for fall in Royal Oak - Daily Tribune: Breaking news coverage for southeastern Oakland County, Michigan

True there are many other underlying factors, mainly economic collapse, that are driving these drastic decisions, but doubling the cost of fuel isn't going to help. especially those that are unemployed or on fixed incomes.

And for those that think that raising fuel prices will cut back on my driving, I have to ask, after driving three hours per day and working 10, do you REALLY think I spend my evening going for cruses burning untold barrels of fuel per year? Or does it mean that I have a harder time making ends meet when the cost of getting to work doubles?

[Frank Lee]

It means that those who arranged their lives around the notion of cheap energy will be faced with the reality of what they've done and they may have to entertain making some changes.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

It means that those who arranged their lives around the notion of cheap energy will be faced with the reality of what they've done and they may have to entertain making some changes.

Unfortunately, their changes will be limited to increasing their lobbying to reduce taxes and increase subsidies on energy (including military intervention) to keep that energy "cheap."

[Mifunego]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But we're not talking about Formula 1 cars here, but about sports cars. And not in the "stuff a humongous engine in it so it'll go fast in a straight line" sense, either.

Those are generally known as "muscle cars." And there aren't too many of those still being made. Even that tank of a modern muscle car, the Dodge Challenger SRT-8, will still handle enjoyably well with a good set of tires. Leaps and bounds better than anything that came out back when the manufacturers really did the big engine, fast in a straight line thing.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Real sports cars get driven on twisty roads, where you seldom if ever reach speeds where aerodynamic downforces would be significant.

So then "real sports cars" don't go fast? Or at least not fast enough to require attention to "aerodynamic downforces?" My old 15 sec. '98 Neon R/T was a regular champ at the autocross and a worthy performer in the twisties, but it was hardly a sports car. Ditto the Mini, the CRX, and a handful of other tweaked econoboxes. That being said, my current factory-tweaked grocery-getter will make mincemeat out of my old "sports car" Supra Turbo on the auto-x track or in the canyons. Just don't be so absolute with those definitions, is all I'm saying.

[comptiger5000]

I guess you could call my Jeep a muscle car. It went from an over 8 second 0-60 with the regular 318 (5.2 liter) V8, to 6.8 seconds with the 360 (5.9 liter) in the special edition I have. Of course, the brakes are still puny, and it still handles like a Jeep. Just more incentive to drive slower and more gently, I guess. Maybe if it handled in a way that enticed me to use all the power, I'd be getting the 8 or 9 mpg people tend to expect when they hear the size of the engine.