24 Votes

Speed vs Fuel Economy: Is Time Saved Worth The Added Cost?

Agent009 submitted on 9/18/2009 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 11:34:27 AM

29 user comments | Category: Misc News | Source: | SOURCE: editorial.autos.msn.com

We all seem to be in a rush these days.

Life's time demands seem to only increase, with the delicate balance of work, family, and recreation pressuring us to maximize every minute.

To quantify the impact a heavy right foot can have on your wallet, Consumer Reports recently conducted a seven-vehicle test comparing the fuel economy of each at speeds of 55, 65, and 75 mph. The results show the faster you drive, the more fuel you burn — no surprise there. But the most significant change in fuel economy comes from the most fuel-efficient vehicles we tested.

Miles Per Gallon At Given Speed

Make & Model	55 mph	65 mph	% Decrease	75 mph	% Decrease
Acura TSX
2.4-liter 4-cyl.	39.9	35.5	11.03%	30.7	23.06%
Honda Insight
1.3-liter 4-cyl.	51.9	44.8	13.68%	36.5	29.67%
Lexus RX 350
3.5-liter V6	30.9	27.4	11.33%	23	25.57%
Mercury Mountaineer
4.6-liter V8	23.8	21.2	10.92%	17.8	25.21%
Toyota Camry
2.5-liter 4-cyl.	40.3	34.9	13.40%	29.8	26.05%
Toyota RAV4
2.5-liter 4-cyl.	34.6	29.3	15.32%	25.9	25.14%
Toyota Yaris
1.5-liter 4-cyl.	42.5	37.9	10.82%	34	20.00%

Time to Complete A 100 Mile Trip
	55 mph	65 mph	Time Saved	75 mph	Time Saved
Minutes	109	92	17	80	29

Fuel Cost ($2.50 Gallon) to Complete A 100 Mile Trip

Make & Model	55 mph	65 mph	% Increase	75 mph	% Increase
Acura TSX
2.4-liter 4-cyl.	$6.27	$7.04	12.39%	$8.14	29.97%
Honda Insight
1.3-liter 4-cyl.	$4.82	$5.58	15.85%	$6.85	42.19%
Lexus RX 350
3.5-liter V6	$8.09	$9.12	12.77%	$10.87	34.35%
Mercury Mountaineer
4.6-liter V8	$10.50	$11.79	12.26%	$14.04	33.71%
Toyota Camry
2.5-liter 4-cyl.	$6.20	$7.16	15.47%	$8.39	35.23%
Toyota RAV4
2.5-liter 4-cyl.	$7.23	$8.53	18.09%	$9.65	33.59%
Toyota Yaris
1.5-liter 4-cyl.	$5.88	$6.60	12.14%	$7.35	25.00%

2009 Frankfurt Auto Show Photo Gallery

AutoSpies.com Photo Galleries

If you want to see your photos running on our homepage photo ticker, be sure to upload your photos on the go by sending them to Mobile@AutoSpies.com

Share on Facebook

There are photos and then there are AutoSpies.com photos!

AutoSpies.com is ranked number one on Google search for auto shows

The 2009 Franfurt Motor Show gallery is sponsored by Lexus.

Read Article

Speed vs Fuel Economy: Is Time Saved Worth The Added Cost?

About the Author

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
— Agent009 (View Profile)

User Comments

...Yes ... it is
— DexDiamonds (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 11:48:49 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 6

Definitely
— MSP6 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 11:49:11 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5

Depends how much your time is worth. If you are unemployed then no.
— Joe_Limon (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 12:02:11 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

with $2.50 gas, it may be worth it. particularly if you drive something efficient.

time for a gas tax kiddies!!!
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 12:11:43 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3

How about a tax on middle eastern oil? :P There is lots of it on this continent, it's just more expensive to get at.
— Joe_Limon (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 12:17:41 PM | | Votes: 0

cause singling out middle east oil implies that oil itself doesn't need to be phased out. many speak of eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. its a great start, but a bit near sighted.

finite resources need replacements. whale blubber was pretty popular not too long ago.

the gas tax would fund projects to bring affordable replacements (giving young engineers like joe_limon high paying jobs too). then we sell the new technologies around the world. then we hold the cards that the saudis currently hold. then comes global demilitarization. then comes world government. then comes star trek.

— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 12:27:22 PM | | Votes: 1

If that were true, Europe's traditionally high gas prices would mean that they should already be leading the "green" revolution.
— Joe_Limon (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 2:11:58 PM | | Votes: 5

they are leading the green revolution, they ratified the kyoto protocol. and companies are making bundles selling green technology to china. iceland is installing geothermal, germany is leading in solar, and the danes have quite a boner for wind power.

pardon my inner blood-sucking-U.S.-nationalism, but the united states has been instrumental in developing much of these technologies. these are OUR goddamn profits to be made. you can't tell me there aren't investors on wall street pacing around like crackheads-picking lint up off the floor, looking for their next hit.

who cares if global warming is real? theres profits to be made, and right now some piss-drinking european has his paws in our pocket.

on a side note, i harbor no animosity towards europeans, i just think the u.s. could kick ass in the renewables market.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 5:51:12 PM | | Votes: 1

No, there are numerous companies in North America that are investing in "green" technologies. Look at Ballard towards the numerous advances they have made towards hydrogen fuel cell technology, The numerous windmill farms owned by oil companies that litter the windier parts of the country. As well as the few solar powered breakthroughs down in the southern states. Hell, even the automotive industry has Tesla located in North America. These companies are already here and are doing just as well as your aforementioned European counterparts.
— Joe_Limon (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 6:51:32 PM | | Votes: 2

I think depends on how the manufacturer tune the engines. My 328XI is does 28 mpg highway while driving at 80 mph.
— 2fast4uu (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 12:22:01 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

^^ but they still would get better gas mileage at 55. It's a matter of physics not engine tuning. The faster you go, the more resistance you have from the air, moving parts, road friction, etc. Plus the faster you go through the air the more turbulance and lift that is created requiring more downforce from body design to counter the affect thus creating more drag. You can't tune away Newton's laws of motion.
— SpicyMikey (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 1:25:31 PM | | Votes: 1

It all depends on the gearing, if a car is geared for 2000rpm at 65mph, it may only take 10% throttle, but if you drop it down to 55mph, the drop in rpm will lead to a drop in torque and may make 20% throttle necessary, thus an increased fuel consumption.
— Joe_Limon (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 10:42:22 PM | | Votes: 2

True, but once again, you can't tune away the laws of physics. It takes more energy to move an object faster, period. You can tune it to be biased towards speed or torque, you can even keep adding gears to reduce the rpm's at higher speeds, but F=MA always wins. Not suggesting we all drive 55, just saying there IS an energy penalty.
— SpicyMikey (View Profile)

Posted on 9/20/2009 9:34:25 AM | | Votes: 1

Impressive to see all the cars averaging 40-50mpg at 55. SUVs not so much.
— Invisible (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 12:30:26 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

Yes, I can afford the gas and my life is too busy to be wasting time driving at 55mph.
— HSCenterconsole (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 1:05:05 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5

Agreed. Same here.
— Foreigner (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 1:15:44 PM | | Votes: 4

Yeah, blasting through traffic at a much faster and more dangerous rate so one can waste more time on autospies is alot more important. Even now when I should be out clubbing with hot chicks as I normally do, it's not as important as straightening out those who are "wrong" on the internet. LOL!
— Badgewhore (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 11:43:36 PM | | Votes: -1

...unless you turn off the engine and/or put the gear in neutral like any normal driver would do, of course.
— FanboyOfTheTruth (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 4:50:09 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

You need to convert the minutes saved into a percentage to make a direct comparison with the other figures. At 65 mph it takes 15.6% less time and at 75 mph 26.6% less. So in every case except the Insight at 75 mph you have saved more time as a percentage of the total then you've reduced your mileage. However in out-of-pocket expense, you're ahead on time saved at 65 mph for all but the Insight and RAV4, but at 75 mph it costs more then the time saved (again as a percentage of the total) in every car but the Yaris.
To me, it's worth it to spend the extra $$ to drive faster and get there quicker--especially if it's a long trip. As for my time--I'm retired so the value of my time is rarely in the equation. I just like to go faster.
BW
— BobW (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 1:59:54 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

You would also need to add the fact that at 75 you will have some stone damage on your bumper, not to mention bugs so will need to add a car wash, some of you may have a car bra but for a good one you will have to spend at least $100, not to mention the extra stress on all moving parts.
— achiles (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 3:34:09 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

do you drive?
— Joe_Limon (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 4:08:21 PM | | Votes: 1

You can wash it yourself... or leave it dirty
— MSP6 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 5:47:58 PM | | Votes: 1

car bras...very insightful. this reminds me of that public radio saturday night live skit with that baldwin fellow.
— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 5:54:15 PM | | Votes: 1

70 is the speed limit in Michigan and it works just fine for me.
— 1UAW (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 11:39:15 PM | | Votes: 1

I don't trust there numbers, they may be correct? The epa is out to lunch with there numbers, I would like to see real numbers, I recently did a trip with my 2007 civic and drove 1400.km HWY and averaged 6.5L/100km a month later I drove the same trip with two more people in a 2004 Grand Am and averaged 7.7L/100km averaging the same speed, what gives? The Honda wasn't that much better and it is supposed to be so green and the Grand Am is supposed to be a gas guzzler? As far as I am concerned they were almost the same, except the Grandam was bigger.And I would drive faster for saving my time.
— truckman (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 6:06:55 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

If time is money, then it all comes out equal in the end
— LexusKindaGuy12 (View Profile)

Posted on 9/18/2009 10:18:11 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

It's a different story for cars with bigger engines - just a slight left skew in the stats. lol
— WorldofLuxury (View Profile)

Posted on 9/19/2009 2:26:41 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Sorry to take a hard left, but this title of this article made me think about the sod in the blue Prius that passes me almost every morning in a slow-down-for-construction zone. Speed limit drops from 65mph to 45mpg, but the fellow in the Prius zips along passing everyone going at or above the normally-posted speed limit of 65mph.

Two times in two weeks I've seen him pulled over by LVMPD motorcycle cops. I'm guessing that going faster is saving him a whole lot the last few weeks ;)

(No, I'm not picking on Prius drivers. I just find it ironic that the speeding driver is a Prius driver)
— Janizary (View Profile)

Posted on 9/21/2009 8:10:22 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Add your Comments

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters): [img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent001.myautospies.com/images/sample.jpg[/img]

Email Me When Someone Replies To My Message

Speed vs Fuel Economy: Is Time Saved Worth The Added Cost?

About the Author

User Comments

Add your Comments

Submit an article

Photo Galleries

Cars

Autoshows

Latest Articles