I have found that after the lawsuit against Kia and Hyundai against "misleading" fuel economy numbers, they now get better in the real world than the Monroney sticker. The Optima 2.4 says 34 highway, I have gotten about 38.5. A little lower if you are going 85. Too many people take the sticker as gospel, there are too many variables.

"However, those with turbocharged V-6 engines (meaning Ford's EcoBoost engines, which sits in the majority of the new F-150s) reported they were getting about 9 percent lower fuel economy than the corresponding EPA numbers."

That's nothing new Ford lied bout their MPG numbers on 6 of their vehicles. Looks like their ling bout there F150 numbers to.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/06/12/ford-lowers-mpg-ratings-on-six-vehicles/

No EPA numbers for my 3/4 ton Duramax but can tell you there are a LOT of variations in mileage just going from one truck to another even after factoring out all other variables. Have read multiple reports of owners who had two different model year trucks (2011 and 2014) for instance with 20-25% difference reported in hand calculated mileage. All other variables have gone unchanged (driver, fuel, load, etc). Someone please explain that??? If your truck isn't throwing a CEL good luck getting anyone to try and even diagnose at GM.

Things like the type of mirrors, fog lights, grills running boards all have a effect on the wind resistance on these trucks. i read somewhere two trucks of same year make motor can have diff mpgs 2-3mpg because one has big mirrors and no fog lights and one has small mirror with fog lights.

People have to realize that EPA numbers are simulated numbers. A vehicle is put on the motoring equivalent of a treadmill. A computer program simulates driving.

It has become common knowledge at least in Europe that turbo engines "game" emissions and mpg tests.

It used to be very common with motorcycles to have a lean spot in carburetion that lined up with the most common rpm for emissions testing.

I get 20.5 mpg highway out of my 2010 5.4 SuperCrew if I behave myself. That is much better than the USA's testing. My mpg matches the old Canadian testing standard but I have to use hypermiling to get it. Canada has since readjusted its testing criteria so mpg ratings have dropped.

I know 2 guys with identical ecoboost F150 SuperCrew Platinum max tow pickups. One gets consistently around 25 mpg highway but he admits to driving to maximize mpg. The other fellow tends to be around 18-20 mpg. He admits to being a lead foot.

MPG depends on options, accessories, tires, terrain, weather, towign, hauling, but mostly on your driving style.

Yea I think it's dumb especially with Ford since They don't even share a common body between light duty and heavy duty tricks. Gm and ram share cabs and beds with different front clips.

@LOL BC
Nice story. 😝

Quadoo - it is rumoured that the next gen Super Duty will have the same cab as the F150.

@johnny doe - Ford lied?

"those fanboys with company without sin, cast the first stone".

How many lies did GM executives utter over the last 10 years in relation to a 10 cent ignition switch part killing over 100 people?

The design of that switch was changed without a corresponding change to the part number - that is not only a lie but illegal.

Companies exploit loopholes, regulatory weaknesses, and testing procedures.

Every corporation does it.

Is it illegal ?....... in some cases yes.

Is it immoral ? most cases yes.

I have not seen one test done on these bloated payload/ towing numbers on the H.D. 1/2 tons from G.M. & Ford. Both have over stated claims in the past about their trucks capability. I would love to see these two 1/2 ton trucks tested at their MAX. Braking, 0 to 60, climbing hills, suspension, handling characteristics. It looks good on paper but Ford has been known to have spring dust in the past. Engine's overheating V6, suspension wobbling, and sagging described Ford trucks in other tests. @60,000 dollars for a 1/2 ton Ford is some one better off towing 12,000 and hauling a ton with a 3/4 ton?

During the summer I get what my trucks epa ratings say. In the winter I loose 3-4mpg with the winter blend....

The gearing is also something that the EPA doesn't have any guidance on testing. The truck makers are obviously using the best case circumstance to get the rated MPG's up.

I think somewhere along the lines they are supposed to test the most commonly sold driveline but $100 says that every single brand tests only the best case scenario.

I do think better testing is in order, especially in the highway ratings since the MPH tested is only around 50-55 MPH but virtually every state has speed limits over 70 MPH (here in Idaho we have 80 BTW). It can't be too terribly complicated to make the assumption that the average speed is now 70-75 MPH and factor in the variables to get a more accurate rating system. No doubts all would drop in their ratings but they might be closer to reality.

Jeez, guys...the whole idea that we need a bunch of fellows in propeller hats at some agency in Washington to tell us what to expect in fuel mileage is ridiculous.

There were already loads of objective and well researched ways for buyers to evaluate cars back when the EPA was born.

Besides magazine articles, back then you could get info from AAA, Consumer Reports, and others that would give you good non-biased info. They could board up the whole EPA tomorrow and it would not make a bit of difference. What a waste!

"MPG depends on options, accessories, tires, terrain, weather, towign, hauling, but mostly on your driving style."

Yes these can all factor in, but I believe we have all been brainwashed to believe more than reality.

My experience tells me the biggest difference in mileage comes from the turcks/cars themselves. When the same driver who fills up at the same station , fills his tires the same, pulls the same load, etc, etc, etc but mileage between two model year trucks configured identically have 20-25% difference in mileage THAT tells you something.

If your big on mileage just hope you drove a good one off the lot that day, THAT will mean more than anything else you can do IMO

You know the EPA figures cannot be right when a Crew Cab and a short bed regular cab are rated the same. There is quite a bit of difference in weight between the two. My truck stays empty of everything that is not needed.

I don't even pay attention to the epa ratings anymore when shopping a vehicle. I look at fuelly.com and figure I can get about as good as any other driver. Some vehicles on fuelly have a wide range of reported mpg (like the ecoboost motors), some are pretty consistent. EPA My fusion is rated 24 combined. I get about 27 almost every tank. My ranger is rated 21 combined but I average about 28 this time of year. Worst tank ever was probably 23. My f150 with 5.0 is rated 16 combined but so far I'm averaging 18.

@Beebe - pulled the trigger on a new F150?

@Sandman - sometimes there are tweaks or upgrades between models or lemons. My brother got a new GM 2500 gasser last year. It has more power, shifts better, and gets better mpg than the 2001 model he had.

Dave - "Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a standardized test procedure specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 10%–15% of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory."
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
........................................................................................

Under this kind of testing a crewcab long box full bling truck will test the same as a stripper fleet queen reg cab.

@lou
I bought a gently used 2011 with an extended warranty and saved about 17,000 dollars over new. Just couldn't pull the trigger on a new one at the price they want these days.

I have not seen one test done on these bloated payload/ towing numbers on the H.D. 1/2 tons from G.M. & Ford. Both have over stated claims in the past about their trucks capability. I would love to see these two 1/2 ton trucks tested at their MAX. Braking, 0 to 60, climbing hills, suspension, handling characteristics. It looks good on paper but Ford has been known to have spring dust in the past. Engine's overheating V6, suspension wobbling, and sagging described Ford trucks in other tests. @60,000 dollars for a 1/2 ton Ford is some one better off towing 12,000 and hauling a ton with a 3/4 ton?

Posted by: HEMI V8 | Jun 18, 2015 3:16:52 PM

There out there if you chose to look and watch..... Doubt you will though with your head so far up a ram's arse.
First vid within the link is of what success looks like when towing....
http://www.tfltruck.com/2013/11/ike-gauntlet-2-0/

This vid within the link is of total and utter failure at towing.
http://www.tfltruck.com/2014/10/2014-ram-2500-hd-6-4l-hemi-vs-6-0l-chevy-ike-gauntlet-hd/

Ecoboost will easily out perform any hemi in a pickup currently on the market in towing, mpg's and performance. Including even when comparing the ecoboost to hd ram gassers.

@Scott, Looks like your the one with your head up ur @$$.

"From the outset, we knew the Ram would be the one to watch. The Hemi V-8 is rated with the highest horsepower of our group at 395 at 5,600 rpm, and when combined with the deep 1st gear of an eight-speed transmission (4.71:1) and a compliant air suspension, we had a feeling it would be the one to beat. That's exactly what happened."

In the end, the Ram won both hill-climb tests, collecting 200 points for both wins.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2013/06/2013-light-duty-challenge-hill-climb-acceleration-test.html

@papa jim--"eez, guys...the whole idea that we need a bunch of fellows in propeller hats at some agency in Washington to tell us what to expect in fuel mileage is ridiculous."

This is one time I agree with you. I wonder if those EPA guys have a solar battery to power that propeller on their hats or maybe the hot air from the Capitol produces an unending breeze. The EPA will never go away but maybe they could get by with a few less staff. A truck is never going to get as good a fuel economy as a car because of aerodynamics and gearing. I would trust Consumer Reports fuel mileage figures more than the EPA because Consumer Reports is more independent and has nothing to gain from exaggerating mileage claims. The EPA employee is paid to do the tests and write reports and has an incentive to exaggerate claims. There are employee rewards and promotions for well written fictitious reports. A creative writing course and lots of statistics and charts make for a well written report. Throw in some bar graphs with color and you have a winning report.

@beebe
Good choice. It would be also mine, if I have to have a ford.
Enjoy your truck.

Going from a set of E rated BFG/ATs to the stock Dunlops netted me a 20% gain in fuel economy.

How many people spoon on a nice set of upsized mudders on their truck, then complain about fe?

One variable I have heard a lot of anecdotal stories on but never any hard data is alchohol content of the fuel. Fuel with 10% alcohol has about 3% less energy than pure gasoline so that would drop actual fuel economy about 1mpg on most vehicles. I have heard claims of as much as 10%.

pickuptrucks.com

Stop

Deleting

My

Posts

Too many people forget that the EPA numbers are "for reference only; your mileage may vary." To be honest, a little 20-mile circle half-city, half-highway is not going to give very realistic numbers, even when you're using precision fuel measuring devices as they supposedly do. The reason is that even in their testing, traffic conditions may vary from relatively light to relatively heavy in either or both venues. Worse, as has been noted before, the OEMs tend to test these numbers on a 'treadmill' rather than real-world conditions, which will obviously affect the OEM's test figures. Ford especially was guilty of this when they released their too-high mileage numbers, as was Hyundai apparently.

In my own case, whether it be automatic or manual, I've usually been able to exceed EPA by at least 20% over the last 20 years. I even managed to attain 19.5mpg on the open highway with a 1990 F-150 5.0EFI where the rating was something like 15. I didn't try to measure the in-town mileage because I could almost watch the gauge go down. That truck was definitely thirstier than my Jeep Wrangler. That said, while I don't hypermile, I drive reasonably; I don't speed excessively--typically only 5mph over the limit--and normally don't exceed 70mph ever except to pass. Even my Jeep has managed an indicated 25mpg on one trip and 24mpg on two others--with the AC turned off. Turn on the AC and you drop 2mpg easy.

So no matter what the EPA rating may be, there are too many variable factors that can affect your fuel mileage even when driving a brand-new vehicle. That rating is only a guideline showing roughly where your economy should be, plus or minus.

They really need to test these trucks at 65-70 mph minimum because that's the slowest you can go on most freeways without causing major road rage with other motorists or even getting killed by a big rig. No one drives 50-55 mph anymore and if you do, you are causing a rolling road block.

To save on gas, sometimes I travel at 65 mph on long trips. I feel like I'm taking my life into my hands when I have Big Rig after Big Rig passing me out when going that slow.

"Ecoboost will easily out perform any hemi in a pickup currently on the market in towing, mpg's and performance. Including even when comparing the ecoboost to hd ram gassers."

The videos cited really aren't all that fair a test. With Ecoboost--i.e. turbocharging--the Ford engine is able to produce full horsepower even at high altitude where a normally-aspirated engine is gasping for air. Yes, it definitely shows the advantage of turbo, but I don't recall them mentioning the fuel economy of that hill climb (I do know that highway, by the way. I've driven it many times.) On the other hand, I'm not a fan of the descending data, where the Ford's brakes were so hot and the trailer brakes barely warm. Those trailer brakes are supposed to help more than that.

No, I don't consider the RAM test a fail unless you have to make such a high-altitude run on a regular basis. I'd much rather see that exact same test made on I-24 between Chattanooga and Nashville, TN on Monteagle Mountain. Granted, not as long a run, but steep grades both up and down and once notorious for having OTR trucks hitting the runoffs and in at least one case having said OTR going off the end of the runoff. Short. Sweet. And a much more legitimate test for the everyday pickup driver even with a heavy trailer.

The EPA runds tremendously scientific testing at their A2 facility, which is replicated at all manufacturers. They then apply an off-set to the results as they see fit. True story.

"They really need to test these trucks at 65-70 mph minimum because that's the slowest you can go on most freeways without causing major road rage with other motorists or even getting killed by a big rig. No one drives 50-55 mph anymore and if you do, you are causing a rolling road block."

@theothermike: In a word, BULL****. Even driving at 65mph I pass drivers all the time while, admittedly, getting passed a lot, too. Personally, I don't care. I stay in the far right lane on the open highway unless passing and am out of the way of anyone wanting to go faster UNLESS they're driving like an idiot (of which I see far too many examples). Virginia, especially, has troopers along I-81 pretty much the entire length of that highway and even with a 70mph speed limit you see them with cars pulled over quite frequently. These troopers never bothered me, even when I was driving a Camaro and getting 32mpg from it.

As for exceeding EPA ratings, so far the only car that has only matched the rating without going over on a long run for me is my Fiat 500, which hasn't yet been on my 1300 mile round trip on I-81 and even then I've seen 41 mpg over certain mostly-flat stretches.

One thing being overlooked is geography. Someone in the Rockies is not going to get what another in Florida is getting. I think the point of the article is that 80% of owners are exceeding EPA expectations. Is it reasonable to think that Ford owners all live in the mountains and everyone else lives on a plain? No. It is reasonable to believe that Ford tunes the ecoboosts for optimum results in EPA standardized testing. However, we know that the "testing" does not really simulate real world conditions. I will admit that the ecoboost motors run strong, but it takes fuel to make power. When you add air via a turbo you must add fuel to maintain the proper A/F ratio. As a diesel owner, I can tell you that I try to keep manifold pressure as low as possible when driving for fuel economy. With a small displacement engine, this becomes difficult on long mountain grades. I have a friend who pulled a 40' park model camper (9,000lbs) 350 miles to his lot in Canada with his 2013 Ecoboost. He said he had plenty of power and could run the speed limit on I81. He also got 6.3 mpg- ouch! The Ecoboost owners where I work are reporting about 15 mpg.

beebe - congratulations and good luck. You sell the Ram?

I was the opposite when I purchased in 2010. I was looking to buy used and anything decent in my area was priced high. I got 12k off plus 1k Costco member bonus and 3k on trade for my Safari van.

@JeffS, PapaJim - wow, you guys agreed........ the world is going to end ;)

Experts feel that when the icecaps and glaciers melt to nothing ocean levels will rise roughly 30 meters or 100 feet. If one looks at a topographic map that would put both the Capital of the USA and Canada under water................

Now we know the real reason for politicians supporting the green agenda. LOL

@Lou_BC--I don't disagree that there is global warming. I do believe the EPA is flawed in their fuel economy standards and tests. Having worked for the Government, bureaucracies tend to stray way from their original purpose. Most would agree that clean air and more efficient vehicles are good but how you get there is another thing. Washington DC has been underwater financially for a long but maybe with the melting of the icecaps and glaciers they will be literally under water.

@Lou,
Its difficult to compare a 15yr old truck to a new one. A lot has changed in that time most noticeable more gears in the trannies. The trucks I was referring to in my example were 2011 and 2014 Duramax LML trucks in identical config/trim. The exact same truck

@Road Whale,

No, it's not Bulls**t. I live in So. Cal, not some hick town in the south with Goober as the sheriff. Come out here and drive your 65 mph or less and you will see Big Rigs passing you out left and right and if you are unlucky enough, they will honk their air horns on you, flip you off from inside the cab and if they really want to get to you, nearly cut you off as well.

I drive 65 mph all the time on the freeways around here and those are my personal experiences. And, that's driving in the right most lane too. If you aren't going 75+mph, you are a traffic hazard around here. Luckily, I don't have to drive on the freeways around here that much.

However, if you still don't believe me. I welcome you to come out here in your little Fix It Again Tony 500 and drive your 65 mph or less. If you don'tget in some roaxd rage incident with some tailgating nutcase, you will a have a big rigs squash your little 500 like a bug. No joke.

@the other mike--I prefer to drive within the speed limit but you are correct it is dangerous with large trucks exceeding the speed limit and other motorists even when you drive in the right lane. Many will ride your bumper even if you are in the right lane and flash their lights at you. Nothing more frightening than a full loaded semi tractor trailer riding your bumper or being blocked in by a group of them. I usually go about 5 mph over the speed limit but even that too can be dangerous. Nothing more frightening than having semis drive 80 mph in a 65 mph speed zone in an area where the traffic is heavy and everyone is speeding.

@Jeff S.

Absolutely and you described the senario that exists most times on the freeways around here. You always get these left lane nutjobs that like to hoot and holler on the internet forums about how slow pokes going the speed limit should just pull over into the right lane (slow lane) and they wouldn't have a problem with us. The problem is, even if you are in the so-called slow lane, you still get people zigging and zagging through traffic and then zooming up behind you and riding your rear bumper acting as if you are cruising in the number one lane and blocking them. And, I've seen my share of big rig drivers do the same thing which, like you stated, can make for a pretty good white knuckle moment when that happens. lol.

@the other mike --Yes. Once you are in the right lane you have no where else to go. In situations like what you described and what I described it is best to keep up with the speed of the traffic which is not going any faster but having to go over the speed limit at a speed where you are not going to be run off the road. Even in a larger vehicle you are still endangering yourself because the semis are still larger than you and as you said there are drivers zagging in and out of traffic without a signal. Better to stay alive and be able to drive another day.

@ t.o.m.: I have driven out there and to be quite honest, I had a blast, using my air horn under the hood to wake up those self-centered drivers who don't look where they're going (which is far too many of them). However, if you think California drivers are that bad, you haven't been on the New Jersey turnpike or I-95 between DC and Boston; LA is a breeze comparatively. When I'm driving, I'm in my Zen Zone and simply don't let others rattle me unless they do something really stupid. After all, if absolutely necessary I can climb over most cars (the worst offenders) and 18-wheelers make great "Moses" rigs, parting the 'waters' for me to follow along. AND, most of those 18-wheelers around here are governered to a maximum of 70mph.

But my discussion on fuel mileage is centered on long-distance travel, where traffic is typically more spread out and it's easier to travel at or even below the speed limits. I-81 itself does not pass through the heart of any major city, then skins by them as part of a perimeter loop. I-95 itself is horrendous around DC despite a major rebuild a few years back and bores right through the center of Baltimore, Wilmington and Philadelphia, which have their own crazies during rush hours. Still, there are bypasses that make driving 'through' easier for all except DC itself. As such, I don't have to put up with the ridiculous antics you claim are everyday occurrences in Cal.

Oh, did you note that my discussion corrects your assumption that I'm from a "hick town in the south". Even so, I gather you haven't driven in and around Atlanta, GA, Nashville or Knoxville, TN or other metropolitan area in the east, have you? I don't care where you are, 99.9% of drivers are self-centered B******s who deserve every crash they get into. I haven't had a crash in over 20 years despite drivers like those. And I'm perfectly willing to bet my insurance rates are lower than yours, even with full coverage on two relatively new cars.
It's all in the driver, not the car. When I can achieve 24 to 25mpg in a Jeep Wrangler with the so-called minivan V6 on the freeway even when forced to drive through DC traffic (which never really lets up, just thins a bit in off hours) then I would say the EPA ratings are just that, a guide to help you estimate your own economy, because you're almost guaranteed not to match theirs.

@roadwhale does your statement mean that EPA ratings are basically useless or are they just another of the government's expensive little measurements that are calibrated so loosely as to be totally useless? (other examples, the GDP report, the Unemployment Report, the Trade Deficit reports, the Cost of Living Index).

I am an old guy, I've been driving since before the EPA existed at all. The EPA ratings have never been reliable, except maybe by accident.

@Lou

Your remark about the ice caps melting cracks me up--they have been melting for over 10 thousand years. Scientists agree on that much.

The Gulf of Mexico is 120 feet deeper today than it was 12 thousand years ago. Melting ice did it. Tampa Bay used to be a freshwater lake.

There used to be a glacier sitting on top of where Madison Wisconsin is today--it was more than half a mile thick. Despite all of the warming that it took for those changes to happen in such a short geological period, the majority of the animal species are still around--birds, fish, snakes, canines, hogs, cattle, all doing fine.

Climate alarmism is a political movement, not a scientific one. The alarmists HIRE scientists and authors, but the science itself is not exact or even fully agreed upon.

The EPA is a huge waste of time that has failed in virtually all of its original goals.

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of the descending data, where the Ford's brakes were so hot and the trailer brakes barely warm. Those trailer brakes are supposed to help more than that.

@roadwhale

That tells any person the trailer brakes weren't set appropriately by the operator... On there test they just set it at the same numbers for every truck. All manufactures have different methods and programs for there trailer brakes. They can't be set the same and hope to get equal brake performance out of the trailer.

That's not surprising at all, at 14.5psi of boost the engine size has effectively doubled. There is no free lunch, no idea what boost the ford EB is running but assuming 10-15 psi that means at WOT the 3.5 is performing more like 7liter engine. Now tell me if that will burn more fuel than an NA 5.3 liter v8 at same engine load/conditions?

@Roadwhale

You are in your Zen Zone when driving? You really shouldn't be meditating when driving. Driving on public roads and highways takes full concentration by keeping your eyes scanning at all times. Driving is certainly not the place where you should be practicing your Zen Zone.

I've seen a lot of drivers like you. They are completely oblivious to everything and anything around them and except for the road ragers and speeding tailgating air horn honking speed freak Big Rig drivers, they are one of the worst hazards on the road you can possibly run into.

No accidents in 20 years? I never had an accident in my entire life (except for two people in separate incidents that couldn't stay in there own lane on the road and tapped my door and fender with their exterior mirrors.

As for your insurance claims, what do you pay then? I pay less than $80 a month for full collision and theft with uninsured motorist coverage and gap insurance on a big V8 full-sized truck that is considered a "commercial use" vehicle here in the state of California.

Like I said before, come take a trip out to California sometime and you will see how bad it is out here.

@the other mike--Many of the semis are speeding to make their schedules and the drivers are pressured to drive long distances over some very short times and then turn around and do it again. If you are an independent trucker you have to make those schedules or you might not get a load next time.

Also there are a lot of drivers that are not paying attention to what they are doing either texting or talking on cell phones. Around where I live in N KY and Cincinnati drivers will use the right lane to speed in and they do not signal when changing lanes. There are always a lot of accidents. There is also an area on I-71/75 in N KY just before the Brent Spence Bridge called the "Cut in the Hill" (also known by the locals as Death Hill) that is steep and in bad weather the drivers do not slow down. There are a lot of jack knifed trucks on that hill and over the years a lot of deaths.

I usually stay in the right lane and drive at a speed that keeps up with the flow of traffic. My experience is most of the time the flow of traffic on the interstates is somewhere between 5 and 8 mph over the speed limit. Most of the state troopers will not ticket as long as you are not driving 10 mph or above the posted speed limit.

@PapaJim: "does your statement mean that EPA ratings are basically useless or are they just another of the government's expensive little measurements that are calibrated so loosely as to be totally useless?"

Not useless, but only a guide. A safer, slower driver will exceed the EPA mileage while a hot dog, cowboy, whatever you wanna call the driver that drives like an idiot will almost certainly get worse mileage. The rest will get somewhere near what the EPA says it should. Since roughly 80% of drivers polled get 20% better mileage, that would mean 80% of drivers are in the safer, slower category, right?

Oh, and your commentary about global warming is incorrect in that never in the Earth's geological history that we've been able to study (which goes back a long, long time) have we ever seen records of a temperature change rate as rapid as the one occurring now. Those historical changes took thousands of years to warm or cool a couple of degrees; this most current shift is doing so in decades to a century or so--over 10x faster for the amount of temperature difference. Less than 200 years ago, people could walk across the Thames river in the vicinity of the Tower Bridge (that famous landmark). Now it doesn't ice over at all. This kind of effect is being seen everywhere. And no, most of the worlds glaciers were miles longer than they are today, and have lost those miles of ice in well under a century. They have never melted as fast as they are doing so today.

@t.o.m.: Assume what you will, my friend. As I said, I've driven more than 20 years without a crash and the one I had then was deemed the other driver's fault as she tried to cross two lanes of oncoming traffic without being able to clearly see down those lanes through cars in the turn lane opposite her. The signal at that intersection was changed to no left turn while opposite traffic had a green because that intersection became notorious for that exact kind of crash. Prior to that, I'd not had a crash for more than 20 years previous, meaning I had two crashes as a novice driver and one as a mature driver in a total of now 43 years of driving. Can you match that record? I'd say I'm probably significantly more aware of what's going on around me than you are--no matter the traffic conditions.

@Roadwhale, every statement I made re: climate can be verified--look it up.

re: EPA the agencies original goals were centered around making the world a better place for future generations of humanity. Today's radical vanguard in the environmental movement believes that the world can only be improved by the mass elimination of humanity.