• bob_lemon@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Technically it does. Engines are usually less optimized for driving 30 compared to 50, which causes them to use more fuel for the same distance.

    But a slightly higher fuel consumption is easily offset by reduced noise and increased safety (for everyone).

    • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      You need close to three times (2.78) the energy for accelerating to 50 instead of 30.
      If you have to brake, that energy gets converted to heat.
      Rinse and repeat.
      Especially in urban areas where there’s alot of acceleration/deceleration - or just acceleration with different algebraic signs - more speed means more fuel per distance.

    • JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      There are several graphs floating around showing the fuel consumption at 30 compared to 50 with different gears. It depends on your car and the gear used if 30 uses more fuel than 50. If your car uses more fuel for slower speeds and for such a common speed as 30, the manufacturer is an idiot. There are so many 30 zones in Europe that it really is not an argument against them that a car manufacturer can’t build proper cars.

      And since we are also switching to electric cars, that problem will go away in the next decade or two.