@Fender1325 My 1947 Pontiac 6 cylinder engine had 93 horsepower. The straight Pontiac engine of that era was 102 horsepower and that engine would struggle to get the car above 80 mph. My 1954_Buick had the nailhead V-8 engine. It had a 3 speed manual transmission and would hit 80_mph in 2nd gear and 108 in high gear. The engine didn’t strain at 85 in high gear. However those Buicks didn’t handle well even for those times. The 1955 Chrysler 300 might have handled the 85 mph Montana interstates without problems.
They’ve bumped up the speed limit here, up to 85 on some remote freeways. I find I drive at 75 if the limit’s 70, 75, or 85…
It may seem contradictory if one conflates two different issues. Private actions are one thing and I continually advocate for taking the safest course of action while driving and obey traffic laws. It that’s being overly optimistic, you bet. This happens to be a political decision by members of a an elected legislature to raise a speed limit where the private citizen has an opportunity to exercise his right to vote these guys in or out of office. Obviously, the majority of their residents think it’s OK. My opinion means squat as well it should. I hope you see the difference.
I STILL don’t give a rat’s behind what happens now even if I disagree. After all, It’s their decision. Personally, I would think people of Montana would be happy that if out of state’rs disagreed with their traffic laws, they still remained indifferent to their final decision. I would think you would appreciate that POV.
@shadowfax
I raised the issue in my state because many vehicles CANNOT sustain that speed of even 75 mph and we have, even at that speed, a bigger speed differential then it was at 65…trucks especially. WE have snow and potential black ice conditions, just like Montana. I understand why people think it’s fun to go 85, even though I don’t agree with it. I would think others could understand why I might think it’s less safe even though they don’t agree with it, and just leave it at that Yes, Maine IS a valid comparison IMHO. even though 75 isn’t 85.
You have been to Maine ? From Medway to (Sherman Station) on one long stretch among others where the limit is raised there are NO exits for many miles and you can see straight ahead for miles at a time. Some even argued for limits to be 80 mph. The hills are very gradual and the trees are cut and grow way back…there is wildlife, like there is in Montana and there is snow and blowing snow on the clearest of winter days like there is in Montana. And, as you go farther north, the plains of potato country, open the land area up dramatically. But you knew that…having been to Maine. 
Back in 1971, I averaged 81 mph through the state of Iowa on my way from Indiana to Nebraska. My first wife and I had purchased a used 6 cylinder 1968 AMC Javelin about 6 months before the trip. The tires were pretty well worn when we bought the car. We were living in married student housing as graduate students when we bought the car and I saw that someone was selling some used tires. The tires on the car were 6.95 x 14 and the tires I saw advertised were 7.75 x 14. The service station where I traded believed that these tires would fit which they did. The tires were almost new, so I bought two more 7.75 x 14 tires in order to have good tires on the car. My wife noted the time when we crossed over from Illinois into Iowa where we made a gas stop… She then asked about the mile markers. When we stopped for gas, the Javelin was only getting about 14.5 mpg and took a quart of oil which it had never done before. I was a little disturbed because I had changed the oil just before the trip. The car also seemed really noisy and I had the pedal almost to the floor to maintain a speed on the speedometer of a little over 70 mph. My wife had commented that she couldn’t believe how slow the Greyhound buses were traveling that we passed. After we purchased gas, she did a quick division and found that we had averaged 81 mph. At first I didn’t believe her, but when I worked it out in my head, I realized that she was right. It then dawned on me that the oversize tires had thrown off the speedometer. Of course, it had thrown off the odometer as well, but she was going by the mile markers on the interstate. She did a 5 mile check with her watch and these markers, and at an indicated 72 mph we were going about 90 mph. The odometer indicated about 4.5 miles for the 5 mile check. I then realized that the oversize tires had thrown everything off. When I dropped the speed down to what I believed was about 70, the mileage went up to 21 mpg, the engine was quieter and there was no more oil consumption.
I drove from San Francisco to Denver once in a while. The speed limit across northern Nevada (I-80) is 75 mph, but quite a few cars are going 80-85 in betwixt the sparsely spaced towns. It’s common to see cars and SUVs veered off 100 feet or more off the side of the road and into the sagebrush and stuck, the passengers milling around waiting for a tow truck to pull them back to the roadbed, because one of the tires blew. I’ve never seen a serious accident b/c of a tire blow out on I-80, but for folks wanting to drive 85 mph it’s a good idea to consider the speed rating of your tires in the equation.
A safety consideration not addressed yet: raising the speed limits on interstates increases the time savings that accrue from using them…as opposed to the old “US routes,” that typically remain maxed out at 55 or so. This discourages excess traffic, pouring into main street, USA…on typically outdated infrastructure. Consider also that DOT policing for commercial vehicles is less evident…and a lower speed limit encourages truckers to “take a chance” W/R/T loadings as they roll through town.
So, upping the speed limit tends to move traffic onto safer roads, and safer operating loads.
That said, I don’t think I’d care to spend the extra $$ in gas to go 85…at least not in my pickup! Heck, most older cars and trucks from the 55-era simply won’t be geared properly: a 3.5-ish rear end, with a direct-drive top gear works out to around 3,300 RPM!
I’ve crossed the OK Panhandle quite a few times and while I don’t travel at that speed, even 90 could seem agonizingly slow; especially the stretch from Guymon to Boise City.
Over 50 miles of nothing and not a twitch in the roadway anywhere; just mile after mile of utility poles always tapering off into the distance.
I’ve driven that route a lot! (Well, just south of there…I-40 through OKC and on into Amarillo.) And you’re right about the terrain. West Texas/SE NM is the only place I’ve ever seen the curvature of the earth on dry land…everywhere else is too muggy and/or not flat enough! Never been up north into OK panhandle, perhaps I ought to give it a try my next trip through…
The OK Panhandle makes the OK City to Amarillo stretch look a bit scenic. In some spots you can see KS to the north and TX to the south at the same time. There was controversy back in the 70s when it was revealed by a few state troopers (denied by the state of course…) that errant troopers were stationed in Boise City as a means of punishment.
The only thing Boise City has going for it is the novelty claim to fame as being the only city in the U.S. that was bombed during WWII. Bombed by U.S. Army Air Corp by accident, but still…
@dagosa I’m not sure why you’ve been so contrary lately. There’s nothing in what you’re arguing against that is factually incorrect. Yes, I did know that… Having been to Maine. You presumably know… Having been a driver, that Montana is not going to make the speed limit on all roads in the entire state 85mph. You also presumably know that Montana is a hell of a lot bigger than Maine. If you went 3 hours in a straight line at 85mph from west to east in Maine… Well you wouldn’t, because at its widest you could only go for about 2 hours and 15 minutes until you drove into the ocean. Montana is more than 3 times as wide as Maine, and the majority of that is flat, featureless expanses. Maine literally cannot have the length of straight boring highway that Montana can have, because Maine is tiny by comparison.
As for the snow, perhaps Maine is behind the times, but here in my state, the speed limit is, by law, a limit for good conditions. Driving faster than conditions warrant is a ticketable offense, which means that even if the speed limit is 85, if you’re in a blizzard and go 85, you’re breaking the law. Montana has the same concept in their law, 61-8-303(3), stating “Subject to the maximum speed limits set forth in subsection (1), a person shall operate a vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a reduced rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of traffic, visibility, weather, and roadway conditions.”
So, the idea that Montana is looking to make it legal to blast down the highway in an ice storm is utterly false, as are comparisons between Montana and comparatively miniature states.
From the Oklahoma panhandle south through west Texas and eastern New Mexico is the “Llano Estacado”, the largest flat area of the US:
@shadowfax
We don’t measure driving distances in Maine from east to west…i’s north to south. When you drive from Madawaska to Kittery, you are more then half way to New York. So distance traveled, is No/So, as we hve no east/west interstate system. One look at the map tells you why. . It is bigger then the rest of NE. "Ice storm?
who said anything about speeding in ice storms or snow storms??? What normally happens in the winter is this ! If you drive in wide open areas on clear days with snow covered field on either side, on windy days, blowing snow often crosses the road. Not only can it be a hazard then, but as it melts in the sunlight, it re freezes as black, unseen ice at night and early next morning. It happens in Maine and it’s wide open expanses over Long distances traveled and it happens in Montana. They have over 50 inches of snow a year in many areas. Like I said, it’s a political question as people at 85 will not be breaking the law so being that they aren’t, I personally really don’t care what they do. I am just pointing out, there are similarities in the types of trouble we run I to here in Maine at 75 so there certainly, along with higher speed differential, will be problems similar in Montana. It’s unfortunate that people who may vist Maine in one place think that’s all there is…the coast and the woods…
btw, a smiley face means no one is contrary…
And, though Maine is much smaller then Montana because it is narrow, the driving distance between north and South along which most of the increase in speed limits have occurred, is around 400 miles…I think that qualifies. So yes, we have the same problems .
@texases " I find I drive 75 even it’d the speed limit is…85"
That is exactly what I found to be true for many drivers. Not all cars and drivers are really comfortable traveling at 85. My wife’s car, yes, my truck and me, no. That’s why I still feel there will be more cars traveling varied speeds the higher the speed limit. If one state deserves the highest speed limits, IMO, it’s Texas. When I made weekly trips through central Texas, the highest land marks seemed to be road side armadillos.
People living in the compacted east sometimes have no idea how vast the rest of the country is. As an illustration, on a trip some years ago, we left Mount Ranier in Washington Friday about 5:00 heading home to Minnesota for work on Monday. I drove all Friday night on the freeway. I drove all day Saturday and all night Saturday with a few snoozes at the rest areas and changing drivers. We drove all day Sunday and into the night on Sunday. I stopped for a few hours sleep at a rest area. On Monday morning I was still in Wall, South Dakota and called in to work saying I wouldn’t be in. I still had 400 miles to go across South Dakota and 150 miles in Minnesota yet. You just can’t do that on the eastern seaboard.
"People in the compacted east have no idea…)
Well, people who live outside of New England don’t appreciate the vastness of the travel going north and south here. I guess you didn’t read it earlier. It’s 414 miles over just two roads, us1 and I 95 to go from one end of the state of Maine to the other, just to get to Candaa…then there is real vastness. That’s just one state and one vast country. . I know everyone likes to brag about certain aspects of their travel, but similarities do exist. One man’s vast ness in one direction, is anothers in another direction. If you want to consider travel through Canada and Alaska, it’s a different ball game. Your vastness is put into perspective.
There is well over 3000 miles of coastline in the state of Maine, making Driving coastal routes tedious and the distance traveled is HUGE on those routes compared to straight line distance. A coastal Maine commuter would love to see a road go a couple hundred miles in a straight line. That makes interstate travel in Maine so valuable. It’s all your perspective. I have traveled through California, the Rockies and Texas and everything is relative. It’s intimidating to see hundreds of miles of prairie as it is hundreds of miles of woods as it is hundreds of miles of ocean which many of us have traveled.
@Bing, it’s 1100 miles from my house between Baltimore and Washington, DC and Miami, FL. It is 1600 miles from Portland , ME to Miami. Doesn’t that qualify as a log distance?
a big log…
Just think of the amount of firewood.
gasifier!!!