Post #350,570
11/14/11 2:40:18 PM
|
IWECar++
So, after just 7 years of being on the road, and nearly a hundred thousand business miles, the company has noticed that I might benefit from the provision of a company car (or "veer-hick-ull", as I believe they're known across the pond).
What wonder of the automotive age do you think they've bestowed upon me?
A BMW 760il, perhaps? Jaguar XFR? Mercedes S63 AMG?
Not quite.
Behold, the mighty 2012 Ford Focus 1.6 "Edge" TDCi Econetic!
90 (count 'em!) barely restrained horses hurl this miracle of engineering to 60 in just 11.2 short seconds, raging onward to a dizzying 112MPH. Also, it's red.
On the plus side, even though it's pretty basic, the audio unit has DAB, CD/MP3, aux-in, Bluetooth (both audio and phone), iPod, yadda yadda yadda. DAB radio in particular is a big hit with me - if by any means you can stream BBC Radio 6Music from their website, I urge you to do so.
OK, so it's slow. But on the upside, like most small Fords, it steers really well and is well balanced. Brakes are good and progressive, and the clutch is not too heavy to be annoying, but not so light as to be devoid of feel. The manual 'box shifts really, really nicely.
The "econetic" bit? Well, the thing scores you out of 5 on your gear changes, anticipation and speed. No, I don't really know what that's all about, either. It also gives you stats on things like how much of the time the car has been running cold (and therefore less efficiently).
It has stop/start - which is disconcerting the first time it happens, but you can avoid it by, like a spacker, sitting at the lights with the car in first, feet on the clutch and footbrake. Grown-ups, who put the car into neutral and apply the handbrake, are rewarded by a green light and not using as much fuel. Dip the clutch, and the car fires and you're off.
As for economy - it's cars like this that are rapidly rendering all but the most effective hybrids pointless, as it'll do a claimed 67MPG. I've only driven it 50-odd miles (work and back twice since picking it up on Friday, mostly urban and rural roads, 13 mile commute) and even so I'm at 50MPG and climbing. I reckon that on the motorway, 60 is realistic, 65 possible.
Also, this is the very first brand new car I've ever had. OK, it's not actually mine, but I'm the first person to fart on the seats (delivery drivers don't count, and that's what matters.
|
Post #350,573
11/14/11 2:55:52 PM
|
I wonder ...
How much do you suppose corporate average fuel economy would improve if cars had the same amount of power as what was commonly available in the heyday of the musclecar?
I've read that the way of measuring has changed so that something rated as 300hp in the late 60s would barely clear 200 today. And we've all gotten used to minivans that allow you to pull into heavy traffic while pointed uphill without being particularly careful.
--
Drew
|
Post #350,575
11/14/11 3:03:30 PM
|
Re: I wonder ...
You could significantly improve America's corporate fuel useage by mandating two technologies:
1. Manual gearboxes (hahahahaha)
2. Diesel engines (hahahahaha)
Yeah, never gonna happen, right?
|
Post #350,594
11/14/11 4:16:23 PM
|
Re: I wonder ...
Try driving 30 - 40 km each way, 5 days a week, in stop-and-go traffic with a manual transmission. You'll blow you brains out within a week if you don't burn out the clutch first.
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #350,598
11/14/11 4:27:13 PM
|
Re: I wonder ...
I do a 35 mile round trip that's like that.
I've been doing it for the past 5 years in a 2.8L BMW manual. Clutch is fine.
Changing gear isn't hard or demanding.
|
Post #350,628
11/14/11 5:24:03 PM
|
If you're willing to do it
then that's okay for you. I did it for a short time and hated every minute of it, not to mention the soreness of my left leg every night. When I replaced the car with a new
that had automatic, then commute became bearable.
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #350,630
11/14/11 5:27:17 PM
|
Agreed
But I had my own extra joint issues.
I LOVED my Honda Accord, and enjoyed the control of the manual.
After a few solid days of agony in my left leg and my right forearm I had to get rid of it.
Traded it for a Mazda Millenia, and never looked back!
|
Post #350,644
11/14/11 7:48:15 PM
|
Re: If you're willing to do it
You need to understand: just about everyone drives a manual over here, all the time, in traffic and out of it.
I don't even think about changing gear. The whole "off gas/clutch in/change gear/clutch out/on gas" thing is completely automatic. Up and down the box.
Har de har see what I did there etc.
|
Post #350,658
11/15/11 1:10:00 AM
|
automatic transmission?
That's not driving—that's steering.
But halfway up a steep hill (Broadway or California) in San Francisco, waiting for the light to change, with the following car a dozen centimeters from one's rear bumper, one has been times past grateful for the technology. On level ground, though, give me a proper clutch.
cordially,
|
Post #350,637
11/14/11 6:55:38 PM
|
I did for years.
More than a decade.
Only one of my cars has ever been an automatic and it was considerably more powerful (3.8L V6) than the others (2L, 2L, 1.8L, 2L). Never had to replace a clutch, except in the last (Porsche 924) and that wasn't from my driving!
Actually until fairly recently, it was fairly difficult to get a good performing automatic box on a small engine. This was not helped by buyers not knowing what to look for. I wouldn't drive an auto on an old Mini and I'd rather not have an auto on a Lancer, but I'd consider an auto on a recent small BMW or VW.
Wade.
|
Post #350,648
11/14/11 9:04:45 PM
|
did it for years, unless you are in San fran its fine
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #350,839
11/17/11 3:26:58 PM
|
Demur on 1.)
Look up #s on the new 'dual-clutch' 6-speeds. They can sip gas through a finer/shape-altering straw than your own brain-pan.
When friend settled on the Ford Fiesta with same.. I already reported on the trade-offs. Auto-trans was not one of those.
But would have gone for your kit (incl. better Focus handling) if available here and with something less of a price-pack than VW's.
For 60+ / U.S. gallon? 90 hp would be just Fine.
Those CO-2 numbers *ARE* creeping nay Racing.. UP, quite beyond worst-case estimates of 5-6 years back.
This hubristic species is dead-set.. that is, DEAD-set on ignoring the plight of the planet For All Species, in order to continue gratifying our little whims., comforts and conceits.
(If only *we* got the shaft--that'd be decent karma; but we will take everything else with us because we have been clinically insane/collectively)
~~ all my tenure here.
|
Post #350,843
11/17/11 7:21:41 PM
|
The climate forcings are complicated....
CO2 will continue rising, but the effect on the climate is not as strong as once believed. No, this doesn't mean that the deniers are right. ;-) It means that climate science is getting better at teasing out the effect of changes in the various components.
From 2009 (Lean is a section author of the IPCC report that won the Peace Prize in 2007):
http://www.unity.edu...9_Lean_Rind-5.pdf (5 page .pdf):
4. Summary
[15] By representing monthly mean surface temperatures in terms of their combined linear responses to ENSO, volcanic and solar activity and anthropogenic influences, we account for 76% of the variance observed since 1980 (and since 1889 [Lean and Rind, 2008]) and forecast global and regional temperatures in the next two decades. According to our prediction, which is anchored in the reality of observed changes in the recent past, warming from 2009 to 2014 will exceed that due to anthropogenic influences alone but global temperatures will increase only slightly from 2014 to 2019, and some regions may even cool.
[16] Northern mid latitudes, especially western Europe, will experience the largest warming (of as much as 1 C), since this region responds positively to both solar and anthropogenic influences. Minimal warming is likely in the eastern Pacific ocean and adjacent west coast of South America, and parts of the mid latitude Atlantic ocean, which may cool slightly at southern latitudes in future decades.
[17] The major assumption associated with our forecasts is that Âpast is prologueÂ; climate will continue to respond in the future to the same factors that have influenced it in the recent past and the response will continue to be linear over the next several decades. The demonstrated ability of our empirical model to reproduce the historical record of monthly surface temperature changes on a range of time scales from annual to multidecadal suggests that the same atmosphere-ocean interchange (both internal and forced) that governs annual surface temperature changes may also control climate change in the immediate future.
[18] While the ability of the climate system to depart from its historical response should not be underestimated (e.g., ocean circulation changes), the demonstrated ability of our empirical model to reproduce with some fidelity the historical surface temperature record, and in particular the geographic variations of the last decade, provides cautious confidence that a similar capability may be available for the next two decades in association with the expected climate forcings. Over this time scale, anthropogenic radiative forcing is forecast to continue growing at close to current trends with all of the different trace gas emission scenarios currently being employed, while the solar cycle changes can be anticipated within a range of uncertainty. If strong ENSO cycle events and/or volcanoes arise, they can be factored into the forecasts with the method described here. In future work we plan to characterize and forecast the seasonal responses to the natural and anthropogenic effects.
IOW, they have constructed a model that accounts for the vast majority of the observed temperature trend over the last 100+ years. Changes in Solar activity, atmospheric cycles, volcanoes can all affect the strength of the effect of increasing CO2 on the Earth's temperature. The Solar cycle in 2009-2014 is expected to cause the temperature changes to be larger than that estimated in the recent IPCC report, and smaller in 2014-2019. Nature can be expected to throw a monkey wrench in straight-line temperature predictions, but the model tells them what to expect if those events happen.
The long term temperature trend is, of course, up (Fig 1a).
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who agrees with you about that Mercedes. Of course, it's actually just a truck with a fancy box on the back. It's the Mercedes Zetros 6x6 - http://www.mercedes-...zetros.flash.html ).
|
Post #350,856
11/18/11 4:51:52 AM
|
Re: Demur on 1.)
I'll look into the dual clutch ("powershift"?) thing. It seems impossible to me to completely overcome the inherent inefficiency of a torque converter, even with a lockup.
>wavy lines as I investigate<
OK, this is for UK cars, but the new Focus is a world car, so in theory it applies to the US, too. Bear in mind these figures are for proper imperial gallons, not your infidel US gallons, and that they're quoted figures, so they may have a weaker or stronger connection to reality, depending on lots of things.
Edge Petrol (not helpful, as the engine output is 20BHP more on the auto)
1.6 manual: 47mpg
1.6 powershift: 44mpg
(no-one cares about performance on this model, but it's crap)
Mine is a 1.6 Edge manual diesel: 67mpg, 0-60 12.1, vmax 112mph
Zetec S Petrol (better, power outputs the same)
1.6 Manual: 47mpg, 0-60 10.6, vmax 122mph
1.6 powershift: 44, 0-60 11.3, vmax 120mph
Zetec S Diesel (more helpful, as the outputs are the same)
2.0 manual: 56mpg, 0-60 8.1, vmax 135mph
2.0 powershift: 53mpg 0-60 8.6, vmax 134mph
|
Post #350,857
11/18/11 7:39:55 AM
|
As US mileage limits increase, trannys will get better.
Manufacturers are going to be doing all they can to up their corporate fuel economy numbers, so Dual Clutch Transmissions (DCTs) are going to be a big part of the mix here.
DCTs have separate clutches for the even and odd gears. Gear changes are nearly instantaneous (the technology was recently developed for F1 cars, but goes back to the 1930s) and they're very efficient. They don't have torque converters.
A good summary:
http://auto.howstuff...-transmission.htm
Driver experience, then, is just one of the many advantages of a DCT. With upshifts taking a mere 8 milliseconds, many feel that the DCT offers the most dynamic acceleration of any vehicle on the market. It certainly offers smooth acceleration by eliminating the shift shock that accompanies gearshifts in manual transmissions and even some automatics. Best of all, it affords drivers the luxury of choosing whether they prefer to control the shifting or let the computer do all of the work.
Perhaps the most compelling advantage of a DCT is improved fuel economy. Because power flow from the engine to the transmission is not interrupted, fuel efficiency increases dramatically. Some experts say that a six-speed DCT can deliver up to a 10 percent increase in relative fuel efficiency when compared to a conventional five-speed automatic.
All else being equal, one would expect more gears to enable higher mileage, so it's not really a fair comparison, but eliminating the torque converter may enable packing more gears in the same space. I dunno. But lack of slipage on gear changes must enable at least slight mileage improvements on its own.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #350,860
11/18/11 7:48:37 AM
|
Re: As US mileage limits increase, trannys will get better.
DCTs are still less efficient than manual transmissions, as the numbers i posted (the "powershift" is a DCT transmission) show.
Not by much; the yawning gulf between auto and manual has gone. As you point out, DCTs don't have torque converters (learn something new every day, etc), and I'd bet a pint that that's the reason.
However, DCTs are complex, and I wouldn't want one on a car if I were picking up the maintenance and repair bills.
But this is dancing around the edge of the MPG problem. Y'all need to get over yourselves and start driving cars with diesel engines.
|
Post #350,862
11/18/11 8:11:00 AM
|
Some of us do. ;-)
Another advantage of DCTs over manuals is that they're easier to control by the car CPU. Presumably one of the things the car manufacturers are thinking about is "economy" modes where the throttle and gears are automatically selected to maximize efficiency. One can do that with a manual too, e.g. old Corvettes that shifted themselves into ultra-overdrive to get 20 mpg (or whatever), but people expect manuals to be manual and don't like it.
I think the US fleet is too big for most cars here to be diesels. I don't think there's a way to change the fuel mix to get enough diesel for another 150M cars. Could be wrong, though. Refineries can adjust the cracking mix to some extent, and the cracking depends on the qualities of the starting crude, but you can't (easily) go from, say, 20 gal gasoline per barrel with 15 gal of diesel to 30 gal of diesel and 5 gal gasoline.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6089
Efficiency all around is the way to go.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #350,863
11/18/11 8:23:11 AM
|
Re: Some of us do. ;-)
DCTs have some driving advantages over manuals - see Lincoln's paean to his girly clutch-operating leg above - but the figures are clear: manual gearboxes yield better efficiency.
Whilst I don't expect the actual figures I quoted above to be reflected in real-world driving, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that the difference between manual and DCT is indeed present.
Another factor which a DCT cannot consider, no matter how cunning its ECU, is that a manual gearbox's computer is equipped with forward-facing oculation devices, aka the Mk1 Eyeball. A DCT transmission will make shifts that a human driver wouldn't, thus reducing fuel efficiency a little.
|
Post #350,865
11/18/11 8:28:22 AM
|
Re: Some of us do. ;-)
Simply put: if you need (in the most extreme sense of that word) to transition more of the US vehicle fleet to diesel, you'll figure it out.
Whether that's brutal enforcement of HOV lanes, cranking up efficiency regulations to the point where's it's diesel or a hybrid, or something I haven't thought of, is all moot.
Personally, I think we're headed for fuel cells, once we figure out how to produce, handle and distribute hydrogen. Massive-scale solar-powered electrolysis is surely going to be on the agenda at some point.
|
Post #350,866
11/18/11 10:27:38 AM
|
On the numbers...
I think we agree that it's very hard for a conventional automatic not to have a several MPG loss compared to a conventional manual. That's one reason why I didn't consider an automatic for my Jetta TDI - the MPG hit was too large (4+ MPG).
For the DSG vs manual, I think in real life it'll often be a wash.
E.g. some numbers for BMWs - http://www.7machine.com/bmw/31274.html
Apparently the EPA says the hit is 1-2 mpg compared to a manual - http://articles.chic...1_dct-clutch-gear
but it likely depends on the engine displacement (smaller engines can use "dry clutch" versions that weigh less, are less complex, etc., etc.).
I'll certainly consider a DCT (if I have a choice) when I next shop for cars. By that time, manuals might not be available anyway here (they're pretty rare as it is). I don't think the complexity argument is a big deal. Not having to replace a clutch at 100k miles for $1000+ is a big selling point, I think.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #350,867
11/18/11 10:39:48 AM
|
Re: On the numbers...
No, instead you get to replace TWO clutches :-)
I don't know of many people who have replaced clutches that "just wear out". The people I know who replace clutches seem to be the same people every time, and when you're on your third vehicle in a row where you've replaced the clutch, then I reckon the problem is the nut on the steering wheel, not the clutch itself. If ya know what ah'm sayin'.
Most (manual) cars that go beyond 100K miles do so on their original clutch. Perhaps British drivers are just more sympathetic in their driving style. Perhaps clutches fitted to vehicles in the UK market are beefier. I dunno.
One of the things that worries me most on the 528i is that it has a DMF, and those babies are expensive if they go wrong, both in terms of parts and labour.
I suspect that if the DMF fails, i'll be weighing the car in for scrap or breaking it for parts, as the cost of fixing it will be not far off the resale value of the whole car.
|
Post #350,879
11/18/11 6:28:30 PM
|
Clutch replacements and drivers.
Clutch replacements are done frequently enough most mechanics know how long it will take them to get inside the thing and do it, but most cars last for years without one. My sister's car came with a new clutch and the car wasn't that old (20 years?): that strongly suggests a previous driver did the damage. That is also suggested by my own experience: got a new clutch for my 924, but that was mainly because the pilot bearing was dying and if you're going to spend the time to get into the bell housing, you may as well replace the clutch plate as well. Turns out it was a bit dodgy, but then it is a sports car and I've little doubt at least two previous owners saw that aspect first and foremost.
And since I've now seen what a clutch mechanism looks like (and how much it weighs!) I am somewhat astonished they've figured out how to put *two* clutch plates in one, driving a concentric axle for the gearbox. A DCT, in other words.
Wade.
|
Post #350,889
11/18/11 8:20:45 PM
|
I'm assuming the machine can shift better than me.
Yes, it's a good point that it has 2 clutches. :-) However, if it can shift in 8 ms, then there's almost no stress on the clutch linings (compared to normal US drivers who work hard to minimize jerking even as they burn up their linings) so they should last the life of the car if it's designed properly.
But it sounds like the US tuning is different from yours - http://www.nytimes.c...ml?pagewanted=all
Oh well.
I wasn't aware of dual-mass flywheels. I guess you need to keep on the look out for vibrations at 900 and 1800 rpm. Fingers crossed.
Enjoy your new buggy!
Cheers,
Scott.
(Whose SIL just got a new Prius.)
|
Post #350,892
11/18/11 8:22:29 PM
|
I use the clutch for startup from being stopped only.
After that its a clutchless affair, even most downshifts.
|
Post #350,894
11/18/11 8:36:56 PM
|
Bike? Car? Both?
I haven't tried that myself. Some claim it's hard on the synchronizers not to use the clutch; others says there's no problem. I dunno. Presumably if you're good enough to match the RPMs without the clutch then you're good enough to put little wear on it anyway.
I dunno if I'll try it in my TDI - the turbo kicking in would make it challenging....
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #350,897
11/18/11 10:25:08 PM
|
Upshifting, yes; down, no
That's on the bike, anyway. In the car, the throw on the shift lever is long enough that it's not worth it to try.
--
Drew
|
Post #350,901
11/19/11 1:36:37 AM
|
You are...
Full of crap.
I can hit my Lancer near every time up and down with out grinding the syncs except from 2nd to 1st...
Heck, if I do it right I can even get my car to go into gear without grinding from a start without using the clutch.
My Bikes, easy to do with the throttle and the toe shifter.
|
Post #350,903
11/19/11 1:59:35 AM
|
I"m happy for you
You like clutchless shifting, and you're good at it. I don't mind using the clutch, and of all the manuals I've owned I've never had to replace a clutch. Looks like we're each happy with our own driving.
--
Drew
|
Post #350,905
11/19/11 2:21:17 AM
|
People who change gear without using the clutch are...
(a) in a tiny, tiny minority
(b) inevitably still going to make some alarming grunching noises when they don't quite hit the spot; no-one's perfect
|
Post #350,906
11/19/11 3:05:53 AM
|
(c) they're driving a semi
|
Post #350,907
11/19/11 6:03:10 AM
|
Or mildly retarded
Really, that's the word.
My brother's best friend (neighbor 3 doors down) since he was a little kid ended up with a volkswagon beetle (in 1979). The guy is mildly retarded, which makes for great "best friend" material. Nicest guy in the world, but dumb enough to annoy constantly unless you partition out that area of your brain while talking to him.
Grind it until you find it was his standard method of shifting.
|
Post #350,914
11/19/11 8:25:10 AM
|
...
c) People that use the clutch inevitably still going to make some alarming grunching noises when they don't quite hit the spot; no-one's perfect
|
Post #350,960
11/21/11 3:40:16 AM
|
Re: ...
Shrug.
If I miss a gear, I dip the clutch again, no harm done other than feeling a bit daft.
If you miss a gear, it's metal-to-metal contact in the gearbox.
Still, if it works for you, that's cool.
|
Post #350,976
11/21/11 11:05:57 AM
|
Re: ...
I haven't ground a gear *not* using the clutch either... it I miss a shift, it doesn't sound like you think. It sound just like when you miss a gear. There is metal to metal contact when you miss a gear as well.
Especially with these modern manual transmissions.
You guys are just daft.
|
Post #350,902
11/19/11 1:41:43 AM
|
Well, obviously...
I've done it on all of my manual cars since I was 16.
My Dad's 1973 Pinto, my 1976 Pinto, the Nissan Sentra, Monte Carlo with a saginaw tranny, the Ford 3 on the tree, the chevy truck 454 with a Muncie, My honda Accord, My Mits Lancer.
Of course the bikes I've had and have. All without grinding the syncros.
Heck, even when I drove a delivery truck for a while, never used the clutch after a start... up or down, except to 1st.
Its not hard, it just takes finesse and timing properly... the shifter just falls into place when you do it right. I guess I just do it right.
|
Post #350,910
11/19/11 7:39:59 AM
|
yes, years ago I even offered crc to teach his kid to do it
some brit whiner started complaining that he wouldnt lend me his car if I visited
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #350,959
11/21/11 3:39:00 AM
|
Re: On the numbers...
500 mile round trip at the weekend; 55.4 MPG.
I expect this to rise as the car runs in.
|
Post #350,963
11/21/11 8:36:40 AM
|
Nice.
|
Post #350,965
11/21/11 9:09:35 AM
|
remember that is about 38mpg US still good tho
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #350,971
11/21/11 9:49:26 AM
|
How is 55.4 MPG == 38 MPG...?
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #350,972
11/21/11 9:57:12 AM
|
Miles are shorter in the U.K.
Hell, they can cross their whole country in a day without trying hard.
--
Drew
|
Post #351,028
11/21/11 6:59:33 PM
|
No, UK gallons are larger.
|
Post #350,979
11/21/11 11:27:50 AM
|
It's not - it's 46.13 US according to this...
|
Post #351,015
11/21/11 5:24:41 PM
|
they get an extra litre per gallon of gas
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #351,040
11/22/11 2:39:31 AM
|
Re: they get an extra litre per gallon of gas
What? No-one told me! Is there a coupon I have to redeem?
Wait a minute.
Is this an extra American litre?
It'll be fucking tiny, if it is! Or imported from China.
|
Post #351,041
11/22/11 5:02:50 AM
|
It's tiny *because* it's imported from China
--
Drew
|
Post #350,977
11/21/11 11:07:46 AM
|
MPG == MILES PER GALLON...
not KILOMETERS PER LITER.
Man, just add gas to the flame.
|
Post #350,988
11/21/11 12:44:26 PM
|
Re: MPG == MILES PER GALLON...
23.9 KM/L
Yes, I have a spreadsheet with this stuff in.
</sad>
|
Post #350,986
11/21/11 12:42:36 PM
11/21/11 12:45:57 PM
|
Re: On the numbers...
250 mile to the Big Smoke.
63.7 MPG.
Getting 3.3 MPG away from a manufacturer's quoted figure is, quite frankly, unsettling.
ETA: That's 56 miles to one of your imposter gallons.
Edited by pwhysall
Nov. 21, 2011, 12:45:57 PM EST
|
Post #350,580
11/14/11 3:26:37 PM
|
Optimisn, perhaps.
Top Gear looked at a recent reborn US muscle-car not so long ago and they noted a large disparity in claimed horsepower and actual horsepower. I think they even tested it. (I don't remember what car it was as I'm not that much of a fan of US muscle cars - I prefer European sports cars.)
I was going to post "I suspect testing methods have changed" but that's something I would expect TG to mention. Maybe testing methods are different: they've never, to my knowledge, mentioned the US and the UK gallon is a different size. Different enough that MPG can be quite different.
Wade.
|
Post #350,589
11/14/11 4:03:10 PM
|
Much more complex than I thought
http://ateupwithmoto...t-horsepower.html
Between inflation and deliberate underrating, by 1970, the relationship between advertised gross horsepower and actual power was at best nebulous. The gross ratings served a variety of political and marketing purposes, but they were far from useful as a realistic measure of engine output.
--
Drew
|
Post #350,635
11/14/11 6:10:28 PM
|
Neat. You and Ashton should swap stories.
|
