Whoopeeee + .001 mpg

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've got a chevy k1500 that gets anywhere from 16 MPG to 22. It's paid for and I drive it in the winter.

Even with the price of gas, it's cheaper than a prius when you include car payments and insurance.

Oh yeah...I think the Europeans are paying more like $7-9 per gallon. That's why the small displacement diesels are so popular.

I also heard that they pay something like $20 per litre for a good synthetic oil. That's the real cost of socialism/environmentalism. Speaking of which, that's why we pay more for gas in Canada than our friends in the US.
 
Nobody wants to eliminate the more powerfull versions. Look at the europeans. They still offer Mercedes E55 or an S63 but 99% of european buyers choose the E220 CDI (4 cylinder diesel) or the S280. The big HP models are almost exclusively for export to the US. Not everyone can afford 17 mpg at $3 a gallon.
 
Anyone see the new specs for the 2007 Tahoe? An average of 20.5mpg, with a bigger more powerful truck. How'd they do that?
wink.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by TheTanSedan:
Yup, mpg = horsepower reduction. Few ways around that one.

Nope!

A) weight--drop those monsters from 5000+ pounds to 3000- pounds and even keeping the same HP levels the milage would go up dramatically, and so would performance!

B) aerodynamics--get the drag numbers down and the milage goes up. Get the frontal area down and the milage goes up. Surprisingly, cleanup the airflow UNDER the vehicle and you can achieve as much as 15% reduction in total aero-drag!

C) Engine size--bigger engines operating at lower RPMs are more efficient at converting gasoline (or diesel) energy into distance than high tech engines screaming their guts out.

D) tires--tires with taller sidewalls and/or larger rolling radii and/or harder rubber compounds rotate over the road susrface with less resistance than smaller wider tires.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Mitch Alsup:

C) Engine size--bigger engines operating at lower RPMs are more efficient at converting gasoline (or diesel) energy into distance than high tech engines screaming their guts out.


Yes indeed, that's one of the reason my 9 year old Corvette gets 27 mpg at 70 mph.

The aerodynamic and small frontal area help, but they are partly off set by the steam-roller sized tires.
 
quote:

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

Originally posted by Mitch Alsup:

C) Engine size--bigger engines operating at lower RPMs are more efficient at converting gasoline (or diesel) energy into distance than high tech engines screaming their guts out.


Yes indeed, that's one of the reason my 9 year old Corvette gets 27 mpg at 70 mph.

The aerodynamic and small frontal area help, but they are partly off set by the steam-roller sized tires.


Are you guys suggesting that the brand new Corvette's engine, which gets about the same mileage, is a "low tech" engine??? I'm thinking that the GM engineers might have something to say in response to that. IMO, the 'vette is a poor example to use here since the reason it gets such good mileage has more to do with weight and aero than it does with a high-output V-8's ability to generate impressive mpg figures.
 
quote:

Originally posted by bulwnkl:
I agree with T-Keith. A Corolla is more comparable to a Prius. When you make that comparison (41 mpg for the 5-speed), the Pruis can't ever pay for itself; you have to replace that battery pack before it's paid for.

Its funny how people pull out the calculator as soon as they hear the word hybrid but they never need to rationalize 300hp engine, 10 inches of ground clearance and power everything. If your only criteria for judging a car is saving money then don't buy a new car.
 
quote:

Originally posted by ekpolk:

quote:

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

Originally posted by Mitch Alsup:

C) Engine size--bigger engines operating at lower RPMs are more efficient at converting gasoline (or diesel) energy into distance than high tech engines screaming their guts out.


Yes indeed, that's one of the reason my 9 year old Corvette gets 27 mpg at 70 mph.

The aerodynamic and small frontal area help, but they are partly off set by the steam-roller sized tires.


Are you guys suggesting that the brand new Corvette's engine, which gets about the same mileage, is a "low tech" engine??? I'm thinking that the GM engineers might have something to say in response to that. IMO, the 'vette is a poor example to use here since the reason it gets such good mileage has more to do with weight and aero than it does with a high-output V-8's ability to generate impressive mpg figures.


A lot of it has to do with gear ratio. 5th gets about 3 to 4 mpg worse economy than 6th at 70 mph in mine at 70 mph. 5th is a 170+ mph overdriven gear ratio, 6th is a 0.5:1 gear ratio that has the engine turning about 1600 rpm at 70. It makes Corvette feel kind of gutless, but does streatch the gas.

And yes, an engine in a performance oriented car that only puts out 1 hp/in^3 is low tech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top