[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: CAFE standards Posted by cheaptech [Email] (#1856) [Profile/Gallery] (more from cheaptech) on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:44:02 In Reply to: Re: CAFE standards, Bill Homer [Profile/Gallery] , Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:57:46 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
That Ward's article strikes me as being somewhat pointless and lacking in any in depth analysis of fuel economy.
Criticizing the 2.3l as inappropriate in the mustang because it doesn't produce a muscle car sound ?
You can get Ford pickups with 3.5l ecoboost and 5.0 L V8s - neither beats the 2.7l in EPA ratings, this is a 4600 lb pickup with a high profile, the 2wd version with the 2.7 liter gets and an epa rating of 19/26 on regular fuel whereas I think my 2004 9-5 ARC was rated at 17/26.
Yes real life mpgs may not reflect the EPA nos - but Wards is light on details as to what speeds the pickup was driven at and other relevant information. What does help real life fuel mileage on smaller displacement turbos in heavier vehicles is an 8 or 9 speed transmission - like Ram uses to boast high mpgs, so the rpms at 65 mph and above can be kept in an efficient range.
The 2.7l is more geared toward the buyer who wants performance in his F150 but for Wards to criticize the 2.7l engine because they didn't get the epa numbers is being pretty naive, plus it was likely a brand new vehicle, and yes many modern engines need several k miles for break in.
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.