|
|
|
Sept 25, 2006 11:47:25 GMT
|
I know that the 345 BHP LS1 Camaro is good for over 35 MPG from its 5.7 litres. I could never get anywhere near that from a 177 BHP 2.0 Celica. Go figure. True but is the 35 mpg a factory figure, if it is it would be tested in the US where the roads a straight probably requiring less changing up and down, than uk roads. For everyday us a 5.7 camaro is gunna be more thirsty than a 2.0 celica. |
| |
Sierra - here we go again! He has an illness, it's not his fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2006 11:49:44 GMT
|
|
probably, but a big ferous metal mass spinning might fornm an electromagnetic eddy current and this could polarise the fuel if it were strong enough and this would then this could result in a stronger more considant burn meaning you could run the mix leaner for the same power yeild.
Believe it or not I saw that same story used as a marketting ploy to charge you £29.99 for a set of magnets you clipped on the fuel line to save MPG andmake more BHP And no doubt allow you to run on unleaded without a valve seat job too.
|
| |
Last Edit: Sept 25, 2006 11:52:26 GMT by akku
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2006 11:51:56 GMT
|
I know that the 345 BHP LS1 Camaro is good for over 35 MPG from its 5.7 litres. I could never get anywhere near that from a 177 BHP 2.0 Celica. Go figure. True but is the 35 mpg a factory figure, if it is it would be tested in the US where the roads a straight probably requiring less changing up and down, than uk roads. For everyday us a 5.7 camaro is gunna be more thirsty than a 2.0 celica. 35 MPG was from an owner, and is a UK-gallons figure. I've also seen a magazine road test of a Subaru Impreza vs. a 4.6 V8 Mustang and the Mustang was more economical than the 4 pot Scooby. |
| |
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2006 11:53:09 GMT
|
|
I love it when you go to classic car shows and kit car shows and you see some ridiculous cheesy git flogging that kind of snake oil nonsense, car shows seem to be a favourite outlet for it. And eBay of course.
|
| |
1972 Fiat 130 1985 Talbot Alpine 1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 + 1986 Mazda 929 Koop + Wagon 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 BEST CAR EVER!!!!!!!! 1979 Datsun B310 Sunny 4-dr 1984 Audi 200 Quattro Turbo 1983 Honda Accord 1.6 DX GONE1989 Alfa 75 2.0 TS Mr T says: TREAT YO MOTHER RIGHT! |
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2006 11:56:56 GMT
|
35 MPG was from an owner. Quelle surprise! He probably did an economy run once on his favourite long downhill stretch and managed to get 35mpg showing on the computer on the long straight bit where you can knock it out of gear. I often find that owners of 1980's yank tanks like to claim how economical their cars are, they usually put a few spurious mpg figures their eBay ads too, for some god-awful Buick 3.8 Chutzpah GTO which produces 120 bhp. |
| |
1972 Fiat 130 1985 Talbot Alpine 1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 + 1986 Mazda 929 Koop + Wagon 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 BEST CAR EVER!!!!!!!! 1979 Datsun B310 Sunny 4-dr 1984 Audi 200 Quattro Turbo 1983 Honda Accord 1.6 DX GONE1989 Alfa 75 2.0 TS Mr T says: TREAT YO MOTHER RIGHT! |
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2006 12:03:55 GMT
|
|
Its close enough to the EPA number for the car. Why is it surprising if it can be achieved? This was claimed on about a 150 mile trip.
I've beaten the "official" MPG figures on a number of cars I've owned, usually on long long cruises, but still...
Principal factors for MPG appear to be gearing, weight, aerodynamics. Modern engine management does the trick as well. But you can have all the management you like in a '71 Imperial CROWN but its still a 3 ton barge with the aerodynamics of a tower block on wheels. Conversely a 4th Gen Camaro doesn't weigh much more than a BMW and has decent aerodynamics. It was a 1997 or 1998 model IIRC.
|
| |
Last Edit: Sept 25, 2006 12:04:56 GMT by akku
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2006 12:35:19 GMT
|
True but is the 35 mpg a factory figure, if it is it would be tested in the US where the roads a straight probably requiring less changing up and down, than uk roads. For everyday us a 5.7 camaro is gunna be more thirsty than a 2.0 celica. 35 MPG was from an owner, and is a UK-gallons figure. I've also seen a magazine road test of a Subaru Impreza vs. a 4.6 V8 Mustang and the Mustang was more economical than the 4 pot Scooby. I guess thats cause of the state of tuning, tuned engine always drink more than milder engines! To get the turbo'd impreza to go anywhere you need to wind it up. But the Mustangs got the torque to just waft along. Oh well what ever! |
| |
Sierra - here we go again! He has an illness, it's not his fault.
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2006 12:50:56 GMT
|
Your all forgetting one big thing in this discussion..... Its a 1.4 litre engine  ;D The FIA equivalency formula does not apply on the road ;D Therefore you have a 170hp motor in a "Shopping" tax and insurance bracket ;D ;D Cant think who else just happens to have the 1.4 and 1.25l cam covers for his Supercharged engine ;D ;D Cheap tax and 200+hp FTW ;D ;D ;D |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2006 13:06:14 GMT
|
or get a car thats pre 73 for no tax super plus win |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 25, 2006 14:25:35 GMT
|
Your all forgetting one big thing in this discussion..... Its a 1.4 litre engine ;D The FIA equivalency formula does not apply on the road ;D Therefore you have a 170hp motor in a "Shopping" tax and insurance bracket ;D ;D Cant think who else just happens to have the 1.4 and 1.25l cam covers for his Supercharged engine ;D ;D Cheap tax and 200+hp FTW ;D ;D ;D FIA equivalency formula does not apply on the road - yup, you can run a 2.0, 2.5, 3.5 litre motor on the street... I suspect that the insurance companies will rate it on its power not on its displacement The road tax will be based on emissions not on displacement when used in a modern car anyway. This is on volume of CO (CO2?) which will be higher than for a NA 1.4 Don't get me wrong, its a neat piece of kit. Assuming the weight is good then its a definite FTW fit in a small light car. However I doubt its going to replace larger capacity motors for the most part. Cost of the engine vs how it performs dynamically compared to say a 1.8T or a 4.2 A8 V8... Who's going to be first to shove one in a Mk1 Polo?  |
| |
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
;D
[*]
[*]
