View Single Post
Old 06-12-2009, 05:16 PM   #14 (permalink)
doviatt
Master EcoModder
 
doviatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 388

Grey Goose (Retired) - '89 Geo Metro LSI 4 door hatch back
Last 3: 57.16 mpg (US)

Tweety - '91 Geo Metro Convertible -2 Door convertible LSI
Team Metro
90 day: 43.97 mpg (US)

Shadow - '02 Honda Shadow VT1100
90 day: 43.46 mpg (US)

Sonic - '07 Honda CBR1000RR
90 day: 42.69 mpg (US)

Filmore - '84 Volkswagen Vanagon
90 day: 20.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 47
Thanked 44 Times in 31 Posts
tjts1
I'm still reading ....but, the biggest flaw I see in your reasoning is this: All of these tests were for pure power gain and positive FE ended up being a residual effect. This means that it isn't actually relevant to FE from this forums perspective. They are getting horrible FE during these tests (relative to this site) because that is not what they were going for and the modification made them less terrible just by coincidence. The evidence you state (in the other dead thread. Sorry for thread jumping) with 3 cars modified shows improvements is also irrelevant because they don't look like economy minded cars in the first place (2 volvos and a BMW). Less horrible mileage is a good thing for a sports car and a heavy car but not good enough for the other end of the spectrum.

(Thread jumping again) You also stated that a car will burn the same amount of fuel at 30K feet. Not true. That is why airliners fly way up there. Less dense air, less fuel used and less resistance in that thin air.
At least consider that the WAI thought supported here has validity. The test results I've seen support it. I'm still open minded though. Got lots more reading to do.

Edit:
After doing more reading I have realized tjts1 has had this argument before and already made up his mind.
I find Franks and basjoos wisdom to be right to the point.

Last edited by doviatt; 06-12-2009 at 07:05 PM..
  Reply With Quote