|
good
That sounds great... If you had something to back it up with like real data from a scan gauge it would be even better. I'm amazed...Esp since the new EPA mpg figures list our 4.0 liter rangers as having even worse mpg's than before (average of city and hwy driving now comes in at a pathetic 16 mpg). If you're getting 18mpg up big hills with big tires that's great!
I think this is one of the key problems with the eco debates...People (myself included) want to believe that our mpg's are better than they actually are.
When I took long term readings over the course of 30, 40, 50 tanks of fuel, and a well tuned engine, and low speed driving, I still found that the 4. liter Ford ranger got no better than the EPA said it did. I wish it was different. I wish some mods made by a homeowner could counteract the team of designers, and engineers that designed this truck, but I can't.
So, 18, 20 or 22 still sucks. So we'd both be better off with smaller cars!
|