Quote:
Originally Posted by bomber991
They clayed the whole car smooth, which added some weight, but then they did 5 runs and averaged them. Then they made the dimples and even put the little caps they carved out into the car so that the weight was the same as before, and then did 5 more runs and averaged them. The way they measured the fuel is probably more accurate than using a scangauge.
"26 and change" mpg for the smooth car
29.65mpg for the dimpled car
Now where's the 11% improvement? 29.65/26=1.14 That would mean it was 26.7mpg when smooth wouldn't it?
|
The problem is that it wasn't really accurate at all. At 65 MPH, Adam had like .1 seconds to react and flip that switch, both times. Human error is accountable here, as well. Also, there are far too many potential variations to count a 1 mile stretch as valid.
There is no way their "test" was more accurate than using a tuned scan gauge. Unfortunately, it's what I've come to expect from them.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"
