View Single Post
Old 11-29-2009, 07:58 AM   #16 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,873

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,386
Thanked 2,883 Times in 1,812 Posts
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw View Post
Yes, they are ignoring it, with premeditation! Car companies do not want their cars to be as efficient as possible. They want to leave some wiggle room for three reasons:
  1. So they can easily and cheaply comply to newer fe/emissions standard when they show up,
  2. So they can make eco versions and sell them for more than the base model (eg Peugeot 207 Economique),
  3. So they can tweak the fleet's mpg and say "See, we're trying real hard and we're getting better".
I agree with you!

Grille openings are for two things: looks and worst case scenerios (highspeed, desert, uphill, A/C, full load + trailer, etc.).

But then larger aftermarket wheels wouldn't fit.

The drive ratio is a compromise between performance and fe.

You must be joking, that would be too easy...

Extra costs, which most people won't notice when their A/C is on all the time.
Larger aftermarket wheels are combined with lower profile tires and the overall diameter does not change much.

Every other model Toyota sells with the exact same engine and transmission gets the 3.56:1 final drive?

I am not joking about the A/C -- I pull the fuse to get better FE in the winter. I have to be able to melt ice on the windshield...

I'll bet with better ventilation and with low-E glass, that we would not need A/C in much of the USA. So the cost of the low-E would be more than offset by that -- and the weight savings would be a good thing, too.
Sincerely, Neil
  Reply With Quote