|
Hi Jack,
I'm a little taken back by your reaction, because I had you in mind when I wrote that the 128 mpg figure is misleading. Riley's headline claims that his car gets 50% better mileage than yours. I think that is unfair, because I doubt that there is that much difference. Nor do I think the Centurion is as efficient as the VLC.
For me, reporting a number that is not representative (or in the ball park) of performance on the combined EPA cycles is not OK for a commercial endeavor. The combined cycle is more strenuous than a 60 mph cruise for almost all cars.
You find Frank's comment to be just fine. It hits the nail on the head, you wrote. ("Another thing that really seems disingenuous today is the mileage claim at 35 mph... yes, it's ridiculous, but back then most fe claims were ridiculous.")
My comment, however, does not go so far as to say "ridiculous" or "disingenuous" (which carries a connotation of deception). I simply wrote that it is "misleading". But you seem to be characterizing my comment as coming from the "meanies."
But the fact is this: we are not living in 1982. Riley is advertising the car as 128 mpg, today. That is misleading because the standard today is the EPA figures, and per the fine print, this is not a number obtained in anything remotely close to the EPA cycles.
I don't agree with your contention (or Frank's) that the industry routinely dramatically exaggerated fuel mileage claims in 1982. There were many sources for fuel economy ratings (Road and Track, Car and Driver, Consumer Reports, Motor Trend, etc.) and not one of those reported fuel efficiency at a 35 mph cruise. I have followed this stuff quite closely for the last 5 decades, and can not remember any manufacturer advertising as a headline, a mileage figure produced at 35 mpg. The CAFE law had come out in 1978, and manufacturers were not getting away with dramatically overstating fuel efficiency. I've owned perhaps 30 cars in the last 45 years, and I don't recall any in which the mileage was dramatically overstated by the manufacturer.
It was not my intention to hijack the thread, incidentally. I used the case of a hybrid only to illustrate the effect of optimising: by picking components that are more or less OK, the cumulative effect produces rotten efficiency, By picking stuff that is excellent, the overall efficiency ends up fairly good. I was not intending the illustration to apply directly to the Zing: I don't have 95% efficient motors, for example, although they are available.
Then someone brought up the Volt, and had a misconception about it. So I responded to him, etc. If this site has an Off topic button, I would have clicked on it to minimize such posts. It seems rude to simply fail to respond. And it seems like a time waster to start a thread about random issues in plug-in hybrids, etc. -- there must be tons of that stuff here.
But I agree that the thread seems to have drifted away from the Centurion. I'll answer the other questions, from other posters (that seem to related to the Zing or Volt, in the Zing thread.)
The "awful" aerodynamics comment is the same one I would apply to the 1960's Jag XKE. I love the XKE's but their streamlining was all show no go. "Modern aero is not inherently better than old aero. The 1940's era MG streamliner had a Cd of what? .16 My point was just that The Riley is not stunningly efficient by virtue of aero. 65 mph on 17 hp is not impressive.
Regards,
Ken
|