Quote:
Originally Posted by HypermilerAX
Thanks Piwoslaw for pointing out to my thread.
That's a very good figure, congrats. But only comparable things can be compared. Seeing the difference between the 95 mpg and your '90 day 62 mpg' makes me think that the conditions must have been very favorable. The question is : "how much would you have done with the AX in the same conditions ?".
|
I was being a bit tongue in check. The AX is no more a modern safety-minded car than the 1992 Geo Metro is. I was making the case that there are modern cars with much better safety and nice amenities that offer comparable fuel economy. The mpg quoted by the OP and Wikipedia was a publicity stunt. Such numbers have been achieved in the Prius, Passat TDi and other similar vehicles that conform to modern safety standards and weigh twice as much as the AX and have more space. I'm not downing the car so much as pointing out the obvious differences between historic fuel efficient cars and modern ones. One also has to remember that official ratings prior to 2008 are hard to compare to new EPA ratings. The Prius is rated for 72.4mpg (3.25 L/100km) in the UK right?
Besides, my 95mpg was U.S. gallons.
I got a 109+mpg pulse & glide trip but it was only 62miles. Both with no net elevation change.