Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
CR testers are among the strongest of arguments for the link between humans and apes. They consistently get well below EPA figures in their "economy tests", which no doubt consists of mashing the skinny and fat pedals in an alternating fashion until they arrive at their destination. I could not get the horrible economy figures they come up with if I tried.
While I appreciate much of the info CR provides, fuel economy is one that I completely dismiss.
Here is the Cruze figures from "Drivers Like You" on fueleconomy.gov A completely different conclusion can be drawn from this data, and suggests that CR drivers are troglodytes. |
I'm sure you're perfectly capable of beating the CR economy numbers, thats not the point of the test. The point is to replicate real world driving by the average driver who isn't constantly thinking about efficiency. If you're keeping track thats 99% of the people on the road and precisely 0% of people on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryland
How many of those with turbos are also a bump up in trim level, often leading to the entire vehicle being heavier with wider tires, the 0-60 times of the turbo models also tend to be faster, so as I understand it, it's still possible to get better mileage with a smaller turbo engine, but the rest of the car has to be designed to work with it.
|
The acceleration numbers they give at the bottom of the article say otherwise. They did make a point that the new Altima is substantially lighter than all of its competitors. I'll take lightness and simplicity over forced induction.
The new small displacement turbo engines are designed to improve the manufacturer's CAFE numbers, not real world fuel economy.