Quote:
Originally Posted by CargoBoatTails
FX35 and G35, same engine and platform, no brainer. The clock rules all the variables, just watch any racing.
|
You've already done the apple-to-apple comparison, why persist in bringing up apples to watermelons?
http://forums.nicoclub.com/g35-speci...ns-t83021.html
2011 Infiniti FX35 AWD specifications, information, data, photos 268961
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....n=sbs&id=19063
2003 G35 Sedan - RWD, 5AT
0.29 cd
3,369 lbs
18/26 mpg EPA
2003 FX35 - RWD, 5AT
0.35 cd
- 20.7% more drag (and if you count frontal area, it gets worse)
4,045 lbs
- 20.1% more weight
15/22 mpg EPA
- 20% worse city economy / 18.2% worse highway economy
Any guesses as to why the FX35 uses more gas...?
It's certainly not the longer final drive ratio...
...that longer final drive and taller tires help it not suffer as much penalty on the highway as in the city.
No one here is denying a
heavier wheel package is worse for economy. But a
shorter wheel is worse for economy,
all other factors being relatively
constant. Want an example, look at other examples like the Fiesta SFE... same car, same engine and transmission, different wheels.
You want them tall and light. There's obviously always going to be wheels that are too tall, but in general, this is true.
EDIT:
As so:
http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chev...=1407377391977
Quote:
2012 CHEVROLET CRUZE SPECIFICATIONS
Tires:
16-inch: 215/60R16 ALS (26.2" tall)
17-inch: 215/55R17 ALS (Eco) (26.3" tall - tallest)
17-inch: 225/50R17 ALS (25.9" tall)
18-inch: 225/45R18 ALS (26" tall)
|