Thread: SUV Land
View Single Post
Old 11-24-2016, 07:06 PM   #10 (permalink)
oldtamiyaphile
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,510

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 30.12 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)

Sx4 - '07 Suzuki Sx4
90 day: 32.21 mpg (US)

F-117 (2) - '03 Citroen Xsara VTS
90 day: 30.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 325
Thanked 452 Times in 319 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
The problem is not just the size it is the power they put into cars and SUVs. If the power is there both the EPA test and the general consumer uses it. That's why they should allow epa testing with an "eco" mode active. Then makers could show how a detuned, short shifted, powerband helps MPG. Then the consumer would be more likely to activate it as well.
Eco modes do nothing of note. The EPA tested a BMW in 400 and 500hp modes and found no difference. I have two cars with Eco modes and all they do is force you to use more revs (you can't de-tune AND short shift). For average Joe they might help, but that's only as they reduce leadfootedness which isn't part of the EPA testing anyway.
__________________






  Reply With Quote