|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
15-09-2016, 08:16 PM | #1 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 131
|
I find it odd how fuel economy is measured differently in each car and then compared against each other.
I think reasonable pace needs to be factored in. For instance they should measure according to an acceleration standard as many people would drive the car in day to day conditions. Why not measure 0-100km/h runs at 10 seconds which is moderate pace. In this scenario, a xr6t would be going at half throttle easy, whereas a Mitsubishi micra would be going at full throttle. There is no point calling out a car as 6l/100km if you need to accelerate at 0-100 in 25 seconds pace. Barely keeping with traffic. I once many years ago drove a Holden Barina to QLD from Canberra. It was revving at 4000rpm most of the way and cost a fair bit, probably double what we thought. A falcon would have been cruising at 1700rpm at the same pace and probably just as fuel efficient (and way more comfortable) So I think that there should be a relative pace or rate of acceleration to be factored when measuring fuel economy standards. Not driven at ridiculous ways to just get the best number. |
||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|