Jeff turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "George Orwell" <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:a95d3f365514243cde33bb5c4336a1f9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Horsepower requirements should be sufficient for safety.
>>>
>>> A rational answer to the question of what is sufficient is:
>>>
>>> 75 mph on steepest allowable superhighway grade at 7500 foot above sea
>>> level elevation at "standard temperature and pressure" with the
vehicle
>>> loaded to maximum gross weight.
>>>
>>> No more and no less horsepower is indicated for perfectly adequate
>>> performance. More is wasteful, less is unsafe.
>>>
>>
>> Having more power available is never wasted. The cost of manufacturing
>> an
>> engine capable of 200 or 250 hp is very much the same. A cam is a cam
no
>> matter where you place the lobes. The fuel consumption on today's cars
>> at highway cruising speed is even pretty close on engines of that HP
>> range.
>
> In almost every case, similar cars with bigger engines use more fuel.
>
>> I don't want "adequate", I want fast when I want fast.
>
> Key word: "want."
You know, I can't count how many times I've been driving up US 395 in
the '80s and early '90s in some POS low horsepower car/truck and "wanted"
to pass some ****wit driving 45, but wasn't able to because I couldn't
safely summons up the needed horsepower to pull out and overtake said
****wit.
I recently drove up in my midsize Avalanche (305HP V8, getting the same or
better mileage than under-powered cars and trucks of the '80s) and
"wanted"
to pass three times. I did so with no reservations..
>
> If you want to use the word "need" in a sentence, one is "We need to
> conserve fuel to decrease our output of CO2 and to preserve fuel, which
> is a limited resource."
Oh, that's right. We're gonna run out of oil by 1998 or 2000 at the
latest,
based on projections from the mid 1970's.
>
>> My 234 hp car out
>> performs my former 185 hp car and gets better mileage. I have not,
>> however, had the op****tunity to see if the rated top speed of 137 is
>> attainable easily. I've not been past 110 yet.
>
> And if the new car had an option for a similar engine as your 234 HP
> engine using similar technology and only got 185 HP, you would also use
> less fuel.
Not necessarily.
Keep in mind, my 1987 Nissan hardbody had a 2.5L I4 engine with around 120
HP and got 16-20 MPG.
My 1995 GMC Jimmy 4x4 had a 4.3L V6 engine with around 190 HP and got
18-22
MPG.
My 2002 Kia Sedona Minivan had a 3.5L V6 with around 195 HP and got 16-22
MPG.
My 2006 Chevy Avalanche has a 5.3L V8 with around 305 HP and gets 18-22
MPG.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org
|
