"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2bttj.126$kI4.4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The plural of anecdote is not data.
>
> We don't how he would have done if would have had even worse gas mileage
> if he replaced his V6 with a V6.
>
While your point is valid about anecdoti Jeff, it remains that efficiency
is
a function of load and capability. An engine with more torque is going to
work less under the same cir***stances than one with less.
I recently drove two identical model cars, but one was a 4 cylinder and
one
was a 6 cylinder. Real world mileage experiences of people who own the 4
cylinder versions are no better than those who own the 6's. I could
easily
see why when I had a chance to really compare performance. On a stretch
of
interstate the 4 cylinder had to rev about 500 RMP higher than the 6, to
go
at the same speed. That 4 was other wise quite impressive in terms of its
acceleration, etc. Geared differently to accommodate a poorer torque
curve
than the 6, and less horsepower, made it at the very best, no better than
the 6.
What people here have been saying is that there is real world experience
out
there on the street that defies the notion that all things being equal a 4
will always be more efficient than a 6. It's simply not true. There's
not
even reason to believe that it should be true.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
