Quote:
Originally Posted by White Shadow
I don't get it, I really don't. These are lightweight cars. They aren't all that powerful or fast. They don't make a lot of power or torque. Yet the fuel economy ratings are lower than some other cars that are 1000 lbs heavier and more powerful & faster.
Am I alone in thinking that these cars should be rated at least 25 city and 35 highway, at the absolute minimum? I mean, a freaking BMW 328i is a boat compared to the FT86, yet it has the same city fuel economy rating and gets 4 more mpg on the highway.
Maybe I'm being too critical, but I honestly thought that such a small and lightweight car would be more fuel efficient, especially with a 2.0 engine that makes modest power.
|
heres a great example
in my auto frs its rated at 34 highway, i can easily get 46 mpgs at 60-65 mph cruise controlled
in an auto v6 mustang 2013
says 31 mpgs
I have 3 friends with 3.7L mustangs and none of them ore anyone on the mustang forums ever got that number unless they changed the gearing in the back end to a ridiculously large final drive ratio, most of them get 24-25 on the highway at 65 mph...
Its not what the car is rated but what it actually gets... i mess around a lot drifting and i still get 30 mpg average...