Power Hungry Americans

[jzwahlen at cerrejon.com]

This is true:  Large displacement does not necesarily mean
low efficiency.  However, the larger the displacement the
more efficiency is needed to get the same MPG.  Also weigh
figures in as well.  Hauling around a fiberglass box is not
as demanding as hauling around a steel shell.

On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:53:37 -0700 
 "Darringer, Chris" <Chris.Darringer at schwab.com> wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of
> CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> > Don't get me wrong, I love powerful, fast cars.  I hope
> to
> > have an A6 4.2 or 2.7T someday.   Maybe even an S4.
> But
> > where the Audis shine is that they wring the power and
> > torque out of small displacement engines.  And then
> they
> > build strong but light bodies to further get better
> > performance for the same ounce of fuel.  Efficiency,
> that's
> > the real buzz we should be high on, not raw HP or the
> > greatest displacement.
> 
> According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/, "big
> displacement" engines with
> lots of HP are not necessarily inefficient.  A Camaro or
> Corvette (18 mpg
> city, 27 mpg highway) gets better fuel economy than an S4
> or even my 130hp
> '90 80q.  Even a Viper has roughly the same fuel economy
> as a '90 BMW 535i.
> Besides, I seem to remember that the Eurpoeans got a real
> kick out of the
> sound and performance of the Vipers and the Panoz cars at
> LeMans.  These
> large engines can be very effective AND efficient.
> 
> Chris 
> '90 80q