2004 Audi A4 1.8T CABRIO

[TWFAUST at aol.com]

First, as I mentioned in a prior post, 20 some odd years ago I had an '87  
Lincoln Continental 5.0 liter, 3500 lb +/-) that would deliver 24 mpg   
highway driving. I would like to think modern technology (6 speed auto?) would  
drive that higher. That is only 20% less than the 30 mpg mentioned below.
 
Maybe it is where I drive, only about 25% is "highway". So, I am more  
interested in passing at 35-40 mph on a two lane road.
 
Tom Faust

I  never understand the argument, myself.  If you want to go fast you're  
going to rev high.  My car is very fast past 3krpm.  If you want to  go slow 
and get good mileage,  you keep revs low.  At 2krpm  cruising, I get 30mpg 
hwy at 70mph. 
It is really a great setup imo,  just more involved to drive.   You can't 
be a terrible driver and make the car go fast.  A vette will  roast the tires 
from idle, this car won't. If that's important to you,   go with a V8.   If 
you like being able to reach things and work on  your car,  a turbo miata 
is way more mechanic friendly. 
Just my two cents.  And I actually drive one formerly on a daily  basis.  
More than 250hp which must be a flywheel claim since its just not  possible 
with a stock turbo msm.   
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Danton J.A. Cardoso  
> <_djacardoso at gmail.com_ (mailto:djacardoso at gmail.com) >wrote:
>  
>> Small block Ford V8?!?!?! How agricultural... why not a  turbocharged 
> stock
>> engine?
>>
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> While "turbo lag" and "spool up" time have  been reduced, there still 
isn't 
> a lot of power "down low". By some  increment, every additional system 
> (turbo, supercharger, power  steering) reduces reliability by increasing 
> complexity. But, the  simple fact is "Americans drive torque, not 
horsepower".
> 
> Tom  Faust
>  _______________________________________________