I agree that "the amount of energy needed to accelerate a car is in direct relationtial to its weight," but how does that lead to "As a result they will burn more GAS for each LBS of their weight under acceleration then a lighter car"? First you established linear relationship, then attempted to negate the linear relationship.

I'm beginning to see the reason why you kept harping that X5 4.6is burns 2x fuel as Aero "by definition." Are you thinking that 4.6 liter is twice as much displacement as 2.3 liter? Fuel consumption per engine cycle is related to the amount of air intake, not engine displacement per se. With turbo, significantly more air is pushed into the cylinders therefore significantly more fuel is burned than a NA engine of the same displacement in order to maintain the roughly 14:1 air:fuel mix. In fact, in order to prevent detonation, turbo engines tend to err on the side of rich mix when operating under heavy duty cycle; that is especially the case with after-market modifications because the tuners typically do not include lowering of engine stroke compression ratio to accommodate the increased boost.

If you are actually getting 34mpg on average on highways with your aero, twice the highway rating for X5 4.6is, you are even more of a loafer than those EPA testers that you denigerate so often.



posted by 141.157.162...

• A few interesting facts about SUVs, Caspar, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:18:27
  • CIDs are back like in 1967..., Coolknight, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:55:40
    • More CIDs = less fuel efficient... by design., Coolknight, Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:59:10
    • Canada to classify SUVs as cars in 2004, John A., Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:17:37
    • Re: CIDs are back like in 1967..., stevec, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:20:31
    • Even VW is jumping on the bandwagon, KL, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:58:08
    • If not for the automobile lobbyists...., REM in Seattle, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:51:57
    • BTW, 745i mpg rating is similar to '01 9-5sw 2.3tA n/m, Jim, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:35:57
      • Which is nonsense... a 745 burns around 50% more GAS., Coolknight, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:29:07
        • Nonsense . . . right back at you, Jim, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:46:58
          • EPA tests are meaningless waste of time..., Coolknight, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:32:46
            • Re: EPA tests is very important, because, Jim, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:05:09
            • "real world" numbers, MJM , Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:10:52
          • missing the point, Camm , Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:38:08
            • I agree, Jim, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:51:38
    • Re: CIDs are back like in 1967..., Jim, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:31:42
      • In relation to weight..., Coolknight, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:33:58
        • MPG figures are useless... they show nothing. e=m.v2, Coolknight, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:00:15
          • Re: not exactly making sense, Jim, Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:53:36 <-- Viewing This Message
          • Re: MPG figures are useless... they show nothing. e=m.v2, MJM , Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:20:54
        • Re: In relation to weight..., Jim, Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:02:01
          • Re: In relation to weight..., MJM , Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:18:55

No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.

• Prev by Date: It's so easy to mistake the copy as the >, StanleyB, Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:10:55
• Next by Date: Re: Children, Caspar, Fri, 5 Apr 2002 03:31:12
• Main General Bulletin Board

StateOfNine.com

SaabClub.com

Jak Stoll Performance

M Car Covers

Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]

Random Saabnet.com Member Gallery Photos (Click Image)