Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison
6844 messages, Last post on Mar 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: snaglepus (Jun 03, 2008 12:38 pm) average miles-per-gallon figures stated at those speeds. And I will obviously never convince you. If you could tolerate the car long enough, you could rent one and test it yourself. Many magazines publish FE tests but usually show overall results rather than steady-speed results in ideal conditions like we are talking about. For what its worth, I obtained the speed per 1000 RPM that I quoted earlier from a shop manual. Checking a few auto magazines who publish such information, I found some variance in the published numbers. The axle ratio and OD ratio are accurate although rounded a tad but I have no quarrel with your math. The only variable I can think of would be tire pressure that could ever so slightly impact overall diameter and revs per mile. In any case, I think we agree that the Taurus gearing in top gear is higher than most and that helps steady cruise FE. Where it becomes a detriment, IMO, is in heavier AWD vehicles like the Ford Edge which is 600 Lbs heavier than a FWD Taurus. They have way too much of a tendency to downshift on slight hills or even going into a headwind. I have heard reports that the AWD Taurus even has some trouble maintaining that high top gear in hilly situations. The old Ford 500 with the 3.0 certainly did. I am only guessing now but that may be part of the reason the AWD Taurus has a 24 MPG highway rating while the FWD model is 28.
|
|
|
Replying to: batista (Jun 03, 2008 4:48 pm) true enough, turbocharging especially in the dual stage manner BMW implements it will produce lots of torque available at lower rpms. And yes Bavarian horses have histroically been a larger than Japanese or American ones, but perhaps you are missing the point - given that the BMW straight sixes have always industry leaders, the comment was only that they 'resorted' to turbocharging to get that same sort of power you already have in that naturally aspirated Toyota V6. Nissan also 'resorted' to turbocharging in the V6 powered GTR and managed close to 500hp! Given that Nissan is doing that with a VQ variant V6, guess that would mean that a turbochraged 2GR might be worth what - 600 hp and 500 lb. ft.? The comment obviously not meant to diss BMW's wonderful engines at all- only to point out what an accomplishment that particular Japanese engine is.
|
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Jun 04, 2008 5:39 am) |
|
|
Replying to: brucelinc (Jun 04, 2008 5:39 am) That's true to be sure. Why would I want to go out and waste money renting any Taurus when I already have a better beautiful Azera in my garage? Steady speed results you say? Yet you admit making a long interstate trip cross -country. Must be hard to keep your car at steady state speeds? Never stopping all that way for gas or to eat or rest stops? Your mileage figures could not have been at steady state speeds either but "overall results." I say that such high figures are perhaps possible at a lower steady speeds of 65 mph or less, but not going cross country at such high speeds with occasional stops along the way. When any vehicle is pulling such tall gearing, going over a certain speed will decrease your mileage as you go faster. You do not get higher mileage at faster speeds, but less mileage. As far as tire diameter, etc. I got my figures from the tire manufactures charts. Any differences because of tire pressure would be difficult to measure and impossible to measure when figuring fuel economy. Must be some shop manual that gives speed per 1000 rpm. I have never seen such figures in any shop manual that I have had in the last 60 years!
|
|
|
Replying to: snaglepus (Jun 04, 2008 7:04 am) I did not quote MPG for a cross country trip or overall results for a weekend trip! Minneapolis to Des Moines is a 4 hour jaunt. No, I don't need to stop on a short trip like that and I certainly did not need gas or food. Pulling on the Interstate in Minneapolis, setting the cruise at 77 MPH, pressing the MPG reset button, and driving to the Des Moines area is my idea of steady speed cruising. Did I ever have to touch the brake to slow down or step on the accelerator to speed up? Yes, a few times of course! Would the mileage have been lower if I included the mileage while driving around Des Moines and other little towns visiting relatives? Of course it would have been lower! Had I set the cruise at 60 instead of 77, would the mileage have been better? No doubt about it! 90 instead of 77, would it have been worse? No question about that, either! That is all the information that I have for you. Thanks for your interest in the Taurus.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: popsavalon (Jun 03, 2008 11:30 am) BTW, I had a Camry that had instant MPG read out. Found it basically useless and also very distracting, as in dangerous. |
|
|
Okay, let's everyone step back and take a few breaths here. We can have differences of opinions and viewpoints without making it personal. Several personally directed posts have been removed. Let's move on, please. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Buick Lucerne
2010 Chevrolet Impala
2011 Dodge Charger
2010 Ford Taurus
2010 Hyundai Azera
2010 Toyota Avalon
2010 Nissan Maxima
2009 Pontiac G8
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
