Quote:
Originally Posted by lotsofmagnets
i don´t understand people patting themselves on the back when they talk about fuel efficiency of 25mpg. my golf was getting 40mpg (6 l/100km) on the freeway and 30mpg (8 l/100km) in city running. the worst car i´ve ever owned in terms of fuel efficiency was a ´74 volvo 164TE which has a 3l straight six and manual overdrive box and the worst i´d get from that car was 21 mpg (11 l/100km) and on the freeway it would get 26mpg (9 l/100km) and this was from an 18 year old driver (1st car i drove with my license) who obviously wasn´t driving for efficiency.
|
I think this was directed at me.
I'm NOT going to enter a game of interstate pinball with a grip of SUVs in a Golf. Safety features are nice but you can't countermand the laws of physics. A golf wouldn't hold everything we need to hold on occasion (the 100% of requirements rule). Compact cars are not as appointed as we would like.
Your old Golf will not get 40mpg climbing Lookout Mountain, Floyd Hill and the Central City Parkway. I think most compact car owners realize 30mpg or so. Mini Coopers making the same commute are managing almost 40mpg. When you commute in the mountains you basically are getting city mpg. To me, there is very little difference between 30mpg and 22.5mpg. Certainly not enough of a difference to justify driving a small, uncomfortable car.
I mean, we're getting the same kind of mileage that a Subaru Outback gets in the real world under our conditions. Excuse me if I pat myself on the back for doing research and coming up with a nice, big, all wheel drive car that will get my wife safely to and from work in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains while consuming half the fuel of the typical modern SUV.