Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site petsd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!mikec
From: mikec@petsd.UUCP (Mike Condict)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: 70 mph fuel economy
Message-ID: <643@petsd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 18:59:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: petsd.643
Posted: Thu Sep  5 18:59:19 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 04:00:43 EDT
References: <1081@homxa.UUCP> <4891@allegra.UUCP> <155@iitcs.UUCP> <553@unisoft.UUCP> <492@lasspvax.UUCP>, <188@Re: 70 mph fuel economy
Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, N.J.
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.auto:8044 net.legal:2276

Just two minor points to add to Jan's:

(1) If a car's gear ratios are badly chosen, its speed for best gasoline
    economy might be almost arbitratily low.  It doesn't matter that the
    car could theoretically do better with a higher top gear -- it has what
    it has, and theory doesn't save you money at the gas pump.  A prime
    example is the VW rabbit with 3-speed automatic transmission.  It
    practically red-lines at 75 mph and it cannot thus achieve its theoretical
    best fuel economy at that speed.  This is why 5th gears have become almost
    standard in newer cars.

(2) I had a 6-cylinder 1977 Plymouth Volare (acceleration 0-60mph: 17 secs)
    that got 14 mpg over-all economy when driven gingerly.   Now I have a
    Porsche 944 (acceleration 0-60mph: 8.3 secs) that gets 20 mpg at 100 mph
    and 22 mpg over-all. (It has an mpg gauge!)  Which is more environmentally
    sound?

Michael C.   ...!vax135!petsd!mikec