THE MANDATE IS CONSTITUTIONAL

[JohnR! 5,495]

  On 7/2/2012 at 3:33 PM, Ashud Cocoa said:

Are you suggesting that

a V8 6.5 liter pickup is more economical that a 1 liter ford KA ?

Actually you are the one making that suggestion, not , although it is obvious that there are instances in which a big block V8 proves to be more economical than a small I-4 engine.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Gegel

[Captain Oates 911]

  On 7/2/2012 at 3:35 PM, Gegel said:

Actually you are the one making that suggestion, not , although it is obvious that there are instances in which a big block V8 proves to be more economical than a small I-4 engine.

Only time that would happen is if Chris Christie was in the back seat of the 1 liter and that's not going to happen due to volumetric considerations (just cant pack the porker in there man)

A typical V8 stationary at tickover uses more gasoline than a light 1 liter car at 30mph

In addition to engine capacity it's mostly about weight you see

My 3.5 liter camry is 350 lbs heavier than my wife's 2.4 camry so the physics dictate it will use more fuel - I hasten to add 'typically' as pedantic people can always find an outlandish niche scenario to try and disprove any statement

[JohnR! 5,495]

  On 7/2/2012 at 3:54 PM, Ashud Cocoa said:

My 3.5 liter camry is 350 lbs heavier than my wife's 2.4 camry so the physics dictate it will use more fuel

Only if one flunked in physics...

[Captain Oates 911]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:00 PM, Gegel said:

Only if one flunked in physics...

I am no rocket scientist but I know it takes more rocket to get 100 lbs into space than it does to launch 10 lbs

So far the Americans have not used redneck V8 pickup trucks to launch satellites - but I wish they would use all of them chained together to launch chris christie towards Mercury, where he can start fracking for liquid super metals to be used in making space age belt buckles to hold his pants up

I also hope the savings from obamacare (clawing back to topic) will be used for education of all kinds

Edited July 2, 2012 by Ashud Cocoa

[rocks 494]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:00 PM, Gegel said:

Only if one flunked in physics...

Are you saying a 3.5 liter uses the same amount of gas as a 2.4?

I'm really quite lost.

[Karee 4,191]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:08 PM, rocks said:

Are you saying a 3.5 liter uses the same amount of gas as a 2.4?

I'm really quite lost.

Don't waste your time.

[Captain Oates 911]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:08 PM, rocks said:

Are you saying a 3.5 liter uses the same amount of gas as a 2.4?

I'm really quite lost.

a Quick recap - a 3.5 liter engine is 350 lbs heavier than a 2.4 liter engine

Economy is the result of many variables such as air resistance and engine design, but the most important of all variables is weight - and therefore a car which 350 lbs heavier will always be at a disadvantage - all other conditions being equal

My wife's 2.4 does 35mpg - and my V6 3.5 does 30mpg at the same speed and with the same body shape - and neither of them having Chris Christie in the back seat

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:11 PM, Karee said:

Don't waste your time.

We don't need no education

[JohnR! 5,495]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:08 PM, rocks said:

Are you saying a 3.5 liter uses the same amount of gas as a 2.4?

I'm really quite lost.

I am stating that there are instances in which a 2.4l engine will be far less economical than a 3.5l.

It all depends on the amount of work performed.

Work = Force times Distance

[JohnR! 5,495]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:14 PM, Ashud Cocoa said:

Economy is the result of many variables such as air resistance and engine design, but the most important of all variables is weight - and therefore a car which 350 lbs heavier will always be at a disadvantage - all other conditions being equal

My wife's 2.4 does 35mpg - and my V6 3.5 does 30mpg at the same speed and with the same body shape - and neither of them having Chris Christie in the back seat

The only statement one can make is that a car which is 350lbs heavier is heavier. That your two cars show some relationship between weight and consumption does not constitute a universal rule. It is a particular case in which the suggestion of lighter = better gas mileage works.

[rocks 494]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:14 PM, Ashud Cocoa said:

a Quick recap - a 3.5 liter engine is 350 lbs heavier than a 2.4 liter engine

Economy is the result of many variables such as air resistance and engine design, but the most important of all variables is weight - and therefore a car which 350 lbs heavier will always be at a disadvantage - all other conditions being equal

My wife's 2.4 does 35mpg - and my V6 3.5 does 30mpg at the same speed and with the same body shape - and neither of them having Chris Christie in the back seat

We don't need no education

Exactly. My 2.5 uses more gas than my husband's 1.8, be it town driving or on the interstate. They are the exact same car apart from mine has a bigger engine. Mine gets 27mpg, his gets 31mpg...

[Captain Oates 911]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:18 PM, Gegel said:

I am stating that there are instances in which a 2.4l engine will be far less economical than a 3.5l.

It all depends on the amount of work performed.

Work = Force times Distance

The most important constituent of FORCE REQUIRED is Weight

Around town a larger engined car can be more economical as the larger engine would be revving more slowly during acceleration (overcoming inertia). I discovered that in 1972 using the two models of the Morris Marina (wife and two kids in the back at that time). The 1.3 and the 1.8 (same engine as the MGB sports car)

However, that is a special circumstance and the weight factor will always take precedence overall - ask anyone who pulls a trailer where consumption can be almost doubled

...and that is why health care is so important (yippee arrived back)

fat people work their hearts harder and health care can educate them away from cream bun cramming

The federal porker police will examine forums such as this, and anyone constantly referring to cream buns and ice cream and chocolate cake has obviously got a problem and will get a visit before they start costing their fellow citizens

Edited July 2, 2012 by Ashud Cocoa

[JohnR! 5,495]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:29 PM, rocks said:

Exactly. My 2.5 uses more gas than my husband's 1.8, be it town driving or on the interstate. They are the exact same car apart from mine has a bigger engine. Mine gets 27mpg, his gets 31mpg...

I get almost 26mpg on a 302cid engine on the highway and about 17 in the city, except when driving in San Francisco for obvious reasons... It has to do with the relationship between engine size, horse power, torque and other factors. That is why engine size alone does not tell you much.

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:30 PM, Ashud Cocoa said:

The most important constituent of FORCE REQUIRED is Weight

Around town a larger engined car can be more economical as the larger engine would be revving more slowly during acceleration (overcoming inertia). I discovered that in 1972 using the two models of the Morris Marina (wife and two kids in the back at that time). The 1.3 and the 1.8 (same engine as the MGB sports car)

However, that is a special circumstance and the weight factor will always take precedence overall - ask anyone who pulls a trailer where consumption can be almost doubled

There is nothing special about those circumstances. It just provides evidence to the fact that a bigger engine is not necessarily less economical than a smaller one.

Fuel efficiency is relative.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Gegel

[Teddy B 17,252]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:30 PM, Ashud Cocoa said:

The most important constituent of FORCE REQUIRED is Weight

Around town a larger engined car can be more economical as the larger engine would be revving more slowly during acceleration (overcoming inertia).

If the most important constituent of force required is weight, then it stands to reason that a "larger engineered" vehicle will never be more economical at lower speeds because it's heavier and takes more energy to get it moving. It is proven that larger vehicles, or all vehicles for that matter, become more economical at higher speeds, not in stop and go traffic around town.

[Captain Oates 911]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:34 PM, Gegel said:

I get almost 26mpg on a 302cid engine on the highway and about 17 in the city, except when driving in San Francisco for obvious reasons...

There is nothing special about those circumstances. It just provides evidence to the fact that a bigger engine is not necessarily less economical than a smaller one.

Fuel efficiency is relative.

I just drove from Seattle to Milwaukee in my 3.5 and it was ok - but a 2.4 (same body) would have been much more economical on that run

However, she didn't want her car chipped and shot at by rednecks - so we used my car and shipped hers

I used to have two of these - it had a girder steel separate chassis with built in jacks and a 1200 engine and slurped gasoline on my trip to Cornwall

I hasten to add it was an old car when I bought it

Edited July 2, 2012 by Ashud Cocoa

[JohnR! 5,495]

  On 7/2/2012 at 4:42 PM, Teddy B said:

If the most important constituent of force required is weight, then it stands to reason that a "larger engineered" vehicle will never be more economical at lower speeds because it's heavier and takes more energy to get it moving. It is proven that larger vehicles, or all vehicles for that matter, become more economical at higher speeds, not in stop and go traffic around town.

:thumbs: