If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Renting 300C, Magnum or Charger
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:35:20 -0600, Steve wrote:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote: > >> Of course it "gulped gas". What do you expect from a 3.5-litre engine? > > > Engine displacement doesn't correlate to fuel efficiency very strongly > with modern combustion chamber design and engine control systems. All > external things being equal (including driving style) a 2-liter and a > 3.5 liter would get within a few percent of each other installed in the > same vehicle. Case in point, the Magnum with a 2.7 gets barely any > better milage than a 3.5, and in the real world may get worse mileage > than a 3.5 because the 2.7 has to be flogged continually. If the Magnum > has a gas mileage problem, its got more to do with weight and frontal > area than with engine size. Personally, the gas mileage numbers I'm > hearing (23-25 highway with the 5.7 Hemi) are great for a car of that size. 23 is the absolute best that I've been able to get with my AWD 300C and that only happens on very long drives (hundreds of miles of pure highway driving). Generally I'm getting 16-17 in everyday driving and highway trips usually peak at 21. My old Concorde got 22 in everyday driving and 29 on the highway. I agree it's probably not the engine, it's the weight. The 300C is a two ton car with a square nose that can't possible have decent aerodynamics. The Concorde was lighter and much more streamlined. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Renting 300C, Magnum or Charger
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Dori A Schmetterling wrote: > I meant postmen & women... :-) > > (Previous post had alluded to them.) > > Yes, we also have the LLB equivalents. Of course. People who don't go back > into the left lane when not overtaking and blocking other overtakers are > known as roadhogs. Not so serious when we have three lanes each way. > > And we DON'T allow (legally, anyway) overtaking on either side. Not strictly true: it is legal to overtake on the left hand side on a one-way road. I was told by a UK policeman some years back, during a lecture on road safety, that there is not an explicit ban on overtaking on the left on a motorway. He then pointed out that a motorway is really 2 one-way roads side by side. I think if you were to be charged for overtaking on the left, it would be for some vague offense such as "dangerous driving", "driving without due care and attention", etc.. I think it is explicitly legal to overtake on the left if there are 2 or more streams of traffic and the left hand stream is moving faster than the right-hand stream. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Renting 300C, Magnum or Charger
Yes, in heavy traffic. And at low speed only, IIRC. (Don't ask me what
mph, I think it is a matter of disgression.) Mind you, I'd hate to change lanes when a full motorway-load is moving at c. 90 mph (which I have experienced more than once). DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Whoever" > wrote in message caldomain... [...] > I think it is explicitly legal to overtake on the left if there are 2 or > more streams of traffic and the left hand stream is moving faster than the > right-hand stream. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Renting 300C, Magnum or Charger
Things HAVE improved and I have seen cases where, say, a 2.0 l engine
consumes as much as or slightly more than a 2.3. However, I don't think a 3.5 will use as little as a 2-litre in a similar car. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "General Schvantzkoph" > wrote in message news > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:35:20 -0600, Steve wrote: > >> Dori A Schmetterling wrote: >> >>> Of course it "gulped gas". What do you expect from a 3.5-litre engine? >> >> >> Engine displacement doesn't correlate to fuel efficiency very strongly >> with modern combustion chamber design and engine control systems. All >> external things being equal (including driving style) a 2-liter and a >> 3.5 liter would get within a few percent of each other installed in the >> same vehicle. Case in point, the Magnum with a 2.7 gets barely any >> better milage than a 3.5, and in the real world may get worse mileage >> than a 3.5 because the 2.7 has to be flogged continually. If the Magnum >> has a gas mileage problem, its got more to do with weight and frontal >> area than with engine size. Personally, the gas mileage numbers I'm >> hearing (23-25 highway with the 5.7 Hemi) are great for a car of that >> size. > > 23 is the absolute best that I've been able to get with my AWD 300C and > that only happens on very long drives (hundreds of miles of pure highway > driving). Generally I'm getting 16-17 in everyday driving and highway > trips usually peak at 21. My old Concorde got 22 in everyday driving and > 29 on the highway. I agree it's probably not the engine, it's the weight. > The 300C is a two ton car with a square nose that can't possible have > decent aerodynamics. The Concorde was lighter and much more streamlined. > > |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Renting 300C, Magnum or Charger
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Dori A Schmetterling wrote: > Things HAVE improved and I have seen cases where, say, a 2.0 l engine > consumes as much as or slightly more than a 2.3. > > However, I don't think a 3.5 will use as little as a 2-litre in a similar > car. I think the problem is that at anything less than wide open throttle, there are pumping losses that are inherent in normal gasoline engine design. The only way to counter this is to reduce the effective cylinder volume (eg. Atkinson cycle or Miller cycle) or remove the throttle (eg. diesel engine). |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Renting 300C, Magnum or Charger
Found the 2.7L Magnum strippie & rented it from Enterprise here in
Portland. 23.4mpg at avg 80MPH up and down the I-5 mountain passes for Thanksgiving. Found acceleration better tham my 3.0L 1995 4Runner. Like it. Enterprise will sell some of their soon, and I just may get one, if the other rides on my "A" list don't measure up. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Renting 300C, Magnum or Charger
Oddly enough, got 23.1mpg, on the same run, in a 2006 PT Cruiser
Touring (slushbox, normally-aspirated), same trip down & up I-5 last weekend. The Magnum was more nimble and accelerated much better. Go figure. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | July 10th 05 05:24 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | June 8th 05 05:28 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | May 8th 05 05:29 AM |
2006 Dodge Charger - it looks better than the 300C | Hmmm... | Chrysler | 13 | January 13th 05 06:32 PM |