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.

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.

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.

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.
>
>

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).

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.

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.