Don't believe Corvette owners lies about supposed fuel economy

Sal wrote:
> Don't believe the lies. The Audi R8 TDI has a road bending 738ft/lbs
> of torque and a 12 cylinder engine and yet gets fuel economy better
> than the C6 ZO6 on the highway, and far better in the city. It sound
> and looks a hell of a lot better than any redneck gm car any day of
> the week too. This is what a good looking car is supposed to look like
> not like a Corvette.
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Aaylp_9kJyo
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=13-DTwoh2RQ
>
>
>
Oh, comparing apples to grapefruits, are we?

Does the R8 TDI not even exist as a production vehicle yet?
And when it does go into production, will it not cost at least twice as
a much as any Vette?
Oh, and finally, is not the R8 TDI a *DIESEL* motor?

I'm not knocking the R8 TDI at all. That is one advanced piece of
motoring mayhem that I would just love to have in my driveway, diesel
and all.

But to compare a brand new concept using un-related technologies to an
existing Vette is not exactly a fair comparison. By far.

You sound like someone who would do anything, even twists facts around,
to win an argument.

I suppose you beleive Hillary when she was taking sniper fire in Bosnia,
too.

CD

On a 30 mile highway near my home, I indicated 36 MPG at 60 MPH, 6th gear,
with one passenger. At 70 it dropped to 33.

I think GM needs to look at power to weight ratios and gear ratios to get
some economy in the dogs they sell. A high overdrive in a 7-spd automatic
transmission would go a long way to cutting fuel expenses.

While I am on this rant, I drove my 2000 Ford Ranger (V6 Flex Fuel, FWD, 24
MPG highway) to Strasburg, PA for a conference. We have NO Ethanol E-85
stations in Northern Virginia. I found an E-85 station in Strasburg, filled
up on E-85 at $2.50 per gallon and got 23 MPG highway. Something is wrong
with the oil companies in Northern Virginia - wonder if they are keeping the
bio-fuel people out?

Bob
2000 C5

"Sal" > wrote in message
...
> They'll lie and tell people that Corvettes get 28 MPG, when the truth
> is that the C6 ZO6 gets 24 MPG, the C6 Auto Coupe gets 25 mpg, and the
> C6 Manual gets 26 MPG.
> It costs well over $5 just to drive 25 in gas alone on top of the wear
> and tear due to HORRIBLE GM reliability and expense of spare parts. On
> top of that you have to use premium gas in a Corvette. 26 MPG with
> premium gas is like 20 MPG with regular gas.
> Even GM's crappy 5,500 lbs Tahoe Hybrid costs $4 to drive $25 miles
> which is way better than the Corvette. Driving a Corvette is like
> throwing your money away at the OPEC Casino. I have more respect even
> for a Hybrid SUV owner than a Saudi Royal Family funding, Air
> Polluting Corvette Driver.
> If more people drove sensable cars instead of gas guzzlers then we
> wouldn't be in this war right now. Corvettes and SUVs cause wars.
> Instead of driving Corvettes and SUVs, people should drive Hybrids and
> station wagons and spend those trillions saved from no wars to educate
> children, house the homeless, feed the poor, etc.
>
>

Well what is the mileage you folks get around town. I do not need to do a
lot of freeway driving. Just stop and go up to about 45 mph.

Also bragging the the vette gets XX mpg seems like a 'so what'. Typical
vette owners would not really be concerned with mileage. Seems they are
going for the looks and performance.

Vito


"codifus" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 22, 12:52 am, Sarah Czepiel > wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Sal >
>> wrote:
>>
>> :>They'll lie and tell people that Corvettes get 28 MPG, when the truth
>> :>is that the C6 ZO6 gets 24 MPG, the C6 Auto Coupe gets 25 mpg, and the
>> :>C6 Manual gets 26 MPG.
>>
>> Husband and I averaged 29mpg last summer on a trip from Maryland to Rhode
>> Island.
>>
>> When the Corvette has so many other things to brag about, why would
>> anyone
>> lie about the gas mileage?
>>
>> --------
>>
>> On 21 Apr 2008 17:09:52 -0700, Jose Gaspar > in
>>
>> Message-ID: > wrote:
>>
>> :> you never got above an E-5... I did that in a little over one year in
>> the Army...
>
> Totally agree. I'm not a fan of most domestic cars, but the Corvette
> is definitely an exception. For a 500 hp, 7.0 liter vehicle to be able
> to get 24 to 29 MPG, that is impressive. That technology should be
> sprinkled throughout the product range. The new Malibu seems to be a a
> sign that (FINALLY!) GM is waking up and really thinking about the
> whole prodcut line, not just the king Corvette.
>
>
> CD
>

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:06:10 -0700, "Uncle_vito" >
wrote:

:>Well what is the mileage you folks get around town. I do not need to do a
:>lot of freeway driving. Just stop and go up to about 45 mph.

I get about 20-22 mpg.

:>Also bragging the the vette gets XX mpg seems like a 'so what'.

I wouldn't characterize it as " bragging" but more comparing the Corvette's
amazing mpg against other known factors. For instance our C6 gets the
best mileage of any vehicle in the family. I find that a pleasant
surprise.


:> Typical vette owners would not really be concerned with mileage. Seems they are
:>going for the looks and performance.
:>
:>Vito

Mileage is often discussed in the online Corvette fora. Guess you really
don't know much about Corvette owners at all.

Enjoy your Nissan.

:>"codifus" > wrote in message
...
:>> On Apr 22, 12:52 am, Sarah Czepiel > wrote:
:>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Sal >
:>>> wrote:
:>>>
:>>> :>They'll lie and tell people that Corvettes get 28 MPG, when the truth
:>>> :>is that the C6 ZO6 gets 24 MPG, the C6 Auto Coupe gets 25 mpg, and the
:>>> :>C6 Manual gets 26 MPG.
:>>>
:>>> Husband and I averaged 29mpg last summer on a trip from Maryland to Rhode
:>>> Island.
:>>>
:>>> When the Corvette has so many other things to brag about, why would
:>>> anyone
:>>> lie about the gas mileage?
:>>>
:>>> --------
:>>>
:>>> On 21 Apr 2008 17:09:52 -0700, Jose Gaspar > in
:>>>
:>>> Message-ID: > wrote:
:>>>
:>>> :> you never got above an E-5... I did that in a little over one year in
:>>> the Army...
:>>
:>> Totally agree. I'm not a fan of most domestic cars, but the Corvette
:>> is definitely an exception. For a 500 hp, 7.0 liter vehicle to be able
:>> to get 24 to 29 MPG, that is impressive. That technology should be
:>> sprinkled throughout the product range. The new Malibu seems to be a a
:>> sign that (FINALLY!) GM is waking up and really thinking about the
:>> whole prodcut line, not just the king Corvette.
:>>
:>>
:>> CD
:>>
:>
:>

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:08:15 -0400, "tww1491" > wrote:

:>
:>"Sarah Czepiel" > wrote in message
. ..
:>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Sal >
:>> wrote:
:>>
:>> :>They'll lie and tell people that Corvettes get 28 MPG, when the truth
:>> :>is that the C6 ZO6 gets 24 MPG, the C6 Auto Coupe gets 25 mpg, and the
:>> :>C6 Manual gets 26 MPG.
:>>
:>> Husband and I averaged 29mpg last summer on a trip from Maryland to Rhode
:>> Island.
:>
:>Surprising! Things must have changed since the day I owned Vettes. My 71
:>454 4 speed with a 3.08 rear could never get better than 16 running around
:>80. In town, it was near 10.

Ex husband had both a '69 Cougar [ essentially the Eliminator but without
the paint, spoiler, etc ] and a '69 Judge. If I remember correctly the
best either of those two could pump out was 14mpg and it was a rare
occurrence even at that.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:03:08 -0700 (PDT), codifus >
wrote:

:>On Apr 22, 12:52 am, Sarah Czepiel > wrote:
:>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Sal >
:>> wrote:
:>>
:>> :>They'll lie and tell people that Corvettes get 28 MPG, when the truth
:>> :>is that the C6 ZO6 gets 24 MPG, the C6 Auto Coupe gets 25 mpg, and the
:>> :>C6 Manual gets 26 MPG.
:>>
:>> Husband and I averaged 29mpg last summer on a trip from Maryland to Rhode
:>> Island.
:>>
:>> When the Corvette has so many other things to brag about, why would anyone
:>> lie about the gas mileage?
:>>
:>> --------
:>>
:>> On 21 Apr 2008 17:09:52 -0700, Jose Gaspar > in
:>>
:>> Message-ID: > wrote:
:>>
:>> :> you never got above an E-5... I did that in a little over one year in the Army...
:>
:>Totally agree. I'm not a fan of most domestic cars, but the Corvette
:>is definitely an exception. For a 500 hp, 7.0 liter vehicle to be able
:>to get 24 to 29 MPG, that is impressive.

You're talking ZO6 numbers here. The C6 has 405hp and has a 6.1L
displacement. But you're right, the 24-20 mpg is still impressive.

:>That technology should be sprinkled throughout the product range. The new Malibu
:>seems to be a a sign that (FINALLY!) GM is waking up and really thinking about the
:>whole prodcut line, not just the king Corvette.
:>
:>
:>CD

"Sal" > wrote in message
...
> Don't believe the lies. The Audi R8 TDI has a road bending 738ft/lbs
> of torque and a 12 cylinder engine and yet gets fuel economy better
> than the C6 ZO6 on the highway, and far better in the city. It sound
> and looks a hell of a lot better than any redneck gm car any day of
> the week too. This is what a good looking car is supposed to look
> like
> not like a Corvette.
>
> www.flickr.com/photos/iand/523472419/
> www.cars.justelite.net/.../278
>

BFD, you cross posting want-a-be.......

Sarah Czepiel wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:08:15 -0400, "tww1491" > wrote:
>
> :>
> :>"Sarah Czepiel" > wrote in message
> . ..
> :>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Sal >
> :>> wrote:
> :>>
> :>> :>They'll lie and tell people that Corvettes get 28 MPG, when the truth
> :>> :>is that the C6 ZO6 gets 24 MPG, the C6 Auto Coupe gets 25 mpg, and the
> :>> :>C6 Manual gets 26 MPG.
> :>>
> :>> Husband and I averaged 29mpg last summer on a trip from Maryland to Rhode
> :>> Island.
> :>
> :>Surprising! Things must have changed since the day I owned Vettes. My 71
> :>454 4 speed with a 3.08 rear could never get better than 16 running around
> :>80. In town, it was near 10.
>
> Ex husband had both a '69 Cougar [ essentially the Eliminator but without
> the paint, spoiler, etc ] and a '69 Judge. If I remember correctly the
> best either of those two could pump out was 14mpg and it was a rare
> occurrence even at that.
>

Ah Sarah, you have shoved me into the, 'can you
top this' thread.

My record was with a '57 Olds 88 with J-2 engine
option. Over 400 cubes (Dad might recall the
actual displacement of that block) with tandem
4bbl carbs and a chassis/frame that must have
been made from a blend of cast iron and depleted
Uranium. 14 mpg with a tail wind and 7-10
around town. Ate brake linings for dessert.
Nice gold paint job with lots of stainless-steel
trim. Smooth Hydramatic with a stall ratio that
made it quick off the line (no TCC in those days
except on Studebakers and Packards).

In retrospect, premium for that monster was
about 28 cents a gallon, roughly equal to $3.55
in today's dollars. (I was in the top 10% of
wage-earners then, with an $ 7K annual salary.)

Just filled the C5 this morning at $4.059/gal.
But, after I run all the numbers, the adjusted
cost (2008 dollars) of fuel/mile for the C5 is
about 1/2 of what it cost to run a "muscle car"
of yesteryear.

Even my old C4 produces 24mpg highway and over
21 in mixed freeway/city commuting.
(Interesting thing with the C4 is that it gets
better gas mileage at 75 than it does at 65).
(probably a poor match of that ancient ECM to
the 'performance' axle ratio @ 65mph)

In contrast, the leased FX35 that I dumped
*required* premium, got 22 highway and just
under 20 when commuting. One of that car's
difficulties was a crappy choice of final drive
ratio. It would turn close to 3000 rpm at the
highway speed limit. The C4 and C5 'vettes each
run well under 2K rpm at the same speed.

The Nissan engineers missed the point that
friction increases as the square of speed/rpm.
More likely were caught in a marketing squeeze
and foisted the car into production before they
had all the necessary pieces to do it right.
All of that sophisticated valve train sucked a
lot of HP at highway speed and that meant poor
fuel efficiency. (More parts in motion x higher
rpm = more friction.)

Nissan grasped that issue and has has spent a
bunch of bucks on transmission development.

Good news, if one believes in catch-up baseball!

--
pj

....killed Nissan crosspost

Bob Drake wrote:
> On a 30 mile highway near my home, I indicated 36 MPG at 60 MPH, 6th
> gear, with one passenger. At 70 it dropped to 33.
>
> I think GM needs to look at power to weight ratios and gear ratios to
> get some economy in the dogs they sell. A high overdrive in a 7-spd
> automatic transmission would go a long way to cutting fuel expenses.
>
> While I am on this rant, I drove my 2000 Ford Ranger (V6 Flex Fuel, FWD,
> 24 MPG highway) to Strasburg, PA for a conference. We have NO Ethanol
> E-85 stations in Northern Virginia. I found an E-85 station in
> Strasburg, filled up on E-85 at $2.50 per gallon and got 23 MPG
> highway. Something is wrong with the oil companies in Northern Virginia
> - wonder if they are keeping the bio-fuel people out?
>
> Bob
> 2000 C5
>

That comparison on mileage seems a bit apples &
oranges since the Ford in question is designed
to a 'truck-rated' (semi-commercial) duty cycle
with limited reserve horsepower and the 'vette
is designed for a gigantic reserve horsepower
and non-commercial duty cycle.

I've no clue as to where Corvette engineers
established their, "standard-day, max continuous
sustained r-w horsepower rating." I do know
that they have increased it over the years.
Compared to my C4, the C5 ('02) can sustain
higher speeds across the desert without cooling
issues. Arguably, another apples-and-oranges
comparison since the C4 is auto and my C5 is manual.

The talk about E-85 and Bio fuels is nice but
Bio is very limited in production potential and
availability. That isn't going to change. (I
feel pretty sure that when I croak in 10-15
years, I'll be able to order a chunk of steak
for my final meal.)

"Alternative" fuels are fine for grad-students
or hippies with a modified VW bus going cross-
country. They aren't sufficient in quantity for
any energy company to consider making an
investment to store, distribute and market them.
..... "sorry honorable customer -- no frying
oil until 6 a.m.... after McDonalds changes the
fat in their deep fryers."

The distribution issues in Ethanol preclude it's
use West of the Rockies unless we toss much of
our sugar beet production into the game--that
would raise hell with our farm commodity and
beef cattle production. Flex-fuel or E85 logos
on the vehicles in California are a joke. Ain't
gonna happen here. The long-term, bottomline
economics in these fuels--after give-away
subsidies expire--make them a foolhardy
investment unless something very magic happens
in how they are grown and made.

Unless 90% of us immediately adopt a diet of
twigs and nuts, we are dependent on gasoline and
we've got to learn how to best use it. About
the only way to extract ourselves from this
lockstep is to move power generation to Nuclear
and then power municipal travel with electricity
leaving petrol for long-haul highway and
airplane transport. Meanwhile, it's going to be
a rough several years and we've got to just suck
it up.

Alternative--set on our hands, bitch and become
a fourth world country.

We are no longer in control of this. Oil and
gasoline are increasingly traded on foreign
markets. We now make more money exporting
Diesel and other distillates (JP etc.) than by
selling them domestically.
--
pj

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:11:23 -0400, Codifus >
wrote:

>Sal wrote:
>> Don't believe the lies. The Audi R8 TDI has a road bending 738ft/lbs
>> of torque and a 12 cylinder engine and yet gets fuel economy better
>> than the C6 ZO6 on the highway, and far better in the city. It sound
>> and looks a hell of a lot better than any redneck gm car any day of
>> the week too. This is what a good looking car is supposed to look like
>> not like a Corvette.
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Aaylp_9kJyo
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=13-DTwoh2RQ
>>
>>
>>
>Oh, comparing apples to grapefruits, are we?
>
>Does the R8 TDI not even exist as a production vehicle yet?
>And when it does go into production, will it not cost at least twice as
>a much as any Vette?
>Oh, and finally, is not the R8 TDI a *DIESEL* motor?
>
>I'm not knocking the R8 TDI at all. That is one advanced piece of
>motoring mayhem that I would just love to have in my driveway, diesel
>and all.
>
>But to compare a brand new concept using un-related technologies to an
>existing Vette is not exactly a fair comparison. By far.
>
>You sound like someone who would do anything, even twists facts around,
>to win an argument.
>
>I suppose you beleive Hillary when she was taking sniper fire in Bosnia,
>too.
>
>CD

That TDi V12 smoker has eaten ALL the luggage space!

Time for VW/audi to make a VR/WR diesel?
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!