Herr_Poopschitz
Well-Known Member
Brian, I was asked what would impress me. Name calling and rambling isn't debating. Reading comprehension is nice as well. In a previous incarnation one of my cars went 10.90's at 130 and got 25 mpg on the highway, so I have owned one...have you? As a matter of fact, same car got beat to 70 mph on the street by a practically stock WRX...that was w/ me on drag radials...high powered cars are overrated on the street. Sorry you don't like facts or can't recognize them. By the way, I've stated numerous times I can't stand the retro styling on the Mustang. Get off the 'fanboy' thing, you sound like a teenager.
Negligible, ie, immeasurable difference due to hysteresis. If you don't believe me, go test it - remember to inflate your tires properly to acct for extra weight. Again I have to point out that people need to actually read what I write and not go off on a tangent...I stated before...'steady state'. The highway cycle the gov't has for determining mpg does not acct for elevation changes and has minimal acceleration changes.
Why repeat something that seems invalid in the real world? Weight may have little to do with highway efficiency...if you're talking about a train with steel wheels on a steel rail. But on a car, of course it matters. More weight means increased losses due to hysteresis. If you're on a highway with other traffic and have to adjust your speed, extra weight will consume more fuel for the adjustment. Unless you find a perfectly flat roadway then hills and elevation changes will use more energy in a heavier vehicle.
Negligible, ie, immeasurable difference due to hysteresis. If you don't believe me, go test it - remember to inflate your tires properly to acct for extra weight. Again I have to point out that people need to actually read what I write and not go off on a tangent...I stated before...'steady state'. The highway cycle the gov't has for determining mpg does not acct for elevation changes and has minimal acceleration changes.