Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 70313	2006-06-28 23:46:00	Which uses more fuel ?	SKT174 (1319)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
467171	2006-06-30 09:38:00	The best way to buy car is look at their engines. Lamborghini Murcielago vs Ford GT. The 60mph performance time looks quite close but after hitting a mile long the GT is the fastest. It was tested by pro drivers. The supercharged engine didn't waste as much fuel as Murcielago V12, the news is you need to find out the car fuel consumption. The type of engine is most improtant like Murcielago VS Ford GT.	MTLance (6768)
467172	2006-06-30 11:55:00	The best way to buy car is look at their engines. Lamborghini Murcielago vs Ford GT. The 60mph performance time looks quite close but after hitting a mile long the GT is the fastest. It was tested by pro drivers. The supercharged engine didn't waste as much fuel as Murcielago V12, the news is you need to find out the car fuel consumption. The type of engine is most improtant like Murcielago VS Ford GT. I don't think people that buy the above cars worry about fuel consumption :xmouth:	plod (107)
467173	2006-06-30 12:22:00	I don't think people that buy the above cars worry about fuel consumption :xmouth: Agreed, they would simply not care. Why would they? The depreciation or maintenance costs and the lost opportunity cost (interest forgone) of having all that money tied up in a car would be simply horrendous, the fuel cost would be totally immaterial. Even the insurance would cost more than the fuel.	godfather (25)
467174	2006-06-30 12:33:00	Agreed, they would simply not care. Why would they? The depreciation or maintenance costs and the lost opportunity cost (interest forgone) of having all that money tied up in a car would be simply horrendous, the fuel cost would be totally immaterial. Even the insurance would cost more than the fuel. some "super cars " actually appreciate in price, heck even the toyota pirus in the states is worth more secondhand then the new RRP because the waiting list is so big	plod (107)
467175	2006-06-30 12:42:00	Yes, but they still usually "cost" as they tend to be very expensive. Ignoring the small profits to be had on "wait list" cars (even a new Suzuki Swift has a wait list here, so low depreciation) the supercars real cost is ~$20,000 before tax just in lost interest. If you have borrowed to buy it, double or triple that. Hence I say "depreciation OR maintenance...." But you other comment was spot-on. Who would worry about the fuel cost if you just spent several hundred grand on a supercar, and who would want to drive it in a manner that would conserve fuel. Sort of defeats the point of buying one?	godfather (25)
467176	2006-06-30 12:50:00	Yes, but they still usually "cost" as they tend to be very expensive . Ignoring the small profits to be had on "wait list" cars (even a new Suzuki Swift has a wait list here, so low depreciation) the supercars real cost is ~$20,000 before tax just in lost interest . If you have borrowed to buy it, double or triple that . Hence I say "depreciation OR maintenance . . . . " But you other comment was spot-on . Who would worry about the fuel cost if you just spent several hundred grand on a supercar, and who would want to drive it in a manner that would conserve fuel . Sort of defeats the point of buying one? just trying to make the point to MTLance that rattling off figures for fuel consumption for super cars is as relevant as talking about fuel consumption for the space shuttle, but since its probably past his bed time we wont hear from him till after the cartoons have finished in the morning	plod (107)
467177	2006-07-01 03:42:00	Originally Posted by tutaenui A wise man told me many years ago that all cars will do 25mpg, it just depends on how you drive them! ??? That's a very small car right? BMW consumes more fuel than that . This will never happen to big cars . A right load of old bollocks has been floated in this thread . The relative merits come down to a basic equation of energy input vs work output . That in simple terms is weight moved over equivalent distance and speed, vs energy input (litres of petrol or diesel) . Whether cars or trucks or whatever, the only fundamental variable is the relative efficiencies of their engines, i . e . what percentage of the energy available in each litre of fuel is converted into useful work . Aerodynamics would also play a part though, increasing exponentially in importance as speed rises . Therefore as everybody knows very well, a small and light car with small engine can drive at at the same speed (in convoy if you like) with a large car with big engine and use many litres less fuel over the same distance . The results of any economy trial will tell you that for heavens sakes! While not 100% the same as the example above, I have just made a return trip from Auckland to the Hokianga Harbour . I ran late for an appointment, so I had to speed up over the last leg from Dargaville to Omapere via the Waipou State Forest, a very winding and steep rise and fall road . I ran up to 110Km/h on the open road sections, but absolutely raced as fast as the car and my nerve could take me through the forest itself . I used nearly half a tank of petrol for the outwards journey, but I cruised back over the same roads at 80 Km/h and still had a quarter tank left when I got home . I topped up the tank before departing Auckland then topped it up again at the same station when I got home, and found that overall I had used just 42 litres for 560km, which is an average of 13 . 4 km/L or around 38 mpg in my old (1993 and 200,000+ Ks) 2 litre station wagon . If somebody had followed me in convoy driving a V8 Holden (or Ford or whatever) over the same journey, you can bet your grandmother's life that their fuel economy would not have averaged 38 mpg . Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
467178	2006-07-01 07:33:00	Sorry guys about shutting your car engine. Some cars(small cars/ old ones[very light weight type]) can steer when the engine is off but it is not quite difficult as you think except you need to go slower that's all. For some sedans when you shut the engine the car totally can't steer at all because the steering is too heavy. :)I hope you all don't try it by shutting the engine.	MTLance (6768)
467179	2006-07-01 08:00:00	I had used just 42 litres for 560km, which is an average of 13.4 km/L or around 38 mpg in my old (1993 and 200,000+ Ks) 2 litre station wagon. If somebody had followed me in convoy driving a V8 Holden (or Ford or whatever) over the same journey, you can bet your grandmother's life that their fuel economy would not have averaged 38 mpg. Cheers Billy 8-{) Is your car poked? My 4l falcon averages better economy then that around town, and I drive her like a motocross bike.....	Metla (12)
467180	2006-07-01 08:12:00	Is your car poked? My 4l falcon averages better economy then that around town, and I drive her like a motocross bike..... Motorcyles will not eat up so much fuel except cars because they are heavier than motorcycles.	MTLance (6768)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15