Re: 4x4 debate - what HAVE you people got against Doug???

Nick Finnigan (Nix@xxxxxxxxxxx) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Nope. The Rover 75 1.8 used less fuel than the MGF 1.8.

Not a direct comparison, as the 1.8 75 was 118bhp but the TF used the
135bhp version of the same lump.

The same lump was used in the F, but I must have misread.
The 75 used more fuel, the 45 used less.

There's quite possibly gearing differences to account for that - I should,
of course, have been more specific and said "All other things being equal".

If you put half a ton more weight in the 75, it'd use more fuel.
If you stripped all the excess weight out of it, it'd use less fuel.

I meant (as I suspect you know perfectly well) that if you built cars
with modern efficiency but without the lard of modern cars, they would
be FAR more economical.

But they wouldn't be as efficient as a modern common rail
intercooled six speed turbo diesel,

AAAGH!
<bangs head on desk repeatedly>
THAT'S MY BLOODY POINT, YOU GORMLESS GIT.

Make a modern common rail intercooled six speed turbo diesel weigh a ton
instead of a ton and a half, and THEN see how little juice it'd use.

<hides in corner, whimpering>

which requires a bit of lard.

No, actually, it doesn't.
Unless you think the powertrain alone in a modern hatch weighs half a ton.
Which it doesn't. Most of the excess bulk is in passive safety and toys.
.

Loading