"HGL" <HGL (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote

Short runs, stop start, hills, heavy right foot, AC on, 4WD = low mpg

Long runs, steady cruise, flat, light right foot = high mpg.

In article <49c4f61d$0$32674$9b4e6d93 (AT) newsspool2 (DOT) arcor-online.net>,
Mario Andretti <drcms (AT) usenet (DOT) arcornews.de> wrote:
There's no way it can better a well driven manual in economy. Equal,
possibly. But I doubt that since it has more moving parts and therefore
friction.

But many prefer a good manual because they enjoy the challenge of well
timed gearchanges and smooth clutch operation. In other words part of the
driving pleasure on a fine car. For those who prefer autos there's little
difference between traditional torque convertor types and DSG.

Personally I think the idea of a robotised synchromesh box flawed - no
matter how good the implementation.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

Dave Plowman dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I totally agree :-)

But for the record my old 635CSi had the same mpg before and after it's
auto to manual conversion.


--
Who needs a life when you've got Unix? :-)
Email: john (AT) unixnerd (DOT) demon.co.uk, John G.Burns B.Eng, Bonny Scotland
Web : http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk - The Ultimate BMW Homepage!
Need Sun or HP Unix kit? http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/unix.html
www.Strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible price

On 2009-03-20 16:18:47 -0700, "Dori A Schmetterling" <nobody (AT) spam (DOT) co.uk> said:

shocked that it gets 31 mpg on the highway.

--

thepixelfreak

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Seems like they should be able to accomplish the same thing, more
cheaply, with a "normal" auto and lockup in all gears, eh?

What's shocking about that? (US gallons, presumably?)

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"thepixelfreak" <not (AT) dot (DOT) com> wrote

On 2009-03-23 15:31:53 -0700, "Dori A Schmetterling" <nobody (AT) spam (DOT) co.uk> said:

Of course, Imperial gallons are for Wankers.

--

thepixelfreak

By being rude you show you are just blathering. I asked what was shocking
about 31 mpg (and sought clarification about which gallon you meant).

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"thepixelfreak" <not (AT) dot (DOT) com> wrote

[...]

On 2009-03-26 01:16:13 -0700, "Dori A Schmetterling" <nobody (AT) spam (DOT) co.uk> said:

Actually I found it rather rude to in two instances for two different
things you consider something as 'not shocking' with a nose in the air
haughty attitude. And further, the difference between imperial and us
gallons is rather insignificant compared to gallons/litres. So why did
you even bother asking.

Good for you. Like we are here in the states?

and

31 mpg for a 3 liter sports car is very good. I bet in the top 85th
percentile or better. Most are AMAZED at the mileage my car gets,
incorrectly thinking it must be a guzzler. You uppity Europeans might
not be impressed as 90% of you drive small displacement DIESELS.

--

thepixelfreak

Actually one of my cars has a 3.2 litre engine, the other a 2 l. Neither is
diesel; I do so few miles that it would not be economical to have oil
burners.

Yes, 31 miles per gallon (small) IS very good, sports car or not, for a
3-litre engine, but I could not understand what you meant by "shocking".
Try to remember this is written comms only.. Actually, the difference
between US and Imperial gallons is sufficient to make the 31 mpg sound even
better in Imperial.

And no, 90% of Europeans do not drive small-engined diesels. If North
Americans paid twice as much for their fuel they'd be reducing the size of
their engines too.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"thepixelfreak" <not (AT) dot (DOT) com> wrote