Topic '69 mpg and 200 mph?!?' in forum 'Automotive Social' - dslreports.com

Re: 69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:54:34 EDT

Insight posted :

said by aurgathor:

Sounds to good to be true, especially as worded:

quote:
a diesel-powered machine that should hit 200 mph while returning 69 mpg on a variety of fuels.

Getting 69 mpg while going 200 mph? Exceedingly hard to believe.

Probably while engine is at idle RPM while the vehicle is free falling and hitting its terminal velocity of 200 MPH.

Re: 69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:49:21 EDT

THZNDUP posted : Get in line! That's assuming we can pry Tom Kristensen and team out of it however. Some people really get to have fun at work......
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

Re: 69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:40:40 EDT

No_Strings posted :

said by THZNDUP:

On the other hand how about getting an Audi R18 e-tron quattro to test?

* raises hand to volunteer as tester

Re: 69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:38:10 EDT

THZNDUP posted :

said by aurgathor:

said by THZNDUP:

There are other articles that say '69mpg OR 200mph', not both at the same time.

I did allude to that:

quote:
Maybe getting 69 mpg at, say, 50 mph, and capable of 200 mph top speed, but that's still a bit of a stretch.

If they had, say, a 2.0l turbodiesel instead of a 6.6l and less fuel to carry around -- fine, 69 mpg could be withing the realm of possibilities, but with an engine of that size and not a lightweight car?

And the writer of that article should've pointed out that it's an OR, and not leaving that up to the reader.

It's nice to see that the 'press' is still the 'press' no matter what venue they are writing about.

Considering all of these articles are cut from press releases from Trident about the Iceni being at the auto show or are actually written by the staff at Trident, they are free to make pretty much the same claims they have since at least 2000.

One of the current 2012 'articles' is the same one that Trident wrote back in 2009, just dusted off the specs a bit, which is the same one they wrote in 2008, which is.........

Odd no one has really called them out on their claims as yet. Maybe we can get up a collection to buy one and have it actually independently tested, maybe against a Chevy Silverado. At least find out if it really has an Isuzu designed, GM built Duramax engine. ;) :D

On the other hand how about getting an Audi R18 e-tron quattro to test? May have a problem with that mileage though..........
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

Re: 69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:44:54 EDT

aurgathor posted :

said by THZNDUP:

There are other articles that say '69mpg OR 200mph', not both at the same time.

I did allude to that:

quote:
Maybe getting 69 mpg at, say, 50 mph, and capable of 200 mph top speed, but that's still a bit of a stretch.

Re: 69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 03:29:32 EDT

Anonymous_ posted : I can get 30mpg @ 80-85mph in a 06 Sentra 1.8L under ideal conditions.

But I do know how to press the gas peddle correctly and break correctly

People mostly speed up and slow down in heavy traffic if you cruse at a slower speed

without doing the fast speed up and slow down you can save a lot of gas.

when idleing the car will normally pull forward by it self (upto about 10mph) assuming level grade or down hill . This is also assuming it has a auto transmission.

this is prefect for heavy traffic.

Re: 69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:06:59 EDT

Doctor Olds posted :

said by THZNDUP:

There are other articles that say '69mpg OR 200mph', not both at the same time.

That's what I was thinking, thanks for clarifying that important detail.

said by THZNDUP:

Engine speed is only 980 rpm at 70 mph.

My 1994 Regal GS runs roughly at 1150 RPM while driving 65 MPH, so they are not really innovating unless it also is dropping cylinders too at that RPM.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?

Re: 69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:57:35 EDT

TA63 posted : Pump and dump scam.

Re: 69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:52:52 EDT

THZNDUP posted : There are other articles that say '69mpg OR 200mph', not both at the same time.

Their calculations (and possibly an actual road test) reflect that at 70mph they should get that 69 mpg (One of the articles mentions 68.9mpg, BTW) due to their trickery with the transmission. Engine speed is only 980 rpm at 70 mph. Put your foot in it to get that 200mph and that 28-30 gal fuel tank will need refueling pretty quickly.

»www.hybridcars.com/news/trident-···490.html

»www.iol.co.za/motoring/latest-la···.1368508

»www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new···ive.html

»www.supercars.net/cars/4215.html
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

Re: 69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:12:34 EDT

Doctor Olds posted : I call BS on their claims. More like 6-9 MPG and they just left out a hyphen.... LOL

69 mpg and 200 mph?!?

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:42:56 EDT

aurgathor posted : Sounds to good to be true, especially as worded:

quote:
a diesel-powered machine that should hit 200 mph while returning 69 mpg on a variety of fuels.

Getting 69 mpg while going 200 mph? Exceedingly hard to believe.

Maybe getting 69 mpg at, say, 50 mph, and capable of 200 mph top speed, but that's still a bit of stretch.
»autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/···777.html

As for the "2000 miles on a tank of gas" claim, that would require a 29 gallon gas tank -- a bit big for a sports car. (for comparison, my Bronco has a 33 gallon gas tank)

Also, I kinda wonder why it's '69', and not 68 or 70. ;)
--
Wacky Races 2012!