Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

New 300/Charger to beat 2011 CAFE

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 6, 2008 | 01:55 PM
  #16  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Smile

Originally Posted by JakeRobb
Durango: 20/21
Tahoe: 20/22

Those are the 2WD numbers. On the 4x4 models, Tahoe wins even more soundly (20/20 vs 18/19).

Dodge Durango Hybrid isn't offered in 2WD.

Numbers directly from the EPA:

Tahoe AWD Hybrid. 20/20
Dodge Durango HEV: 20/22.

Found on this page of the EPA link: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs.shtml

Not sure where you got that 18/19 figure from. There certainly isn't anything rated that on the Federal EPA site.

Even your own link to the Dodge page states the mileage as 20/22.... did you actually read that page before you posted that link?? (or did you ignore the correct EPA numbers on that page and instead base it on another page over there that has a typographical error )

Perhaps you're right mastrdrver. One shouldn't confuse people by putting "facts" in front of them.

Last edited by guionM; Dec 6, 2008 at 02:03 PM.
Old Dec 6, 2008 | 05:50 PM
  #17  
mastrdrver's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,817
From: O-Town
Originally Posted by guionM
Perhaps you're right mastrdrver. One shouldn't confuse people by putting "facts" in front of them.
I was pretty sure that I remembered the Durango getting barely worse numbers than the Tahoe when it was announced too.
Old Dec 7, 2008 | 12:26 AM
  #18  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Originally Posted by mastrdrver
I was pretty sure that I remembered the Durango getting barely worse numbers than the Tahoe when it was announced too.
On the Dodge website, the mileage for the 4x4 hybrid is listed as 18/19.

I remember reading an article in Autoweek where they made a point of the Durango mileage being slightly below Tahoe. But on fueleconomy.gov, the numbers are different.

I guess it really doesn't matter all that much, since they only have 12 more days of production.
Old Dec 7, 2008 | 02:46 AM
  #19  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Re the Durang, the confusion was between the early numbers and the official certification, which was announced on October 16th.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/17/c...-from-the-epa/

There must have been tweaks to the cars to improve over the early estimates.
Old Dec 7, 2008 | 03:03 AM
  #20  
HAZ-Matt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
8 speeds is just too many. Another thing Jeremy Clarkson is right about... they just reviewed the IS-F on Top Gear. I think Car and Driver had the same complaint when they put it against the M3 as well.
Old Dec 8, 2008 | 07:33 AM
  #21  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt
8 speeds is just too many. Another thing Jeremy Clarkson is right about... they just reviewed the IS-F on Top Gear. I think Car and Driver had the same complaint when they put it against the M3 as well.
I also feel that 8 speeds is way to many gears for a vehicle.

The more gears you add to a transmission, the heavier the thing weighs. A 5 speed manual is plenty, and if well spaced can cover every driving need. A 6 speed is ok too, but isn't necessary (only real advantage is fuel economy and bragging rights).

Above that is going into overkill.
Old Dec 8, 2008 | 07:59 AM
  #22  
mastrdrver's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,817
From: O-Town
Originally Posted by guionM
I also feel that 8 speeds is way to many gears for a vehicle.

The more gears you add to a transmission, the heavier the thing weighs. A 5 speed manual is plenty, and if well spaced can cover every driving need. A 6 speed is ok too, but isn't necessary (only real advantage is fuel economy and bragging rights).

Above that is going into overkill.
Didn't Toyota say that the 8 spd is lighter than their 6 spd?
Old Dec 8, 2008 | 09:39 AM
  #23  
JakeRobb's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Originally Posted by mastrdrver
Didn't Toyota say that the 8 spd is lighter than their 6 spd?
I would assume that means that their 6-speed is overbuilt in some way.
Old Dec 8, 2008 | 09:57 AM
  #24  
91_z28_4me's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
I would assume that means that their 6-speed is overbuilt in some way.
Or the 8 speed is underbuilt in some way.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hal Fisher
Parts For Sale
0
Sep 30, 2015 09:03 PM
blaze309
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
2
Sep 8, 2015 05:27 PM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Aug 5, 2015 08:35 AM
Boss002
Autocross and Road Racing Technique
1
Jul 9, 2015 03:33 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:02 AM.