ORIGINAL: HJJFFFAA
ORIGINAL: Foxy
ORIGINAL: HJJFFFAA
I'm pretty sure his viewpoint is mostly skewed by the tax on large displacements over there. I've consistently seen that engines that don't have stupidly high volumetric efficiencies get better mileage. For instance, 2009 Viper vs 2009 Honda S2000. EPA rates highway for the Viper at 22mpg and the 2000 at 25mpg where the Viper is making 600HP and the S2000 only ~240HP. There's also the same model year Corvette Z06 which is rated at 24mpg highway and has been reported by some to near 30MPG with a little effort.
You're compltely right. I'm not objective, I admit it. 2.0 is considered large displacement here. I pay 900 bucks road tax for the privilege of driving a high powered 2.0. I then pay another 900bucks additional tax per year as 'luxury car tax' because anything oer 1.8 is considered a luxury car. It's completely ridiculous. then I hear you talking about 6l cars and I flip out. At least I'm honest.
But seriously, I hope you guys can get some more efficiency into your engines over the coming years, there is the environment to think about, honestly, I don't mean it in a bad way.
But the big engines actually get pretty good mileage
Come on 22MPG highway and 600HP, show me the Ferrari that does that.
It is good to see the newer higher powered cars get decent highway mileage. But I've noticed that they always tout the
highway MPG, and not city. There's a reason for that - 2013 Camaro SS gets 24 MPG highway, but 16 city.
MPG obviously depends on your point of view (maybe you don't care, and that's fine). But it's a bit funny seeing that all the bragging is about the highway MPG, when the city rate is lousy.
Plus seriously - if I had a camaro SS, do you think I'd really just drive around humbly and efficiently all the time, getting max reported MPG? Doubtful. I'd be busy having too much fun, sucking up gas like no tomorrow - which is exactly the point in a car like that.