"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
Doug Miller wrote
Doug Kanter wrote

I didn't suggest a smaller engine. I suggested a number of other
things, like programming ***SOME*** models of SUVs to shift like a car
instead of a truck. Let me know if you don't understand this.

What I don't understand is why you think that changing the drive train
from RWD/4WD to FWD - while keeping the *same* engine - is going to have
some mystical enormous effect on fuel mileage. It just doesn't work that
way.

Who said "mystical"?

Anyone with a clue.

I believe it's you that's been focused on what a small difference it
would make.

Because thats all the difference it would make.

But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a vehicle, and together they
added, say, 20% more gas mileage?

Fantasy, you cant point to any pair of vehicles that have achieved that.

You dont get anything like that between front wheel drive
cars and those with conventional drive trains, and you dont
get anything like that with the different shift points either.

Would that be worthwhile if the vehicles werent' turned to crap by doing
so?

Yes, it would be nice to have a magic wand to wave.

Soorree, fresh out of those.

We have seen those 20% improvements but it
wasnt due to those approaches you are proposing.

Sure - maybe eliminating 4WD only adds 1 mpg. Now, add tires which make
sense for how the owner will ACTUALLY use the car. And, reprogram the
transmission so it shifts according to a pattern that matches how the car
is ACTUALLY used.

Wont give you 20% and its completely trivial to prove that.

If it was that easy, one of the SUV manufacturers would do
that with gas prices high enough to get some irritated by them.

If you don't understand this last point, just ask. It's real.

Nope, your 20% is pure fantasy.



It's an arbitrary number for the sake of discussion, you twit. But, if you'd
like to consider it total nonsense, then pick a number and prove your
theory.