Of course it’s no street drag racer but no special push is needed to cruise at 80 to 90 mph. However, the speedometer reads 2 mph higher than the GPS at 60 mph, about 3.3% high, which I wish I could fix. At a 1200 mile distance the vehicle odometer reads 7 miles lower than the GPS, about 0.6% low, which is pretty OK. I found the odometer not to be as far off as I thought earlier. Will the fuel economy get better with more miles? I doubt it. Total miles are still not beyond the break in period at 3270. Highway driving up to 60 mph, moderate to heavy rain 22 mpg Highway driving 80 to 90 mph, dry road 23 mpg Highway driving 60 to 65 mph, dry road: 28 mpg. I was traveling alone with only a moderate load. These figures are all calculated the old fashioned way as my bare bones model does not show the fuel consumption info on an LCD. I recently got the 4-cylinder out on a cross-country trip and have more mpg data in addition to the 21.5 mpg for suburban driving. * - When Porsche introduced their large (2.5 L) four-cylinder in the 944, they claimed that the drag of the balance shaft system was less than the increase due to a V6 design would have been, but there clearly is a drag cost of either choice. I wonder if anyone knows of second-generation Highlander owners who have the corresponding comparative data? Sorry, I have not bought the 4-cylinder, and cannot offer real-world fuel consumption information. I have no idea if anyone buying for commercial use agrees. no "back side" head, and plugs, and cam drive, and plugs, and exhaust.ĭue to the maintenance advantage, and lack of importance of performance, the 4-cylinder seems like a good candidate for light commercial use, and that would correspond well with availability in only the base trim level. It's not the count (4 versus 6), it is the inline packaging instead of a vee. I believe that savings in maintenance cost may be significant, as the effort involved in operations such as spark plug changes will be much lower. the internal friction advantages of having two fewer cylinders would be at least partially offset by the drag of running the balance shafts required in the large displacement four-cylinder*.the smaller engine may be worked harder than ideal to achieve the desired performance in this large vehicle. ![]() the 1AR-FE at 2.7 L is only 23% smaller in displacement than the six-cylinder 2GR-FE at 3.5 L.The four-cylinder may have no significant fuel consumption benefit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |