Because the CX-7 is heavy, with a curb weight of 3,929 pounds, performance is good, but not great. Our staffers found it quite stout accelerating out of corners and reported sweat-free two-lane passing moves. But it wasn't exactly stellar off the line. The CX-7 simply got beat to 60 mph by a V6 RAV4 we tested on the same day, posting a time of 7.7 seconds versus the RAV's 7.1 seconds. Ouch.
Compared to an earlier test of a 3.5-liter V6 Murano S, however, the Mazda does quite well, edging it to 60 mph by 0.2 second and legging it out to a 0.4-second win at the quarter-mile.
The Toyota delivers better observed fuel economy — 19 mpg compared to the 16.6 we measured in the Mazda. Oh, and the RAV does all that on regular unleaded, while the CX-7 needs premium.
If there's a weak point to the CX-7's recipe it's under the hood, where the 2.3-liter, turbocharged four feels just a tad overburdened by the car's size and weight.
Otherwise, handles and brakes great! Exactly what I was saying about RDX as well. 4cly Turbo in SUV is not an good choice. They mention 3,000-5,000rpm sweet spot, with turbo lag before and loss of power after (which is how many 4cly turbos, if not all, are configured due to emissions and EPA mpg). And besides having less power it also returns less mpg.
And I dont get it not playing mp3's. Its 2006, and its all new model.
Otherwise, handles and brakes great! Exactly what I was saying about RDX as well. 4cly Turbo in SUV is not an good choice. They mention 3,000-5,000rpm sweet spot, with turbo lag before and loss of power after (which is how many 4cly turbos, if not all, are configured due to emissions and EPA mpg). And besides having less power it also returns less mpg.
And I dont get it not playing mp3's. Its 2006, and its all new model.
I see your point, but what is the problem the reviewer had about the engine? He states it seemed a tad overburdened for the weight of the car, but yet it out did the V6 powered Murano to 60 by 0.2 seonds and by nearaly half a second in the 1/4 mile? Obviously that tells me the engine sounded like it could be overburdend as reviews of the Mazda turbo engine have stated it is noiser and raspier than comparable V6's that are smoother and quieter, but the over all data seems to proove that the engine was more than adeqaute and in fact performed better than the V6.
I've also read other reviews stating that the peak torque is availble at about 2500 RPM and it retains 99% of that torque band up to 5K RPM. That is a very broad torque curve. Other reviewers also mentioned little to no turbo lag. Different reviewers get different results I guess.
spwolf
04-21-06, 04:55 PM
huh? It is slower than Rav4, while getting worse mpg while requireing Premium... what is the problem with it? :-).
Exactly that... its engine is weak point...
I dont think anyone else reviewed it before, this is the first real test. Everything else is just an PR.
Usually factory turbos dont spool full until 3,000 rpm because of the emissions and mpg figures.
SteVTEC
04-21-06, 05:16 PM
No the 4000 lb curb weight is its weak point vs the RAV4, but you keep trying to spin that as it being the engine when it's not. There are other reasons for turbos not always spooling until 3000 rpm too even when peak torque is listed at less than that, but I'll have to get into that later assuming nobody else does.
SteVTEC
04-21-06, 05:19 PM
So in this thread you blame the engine for poorer performance than a RAV4 with a 4000 lb SUV. But in the RDX thread you say it's the 4000 lbs and not a nearly identical 4-cylinder turbo engine. Make up your mind.
thats the whole thing. Problem is NOT 4cly turbo, it is that it is in 4,000 lbs SUV. Which makes it completly different ball game. :egads:
CK6Speed
04-21-06, 05:21 PM
huh? It is slower than Rav4, while getting worse mpg while requireing Premium... what is the problem with it? :-).
Exactly that... its engine is weak point...
I dont think anyone else reviewed it before, this is the first real test. Everything else is just an PR.
Usually factory turbos dont spool full until 3,000 rpm because of the emissions and mpg figures.
??? Didn't the article say it was 0.2 seconds faster than the 3.5l V6 Murano and beat it to the 1/4 mile by 0.4 seconds?
I agree, the RAV4 is fast. I never said it wan't. In fact, when the times of the RAV4 fisrt came out I paised it and said that was very impresive. You can search that topic if you don't believe me. This debate sort of got side tracked with comparing each SUV to the RAV4. The topic is still really about the performance of a turbo 4 in the SUV. As it appears, while not as good as the performnace in the V6 RAV4, it is very much as good if not better than the performance of the I6 X3, the old 3.3 V6 in the RX330, the 3.5 VQ in the Murano, and pretty much every other V6 small SUV out there. This Mazda just prooved it. I have never said the RDX would be faster in stock form than the V6 RAV4, but I did say it will be comparble and maybe better in performance than other V6 models and that will more than likey turn out true given the above and the fact that Acura claims it will out accelerate the BMW X3. If that turns out true it also means it out performs the V6 Murano and old RX330 and possible the FX35 as well. I would think the question now asked is why is a I4 turbocharged engine able to perform as well as those V6 models despite the very disappointing 4000 lbs weight?
I will give you the fact that the V6 RAV4 does own all in acceleration performance though. No question there. That still doesn't disproove the fact that even the slightly weaker Mazda CX-7 is out performing the other V6 SUVs (Except the RAV4). Isn't that impressive to you? Or are you saying all those other V6 SUVs also were very underpowered especially being a V6? I can agree with that if that is what you mean.
Let's face it. The performance out of these I4 turbo engines is a marvel considering just one year ago before the Toyota 3.5V6 made its way into the RAV4, RS350 and such their performance is on par or better than the 2005 3.2-3.5L V6s in the market.
Give credit to where credit is due. It is amazing that a little I4 engine can propel a 400 lbs SUV to 60 in about 7.5 seconds. That is only about 0.2 seconds slower than the 270 HP 3.5L V6 in the new RX350. Seriously, can you gind no good points in an engine that can do that?
One llast thing. You never asnwered why you agree with the writer about the part that the ungine felt overburdened, yet still produced better performance numbers than the VQ V6? How can it be weak and overburndened if it performs better?
bitkahuna
04-21-06, 05:57 PM
spwolf - you mentioned before than nav is offered on the new Rav4 there in Europe. It isn't here, so maybe there's other aspects of the Rav4 interiors that are different on either side of the Atlantic. As you know I've been very critical of the Rav4 interior here in the U.S. And once again, it is not even in the same league as this Mazda interior.
spwolf
04-21-06, 06:25 PM
CK6Speed, I see your point, problem is that rav4 does have that V6 that goes faster and gets better mpg, for the same price. I am comparing it to Rav4, as its main competition and best selling SUV in the sector (and overall? is any other suv selling as well?).
Which is probably why there it is hard to get Rav4, few months after introduction, and Toyota is selling more than 15,000 per month, which is double of old Rav4.
Also, Ford Edge is going to have an V6 option, with some 250hp. It would be interesting to find it out if it is better option for the same car.
spwolf
04-21-06, 06:35 PM
So in this thread you blame the engine for poorer performance than a RAV4 with a 4000 lb SUV. But in the RDX thread you say it's the 4000 lbs and not a nearly identical 4-cylinder turbo engine. Make up your mind.
:egads:
right, I am saying problem is in application of the engine, not the engine itself which we really know nothing about. It can be the best 4cly engine in the whole world. But when you put it into the SUV that weights 4,000 lbs, it is not an good application of that engine.
Which is why it gets poor mpg, poor emissions and worse performance than its main competition. Now, it is "great" that 4cly is doing 0-60 in 7.7 sec, problem is that it is priced the same as V6 Rav4, which is faster, more economical and gets better emissions. Additionally, endurance of V6 should be quite better than 4cly turbo.
What it ends up being is that you will buy Mazda CX-7 despite its powertrain, and not because of it. Again, its brother Edge will have V6, so it will be interesting to see how they compare!
spwolf
04-21-06, 06:47 PM
spwolf - you mentioned before than nav is offered on the new Rav4 there in Europe. It isn't here, so maybe there's other aspects of the Rav4 interiors that are different on either side of the Atlantic. As you know I've been very critical of the Rav4 interior here in the U.S. And once again, it is not even in the same league as this Mazda interior.
could be true - we have lots of stuff USA doesnt (nicer looking radio, 5th gen navi with bluetooth and backup camera, auto lights/wipers/dimmer, smart key, etc). It could also be that our interior is slightly darker as well, we have black on black interior.
did you sit in limited leather or? Our feels half a step below quality of RX (for instance, it has equal leather), where before it was 2 generations behind.
Also, a lot of people on US rav4 forums are estatic about their rav4's, and are pretty happy about interior quality. It could be personal taste I guess, not everyone has to like the same car, thank god :-).
I personally did not know what to think of mine from the pics until I got it. It drives like crazy, very competent drive, well beyond what you would expect in any suv - which is probably why C&D was excited about it, and getting those guys excited about Toyota is something. Once I get used to the diesel noise, it will be perfect :-).
bitkahuna
04-21-06, 10:21 PM
could be true - we have lots of stuff USA doesnt (nicer looking radio, 5th gen navi with bluetooth and backup camera, auto lights/wipers/dimmer, smart key, etc). It could also be that our interior is slightly darker as well, we have black on black interior.
I wonder why Toyota didn't release all that stuff here - I don't get it.
did you sit in limited leather or? Our feels half a step below quality of RX (for instance, it has equal leather), where before it was 2 generations behind.
No - dealer didn't have leather.
Also, a lot of people on US rav4 forums are estatic about their rav4's, and are pretty happy about interior quality. It could be personal taste I guess, not everyone has to like the same car, thank god :-).
Well anyone who bought one hopefully likes it! :uh:
I personally did not know what to think of mine from the pics until I got it. It drives like crazy, very competent drive, well beyond what you would expect in any suv - which is probably why C&D was excited about it, and getting those guys excited about Toyota is something. Once I get used to the diesel noise, it will be perfect :-).
Oh, you have diesel - interesting. Not available here either.
U.S. interior as shown on Toyota's web site. I think it's fugly.
This is ours, w/o nav. Leather and slightly darker materials help it. But pics dont do it justice, its pretty impressive inside. Old Rav4 4.2 was like sitting on donkey. There is crazy amount of ppl on rav4world.com. 4.3 has had more posts about it in 1 month of sales, than 4.2 in 6 years. Toyota is sold out.
Diesel is nice. More power than 152hp petrol version, gets minimum of 35 MPG in the city, with 40 MPG average being pretty normal. Highway, around 45mpg at 70-80mph. I will probably chip it, give it more common rail boost.
But the noise - during low speeds - after 30 mph it goes fine.......... We dont get V6 either. I would glad pay for bigger fuel bill, but resale would be awful. Most ppl buy diesel because of the resale these days.
1SICKLEX
04-22-06, 08:28 PM
We all seem to get worked up a bit about this Cute Utes don't we :D
I think its a very nice SUV for the money and should continue Mazdas sales roll
SteVTEC
04-24-06, 11:29 PM
right, I am saying problem is in application of the engine, not the engine itself which we really know nothing about. It can be the best 4cly engine in the whole world. But when you put it into the SUV that weights 4,000 lbs, it is not an good application of that engine.
Which is why it gets poor mpg, poor emissions and worse performance than its main competition. Now, it is "great" that 4cly is doing 0-60 in 7.7 sec, problem is that it is priced the same as V6 Rav4, which is faster, more economical and gets better emissions. Additionally, endurance of V6 should be quite better than 4cly turbo.You're refusing to analyze the engines properly, and as a result are coming to erroneous technical conclusions. Put the turbo-4 in the 3600 lb RAV4, and the V6 in the 4000 lb CX-7 and you could bash the V6 for having poorer mileage, performance, and whatever you want and claim the V6 is a poor application in the CX-7 and that they should have used a superior turbo-4 like they did in the RAV4 instead. :rolleyes:
spwolf
04-25-06, 07:33 AM
You're refusing to analyze the engines properly, and as a result are coming to erroneous technical conclusions. Put the turbo-4 in the 3600 lb RAV4, and the V6 in the 4000 lb CX-7 and you could bash the V6 for having poorer mileage, performance, and whatever you want and claim the V6 is a poor application in the CX-7 and that they should have used a superior turbo-4 like they did in the RAV4 instead. :rolleyes:
Really? I doubt it. Difference in mpg is much greater than weight actually. Plus it has to use premium. Plus it has narrower usage range. Plus it has worse emissions. And costs the same.
10% less weight is helpful for mpg when accelerating, but EPA tests are not done accelerating at high rates, but cruising. At that point, more relavant is aerodynamics, gearing, engine itself.
But what it comes down to is that CX-7 has 4cly turbo and Rav4 has V6. And yes, Rav4 is lighter vehicle.
Thats the fact that cant be changed.
Is Toyota's fault that they engineer car to be lighter? Toyota spent millions to engineer new AWD system that was 40% lighter than one used before.
As I said before, engine itself really can not be seen on its own. It is seen in its application to specific vehicle. Fact that it fits Mazda3 perfectly and it might be the best 4cly engine in the world in Mazda3, does not matter at all for CX-7. Do you really care how it performs in Mazda3, when you are buying CX-7?
I think we will see everything clearer when Edge (its sister car) comes out with V6 250hp engine.
spwolf
04-25-06, 07:34 AM
We all seem to get worked up a bit about this Cute Utes don't we :D
I think its a very nice SUV for the money and should continue Mazdas sales roll
its fun, whats not to like :-). They are all fine cars.
CK6Speed
04-25-06, 02:42 PM
its fun, whats not to like :-). They are all fine cars.
I agree. These debates are fun as long as it doesn't turn into a bashing fest. It is always good to hear different perspectives. Everyone has different priorities and want and needs from a car so I don't expect everyone to see eye to eye. The day that we all agree is the day I get worried that that we all turned into robots :p
spwolf
04-25-06, 02:56 PM
I agree. These debates are fun as long as it doesn't turn into a bashing fest. It is always good to hear different perspectives. Everyone has different priorities and want and needs from a car so I don't expect everyone to see eye to eye. The day that we all agree is the day I get worried that that we all turned into robots :p
exactly...
1SICKLEX
04-25-06, 03:11 PM
I agree. These debates are fun as long as it doesn't turn into a bashing fest. It is always good to hear different perspectives. Everyone has different priorities and want and needs from a car so I don't expect everyone to see eye to eye. The day that we all agree is the day I get worried that that we all turned into robots :p
FU Chris.
Just playing dude. :D I like this lil Mazda thing though there is a better chance of me becoming the next Kia spokesman than owning one of these.
CK6Speed
04-25-06, 03:52 PM
Just playing dude. :D I like this lil Mazda thing though there is a better chance of me becoming the next Kia spokesman than owning one of these.
Same here. I don't even like SUVs much less small compact SUVs :egads: I like the technology though :thumbup:
GSteg
04-25-06, 05:25 PM
Which is why it gets poor mpg, poor emissions and worse performance than its main competition. Now, it is "great" that 4cly is doing 0-60 in 7.7 sec, problem is that it is priced the same as V6 Rav4, which is faster, more economical and gets better emissions. Additionally, endurance of V6 should be quite better than 4cly turbo.
Why buy a base model IS250 when you can get a top of the line Camry XLE V6 for $7k less, which is faster, more economical, more spacious, just as fuel conservating (better gas mileage than is250 manual), and runs on regular gas opposed to premium in the is250?
my guess is that people who shop for IS250s wont be looking at the Camry. same with RDX buyers. RDX buyers will look into luxury-based SUVs such as the BMW X3, not the Toyota Rav4. As long as the RDX main competitor isn't the Rav4, then the Rav4 wont be stealing the RDX's sales anytime soon. If anything, it'll take sales from X3 buyers.
and yes, these debates are fun because I'm always right. :D :woohoo: :bigthumbu :rockon:
GSteg
04-25-06, 05:30 PM
But then again, people will take the is250 over a camry soley because "lexus" is more presigious than "toyota". You also get gadgets in the IS that you wont find in the camry for at least another century. I would bet that there are a bunch of things the RDX has that the Rav4 wont have. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the RDX will be more fun to toss around the corner. Knowing Honda's suspension, they are smooth, yet responsive, unlike Toyota's suspension. :P
1SICKLEX
04-25-06, 05:49 PM
But then again, people will take the is250 over a camry soley because "lexus" is more presigious than "toyota". You also get gadgets in the IS that you wont find in the camry for at least another century. I would bet that there are a bunch of things the RDX has that the Rav4 wont have. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the RDX will be more fun to toss around the corner. Knowing Honda's suspension, they are smooth, yet responsive, unlike Toyota's suspension. :P
Apples to Oranges.
IS small RWD sporty sedan
Camry large, FWD family sedan.
Its more than features. At least BOTH have V-6s are $30,000
TO say to get an IS just b/c its more prestigous than a Toyota is not accurate. The IS is based on the GS.
Now maybe saying Camry to ES, you have more of an arguement.
You can argue all you want, there are many people who for $30,000 want a V-6, ESPECIALLY in a SUV.
We'll look at sales figures in the future to determine who was right or wrong.
GSteg
04-25-06, 06:28 PM
Apples to Oranges.
IS small RWD sporty sedan
Camry large, FWD family sedan.
Its more than features. At least BOTH have V-6s are $30,000
Apples and Oranges for the Rav4 and RDX too. Neither suvs were aimed for each other, yet we compare it anyways, so why not compare IS and camry? RDX is luxury-based, while the Rav4 can barely utter "refined".
TO say to get an IS just b/c its more prestigous than a Toyota is not accurate. The IS is based on the GS.
Now maybe saying Camry to ES, you have more of an arguement.
Do you really think IS buyers will know or even care that the IS was based on the GS chassis? 80% of the buyers probably doesn't even know what the word chassis is. Take the IS250 and rename it as a Toyota (enter model name here) and I will guarantee you it's not going to sell as well as the Lexus name. People aren't going to buy a $32k toyota nameplate that only has 204hp to boot.
You can argue all you want, there are many people who for $30,000 want a V-6, ESPECIALLY in a SUV.
Yet there are equally as many people who dont know what the hell V6 and I4 means. They see horsepower, and the car sells. Thats why people test drive cars. If they like the car, they like it, regardless of how many cylinder the car has. The drive influences more than the number of cylinders.
1SICKLEX
04-25-06, 06:40 PM
Apples and Oranges for the Rav4 and RDX too. Neither suvs were aimed for each other, yet we compare it anyways, so why not compare IS and camry? RDX is luxury-based, while the Rav4 can barely utter "refined". .
Nope. Both similar in dimension, both similar in price, similar in power. Acura has a tougher time convincing a Toyota owner its luxury. Tons will cross shop. More than anything, people won't cross shop the Camry and IS is BECAUSE OF SIZE.
I bet you money, in YOUR upcoming Motor Trend/Road and Track etc, it will be
Rav4
RD-X
Mazda CRX (or whatever its called)
and a couple others.
They are competiton deal with it.
Do you really think IS buyers will know or even care that the IS was based on the GS chassis? 80% of the buyers probably doesn't even know what the word chassis is. Take the IS250 and rename it as a Toyota (enter model name here) and I will guarantee you it's not going to sell as well as the Lexus name. People aren't going to buy a $32k toyota nameplate that only has 204hp to boot. .
This is hypothetical and not worth refuting.
Yet there are equally as many people who dont know what the hell V6 and I4 means. They see horsepower, and the car sells. Thats why people test drive cars. If they like the car, they like it, regardless of how many cylinder the car has. The drive influences more than the number of cylinders.
Wrong, you can't be serious. Buyers do know the difference in engine size, come on now. Its the reason Camrys/Altimas/Accord have 2 options (well 3 with the ACcord and Camry). The Altima from the 90s have ONE engine choice, and guess what, was STUCK behind the Accord and Camry. The Rl suffers this problem being V-6 only.
Its not power ALL the time. Many buyers want more cylinders, especially the more expensive a car is.
mmarshall
04-25-06, 06:55 PM
I'm not necessarily jumping into the debate here, but I want to point out that Mazda vehicles of this type...car-based minivan / SUV's.....despite Mazda's well-earned reputation for BMW-like handling and driving dynamics, have never been known for a lot of power or blinding acceleration. This was true of the original RWD MPV back in the late 1980's, the later-generation FWD MPV's ( which used Ford-supplied V6s ), the present MPV which has a little more power but still is no dragster, the Tribute ( a cousin of the Ford Escape ) which again had a 200 HP V6 but with AWD was no dragster, the recent Mazda 5 with its economy-sourced in-line 4, and now the CX-7. Perhaps this is due to Mazda's engineering and marketing philosophy.....tipsy, high-center-of-gravity vehicles like this are risky enough in sharp corners even with low-powered engines.....giving them sports-car power would only increase the chances of people overdoing it in corners and flipping them despite Mazda's general reputation for good handling. True...the Porsche Cayenne Turbo combines a high center of gravity and off-road ability with superb handling and blinding acceleration, but Mazda SUV's don't cost $100,000 either.
GSteg
04-25-06, 07:33 PM
Nope. Both similar in dimension, both similar in price, similar in power. Acura has a tougher time convincing a Toyota owner its luxury. Tons will cross shop. More than anything, people won't cross shop the Camry and IS is BECAUSE OF SIZE.
I bet you money, in YOUR upcoming Motor Trend/Road and Track etc, it will be
Rav4
RD-X
Mazda CRX (or whatever its called)
and a couple others.
They are competiton deal with it.
I'm pretty sure most Toyota owners who knows anything about cars will know an Acura is more upscale and that their Toyotas are not in the same league, even if acceleration times are similar. The Camry V6 makes more economical/practical sense than the IS, sporty or not, similar size or not, (hence economical). If your case is true, I dont even know why Toyota needs to offer the Highlander anymore since Toyota will be competing with them ownselves. :uh:
This is hypothetical and not worth refuting. Not hypothetical at all. It's true. Rename the LS430 to a Toyota and see how many people would spend $70k plus on a Toyota nameplate. I think many will agree here that nameplate does matter because people who spends a lot of money will want to say more than "for $70k, I bought a Toyota". They'll be happier saying they bought a $50k Mercedes.
Wrong, you can't be serious. Buyers do know the difference in engine size, come on now. Its the reason Camrys/Altimas/Accord have 2 options (well 3 with the ACcord and Camry). The Altima from the 90s have ONE engine choice, and guess what, was STUCK behind the Accord and Camry. The Rl suffers this problem being V-6 only.
Its not power ALL the time. Many buyers want more cylinders, especially the more expensive a car is.
Ok maybe I was exaggerating a bit too much, but many people are not going to base their car purchase on numbers of cylinders. If they like the car enough, it'll sell. If the amount of cylinders matters that much, there would be little of GS300s, and more of GS430s. Since people are paying around $50k, they'll want more cylinders correct? If cylinders matter that much, then a Honda S2000 wouldn't do as well. It's a $32k+ performance roadster car with only 2.2L I4 to boot. Anyone who has taken a test drive in the S2000 will know it's not a slouch within its own competition (z4, boxster, etc), regardess of it being a 4cyl vehicle.
What benefit does a buyer get with a V6 if an I4 can perform the same task just as well? Other than to say he/she has a V6 under the hood? If that's the case, people are buying cars for the wrong reason. Buy a car that suits you.
newr
04-25-06, 07:55 PM
These debates are fun as long as it doesn't turn into a bashing fest.
It's so much fun that we have to start another thread.. :p
1SICKLEX
04-25-06, 08:46 PM
:) :) :) :) :) :) Everyone. Good discussion.
bitkahuna
04-25-06, 10:37 PM
:) :) :) :) :) :) Everyone. Good discussion.
Praise from Caesar. :D
SteVTEC
04-26-06, 07:02 PM
Really? I doubt it. Difference in mpg is much greater than weight actually. Plus it has to use premium. Plus it has narrower usage range. Plus it has worse emissions. And costs the same.
10% less weight is helpful for mpg when accelerating, but EPA tests are not done accelerating at high rates, but cruising. At that point, more relavant is aerodynamics, gearing, engine itself.You do not even understand basic physics. Doesn't really matter how quickly or slowly you accelerate because in EPA tests that's already pre-determined. A heavier car requires more energy to accelerate to a given speed than a lighter one, and thus will consume more fuel doing so period.
But what it comes down to is that CX-7 has 4cly turbo and Rav4 has V6. And yes, Rav4 is lighter vehicle.
Thats the fact that cant be changed.
Is Toyota's fault that they engineer car to be lighter? Toyota spent millions to engineer new AWD system that was 40% lighter than one used before.And what about that lightweight? The US market is the only one to get the V6 yes? Was it properly reinforced? Will there be lots of chassis flex? Will it become a rattle trap because it lacks the rigidity and stiffness needed? Will it have a solid driving feel? More powerful cars are often heavier not just because of added engine mass, but due to everything else getting beefed up to handle that along with it.
As I said before, engine itself really can not be seen on its own.Think outside the box and it can be.
mmarshall
04-27-06, 07:23 AM
Doesn't really matter how quickly or slowly you accelerate because in EPA tests that's already pre-determined. A heavier car requires more energy to accelerate to a given speed than a lighter one, and thus will consume more fuel doing so period.
Maybe.....not necessarily. Depends on a number of other factors as well.....transmission and final drive gearing, engine displacement, how hard the engine actually works, rolling resistance of the tires, how much you slip the clutch ( on a manual transmission ), fuel octane and spark timing, etc.......
SteVTEC
04-27-06, 09:02 AM
all other factors being equal or roughly equal (and in this case they most likely are), the heavier vehicle will require more energy to accelerate up to a given speed.