Turbo vs. Non Turbo

[SteveGG]

What is your lifetime MPG at right now?

FYI, the 1.5T CAN do 70 MPG. Wayne Gerdes got 72.6 mpg in the 1.5T, and in the 2.0, got 52.4 mpg. Check out cleanmpg.com. If you are familiar with hypermiling, you know who he is. The difference between the 1.5T and the 2.0 when hypermiling isn't even close. I have SEVERAL 65+ mpg trips. Your image shows a previous drive of 32.3. I've NEVER had any trip anywhere remotely close to that. All of mine these days are 50+, irregardless if highway or city.


95.0 actual miles on 1.309 gallons = 72.6 mpg vs 72.0 mpg over 93.7 miles indicated.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/index.php?threads/52714/page-4

"irregardless" isn't a word in the English language.

Sponsored

 

[mc1200s]

"irregardless" isn't a word in the English language.

I'll buy "regardless" for $500.

 

[Negan]

"irregardless" isn't a word in the English language.

Actually, according to Mirriam-Webster it is:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

As well as the Oxford dictionary:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/irregardless

It is, however, regarded as a non-standard word, and "regardless" is recommended as the correct choice.

 

[SteveGG]

Actually, according to Mirriam-Webster it is:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

As well as the Oxford dictionary:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/irregardless

It is, however, regarded as a non-standard word, and "regardless" is recommended as the correct choice.

I was going by my current WP, Word 2007 in this case. It had it as a misspelling.

 

[SteveGG]

Actually, according to Mirriam-Webster it is:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

As well as the Oxford dictionary:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/irregardless

It is, however, regarded as a non-standard word, and "regardless" is recommended as the correct choice.

Further, "Irregardless means the same as regardless, but the negative prefix ir- merely duplicates the suffix -less, and is unnecessary. The word dates back to the 19th century, but is regarded as incorrect in standard English" I rest my case.

 

[gunbunnysoulja]

"irregardless" isn't a word in the English language.

FYI, yes it is. It is considered nonstandard. Necessary or not, it's quite common to use alternative choices throughout the English language. I am sure I could pick out 20 or so grammar errors from your postings, but this isn't a masters English class, it's a public forum.

Some other nonstandard choices being commonly used:

alot vs a lot
alright vs all right
anyways vs anyway
considered as vs considered to be
in comparison with vs in comparison to
in contrast with vs in contrast to
kind of vs somewhat
regarded to be vs regarded as
would of vs would have
might of vs might have
in regards to vs in regard to
should of vs should have
thusly vs thus
utilize vs use

 

[SteveGG]

FYI, yes it is. It is considered nonstandard. Necessary or not, it's quite common to use alternative choices throughout the English language. I am sure I could pick out 20 or so grammar errors from your postings, but this isn't a masters English class, it's a public forum.

Some other nonstandard choices being commonly used:

alot vs a lot
alright vs all right
anyways vs anyway
considered as vs considered to be
in comparison with vs in comparison to
in contrast with vs in contrast to
kind of vs somewhat
regarded to be vs regarded as
would of vs would have
might of vs might have
in regards to vs in regard to
should of vs should have
thusly vs thus
utilize vs use

Well be sure to advise me if I use incorrect English. Interesting to note that irregardless literally means not regard less, which is actually the opposite of what is intended ! Sort of like : "Don't bother me no more."

 

[Newflyer3]

Classic thread involving SteveGG that turns into a grammatical debate. GTFO boys

 

[WCELingad]

What is your lifetime MPG at right now?

FYI, the 1.5T CAN do 70 MPG. Wayne Gerdes got 72.6 mpg in the 1.5T, and in the 2.0, got 52.4 mpg. Check out cleanmpg.com. If you are familiar with hypermiling, you know who he is. The difference between the 1.5T and the 2.0 when hypermiling isn't even close. I have SEVERAL 65+ mpg trips. Your image shows a previous drive of 32.3. I've NEVER had any trip anywhere remotely close to that. All of mine these days are 50+, irregardless if highway or city.


95.0 actual miles on 1.309 gallons = 72.6 mpg vs 72.0 mpg over 93.7 miles indicated.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/index.php?threads/52714/page-4

My lifetime right now is at 45.6 and the reason why the previous drive was only at 32.3 was because I only drove it for 2 minutes so it did not get high enough. I've only had this car late September with a little over 1000 miles on it so I still have yet to discover the true potential of it when hypermiling. In my opinion, the 2.0 NA would be able to reach mid 60s at best and average between 50-60 mpg when driven properly for hypermiling. Thanks for showing the 72 mpg image the 1.5T is definitely the better engine between two, but by no means makes the 2.0 NA a poor engine. I average between 50-55 highway and 45-50 city and that is an incredible mpg almost as good as a hybrid car despite being a non hybrid. At this point in time we cannot tell which engine will be more reliable in the future, but the fact remains that the 2.0 NA has a more simple design with less complexity which means it will be the cheaper and easier to fix later on should problems start to arise. I am definitely happy with an engine that I personally know can do 50-55 mpg (and hopefully in the 60s soon) despite being a lower trim level engine.

 

[gunbunnysoulja]

My lifetime right now is at 45.6 and the reason why the previous drive was only at 32.3 was because I only drove it for 2 minutes so it did not get high enough. I've only had this car late September with a little over 1000 miles on it so I still have yet to discover the true potential of it when hypermiling. In my opinion, the 2.0 NA would be able to reach mid 60s at best and average between 50-60 mpg when driven properly for hypermiling. Thanks for showing the 72 mpg image the 1.5T is definitely the better engine between two, but by no means makes the 2.0 NA a poor engine. I average between 50-55 highway and 45-50 city and that is an incredible mpg almost as good as a hybrid car despite being a non hybrid. At this point in time we cannot tell which engine will be more reliable in the future, but the fact remains that the 2.0 NA has a more simple design with less complexity which means it will be the cheaper and easier to fix later on should problems start to arise. I am definitely happy with an engine that I personally know can do 50-55 mpg (and hopefully in the 60s soon) despite being a lower trim level engine.

Well said. Thanks for the thorough reply

 

[CosmicX]

I happen to like the 2.0, but I have it paired to the 6MT. I think gas mileage is relative to driving habits and terrain, just as much as engine and trans. I'm sure MY gas mileage is better then a lot of people who have the 1.5, but maybe not all of them. Additionally, my daily commute involves driving up a 7% grade with about 1000 feet of elevation gain. Maybe I could get 50 if I lived in flat land. I also go up that hill in 6th with cruise set. I've never felt the 2.0 and 6MT lacked for power, but I'm not a lead foot either.

 

[unr1]

 

[Billy4202]

That's cray...bet the 2.0 wouldn't even take off...

 

[SteveGG]

It appears they just mounted the engine, slapped on a prop, and went. The Honda 1.5 turbo engine is not designed for continuous axial (thrust) loading. Wonder how they accommodated for that ? Insane if they didn't !

 

[inv4zn]

Better video of the engine:


That's actually rather impressive.

Sponsored