Gideon33w said:
With vandwelling you have a weight penalty which necessitates a little more oomph. Going too underpowered results in lower fuel economy than a larger motor option.
People keep saying that but I haven't seen the evidence for it. This morning I spent some time on fuelly checking all the most common 'dwelling vehicles I could think of. I noted the avg MPG for each motor given with displacement, diesel and gas in separate categories. The overall pattern was
the smallest displacement engine tended to have the highest MPG. There were anomalies, of course (the Nissan NV
x500 being the most striking), but the pattern is there. I encourage everyone to go look for themselves.
One might argue that the average person isn't loading their vehicle down, but the pattern held for the 2500s, 3500s, sprinters, etc. Unless we think they are driving around unladen I think these are significant data points. I am calling the "bigger motor gets better MPG when laden" position bo-oh-oh-oh-gus as Click and Clack used to say.
Gideon33w said:
At the end of the day, there is no financial or ecological benefit for trying to eek out a couple extra mpgs.
I don't understand what that means. I suggest the base engined vehicles cost less to buy, to maintain, and will likely get better MPG. We might want lots of power, and that's totally cool. One of my favorite things about motorcycles is gobs of power on tap. But we could at least admit that in most cases it's a personal preference and not an issue of practicality.
