Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: rshunter
We're on the same page of the tech manual, but I'm apparently not getting
my point across. That is, some here aren't recognizing that the fuel economy numbers being used as a point of reference tell us
not about the fuel efficiency of the engine, but of the vehicle as a whole.
Again, that is exactly the point of the post to which you are responding. If it's your point as well, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you are spending so much energy continuing to repeat it when it's already been said five or six times by now. Maybe I'm missing something.
It's probably that one of the early posts stated this as a characteristic of the boxer engine...
Quote:
Cons: Poor fuel economy.
Which as a matter of course for around here, got the usual endorsement. Then, "mormit" tried to point out why the numbers were skewed and then it turned into a stupid game of pointing out that the drive-train wasn't the same as the power-plant, when nobody ever claimed was in the first place. Then I made the point that mormit's point was valid, regarding the basis for comparison, and that without BSFC numbers the whole inefficiency claim is unsubstantiated garbage. Then I got told that the numbers
were based on the car and
not the engine, which is
exactly what I'd said in the first place.
When you said, "This thread is about boxer engines, not cars with boxer engines.", you were right about the title. The problem is that the data points being used for reference are
entirely based on cars with boxer engines. You can't separate them in this example.
Nothing makes sense like being told you're incorrect, because you're correct...