> Noddy wrote:

>> "Daryl Walford" internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> news:x4ydnUp6m97OJbPVnZ2dnUVZ_hzinZ2d@posted.internode...
>>

>>> Its a very long way from it.
>>> 1.6lts/100klms less at 80 kph more is a huge difference and IMO the
>>> only way anyone could get that economy reading would be just after
>>> he backed off at 190kph or he had a 200kph tailwind.

>>
>> They have a *very* tall 6th gear.
>>
>> Next time I speak to him I'll ask him what rpm the engine was doing,
>> but considering they sit on 110km/h at around 1600rpm or so I
>> wouldn't be surprised if what he was telling me was true.
>>

>
> Unless the latest versions are very significantly better on fuel than
> 5.7lt engine a few years ago I'd say they would have no hope of
> getting that economy at that speed, I say that based on the many klms
> I spent driving the mates Calais, at light throttle at legal hwy
> speeds the economy was fantastic but as soon as you pushed it the fuel
> consumption increased dramatically.
> The average fuel consumption over the 3 yrs he had the car was about
> 12.5lts/100 which IMO is excellent for a large car with a V8, that
> includes all sorts of driving conditions including regularly towing a
> tandem trailer with his Lotus 7 on board and occasionally towing
> another mates 2 tonne boat.
>
>
>
> Daryl
>