>
> "Ron" wrote in message
> news:Xns9AA33FD7FF9EBGPS@64.209.0.91...

>> Daryl Walford internode.on.net> wrote in
>> news:poOdnbhqP80bb7LVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@posted.internode:
>>

>>> 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

>>> 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
>>>

>>
>> I agree.

>
> You wouldn't have a clue.