meh... from all my calculations, the fca ones are quite accurate, for better or worse! but i do recognize that some aren't (or some people don't trust them), hence my inclusion of how it was calculated.
and yeah... somewhere in the 7's is all i expect from an engine putting out 170+ hp... always wish is was it was better though!! i had thought you meant it was like 9's or something... heh...
I like MOAR POWER as much as the next forum member, but I'm unwilling to take a 1.5L/100km highway hit for the marginal betterment, especially given the Dart's weight issue. Irrelevant now given that the Dart is dead, but that Cherokee (FWD) I had was really not impressing me in ideal conditions in Florida highway driving. Getting 25mpg was a shame when the last gen Elantra netted 42mpg.
i'll dump on FCA as much as the next guy, but that's not really a fair comparison...a slipper shaped Elantra with about 140 HP vs an SUV with 170 HP...that SUV will always use more fuel...it has a larger, more powerful engine, and isn't as slippery in the wind.
Despite those differences, the 0-100km/h, 80-120km/h, 30-50km/h times are all similar enough between them. Certainly, nobody would argue that the Cherokee's 'extra power' would be noticeable over the Elantra's (0-60 is 8.4s on the Elantra, and 9.5s on the Cherokee.
Both cars swallowed 4 adults and their bags (in the trunk) for a 3-night cruise (i.e. not huge bags, but not simple backpacks, either). Who cares how "slippery" it is in the wind - both being FWD, the Cherokee was the inferior vehicle in nearly every respect, and certainly in terms of fuel economy.
SirO, whose side are you on?!
