| Redbeard |
Since Nissan's credibility is highly questionable when it comes to city MPG estimates, I wonder if FWD in reality gets better city mileage than AWD?
Unfortunately, I can't think of a reasonable way to find out, but I am curious never the less. Any thoughts? |
|
|
| Tyler_Canada |
| As the AWD should be inactive all the time on dry pavement, I would guess the difference would be in the weight of the vehicles. It's a few hundred pounds heavier for the AWD version. |
|
|
| senza |
The extra weight is the biggest factor in any higher fuel consumption but there is some friction involved in turning that fairly substantial drive shaft up to the "clutch system" and rear differential/driveshafts....the rear axles don't look particularly "beefy"
Lots of people seem to knock Nissan for the shortfall between actual gas mileage and rated gas mileage....I'm not sure how it works in the "Exited States" but in Canada we have a government agency, Transport Canada, that tests and then estimates MPG numbers.....there not Nissan's numbers... |
|
|
| Tyler_Canada |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by senza
The extra weight is the biggest factor in any higher fuel consumption but there is some friction involved in turning that fairly substantial drive shaft up to the "clutch system" and rear differential/driveshafts....the rear axles don't look particularly "beefy"/QUOTE]
Ahh yes. Forgot the drive shaft to the rear is being turned all the time. I guess that means the FWD will have better acceleration and engine braking too (less mass to accelerate/decelerate, similar to a lightened flywheel). Oh well, I wouldn't trade the AWD for the amount of difference it makes. |
|
|
|
