Is it possible to get 30mpg with a rear wheel drive car?

Yeah if it doesn't weigh anything

>>17450643
Why wouldn't it? Just get a fuel-efficient engine to put in.

Do it with my 88 samurai, small engine, small car, drive carefully

>>17450643
Corvettes can get that on the highway

>>17450653
rear wheel drive cars are inherently fuel inefficient because of the long driveshaft

File: goat.jpg (285KB, 1024x575px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1024x575px

>>17450643
easily

File: 1970_Fiat_500_L_--_2011_DC_1.jpg (2MB, 2178x1854px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2178x1854px

>>17450643
Yes.

File: IMG_1100.jpg (133KB, 800x489px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 800x489px

GS450h and the Q70 hybrid also

>>17450643
Yeah. Get a Scion FRS. My roommate averages 28 on that.

>>17450664
Drivetrain loss isn't that significant, especially with lighter driveshafts.

>>17450679
It's literally 15%

>>17450679
Yes it is, even the smallest engine RWD car will never get 50mpg like a FWD Geo Metro could.

>>17450643
Mercedes-Benz 200D easily gets that and I'm sure there are lighter diesel cars that get that as well.

>>17450687
Sauce? Sauce on fwd loss. It's a few percentage points to maybe 5% at the very most.

>>17450666
Shit that things gotta be a nightmare to work on the engine.

>>17450704
It's still easier than anything made within the last decade

>>17450693
And a diesel rabbit/golf of the era got like 60 to 70 mpg.

My point though was that the drive shaft doesn't sap that much power all other things being the same. The diff, usually being seperate, will add weight, but the platform itself is not all that influential in final mpg.

The reason you often see rwd with lower mpg is that red are often in a higher segment, heavier and weigh more.

File: 140409_07_bil-wjay705mZamcJRzPh7H7TA.jpg (45KB, 750x519px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 750x519px

>>17450755
>My point though was that the drive shaft doesn't sap that much power all other things being the same
What about mid-engined cars with transversely mounted engines? You know the ones that have the exact same drivetrain that fwd cars have but on their rear wheels? Do these also magically have 10% more drivetrain loss?

Also what about cars like Peel P50 that gets like 100mpg despite being rwd?

I get 9.8L/100KM which is about 29-30MPG on my BRZ.

Toyota Starlet KP61.

File: 2016-Subaru-BRZ-5.jpg (323KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1600x1000px

>>17450643
/thread

>>17450712
It's easy if you have fucking baby hands

>>17450664
Drivetrain loss mostly happens when power makes a corner or goes through a non solid coupling.
>>17450689
Most rwd cars are performance cars or trucks. Neither are designed for fuel economy.

>>17450755
It's not the driveshaft, you dickhead

>>17450643
So any new-ish bmw?
I didn't check but I guess diesel ones are rated over 50mpg?

>>17451152
Then what is it cock snot, or is the mass of the driveshaft zero so no force is necessary to overcome it's inertia.

>>17450643
e46 320d definitely does

When I had a scanguage in my Mercury Grand Marquis (could see how much load the engine was under and drive accordingly as well as a bunch of other cool shit) I could regularly get 29 mpg on my way down to Brattleboro.

So if I can do it in a panther v8, you can really do it in whatever.

About 31 or 32 average in my miata. Still underwhelming for a small light car with small engine

my wifes X3 diesel is AWD and gets ~35mpg's freeway.