<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fuels rush in (2)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9194/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9194</link>
	<description>I couldn&#039;t possibly fail to disagree with you less.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:27:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: CGHill</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9194/comment-page-1#comment-23692</link>
		<dc:creator>CGHill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9194#comment-23692</guid>
		<description>The nice thing about those big lazy V8s is that they don&#039;t have to work too hard, and therefore don&#039;t have to guzzle a lot of fuel.

In 2000, when I was looking at Mazdas, the 626 with the four-cylinder pulled 22/28, while the V6 version got 20/27.  Not what I&#039;d call a huge difference.  That teeny four (which I eventually bought) worked its little heart out in town.  Scored around 30 out on the open road, though.  Still, that&#039;s for a car weighing half a ton less than a &#039;98 DeVille that was barely working up a sweat.

I got around 27 mpg in West Texas last time I was out there, with a fair-sized V6.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The nice thing about those big lazy V8s is that they don&#8217;t have to work too hard, and therefore don&#8217;t have to guzzle a lot of fuel.</p>
<p>In 2000, when I was looking at Mazdas, the 626 with the four-cylinder pulled 22/28, while the V6 version got 20/27.  Not what I&#8217;d call a huge difference.  That teeny four (which I eventually bought) worked its little heart out in town.  Scored around 30 out on the open road, though.  Still, that&#8217;s for a car weighing half a ton less than a &#8217;98 DeVille that was barely working up a sweat.</p>
<p>I got around 27 mpg in West Texas last time I was out there, with a fair-sized V6.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donna B.</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9194/comment-page-1#comment-23689</link>
		<dc:creator>Donna B.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9194#comment-23689</guid>
		<description>I drive a 1998 Cadillac Deville and get 20/28. I have, when trying really hard got 32 highway. Where&#039;s the huge improvement?

BTW, trying really hard for me means going to speed limit. And in W Texas where the speed limit is 80, I&#039;ve driven above the speed limit and noticed only about a 1 mpg decrease. 

Why the heck should I buy one of these supposedly &quot;fuel efficient&quot; vehicles?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I drive a 1998 Cadillac Deville and get 20/28. I have, when trying really hard got 32 highway. Where&#8217;s the huge improvement?</p>
<p>BTW, trying really hard for me means going to speed limit. And in W Texas where the speed limit is 80, I&#8217;ve driven above the speed limit and noticed only about a 1 mpg decrease. </p>
<p>Why the heck should I buy one of these supposedly &#8220;fuel efficient&#8221; vehicles?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve B</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9194/comment-page-1#comment-23685</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:20:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9194#comment-23685</guid>
		<description>What cracks me up is the study I remember reading about, but don&#039;t have a link which basically says that it actually takes MORE energy to produce many of the modern smart cars than traditional vehicles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What cracks me up is the study I remember reading about, but don&#8217;t have a link which basically says that it actually takes MORE energy to produce many of the modern smart cars than traditional vehicles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

