<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fuel Challenge: final results</title>
	<link>http://100mpg.ca/fuel-challenge-final-results/</link>
	<description>100 mpg scangauge smart car diesel fuel economy efficiency</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 11:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Mike T</title>
		<link>http://100mpg.ca/fuel-challenge-final-results/#comment-183</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:08:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://100mpg.ca/fuel-challenge-final-results/#comment-183</guid>
					<description>Impressive?  Yes.  But it's not an ordinary Golf; it's a gasoline direct injection 1.6 engine that is not available in North America.  Had they used a TDI, it'd have done it on maybe 10-15% less fuel and better driveability.

I think this was - as much as anything else - an opportunity for Shell to use its experimental fuel.

I think someone SHOULD do this trip in a smart fortwo cdi.  It'd massacre the Golf FSI, even on regular diesel.  3.2 L/100 km, anyone?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Impressive?  Yes.  But it&#8217;s not an ordinary Golf; it&#8217;s a gasoline direct injection 1.6 engine that is not available in North America.  Had they used a TDI, it&#8217;d have done it on maybe 10-15% less fuel and better driveability.</p>
	<p>I think this was - as much as anything else - an opportunity for Shell to use its experimental fuel.</p>
	<p>I think someone SHOULD do this trip in a smart fortwo cdi.  It&#8217;d massacre the Golf FSI, even on regular diesel.  3.2 L/100 km, anyone?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

