[fpv_gtho]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

the point of having the engine working at a slightly higher rev is good, because at higher rev the engine is more generally efficient. that means that it would pollute less and require less chemical power (so fuel) to obtain the same mechanical power (so hp). it's the same principle behind cylinder deactivation systems in some V8/V12 engines( (MB, Ferrari) or of using small turbocharged engines. surely, in those moments, the engine would consume a higher quantity of fuel than, but it will spend it better obtain more power with less emissions.
besides, this considerations are good just when speaking about the homologation process, when the car, and the engine, are tested to evaluate the emission and consumption levels. unfortunately, the way those levels are evaluated are completely unrealistic. so we could finally obtain a car that pollute less than its predecessor, but just from a theoretical point of view.

Thats assuming the owners are going to be content in driving like an old man. Local large car buyers expect a reasonable amount of performance even from the standard vehicles. If that power's not at an easily accessible part of the rev range (the current engines produce peak power above the indicated rev line for christ sake) the economy will surely turn to crap.

Its almost proven with the Aurion and Falcon here. The Toyota has a lower government rating (9.9L/100km) than the Ford (10.5L/100km) but the higher peak outputs of the Toyota regularly turn back real word figures of 12-15L/100km whilst the Falcon has consistently come back around 9L/100km.

As far as it only being only 5kw lost for the Commodore, its 5kw less on an already embarrasingly cheap package.