Forum Discussion
N-Trouble
Mar 22, 2016Explorer
Cool comparison but would have rather seen them run at 65mph with both in 5th.
They're wrong about why the '16 got worse mileage. Has nothing to do with the higher output OR weight since combined weights were identical. Its ALL about the emissions components... Delete the '16 to let it breathe and it would have probably gotten close to 12mpg. They also failed to say (if they even knew...) if the '16 did a regen cycle in that 100mi loop which would have significantly changed the numbers.
FWIW the MPG readout on the '16 is about as far off on the high side as my 2012.
They're wrong about why the '16 got worse mileage. Has nothing to do with the higher output OR weight since combined weights were identical. Its ALL about the emissions components... Delete the '16 to let it breathe and it would have probably gotten close to 12mpg. They also failed to say (if they even knew...) if the '16 did a regen cycle in that 100mi loop which would have significantly changed the numbers.
FWIW the MPG readout on the '16 is about as far off on the high side as my 2012.
About Travel Trailer Group
44,029 PostsLatest Activity: Jan 13, 2025