Sure you have to fill up more often, but a smaller gas tank means less weight to carry around, thus better MPG. Surely their must be a term of some form for when the actual weight of the fuel in the tank starts to decrease fuel efficiency...nycb9 said:I find 250 hp to be plenty. I think it's hilarious that people find this truck underpowered. :lol: Where the hell are you going in a truck, for crying out loud. IT'S A TRUCK, not a racecar. In the context of the truck platform, this is an incredibly fun vehicle to drive, handles excellently, gives you a near luxury car ride and has plenty of pep. Comfortable, yet sporty.
Yeah, the tank is on the small side @ only 17 gallons, the '07s too. My '87 Pathfinder had a 21+ gallon tank which was great; and a 3.0ltr V6 which had only 140hp!!
The term is probably "diminishing returns" or "design trades". My thought would be that the engineering trade was more likely between fuel capacity and interior room or ground clearance than weight in this case. At 6lbs/gallon, the weight of 17gal is only 100 lbs. The difference between a 17 and 22 gal tank is only 50lbs in gas, or thereabouts. Not enough to affect the fuel economy of a 4300lb vehicle.HB_Dad said:Sure you have to fill up more often, but a smaller gas tank means less weight to carry around, thus better MPG. Surely their must be a term of some form for when the actual weight of the fuel in the tank starts to decrease fuel efficiency...
I tend to drive more briskly than I would prefer (a holdover from my overpriced German sports sedan and sports car phase) and the constant MPG readout is a real help in this regard. HP and torque seem right on the money. I have never felt I NEEDED more, although of course we always WANT more regardless of how much we have.tlctribeca said:I have had my Tribeca for almost a month now and I think the HP is about right for the type of vehicle it is. If I really step on it goes fast, but since my avg. MPG is constantly on the screen in front of me, I try not to nail it too hard.