Gas mileage....

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Horsepower Baby!!!!! Imagine driving a Nitro Funny Car. They use 6 gallons of Nitromethane for a quarter mile:eek:. That's 24 gallons of fuel every mile!!! Now figure a gallon of that stuff runs about $30.00. But 0-100 mph in .7 seconds is well worth it.
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
How does the extra pounds on the drivers and passengers affect the gas mileage? I know if I load my pickup with 500 pounds of feed, the mileage drops. Same is going to happen for adding passenger weight.
 
Right

How does the extra pounds on the drivers and passengers affect the gas mileage? I know if I load my pickup with 500 pounds of feed, the mileage drops. Same is going to happen for adding passenger weight.
I think you're right - heavier passengers will equal lower mileage. I don't know if anyone has ever calculated how much though.
 
I think when they do thier gas mileage estimates the car trunk should wiegh down with cinder blocks and a couple crash test dummies weighting a couple extra pounds in the passenger seat and backseats.
 
hmmmm.

I think when they do thier gas mileage estimates the car trunk should wiegh down with cinder blocks and a couple crash test dummies weighting a couple extra pounds in the passenger seat and backseats.
I don't think I know how they do their estimates --- I just know that the estimates have always seemed optimistic to me.
 
I really don't think they try to get the cars to really high MPG. I think they spend their time getting the lowest performing cars, trucks and SUVs to minimally acceptable levels. My first car, a long long long time ago was 1968 Chevy Impala. It got around 8 MPG on a good day. A large car like that today probably gets in the low or mid 20's.
68 was a bad year...it was the first year of the first anti-polution laws and the Chevy was big and heavy that impala was probably close to 4000 pounds. The emission changes made a huge impact on mileage along with the added weight.

I had a 67 Impala with a 335 hp 396 cid V-8 and it got 18.5 mpg highway (as long as I stayed below about 70) and about 16 local - curb weight was about 3500 pounds.

The 68 was a lot heavier, and slower off the dime.

By the mind '60's I was driving big engined Corvettes, but my first car was a 1959 Impala with an Okie rake, a 348 engine and a Herscht conversion from an automatic to a 3 speed on the floor... I got between 16 and 18 miles per gallon, unless I did a lot of driving in San Franciso... it had trouble with some of the hills just getting rolling forward because of the low ration rear end... don't think they changed it when they changed the transmission... have no idea the weight of the car, but at 85 with the okie rake on it, the tail end would lift.
 
I remember sitting at the dinner table when I was but a wee lad. My Father who worked at Sears in the Automotive Department. selling shocks, batteries, tires....
Anyhow as we had our dinner he would expound on the day's events at work.
This particular night he told us of a customer who had a Pontiac Catalina with a big block 400 CID engine. The Customer had came in for the annual tune up. He was boasting that his car was getting great gas mileage. 30 miles to the gallon, great.... This was absolutely unheard of in the early 1970's. The Mechanic, hearing this boast, looked at the serial number on the Carburetor. Called a parts store for a new one, took the old one off and put the new one on.
Why? As I understand, GM had a certain number of experimental carburetors that were mistakenly put into the production line. An oil company, Union 76, had a $500 Bounty on them.

Now some will say this is all urban myth. Believe what you will. My father wouldn't lie. I feel that he was some what discussed at these turn of events.

My point is, the ability or technology to make a large engine provide mileage as a small engine today. by rights, we should have cars and trucks with the mileage above 150 MPG. Sadly someone did write that Gasoline is a cash cow in regards to taxes.

I know that story has been around a lot longer than the '70s. I heard it in high school in the '50s only it was a Ford and it was Standard Oil and the 'bounty' was lower about $200 if my memory serves. I'd be surprised if my Dad hadn't heard it in the 30s or 40s.

I personally don't believe that every car company in the world (including those who's bread and butter was/is making high mileage cars) would conspire with the oil companies to keep the mileage on cars down. My opinion is if they could make a 150 mpg car somebody would be making it and the government would fall all over themselves to make everyone copy it.

I don't know when I first heard this story, nor do I remember the car or bounty, but it was a story going around when I was in high school... I do know that it's really hard to get the auto makers to make changes that they don't see as a benefit to them. I have a friend, who has long since passed away, that invented a wrap around rear mirror that gave drivers a full 180 + degree of vision behind them - no blind spots - it took him about quite a while to even get a patten on the mirror, then he started trying to market it to the auto makers... the most money he made off the mirror was the money he made from his book about the trials and tribulations he went through trying to market it.
 
I really don't think they try to get the cars to really high MPG. I think they spend their time getting the lowest performing cars, trucks and SUVs to minimally acceptable levels. My first car, a long long long time ago was 1968 Chevy Impala. It got around 8 MPG on a good day. A large car like that today probably gets in the low or mid 20's.
68 was a bad year...it was the first year of the first anti-polution laws and the Chevy was big and heavy that impala was probably close to 4000 pounds. The emission changes made a huge impact on mileage along with the added weight.

I had a 67 Impala with a 335 hp 396 cid V-8 and it got 18.5 mpg highway (as long as I stayed below about 70) and about 16 local - curb weight was about 3500 pounds.

The 68 was a lot heavier, and slower off the dime.

By the mind '60's I was driving big engined Corvettes, but my first car was a 1959 Impala with an Okie rake, a 348 engine and a Herscht conversion from an automatic to a 3 speed on the floor... I got between 16 and 18 miles per gallon, unless I did a lot of driving in San Franciso... it had trouble with some of the hills just getting rolling forward because of the low ration rear end... don't think they changed it when they changed the transmission... have no idea the weight of the car, but at 85 with the okie rake on it, the tail end would lift.
I never drove a 59 but because of the design of the rear "fins" I did hear that there were some problems with the back end lifting at high speeds. It weigned about 3500 pound I think but I wouldn't stake my life on that.
 
...I am an expert on the subject

Something not commonly known (and not intending to get political) but tires on most cars are manufactured, built and intended to operate in the 38 - 42 PSI range. Most car manufacturers still recommend 32 on average. Look at your tires on the side and see what the TIRE ratings are IN PRINT.

I learned this on a Prius forum. My Prius was not getting the MPG that I was expecting and checked the tire pressure - 32 PSI! I upped the pressure to 40 front and 38 rear and the MPG jumped up 2 to 4 mpg. This is on the Prius. I did some googling and found this to be consistent and true.

Car manufacturers recommend one thing but the tire manufacturers recommend another and for a purpose. And their engineering departments stand behind them in terms of safety. I don't have the Michelin Milage tires but they are designed for high tire pressure and in return higher gas milage. These will be the followup tires that I purchase.

The problem with your logic is that tires are made to fit many different models which all weigh different amounts. To get the best tread life and safety use what the auto manufacturer recommends. Over inflating tires is dangerous in that it decreases the surface area that contacts the road, resullting in the loss of braking efficiency. It will also result in premature failure as the middle of the tread will wear a lot faster than the outer tread. So you can over inflate but you will be buying tires more frequently and gambling on that wet pavement.
I think my truck recommends 32 but my wife's car does recommend 38 front and 40 rear I believe but that is with the tires they supply with the vehicle. If you don't replace them with the same kind you need to find another means to determine what they should be. The tire itself would be the best place to look - in my opinion. I have not checked lately but it seems to me that cars used to go by the manufacturers recommendation on tire pressure since many auto models used to have more than one source for tires. Have not checked that lately either maybe they've changed that along with so many other things.

I see what you are saying and you are not the only one who believes in the side wall inflation ratings. But look at it this way, I used to to have a Ford Ranger and I put on non OEM tires. These tires also fit a Chevy Tahoe. The Tahoe is substantially heavier which requires a higher inflation spec. than my Ranger. The max pressure is a do not exceed number, not an inflation spec. By the way this is not just a Joe Shmoe opinion, I am a factory certified Master Technician who is also Hunter Alignment certified. I have physically seen many people throw away tires prematurely due to over-inflation. I blame auto forums for the majority of misinformation.
 
1.00$/gallon

At a dollar a gallon I drive my truck like I stole it. :airplane:
I think I spend more on tires than fuel.
My wife's car offsets that a little bit, still pay a buck a gallon for fuel but even when I drive it hard :hammer: it still gets 42MPG (VW Beetle TDI).

Home-Brewed Biodiesel, Baby!!!!!

david (in my very best Austin Powers voice).
 
me too

My moped gets me around town with a little over 100 miles to a gallon
got to love it


If it wasn't for my old age and lack of wanting to be in the open air amongst Arkansas drivers.....:eek:




Scott (not a chance) B

plus 1 .... but make that Delaware drivers - half of whom seem to be even older than I am.
 
added Spec

Don't tires also come with a rating class that can be related to vehicle weight? My Colorado curb weight is 3300 pounds but MGVW is about 5000 and it can probably safely exceed that by a couple of hundred pounds. The tires appear to be matched to the MGVW, it that they look to be heavier than typical passenger car tires.
Something not commonly known (and not intending to get political) but tires on most cars are manufactured, built and intended to operate in the 38 - 42 PSI range. Most car manufacturers still recommend 32 on average. Look at your tires on the side and see what the TIRE ratings are IN PRINT.

I learned this on a Prius forum. My Prius was not getting the MPG that I was expecting and checked the tire pressure - 32 PSI! I upped the pressure to 40 front and 38 rear and the MPG jumped up 2 to 4 mpg. This is on the Prius. I did some googling and found this to be consistent and true.

Car manufacturers recommend one thing but the tire manufacturers recommend another and for a purpose. And their engineering departments stand behind them in terms of safety. I don't have the Michelin Milage tires but they are designed for high tire pressure and in return higher gas milage. These will be the followup tires that I purchase.

The problem with your logic is that tires are made to fit many different models which all weigh different amounts. To get the best tread life and safety use what the auto manufacturer recommends. Over inflating tires is dangerous in that it decreases the surface area that contacts the road, resullting in the loss of braking efficiency. It will also result in premature failure as the middle of the tread will wear a lot faster than the outer tread. So you can over inflate but you will be buying tires more frequently and gambling on that wet pavement.
I think my truck recommends 32 but my wife's car does recommend 38 front and 40 rear I believe but that is with the tires they supply with the vehicle. If you don't replace them with the same kind you need to find another means to determine what they should be. The tire itself would be the best place to look - in my opinion. I have not checked lately but it seems to me that cars used to go by the manufacturers recommendation on tire pressure since many auto models used to have more than one source for tires. Have not checked that lately either maybe they've changed that along with so many other things.

I see what you are saying and you are not the only one who believes in the side wall inflation ratings. But look at it this way, I used to to have a Ford Ranger and I put on non OEM tires. These tires also fit a Chevy Tahoe. The Tahoe is substantially heavier which requires a higher inflation spec. than my Ranger. The max pressure is a do not exceed number, not an inflation spec. By the way this is not just a Joe Shmoe opinion, I am a factory certified Master Technician who is also Hunter Alignment certified. I have physically seen many people throw away tires prematurely due to over-inflation. I blame auto forums for the majority of misinformation.
 
Sorry for not thoroughly reading this thread before posting. I'm an auto tech professionally and I can tell you, living in Wisconsin, every Nov or Dec, customers start bitching about their mileage like a switch flipped. Here, "cold weather gas" comes in about that time. No gas station admits, but we've tested HIGHER ethanol levels in winter gas. Throw in all the other additives for cold, and you're burning much less than 90-odd % gasoline. Empty calories, dilution. I hug no tree and believe Ethanol is NOT the wave of the near-future. Buy premium with no ethanol.
 
Guys the modern world is addicted to oil, play a little with the numbers and only the very observant notice that we are not making progress. Kinda like fuel costs, start at $2.75 time it with a disaster or change in the weather and it's $4.00 per before anyone notices, drop it back down to $3.50 and everyone thinks they are getting a deal. Add to that the fact that gas is not formulated in the same way as it once was and all the millage robbing emission controls and you have little bitty gas guzzlers.

Ironically when I switched from a jeep grand Cherokee to my turbo charged 3/4 ton diesel pick up I got a boost in fuel efficiency..........everything but the tin is the same as a comercial pannel truck, go figure?
 
Last edited:
For What it's Worth

In 1969 I got a Chevrolet C-10 full size pickup truck. It weighed 3100 pounds and had a rated load of 1350 pounds for a rated GVW of 4450. It had a straight line 6 and 2 speed power glide transmission and got 16 - 18 mpg.

Currently I have a 2007 mid size pickup. It weighs about 3500 pounds and has a rated load of 1500 plus for a rated GVW of about 5000. It has a 4 cylinder and at least a 4 speed automatic and it gets 16 - 24 mpg.

The interesting thing to note is that the "mid size" weighs 400 pounds more than the full size weighed and that the 'city' mpg is about the same. I got about 18 mpg when I got it I was doing less really short trips than I do now.
 
I drive a RAV 4 and get 23 mpg around hilly San Francisco and on the highway I get 28- 32 mpg. When I drive to Utah for the annual symposium I get 33-34 on the highway through Nevada going 70+ an hour. It is a great car and I can carry furniture, wood, etc since the back seats fold down.
 
I drive a RAV 4 and get 23 mpg around hilly San Francisco and on the highway I get 28- 32 mpg. When I drive to Utah for the annual symposium I get 33-34 on the highway through Nevada going 70+ an hour. It is a great car and I can carry furniture, wood, etc since the back seats fold down.

When I was doing most of my driving in SF, I was in a '59 Chevy Impala that had been converted from an automatic to a 3 speed on the floor... I think they left the automatic rear end... it took me a while to figure out how to go up hill without rolling backwards 10 or 15 feet... bet I rolled back into a dozen or more cars...:biggrin: after I got out of the navy (in SF) I moved back to TX where the ground was flat... then moved to Los Angles for a year.. by then I was driving a Corvette that had proper rear end for the transmission and didn't have so much trouble in the city after I moved back to the Bay Area.

Loved the first Corvette, but it worked almost like a gas pump... it had a big 4 barrel Holly AFB carb on it and if I punched it, you could almost see the gas gauge descend.
 
I don't know about gas mileage, but i know that whoever added corn ethanol to gas doesn't own a boat..ethanol is hydroscopic, which is not a good thing in a marine engine...

I finally found one station in town with premium ethanol-free gasoline for my boat - much happier!

Andrew
 
I really think it is all relative ... they could make vehicles more efficient and safe but there is a lot of $$$ and lobbiest that think the other way.

When I got married in 1967 the wife thought my '63 Plymouth 2dr Hardtop w/ 426 wedge was the cats meow. Gas Mileage??? Couldn't have cared less at $0.25 a gallon. She thought that was too big so I downsized to a '68 Nickey Camaro and again I could care less at the price of gas.

Then came son #1 and her perspective changed a lot and we should get an economy car because A) - we just bought our first house and B) the payments of $99 for the house and $45 for the camaro stretched the budget so I ended up with a Datsun 510 ...

While we were in College I drove a '89 Camary that we put 300K on and finally replaced it in 2003 with a Sonata ... the wife has manged to put 145k on that one.

The difference is the Toyota got around 33mph and the Sonata gets the same except it is more comfortable to drive.

I bought a Chev 1500 in 1993 and still have it and I've got over 265k on it and the 4.3 still gives me 26-28 going back and forth to work.

I'm going to have to replace this as it has dropped a cylinder (65psi) and I don't want to drop $1300 for a long block when the tranny has 265k on it so I'm being a miser and looking at Outbacks ... mileage will be about the same but I'll get around better in the snow.
 
Back
Top Bottom