Fuel Economy

[knightfan26917]

Fuel economy is a buzz phrase that most car buyers/owners want to maximize. Accordingly, car manufacturers are striving to give buyers excellent MPG.

Among newer Ch#$r%*ets, while not the most fuel-efficient models available, these are still considered by many to be "fuel efficient" (compared to say, trucks, SUVs, etc.), with figures I searched for online...:

2008 V6 malibu, FWD ... EPA-estimated 17 mpg city

2008 V8 (active fuel management) impala SS, FWD ... EPA-estimated 16 mpg city

2007 V8 (active fuel management) mc SS, FWD ... EPA-estimated 18 mpg city

Comparing ... the 2008 V8 G8 GT, RWD, has an EPA-estimated 15 mpg city

Meanwhile, the 2008 Dodge Charger V8, RWD, has an EPA-estimated 17 mpg city

...and the 2008 Dodge Charger 3.5 V6, RWD, has an EPA-estimated 19 mpg city

Highway EPA-estimated MPGs are touted the most, but for this comparison, I'm using the city EPA estimates, since my RWD Monte Carlos are used more or less in the city.

I've NEVER claimed my Monte Carlos to be fuel efficient..and I still do NOT claim that; however, comparing my real-world MPGs to EPA estimated MPGs for newer engines...imho, a few of them certainly are NOT the gas guzzlers most people see them as.... Course, options on the cars along with the type of V8/V6 engines are factors that I have not taken into account...which might be unfair.... Even so, the comparisons are intriguing to me...and, with no car payments (versus a car payment with a newer car) and lower insurance premiums for the older cars (vs higher insurance premiums for a newer car), I'll stick with my older cars...for now, anyway....

1972 MC, 350 V8

... 1st 2008 fill-up, June 1 ... 15.18 MPG

... 2nd 2008 fill-up, July 4, after ~142 miles, 10.215 gallons .... 13.87 MPG

1976 MC, 305 V8

... 1st 2008 fill-up, June 1 ... 13.58 MPG

... 2nd 2008 fill-up, July 4, after ~137 miles, 10.095 gallons ... 13.58 MPG

1979 MC, 350 V8

... 1st 2008 fill-up, June 1 ... 15.47 MPG

... 2nd 2008 fill-up, July 4, after ~141 miles, 7.859 gallons ... 17.94 MPG

1981 MC, 3.8 V6

... 1st 2008 fill-up, June 1 ... 18.60 MPG

... 2nd 2008 fill-up, July 4, after ~139 miles, 7.086 gallons ... 19.62 MPG

1987 MC LS, 305 V8

... June 1 ... 19.26 MPG

... June 8 ... 17.10 MPG

... June 13 ... 18.40 MPG

... June 18 ... 16.43 MPG

... June 22 ... 18.78 MPG

... June 30 ... 19.03 MPG

... July 6, after ~155 miles, 8.118 gallons ... 19.18 MPG

Cort:34swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve&pacemaker

WRMNshowcase.legos.HO.models.MCs.RTs.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"Who do you think you're talkin' to?" ... Lee Roy Parnell ... 'What Kind Of Fool Do You Think I Am?'

[loki]

curious about the transmission difference, if there is one from 72 to 79? alot had changed in the 15 years between your old and new.

[A Horse With No Name]

About 14 or 15 MPG is about right for cars of the Era and size.

Chris

[knightfan26917]

curious about the transmission difference, if there is one from 72 to 79? alot had changed in the 15 years between your old and new.

Oh my yes.

I don't know the specs offhand, so I'll have to get 'em for you later. The '72 has a 3-speed, but the previous owner told me it had been replaced, and she didn't know what was put in (a bit scary)...and, when I first got the car in 2002, I sifted through the paperwork she gave me...and none of it mentioned a new tranny...so, I don't know if I'll have the specific info on that one.....

Cort:34swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve&pacemaker

WRMNshowcase.legos.HO.models.MCs.RTs.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"Do you see what I see?" ... One Republic ... 'Stop and Stare'

[intrigued]

Just filled up my mustang for the first time since I got it. 14 gallon (regular of course) fill up that took me 325.5 miles. thats 23.25 mpg. Not bad but it is about 80 percent highway and I baby a lot. Going for the smooth shifts and stuff still since I havent driven a stick since I was 16, almost 6 years ago. Only stalled once so far since I got it.

for those who don't know its a 05 GT so its the 4.6 v8 wit 5 speed stick and 3.55 rear end.

[knightfan26917]

That isn't too shabby, intrigued.

Any idea what the EPA rating on that is? It'd be interesting to see how well it is getting compared to the EPA estimate.....

[vonVeezelsnider]

All three of our cars seem to beat the EPA estimate handily.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

Knightfan, I wonder why the '76 gets worse mileage than the '72? Even though the 305 is in the '76 instead of a 350. Though the 305 isnt as different in that respect from a 350 as people would like us to believe. For the record this is generally what mine get.

1985 Caprice with the 305 Chevrolet V8 and 4-speed auto. About 15 town and maybe 22-23 highway.

1981 Bonneville with the 307 Olds V8 and 4-speed auto. About 16 town and about 23-24 with an occasional 25 highway.

2005 Equinox with the 3.4 liter V6 5-speed auto. About 17 town and about 24 highway.

2007 Sears lawn tractor with the 18 hp Briggs and Stratton OHV. Havent tested that, but I will let you all know what it comes up with.

As you can see they all arent hugely different. The Bonneville has always been that little bit better in that respect than the Caprice though the Caprice scoots a little bit quicker too.

Edited July 11, 2008 by 2005 EquinoxLS

[intrigued]

The factory sticker is rated at 17/25. This was the old rating scale of course.

[A Horse With No Name]

Just filled up my mustang for the first time since I got it. 14 gallon (regular of course) fill up that took me 325.5 miles. thats 23.25 mpg. Not bad but it is about 80 percent highway and I baby a lot. Going for the smooth shifts and stuff still since I havent driven a stick since I was 16, almost 6 years ago. Only stalled once so far since I got it.

for those who don't know its a 05 GT so its the 4.6 v8 wit 5 speed stick and 3.55 rear end.

[A Horse With No Name]

Just filled up my mustang for the first time since I got it. 14 gallon (regular of course) fill up that took me 325.5 miles. thats 23.25 mpg. Not bad but it is about 80 percent highway and I baby a lot. Going for the smooth shifts and stuff still since I havent driven a stick since I was 16, almost 6 years ago. Only stalled once so far since I got it.

for those who don't know its a 05 GT so its the 4.6 v8 wit 5 speed stick and 3.55 rear end.

Actually that's a damned fine car!

Chris

[Cory Wolfe]

I'm averaging about 28 mpg in the Jetta and that's with maybe 40% highway driving and an admittedly heavy right foot. I'm thoroughly pleased, to say the least, considering what I was dealing with previously.

[daves87rs]

30 Mpg w/ the wife's Cavalier-about 50 city/50 freeway....

only 25mpg with the Cobalt...but lately it has been all city, and it is due for a fuel filter, which should help.....

[mightymouse]

I sold my Yukon (sniffff....snif....) and bought a super clean 99 s-10 for $2000 as an experiment for running around & work transportation...

The 2.2 liter had a funny noise like lower end bearings....I thought it was a bad idler pulley - it was. $35.

Aired up the tires to 35psi/cold air intake/new sparks w extra gap =29 mpg mission accomplished-love it.

[Intrepidation]

Mianly drive the Prizm which gets 32-35 in mixed driving.

Intrepid does about 24 in mixed driving. Haven't been using it much lately, mainly because it needs a ball joint or tie-rod and I haven't gotten around to doing them yet...oh and it has no A/C so yeah.

Not sure about the GM, haven't calculated it yet, but we may take it on a trip to the western part of the state today, so that would be a good chance to calculate it.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Dodgefan

[balthazar]

>>"I wonder why the '76 gets worse mileage than the '72? Even though the 305 is in the '76 instead of a 350."<<

lower-powered 305 in the same size/ weight car has to work harder to perform the same as the 350.

[capriceman]

Well My caprice averages 17 with a heavy, heavy, heavy right foot. but if i head up north normally i set cruise at about 68 and average 25-26. Throttle body helps and the 200 4r trans is way more efficient than the 700r or TH350. I think the 76 needs a tuning. Or the driver needs to stop listening for the exhaust. Trust me balty the 305 doesn't need to stress much more than a 350 to pull around a car. it holds it own. 170 hp 260 ft lbs of torque.

[knightfan26917]

I think the 76 needs a tuning. Or the driver needs to stop listening for the exhaust.

LOL!

I WISH it were a case of me needing to stop listening for the exhaust .

But, no, the '76 always seems to "drag" a little bit upon cold starts. It's fine once it gets warmed up...but, it tends to bog and, sometimes, will hesitate/stall as I drive it out of the garage. And, yep, it has been tuned up....

Cort:34swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve&pacemaker

WRMNshowcase.legos.HO.models.MCs.RTs.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"I ain't ready for the junkyard yet" ... George Jones ... 'I Don't Need Your Rocking Chair'

[2005 EquinoxLS]

The choke probably just needs adjusting Cort. Seemed like in those days they adjusted the choke to come off as quickly as possible. Problem is that if you go to far with that kind of thinking it makes the car want to stall while it is warming up. Also make sure your Thermac is working right. If the door in the tube leading to the air cleaner sticks open and doesnt close when its cold it will suck cold air while it is warming up causing it to stumble and also it wont warm up as fast causing poor fuel economy. Just a few things to think about. Another question not related to this, does the 305 in the '76 ping at all or is it pretty quiet. Thats was a horrible problem on the 1979 Impala I had with the 305 and also on Mom and Dads 1978 Impala with that motor. Not a problem on the 1985 Caprice since that has a knock sensor.

Capriceman, are you sure yours has a 200-4R? My 1985 has the 700-R4. Mine gets about 15-16 town and 23-24 highway. I should replace the spark plugs in it though before winter comes again. Mine is bone stock just as it came from GM in December of 1984. Did you get your all fixed from when it got stolen? I would like to replace the radio in mine with something modern but I hate to see that part of the dash get cut up. I understand that the climate control-radio are one piece. Am I right?

[capriceman]

yeah it has a 200 4r. they put them in in 1987 along with Throttle body Injection.

Proof from the trans stick.

but right now the caprice is getting 0 MPG

Spot anything wrong?

Needs one of these all Im waiting on is a sending unit comes in on friday

but to solve your radio problem, heres what i did since the harness will stretch

Edited July 13, 2008 by capriceman

[XP715]

Believe it or not, my Suburban got a hair over 18MPG on its last fillup in mixed driving. Not bad for a two-ton school bus with a TBI 350 and a 700R4 with a 3.42 rear end. I wanted a big block when I was originally looking but with the way gas prices went soon after, I'm glad I just got the 350.

I recently stumbled upon a diesel Burb and am seriously considering it. Anybody have any idea what they get?

[knightfan26917]

Capriceman ... I like your radio solution. I may have to do that myself .

The choke probably just needs adjusting Cort. Seemed like in those days they adjusted the choke to come off as quickly as possible. Problem is that if you go to far with that kind of thinking it makes the car want to stall while it is warming up. Also make sure your Thermac is working right. If the door in the tube leading to the air cleaner sticks open and doesnt close when its cold it will suck cold air while it is warming up causing it to stumble and also it wont warm up as fast causing poor fuel economy. Just a few things to think about. Another question not related to this, does the 305 in the '76 ping at all or is it pretty quiet. Thats was a horrible problem on the 1979 Impala I had with the 305 and also on Mom and Dads 1978 Impala with that motor. Not a problem on the 1985 Caprice since that has a knock sensor.

No...the '76 doesn't ping at all.

And, the choke has been adjusted...multiple times...lol. I'll check the other again, too, though I know that has been done.... Ya never know, though .

[2005 EquinoxLS]

I wonder if Muntz in Appleton has ever did a stereo that way? I have Circuit City and they have always did me well but Muntz is more specialized in stuff like this. Might be better to let them do it. I dont have a lot in my glove box. I shall have to look at my trans dipstick but I was told mine has the 700-R4 when dad had it rebuilt. Mine also has the 4 barrel carburetor yet which works surrisingly VERY well. Havent had problems with the gas tank or sender yet. I needed a cycling switch for the A/C and the high speed blower relay on mine but that was it. Might see about new spark plugs before it gets cold again. I think now the Bonneville is going to need a high seed relay soon. Had to coax it to work on high. If ever the lower 3 fan speeds with but not high check that. Itsa $10-$12 part.

Edited July 14, 2008 by 2005 EquinoxLS

[knightfan26917]

UPDATING:

I filled all of the MCs up with gas Sunday, August 3...

72 MC "Browny"

...after ~164 miles ... 10.588 gallons ... 15.52 MPG

76 MC "Elvira"

...after ~160 miles ... 10.127 gallons ... 15.86 MPG

79 MC "Sweet Pea"

...after ~179 miles ... 9.502 gallons ... 18.89 MPG

81 MC "Sweet Tea"

...after ~162 miles ... 7.503 gallons ... 21.67 MPG

87 MC "Baby Blue"

...after ~163 miles ... 9.284 gallons ... 17.58 MPG

...previously:

...July 13 ... 18.13 MPG

...July 20 ... 19.36 MPG

...July 20 (after short trip in IL) ... 22.83 MPG

...July 27 ... 17.67 MPG

Cort:34swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve&pacemaker

WRMNshowcase.legos.HO.models.MCs.RTs.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"I didn't mean to take away your dreams" ... Hootie & The Blowfish ... 'Only Lonely'

[intrigued]

Took a road trip this week and went 328 miles on 14 gallons in the stang. Equalls a little more than 23.4 mpg. Not bad at all. Would have done better exept there were a few big pockets of stop and go traffic and crappy road conditions.

[Sixty8panther]

'71 Cadillac SDV, (very tired 472 cubic inches) ----> 8.5 MPG (90% city!)

'77 Cadillac CDV (well running 425 cubic inches) ----> 13.5 average MPG (50/50 mix)

'86 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham [gray/burgundy] (poorly running, tired 307) ----> ~ 16 MPG

'86 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham [triple silver] (excellent running 307) ----> 18.6 MPG

Just someting to think about.

[Sixty8panther]

I recently stumbled upon a diesel Burb and am seriously considering it. Anybody have any idea what they get?

Who cares if you cna do a veggie conversion?! :wink:

[Intrepidation]

Those Panthers really get impressive highway feul economy..need to calculate what it gets in the city next.

[Sixty8panther]

Those Panthers really get impressive highway feul economy..need to calculate what it gets in the city next.

Yup... nothing wrong with the Grand Mrq.

Although the B-body was always one step

ahead in terms of fuel economy AND

performance, until GM decided to have

looer elfs from cookie companies run the

show and kill the BOF car as it existed.

Ford's super-parasitic, often-oversized

transmissions are always a crutch... and

yet they still mnaged to be less durable

than GM's smaller TH-variety. go figure.

[Intrepidation]

Yup... nothing wrong with the Grand Mrq.

Although the B-body was always one step

ahead in terms of fuel economy AND

performance, until GM decided to have

looer elfs from cookie companies run the

show and kill the BOF car as it existed.

Ford's super-parasitic, often-oversized

transmissions are always a crutch... and

yet they still mnaged to be less durable

than GM's smaller TH-variety. go figure.

They can do better than 26.6 mpg?

[Sixty8panther]

Tunned Port B-bodys in great shape.... (not like my

tired & beat to $hit '92 throttel body injected beast)

are reported to get just a hair over 29 mpg with a

light foot on the highway!

I forget who, but someone on this very forum made

a comment at one point about it.... also I think it

might have been the more aerodynamic wagons.

Either way that is with 1.1 liters MORE than the Ford.

My buddy Kenny has at his dealership, a 4.3 liter

SBC powered 1994 Caprice Classic in immaculate

shape... the car needs NOTHING!

(the little known 267 LT1)

[Intrepidation]

Tunned Port B-bodys in great shape.... (not like my

tired & beat to $hit '92 throttel body injected beast)

are reported to get just a hair over 29 mpg with a

light foot on the highway!

I forget who, but someone on this very forum made

a comment at one point about it.... also I think it

might have been the more aerodynamic wagons.

Either way that is with 1.1 liters MORE than the Ford.

My buddy Kenny has at his dealership, a 4.3 liter

SBC powered 1994 Caprice Classic in immaculate

shape... the car needs NOTHING!

(the little known 267 LT1)

Well FWIW the GM hasn't had a tune-up yet, and I think the front tires are out of balance, so it's certainly possible to squeeze a few more mpgs out.

Either way, for a V8, that's very impressive...it's V6 territory.

[Sixty8panther]

My RoadmOnster's 5/7 liter V8, as beat to crap as it is,

turns at just UNDER 2000RPM at 75mph!

4-cylinder &#036;h&#33;box @ 75mph with the motor at 3250rpm is not much better

than a big old honkin V8 turning at much lower RPM....

[Intrepidation]

My RoadmOnster's 5/7 liter V8, as beat to crap as it is,

turns at just UNDER 2000RPM at 75mph!

4-cylinder &#036;h&#33;box @ 75mph with the motor at 3250rpm is not much better

than a big old honkin V8 turning at much lower RPM....

Do let me know when it gets 36 mpg at 75 then.

Also, as I recall it's gearning not cylinder count that determines what a car's RPM is at a given speed.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Dodgefan

[vonVeezelsnider]

4-cylinder &#036;h&#33;box @ 75mph with the motor at 3250rpm is not much better

than a big old honkin V8 turning at much lower RPM....

This is true...

I'm not quite used to how high the G5 revs in comparison to its bigger OHV Cousins.

[knightfan26917]

UPDATE:

I gassed up all of the MCs on Sunday, August 24 (and may have to do so again fairly soon, given how much I've driven them the last couple weekends)...

"Browny"

...after ~169 miles ... 10.269 gallons ... 16.46 MPG

"Elvira"

...after ~165 miles ... 10.409 gallons ... 15.85 MPG

"Sweet Pea"

...after ~166 miles ... 9.392 gallons ... 17.71 MPG

"Sweet Tea"

...after ~167 miles ... 8.072 gallons ... 20.73 MPG

"Baby Blue"

...after ~159 miles ... 9.377 gallons ... 17.04 MPG

previously:

...August 14 ... 16.92 MPG

...August 17 ... 20.18 MPG

Cort:34swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve&pacemaker

WRMNshowcase.legos.HO.models.MCs.RTs.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"Does it really matter?" ... Pirates of the Mississippi ... 'Feed Jake'

[vonVeezelsnider]

2007 Impala LS, 3.5L

28MPG, all city.

[Sixty8panther]

There you go.... honest to god 20+ mpg out of a respectable

G-body that will put a smile on your face, keep your wallet

fat by avoiding 79% of the Bull$hit repairs that a typical high

milage Civic or Corolla will experience.

BOF-RWD-pushrod.... durable as ANY truck, tough as nails &

comfortable. Def. worth sacrificing 5 or 7 mpgs compared to

most delicate, CV-jointed, rubber timing belted, less safe &

abuse-resistant unibody FWD-ers that size.

[knightfan26917]

There you go.... honest to god 20+ mpg out of a respectable

G-body that will put a smile on your face, keep your wallet

fat by avoiding 79% of the Bull$hit repairs that a typical high

milage Civic or Corolla will experience.

Amen!

Now...if only the MPG was ALWAYS that nice

[knightfan26917]

Birthday update:

I gassed up all of the MCs on Friday, September 19....

'72 MC = "Browny"

...after ~195 miles ... 12.385 gallons ... 15.75 MPG

'76 MC = "Elvira"

...after ~190 miles ... 11.466 gallons ... 16.61 MPG

'79 MC = "Sweet Pea"

...after ~192 miles ... 11.466 gallons ... 16.74 MPG

'81 MC = "Sweet Tea"

...after ~191 miles ... 10.003 gallons ... 19.14 MPG

'87 MC = "Baby Blue"

...after ~130 miles ... 9.515 gallons ... 13.70 MPG

previously:

...August 29 ... 15.84 MPG

...September 7 ... 18.66 MPG

...September 13 ... 15.90 MPG

...September 14 ... 24.40 MPG

Cort | 35swm | "Mr Monte Carlo"."Mr Road Trip" | pig valve.pacemaker

WRMNshowcase.legos.HO.models.MCs.RTs.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"The journey's been etched on your skin" ... James Blunt ... '1973' September 19

[2005 EquinoxLS]

Got to check my 3 again. Last time I did the Equinox get 17.4,the Caprice according to dad got about 15 and the Bonneville around 16.

[Sixty8panther]

Do let me know when it gets 36 mpg at 75 then.

Also, as I recall it's gearning not cylinder count that determines what a car's RPM is at a given speed.

Actually the text you sent me, (I'm reading it as I type this) says:

38.7 mpg

I always thought your milage estimates were all over the map but

gave you the benefit of the doubt, but if you truly believe that

a 1996 Grand marquis averaged 38.7 miles per gallon than you're

just a tad delusional. Or even 36.

Maybe down hill, in neutral on the pikes peek trail, with the AC off.

With all due respect, use your head.

No wonder your Cobalt numbers were so screwy.My parents average

28-31mpg depending on the week/time of year... you said you got

like 15 or 17 or something like that...

Next time try to drive the car in "DRIVE" not in "L" which stands for

LOW GEAR and is intended for speeds < 20 mph and hill descents. :wink:

Cobalt LS (2.2 liter ecotec) ----> 15 mpg

and

Grand Marquis (4.6 liter modular V8) ----> 38 MPG

[Sixty8panther]

P.S. the Mercedes and RoadMonster both average half of the 38.7 mpg you

claim in your 'Merc, and in the real world, that's not too bad seeing as

both are driven around town quite a bit & both see tripple digit MPH speeds

more often than most people drive over 79mph.

[capriceman]

the averages

caprice 17

Vibe 29

LeSabre 26

Sierra 16

Silverado 21

Vette 23

[Sixty8panther]

Oh pulease. Every time someone says something that goes against your idea you try to come up with some way to justify how that can't be right (OMG I get 18mpg on a good day so theirs no way you can get 38. The math is wrong, the odometer is suddenly wrong even though the mileage is the same for every trip, a filter in the space time continuum broketified and caused it to happen" or "I'll agree to disagree"

I don't care if your odometer was just calibrated and Stephen Hawkings

did the math, use your head, 38+ mg did NOT really happen in that car.

[loki]

I don't care if your odometer was just calibrated and Stephen Hawkings

did the math, use your head, 38+ mg did NOT really happen in that car.

i'd have to agree, but... i bet if he was in 4th on a flat stretch (treadmill) going just over the point it shifts into 4th, maybe.

i got ~37 over in indiana..flat..mostly 50 - 65ish....unless the pump lied.

My MC shifts into 4th (while giving it gas) at 39-40 but holds it down to 33, which is kinda irritating sometimes going up hills, which my area has quite a few in some areas in town.

[76ChevyTrucker]

Here's the fleet's numbers

2005 Cobalt: 22 (all city) 2.2L Ecotec

2001 Impala: 25 (all city) 3.8L V6

1976 C-10: 8 (no matter what I'm doing, it gets 8, so range is ALWAYS easy to compute, 8mpg, 21 gallon tank, you do the math) 350 punched .040 over

2003 Alero: 22 (mixed driving) 2.2 Ecotec

1997 Wrangler: 18 (mixed) 2.5 I-4

1992 C1500: 24 (mostly highway) TBI 4.3 V6

2003 S10 crew cab: 26 (mixed) MFI 4.3 V6

1989 S10 Blazer: 24 (mixed) TBI 4.3 V6

1983 C20: 12 (mixed) 4bbl 350cid V8

1966 International Loadstar 1600: 5 (whaddaya expect, its a 2-ton truck with a dump body) 2bbl 304 V8

[Intrepidation]

I don't care if your odometer was just calibrated and Stephen Hawkings

did the math, use your head, 38+ mg did NOT really happen in that car.

Seriously, shut up. I know for a fact that it is correct. We take this route 4 times a week. We've done it in multiple cars. I suppose their odometers are wrong too? Maybe UMass Dartmouth is an imaginary place that doesn't actually exist.

Don't believe me? Fine, piss off then. See if I share any mpg numbers with you again.

Oh and my deepest apologies for the .1 mpg discrepancy. I guess I don't have perfect memory like you.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Robert Hall]

That 38 does seem really high.. I managed to see 27-28 mpg several times in my '87 Mustang GT (5.0) in 5th gear at 55 (back in the days of the 55 mpg speed limit). I've seen on the trip computer instant mileage in the range of 25 before in an '04-07 Grand Marquis rental cars, though.

[Intrepidation]

That 38 does seem really high.. I managed to see 27-28 mpg several times in my '87 Mustang GT (5.0) in 5th gear at 55 (back in the days of the 55 mpg speed limit). I've seen on the trip computer instant mileage in the range of 25 before in an '04-07 Grand Marquis rental cars, though.

It did seem high but that's the number I got that night when we refueled.

But whatever.