Legendary Mystery Buick 3.8, 27 mpg city (taxi), 44 mpg hwy (turbo)

[Cardinal Grammeter]

Found this from turbobuicks and it is a different car mag article than the one I know of that reports insane mpg:

"I just joined, I hope this is in the right category.

January 1996 Car Craft magazine has an article called "Real Street Eliminators". A showdown between 7 cars, an 87 Buick Regal 3.8 liter (231ci) V6 Turbo places second. 1/4 mile time is 12.97 at 108.81 mph and they say "quite frankly a ridiculous 46.17 mpg during our 61 mile test journey". They say "we don't know how (this ain't no Geo) but it did it". Stock heads, cam, pistons, crank. Mods are "Lucas 40-pound injectors", exhaust and chip. TH200-4R overdrive auto, but with 3.73 gears. Can a Turbo V6 Buick really get this kind of fuel mileage? Do y'all believe this article? 46 mpg sounds too good to be true. Thanks

The first place car in the article was an 88 Trans Am 5.7 engine. It's 1/4 time was 12.64 and mpg was 30.09. It had a lot of mods plus 6 speed manual and 3.08 gears."

There was further talk in the thread that the mileage was due to a special super lean mpg chip that would "burn the pistons" if you laid into the gas. Which actually is a ridiculous remark since you could build a map that goes rich as soon as you develop load.

But still, here we have the mysterious and as I call it, Legendary mpg.

[arcosine]

"Legendary" is more an urban myth. Nothing special here:http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx...Field=Findacar

[ShadeTreeMech]

61 miles isn't a definitive test of a vehicle's economy anyway. Show me 3 tanks average, and that is more difinitive.

[Cardinal Grammeter]

Ah, good ole fueleconomy.gov! When I found this site, I thought how nice that I would be able to find models with good mileage.

Only problem is that the EPA ratings are only a guildline.

COMPARISON ONE: xD Scion 5-spd -v- HHR auto: Both have about the same hwy mpg (33-34ish) but the Scion is capable of 50 mpg on flat interstate while the HHR can barely do 35 mpg on the flat. How do I know this? Because I DROVE BOTH CARS. I averaged 44.5 mpg with the Scion during a complete cross-country trip from Greensburg to Dubois PA which involved at best, 2-lane state highways. This included stop and go driving when I had to drive through small towns and also did some shopping in Dubois. There are people that claim high 40's lifetime mileage in Scion xB's.

COMPARISON TWO: Yes, the Buicks you reference in fueleconomy are completely lack luster and not worth mentioning - just like the mpg I got with my 88 Delta 88. However, the 27/44 that has been actually exhibited by the same models can only mean, there must have existed unacknowledged variants.

I figure with the internet, it will be possible to find someone who can identify these specific 3.8s and why they produced such high mpg.

Fueleconomy is fair in that it also makes available original EPA estimates which were higher than current. I believe the earlier estimates were more accurate. The Scion/HHR discrepancy suggests that they may have stacked the hwy spec to bury theoretical or flat road mpg which is really unfortunate.

NOTE: My friend that owns the xD that I drove said that when the car was new, it was stuck in the "high 20's" tankful mpg. But over the next 3-4k miles, its mpg continuously got higher and higher until it always got over 40 mpg per tankful. Could it be that the EPA tested cars that are not broken in? Was my HHR too new?

Fueleconomy does bring the Geo Metro XFi and the Honda Civic Vx to the top of the list which is very good relatively speaking. However Geo Metro XFi mpg could use some comment: The new EPA rating is 43/52 while the old was 53/58 while actual driving is probably more like 43/58. People with Geo's almost universally get near 60 mpg on interstate trips. Some even break 60 (probably on flat, non-speeding, interstate trips).

I believe the old EPA hwy spec is more accurate for hwy.

The city/hwy definitions should perhaps be changed to worst/best case which really is more informative.

Anyhow, the search goes on.... and fueleconomy.gov is quite a useful site, nonetheless.

[Cardinal Grammeter]

I acknowledge the 61-mile test is a "best case" result. The "3-tank" average is more like the 27ish achieved during taxi cab usage. This taxi result is actually unbelievable, but it is true.

My friend is still in the taxi business and I'm going to see if he can take some time to talk to his other cab company owners to see if they ever figured out how to identify these 3.8 engines.

Tom

PS. Just struck me: "Motor City" is a complete misnomer! They're "Engines" baby!

[mcrews]

oh, gee, i don't know.......

maybe your constant reference to the Grand National version........


There was another "resurface" of this car (ie: the 'legendary one you reference in the title) in the car mags during the test of a Grand National.
or was that a hatchback....

[Cardinal Grammeter]

I don't get it. A Grand National where they claimed 46 mpg and the road test I remember at 44 mpg.... is that really just ho-hum economy? Doesn't that make anyone want to figure out how they did it? I know I would because that might be the ultimate combination of performance and economy. Considering vehicle weight and HP, even the Metro XFi does not even come close to this.

I saw my taxi cab owner friend and asked him again about his 3.8 experience. He said he had 3 of them and only 1 had good mileage. I asked him what he remember about the mpg and he said 28-30 mpg. Cabs typically get 13-17 mpg with 6-cyl cars and minivans.

Obviously, these are 2 different engines, however their builds are very unique.

If it was only stock 3.8's that got the city 30 OR only the FN 3.8's that got the 44, that would be one thing. But to see both camps exhibiting freakish mpg, that is another - maybe call it a conspiracy.

[Christ]

Motor and engine are generally used to reference the same object or type of objects.

Neither is a direct reference to the fuel used in production of power, nor the type of energy output.

However, in literal terms, anything which provides motive force by transference of energy should be referred to as a motor. An engine is a device or object which converts something into something else, hence Google and their search mot... engine.

A cigarette lighter might be described as an engine, because it converts the input of fuel, spark, and surrounding air into heat and light. It would be a light and heat engine.

[Cardinal Grammeter]

A lot of those internet definitions are written by people who think they have a good idea of the answer. In many cases they are right.

However, right after discussing an "electric motor" one fellow starts talking about a "pneumatic engine" (or was it "hydraulic" - actually it doesn't matter since they are not engines but motors, just like electric.)

But I guess in time, cars will all become "motor vehicles" at some point.

I guess then we'll be rewinding armatures rather than installing hotter cams...

I also believe that just because lay people have misused the word resulting in accepted terms which are technically incorrect - does not mean they have to be accepted. A motor is simply not an engine and an engine is not a motor.

[Christ]

I'm not sure what your point was, because I never said they were interchangeable. In fact, I mentioned that one was invariably not the other, and that the object to which you refer as an engine is actually really defined as a motor, an object or device which creates motive force.

I agree that misuse of terms should not be accepted, and thus, corrected your misapplication of the terms in the context.