Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-14-2014, 07:28 PM   #31 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,552

Volt, gas only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 38.02 mpg (US)

Volt, electric only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 132.26 mpg (US)

Yukon Denali Hybrid - '12 GMC Yukon Denali Hybrid
90 day: 21.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 168
Thanked 343 Times in 238 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
A 2013 Camaro 3.6 automatic actually gets 37.4 mpg on the old highway test before applying correction factors as nobody drives like that. Still that means that it gets even higher then 37.4 mpg steady state highway at 55mph.
i can confirm this, my CTS with the non-DI LY7 will give mid to high 30's MPG at 55mph. getting those 3800lbs up to speed is what kills it. that and i have an intermittent pinging that im sure is costing me mpg from poor power and knock retard.

__________________




  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-14-2014, 08:08 PM   #32 (permalink)
Spaced out...
 
spacemanspif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Dirty Jersey
Posts: 748

The New Focus - '07 Ford Focus ZX5
90 day: 32.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 142
Thanked 204 Times in 148 Posts
I'm not so sure on speed killing MPG but I have a very different experience with it. My Monte used to only get about 15-18 mpg with the original engine/trans and 3.73 gears. One year I needed to do a lot of driving for a summer job/internship so I found a 2.29 rear from another car and threw it in. Doing the math to see what RPM was 65-70 I was cruising at like 1600RPM and the engine was lugging and got terrible mileage. So I sped up to whatever speed was 2000RPM and jumped up to 25MPG consistently. So faster was more efficient but more so because of BSFC of the engine than the speed itself.
__________________
-Mike

2007 Ford Focus ZX5 - 91k - SGII, pending upper and lower grill bocks - auto trans
1987 Monte Carlo SS - 5.3/4L80E swap - 13.67 @ 106
2007 Ford Focus Estate - 230k - 33mpg - Retired 4/2018
1995 Saturn SL2 - 256K miles - 44mpg - Retired 9/2014

Cost to Operate Spreadsheet for "The New Focus"

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to spacemanspif For This Useful Post:
mcrews (12-14-2014)
Old 12-14-2014, 08:43 PM   #33 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mcrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,523

The Q Sold - '02 Infiniti Q45 Sport
90 day: 23.08 mpg (US)

blackie - '14 nissan altima sv
Thanks: 2,203
Thanked 659 Times in 474 Posts
This is the delima when people don't look at all the factors! Good job on your part to find the root cause!
Taller tires work but it is possible to go 'too tall' causing the engine to bog as you described.
__________________
MetroMPG: "Get the MPG gauge - it turns driving into a fuel & money saving game."

ECO MODS PERFORMED:
First: ScangaugeII
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...eii-23306.html

Second: Grille Block
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...e-10912-2.html

Third: Full underbelly pan
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...q45-11402.html

Fourth: rear skirts and 30.4mpg on trip!
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post247938
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2014, 09:39 PM   #34 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 181
Thanks: 11
Thanked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Chaz's comments seem to contradict what I believe Aerohead has commented on before: that as long as the front end isn't too bad, the rear template aero stuff will work well. So, I plan on doing a 61 Ranchero and am wondering if I could get to 40, maybe even 50 mpg highway with a 1.6L Pinto engine and aero mods.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	ranchero side.jpg
Views:	48
Size:	102.9 KB
ID:	16627  
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2014, 01:52 AM   #35 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,735

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,571
Thanked 3,508 Times in 2,195 Posts
I think you guys are somewhat over-enthusiastic. My 2.3/5mt has to be driven carefully to attain 35+ and my 2.3 a/ts will only get near 35 on the very best of days and my 2.0 a/t gets 35 driven "normally" and over 40 driven very carefully; these are all cars quite a lot smaller, lighter, have fwd, and are more aero than the Chevelle. Someone mentioned if one car got 27 then 35 should be easy... Nah, I disagree. 35 is a LONG way from 27.

Still, 30 would be a good achievement. And if it can get 35 I'd be happy to be wrong!
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2014, 04:10 AM   #36 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: los angeles, ca
Posts: 151
Thanks: 2
Thanked 19 Times in 12 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
I think you guys are somewhat over-enthusiastic. My 2.3/5mt has to be driven carefully to attain 35+ and my 2.3 a/ts will only get near 35 on the very best of days and my 2.0 a/t gets 35 driven "normally" and over 40 driven very carefully; these are all cars quite a lot smaller, lighter, have fwd, and are more aero than the Chevelle. Someone mentioned if one car got 27 then 35 should be easy... Nah, I disagree. 35 is a LONG way from 27.

Still, 30 would be a good achievement. And if it can get 35 I'd be happy to be wrong!
I dig the old school vibe, but the technology behind the new cars is insane.

I mentioned the 27 vs 35, but that was a V8 that got 27, and this guy is using a V6, which is where my guesstimation came from. Apples to Oranges.
__________________
1989 Dodge Diesel 972rwhp, 27mpg.
1971 Nova tubbed, solid cam 355 w/nitrous, 8mpg (sorry).
1960 Nash DIY Hybrid Project
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2014, 09:33 AM   #37 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 2,105

Dark Egg - '12 VW Touareg TDI Sport AWD
90 day: 25.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 179
Thanked 883 Times in 603 Posts
I say the Camaro can get 37, I doubt the Chevelle will. Sometimes old cars with carbs would do better at certain rpm because they were tuned that way, or should I say weren't tuned properly in all throttle and load posisitions. I bet that is what was going on with the above mentioned Monte Carlo. Get the mixture and timing right at a low load 1600 rpm and it would have had better mpg then at 2000. That or it had an aftermarket cam in it. So many times people would over cam those old school engines.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2014, 12:35 PM   #38 (permalink)
Spaced out...
 
spacemanspif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Dirty Jersey
Posts: 748

The New Focus - '07 Ford Focus ZX5
90 day: 32.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 142
Thanked 204 Times in 148 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
I say the Camaro can get 37, I doubt the Chevelle will. Sometimes old cars with carbs would do better at certain rpm because they were tuned that way, or should I say weren't tuned properly in all throttle and load posisitions. I bet that is what was going on with the above mentioned Monte Carlo. Get the mixture and timing right at a low load 1600 rpm and it would have had better mpg then at 2000. That or it had an aftermarket cam in it. So many times people would over cam those old school engines.
The cam was stock but the SS did get a "hotter" cam than the regular Monte Carlos so maybe my sweet spot was a little higher with it being an SS. The carb and timing were adjusted by the computer so I should have had a more efficient set up compared to an old school completely mechanical set up. I'm not entirely sure an you can tune for a specific RPM when the cam shaft is still playing a major role in the efficiency equation.

I was under the assumption that the new Camaro aero was pretty terrible so I thought that the Chevelle might not be much worse. With an air dam to reduce under car turbulence I think the gap closes ever farther. I really didn't think old cars were THAT bad in the aero department.
__________________
-Mike

2007 Ford Focus ZX5 - 91k - SGII, pending upper and lower grill bocks - auto trans
1987 Monte Carlo SS - 5.3/4L80E swap - 13.67 @ 106
2007 Ford Focus Estate - 230k - 33mpg - Retired 4/2018
1995 Saturn SL2 - 256K miles - 44mpg - Retired 9/2014

Cost to Operate Spreadsheet for "The New Focus"

  Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2014, 01:48 PM   #39 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: missouri
Posts: 209

Suki - '11 Suzuki SX4
Team Suzuki
90 day: 26.26 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 62 Times in 34 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacemanspif View Post
I was under the assumption that the new Camaro aero was pretty terrible so I thought that the Chevelle might not be much worse. With an air dam to reduce under car turbulence I think the gap closes ever farther. I really didn't think old cars were THAT bad in the aero department.
2010 camaro .36cd

60's-70's typical car .45cd+
__________________
"Ignorance is bliss, but only for the ignorant"-Hypermiler1995
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2014, 01:58 PM   #40 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 2,105

Dark Egg - '12 VW Touareg TDI Sport AWD
90 day: 25.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 179
Thanked 883 Times in 603 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacemanspif View Post
The cam was stock but the SS did get a "hotter" cam than the regular Monte Carlos so maybe my sweet spot was a little higher with it being an SS. The carb and timing were adjusted by the computer so I should have had a more efficient set up compared to an old school completely mechanical set up. I'm not entirely sure an you can tune for a specific RPM when the cam shaft is still playing a major role in the efficiency equation.


I was under the assumption that the new Camaro aero was pretty terrible so I thought that the Chevelle might not be much worse. With an air dam to reduce under car turbulence I think the gap closes ever farther. I really didn't think old cars were THAT bad in the aero department.
Oh I thought you were talking about an early 70s Monte, the 80s shouldn't of had that problem but the problem they did have mid 80s was they couldn't figure out ememissions. Also the computers were programmed without the ability to learn so when you move it out of it's normal operating range it may have done bad things to the air/fuel or egr, etc.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com