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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-28-2011, 04:15 PM   #31 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Phantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Independence, KY
Posts: 603

Blue Meanie - '02 Volkswagon Golf TDI
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 48.52 mpg (US)

Wife's car - '05 WV Passat TDI

Rudy - '94 Chevy C2500
Thanks: 89
Thanked 47 Times in 44 Posts
Instead of posting why would someone argue over a topic not at hand or start a different topic in a thread just do not post.

Now on to my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardinal Grammeter View Post
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.
That is one thing I did not include in my post about the different 3.8s the 3800 Series I (may have been Series II not sure about the switch over for them) sold in Australia used the OBDI computer after the US versions went to OBD 1.5/2. The computer there has a the PCM mapped out with Lean burn it is possible that the same or similar program was loaded on the US PCM in the car you are referring to. This part is only speculation but probable since the PCMs used in Australia for GM normally are several years behind the one the US version sold at the same time.

Back to the mileage at hand I currently drive a 98 Bonneville with all options other than the supercharger. In that car (see fuel log) I have achieved 29.2mpg mind you that it was mostly HW with many hills and it snowed during that trip and I averaged 70-75mph. I have similar experience with the 03 Grand Prix (~500rpm higher on HW than the Bonneville) on a trip from Cincinnati to DC in October I took the scenic route that has many steep inclines here most of the drive I was between 70-75mph. When driving HW only I saw 38mpg but that quickly dropped in traffic and I never had that on a tank.

Yesterday I drove to and around Cincinnati after filling up and had 26.8mpg down from the 36.7mpg when waiting for the light after getting off the highway. I made about the same trip home 5hrs later and when getting home I had 29.1mpg this was with a top speed of 58mph there and 67mph home over 35 miles with about 60% city. If the stall of the torque converter was lower I could have got better city mpg but it is a 2300RPM unit I know there are some as low as 1600RPM from the factory and units up to 3200RPM (I believe those are aftermarket only).

If you find any information on the differences I would love to know what they were.

__________________
I move at the speed of awesome.


"It's not rocket surgery!" -MetroMPG
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 06-30-2011, 10:41 AM   #32 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Cardinal Grammeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: PA
Posts: 46

TLC - '91 Geo Metro
90 day: 31.07 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Phantom, Yes!

Lean Burn begins to raise its "ugly head" so to speak, again.

The Honda Civic Vx was a VTEC (variable cam timing) that had LB from 92-95 and consistently got 50 mpg highway. This was not an anemic 45 hp Metro XFi, but a robust 95 hp.

Officially, it seems that no US car maker openly embraced LB probably for fear of EPA wrath (I'm speculating!), however, the Japanese had another take for whatever reason and virtually every Japanese manufacturer had LB engines, many of which were sold in the US, but ALL were sold all over the world for many years.

There is talk that the Ford Escort had an "unadvertised" lean burn calibration that was sold in this country. I discovered this info while searching the internet for information relative to this thread.

If there was a LB map sold in Australia, it is entirely possible, Buick may have put some of them in service for some test program. It is also possible it may have been inadvertently been released to the public.
Inadvertently Released to Public: 1969 GM vinyl dash material: This particular year would not crack - even if baking in the sun of a junk yard with the window knocked out. My guess is that they received a tank car full of deviated material and decided to use it. It is pretty much an accepted fact that vinyl dashes crack with age. Unfortunately, a solution to that problem existed back in 1969.

Another thing that is interesting is the comment that TBs can be pretty tall geared: 1800 @ 60-65 mph is extremely tall. This would be very effective for mpg.

Also, I was thinking when was the 55 mpg federal mandate? I just checked and it was rescinded in 1987. Phantom, I wonder what some of your mpg, pure highway might have been driving the speed limit of 55? Almost no one drives that slow. If they were driving the speed limit during the road test I'm thinking off AND they measured an instantaneous 44 mpg while on the level, that might not be so hard to do.

Given the mass and HP of the car, ANY variation from perfect steady state cruise at 55 on level would result in significant reductions in mpg. Since they had the 5th wheel running, what they reported was meaningful because if it could be demonstrated, then it would hold for a pure highway trip in OH or the billiard flat Mid-West states.

If someone measures big mpg at 45-50 mph, while of interest, it is not a legitimate "highway" mpg spec since who drives 50 mph. This could be part of the explanation.

I think the big next question is did Buick ever use the lean burn maps on production cars. If they did, I would think it near impossible to confirm/document. The ECU code used on the Australian computers might be of interest IF it was ever found in a US car.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2015, 09:09 PM   #33 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
To: Legendary Mystery Buick 3.8, 27 mpg city (taxi), 44 mpg hwy

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

I have a 1999 3.8 bonneville same as buick looks different... I snipped the o2 sensor on and I get 35mpg sometimes when before it was 17-22. Can this cause problems in the engine if I'm somehow starving it of fuel? Cumberland farms gas gets better gas mileage for some reason too but I don't know why.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2015, 09:32 PM   #34 (permalink)
Growin a stash
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 803
Thanks: 412
Thanked 304 Times in 228 Posts
I'm intrigued by this old thread...
__________________


2024 Chevy Bolt

Previous:
2015 Nissan Leaf S, 164 mpge
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2015, 09:51 PM   #35 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 2,653

Dark Egg - '12 VW Touraeg
Thanks: 301
Thanked 1,178 Times in 807 Posts
Oh man I just saw this thread is 20 years old.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2015, 12:09 AM   #36 (permalink)
Corporate imperialist
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,185

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 270
Thanked 3,528 Times in 2,802 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by idkthissucks1234 View Post
To: Legendary Mystery Buick 3.8, 27 mpg city (taxi), 44 mpg hwy

I have a 1999 3.8 bonneville same as buick looks different... I snipped the o2 sensor on and I get 35mpg sometimes when before it was 17-22. Can this cause problems in the engine if I'm somehow starving it of fuel? Cumberland farms gas gets better gas mileage for some reason too but I don't know why.
The engine can be damaged by running too lean.
I had a 2.8L Camaro that had a bad Intake Air Temperature sensor that was faulty. It had the engine running lean all the time.
Eventually I over revved it and it threw a rod.
I salvaged the heads, tore them down and found the exhaust valves to be burned up pretty good. If the engine had not blown the exhaust valves would have caused almost compete loss of compression if it ran for much longer.

Now I am intentionally running lean burn on my 7.4L suburban engine at part throttle. In a few months I hope to pull it and tear it down and see if my part throttle leaning has burned valves.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2015, 08:53 AM   #37 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ellington, ct
Posts: 829
Thanks: 44
Thanked 104 Times in 80 Posts
I had a neighbor about 15 years ago that had one of the last square lesabres. Believe it was around a '89 or '90.

He had it from new and told me that on road trips down to Virginia to visit kids/grandkids, he would routinely get 31 mpg. He typically drove with the cruise set 65-70. It had the 3.8. Don't believe it was referred to as a 3800 yet.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com