what your MPG

I'm getting 19 in town with my 86 GN. My one way commute is 19 miles and 9 of that is a straight shot at 55MPH with the rest being a combo of 35-55 stop and go. It takes me 25 minutes to drive those 19 miles. And I'm never on the boost. The last time I did any highway driving it was pulling down 23-24 doing 65-70. It probably would have hit 25-26 at 55. My combo is TT chip,60 Mototrons,TA49 and Weber 206. Everything else is stock. You can get high teens in the city if you baby the throttle. Really if you're asking about MPG than it makes no sense to get on the boost. Drive it like Grandma stole it.:eek:
 
I love how these cars are 21 years old, everyone build the hell out of them, then they say they get better than the mpg that was on the window sticker in 87:rolleyes: I think some people need a calculator.
 
Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I've always gotten more MPG out of my Buicks than they were rated for. Heck, my 99 Regal would get 30-31 on trips.
 
just filled up and this week iam going to try and stay out of it :biggrin: and will report back!!!!!

That was my downfall.... I couldn't ever do that for a whole tank...... The best I ever drove mine still consumed 1 gal of alky in about 5 days of driving....if that lets you know how much "in boost" driving I was doing...:biggrin:
 
I recently got 22 mpg on the hwy doing 75-80mph for 120 miles. See combo below.
Bob
 
About 17 average. It seems as though you need to drive anywhere from 60-65 on the highway to get any kind of mileage.
 
Last year when I sent the alky pump in to have the update done for the pressure switch, I got 18mpg around in town with no highway. Have gotten as low as 11 around town driving it hard. Haven't done any freeway driving in quite a few years, but got 24mpg when I drove it to vegas for the Buick Nationals in '03 ('04?)
 
I love how these cars are 21 years old, everyone build the hell out of them, then they say they get better than the mpg that was on the window sticker in 87:rolleyes: I think some people need a calculator.

And that is why the EPA reconfigured the testing last year.

Okay smarta$$. What are your numbers? Do you even have a TR?

BTW the highway number on the window sticker says 23MPG. There is 20 years of chip tuning technology in todays chips. Call it BS if you want but if you cant back up your statement than what are you contributing to this thread?:confused:

Side-by-Side Comparison
 
All highway 22-25 mpg @ an average of 70 mph. :smile:
street/highway 17-20 mpg

see combo in sig below.
 
And that is why the EPA reconfigured the testing last year.

Okay smarta$$. What are your numbers? Do you even have a TR?


Side-by-Side Comparison

sure do a$$hole, its always the big mouths like you with your 3900 post that gotta start with name calling. Do you even have a life or just sit on TB all day and spew **** ? Don't bother replying since your on IGNORE, don't need to read your small mind rantings, I've already seen a sample of your rantings to people you disagree with on a search of your endless posts.
 
how mods can equal better mpg...

I love how these cars are 21 years old, everyone build the hell out of them, then they say they get better than the mpg that was on the window sticker in 87:rolleyes: I think some people need a calculator.

It comes down to physics and chemistry...

There are *ONLY* two ways to increase the power output of an engine:

1. Increase the amount of air and fuel you can run through the engine in a given time frame. Most common methods:
a. increasing displacement
b. increasing boost
c. increasing peak engine rpm (lighter rotating assembly, etc.)

AND/OR

2. Increase the overall *EFFICIENCY* of the engine. Many of the oldest and most common combustion engine mods accomplish this:
a. improved, more complete combustion:
-- improved cylinder heads
-- better fuel management (more precisely calibrated carburation or more precise and faster responding computer controlled fuel injection)
-- better ignition (more precise spark timing control, hotter ignition spark)
b. reducing parasitic engine losses (roller valve train components, better engine oil, revised accessory drive ratios)
c. better than stock thermal management
-- cold air induction, larger intercoolers, aftermarket thermal barriers (heat wrap), etc.
-- vehicle weight reduction (lighter wheels, aluminum engine components, fiberglass body parts, etc.)

The mods I've listed above are just a few common examples I could think of. Other common mods like free-flowing headers, downpipes and exhaust systems as well as higher stall converters could be listed under both 1 and 2.

The bottom line is, by increasing the efficiency of an engine, you decrease the amount of fuel required to accomplish the same amount of work. In addition, one of the biggest advantages of turbocharging compared to any other means of increasing the power output of an engine is that when a turbocharged engine is under boost, you're getting the advantages from both #1 AND #2 above. However, when you're just cruising or accelerating moderately, you're *still* getting the benefits of #2 without the increased fuel consumption associated with #1.

Rob
 
Thanks Rob for a reply that made sense and actually serves a purpose. Thumbs up. But wouldn't bigger injectors, pumps, higher FP on regulators, etc. eat more gas ?
 
Thanks Rob for a reply that made sense and actually serves a purpose. Thumbs up. But wouldn't bigger injectors, pumps, higher FP on regulators, etc. eat more gas ?

Most people who modify their car use an aftermarket chip. That chip is designed for specific purposes either street or strip. Alky, I don't have a clue. Eric Marshall even makes chips now that will maintain whatever A/F ratio you would like under WOT.

When it comes to fuel pumps, the fuel pressure makes it irrelevant. The fuel pressure is either there or it isn't. The chips controls how long the fuel injector is open. It just meets whatever the demand is. Larger injectors allow you to meet the higher demand of mixing it with larger amounts of air. Fuel can be taken out through the chip, fuel can be taken out through the translator if one is used also. If a highly modified 3.8L LC2 engine is cruising along at 2000 rpms, not in boost, it doesn't consume anymore fuel than a stock one because the demand isnt there.

I have read here and elsewhere that once you get over 83# injectors, that is when the streetability becomes an issue. Just stuff that I remember reading on here, please do not consider me an expert though.

I average 20 mpg per tank. I haven't made any trips where I burned a whole tank of gas to get an accurate HWY mpg.
 
We got 24.9 mpg overall on a 2000 mile trip East last Sept...

In a completely stock 87 T carrying two adults on vacation. That includes some city driving and a couple encounters (with a Vette and a turbo charged vacuum cleaner) on I-80. :eek: Granted mostly hwy driving at just 65+ but this car was on a 20th birthday cruise. Pretty conservative footwork.

I hope to find out what mods will do to mileage and performance first hand one of these days.

I usually appreciate Turbofish's contributions. He provides lots of interesting & valuable info to the TB community. .....And the
Side-by-Side Comparison is worth a look for those that haven't been there. The gov. provides some good stuff - too bad it costs so much. :mad:

Bob
 
15'ish local'ish & 23'ish highway'ish--w/ minimal horse-farts...

hopefully not a member of a$$hole club yet (don't remember minimum # posts req'd??):eek:
 
Interesting that the side by side comparison shows the GN went DOWN since the original. So much for the 'EPA reconfigured the testing last year' theory. I'm glad you appreciate his postings dwall, just don't disagree with anything the 'parts specialist' has to say.:rolleyes:
 
As someone stated I didn't build mine for MPG but.. l like to drive it, even on long trips. Going up to VT from Conn 21MPG
Coming home 24 MPG Foot out of the gas both ways 62-65
A well built Motor with todays technogy can still get good MPH and capable of running in the 10's
 
Top