OT Gas Mileage MPD

I just checked the gas mileage of my Jeep. 9 miles per dollar
Reply to
mrbill2
Loading thread data ...
"mrbill2" wrote in news:10bfqo1hk19957 @corp.supernews.com:
Diesel Turbo 1.9 VW 28 miles per dollar...
Reply to
Andy
12.5 m/$ on cnd gas at $2.58(us)/gal 99 VW Passat 1.8turbo
Andy wrote:
Reply to
Machineman
1995 Chevy CK1500 5.8L, 7 MPD
Reply to
LP
On Sat, 29 May 2004 00:37:01 -0300, Machineman stated wide-eyed, with arms akimbo:
Yabbut, how do you face yourself in the mirror as a vubdub owner?
12.7m/$ on US gas @ $2.29.9/us gal, shortbed '91 Ford F-150, 5L. and that's with my lead foot into it all the time.
- Yea, though I walk through the valley of Minwax, I shall stain no Cherry.
formatting link
Reply to
Larry Jaques
2.5 litre diesel Ford Transit van 3.5mpd (English diesel at $5.80/US gal :-(
Mark Rand RTFM
Reply to
Mark Rand
Larry Jaques wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
19.5 mpd 95 Dodge Neon $1.89/gal 14.2 mpd 87 Ford Ranger $1.89/gal
Reply to
Anthony
@ $2.09 /US Gal.:
23.9 MPD Suzuki DRZ-400S 9.1 MPD Ford Ranger (4WD, 4.0L V6)
In the interest of economy, I force myself to ride the Suzuki as often as possible. It's a dirty job ....
R, Tom Q.
Reply to
Tom Quackenbush
75 MPD; '79 diesel Rabbit using home brew biodiesel.
Reply to
Dale Scroggins
My fleet numbers:
1997 Dodge Intrepid 3.5 24V V6 15.00 MPD (my commuter car)
1987 Jeep Comanche 4x4 4.0L inline 6 13.33 MPD 1993 Jeep Cherokee 4x2 4.0L inline 6 12.22 MPD (baffles me why the 4x4 pickup always does better)
2004 Nissan 350Z 3.5L 24V V6 10.47 MPD 1966 98 Olds 425CI V8 8.00 MPD (both require premium)
1998 Dodge RAM 4x4 360CI V8 6.88 MPD 1978 Ford F350 dually 400CI V8 3.33 MPD
All figures based on long term MPG and current prices of regular or premium.
The surprises are that the little sports car, which gets relatively good gas mileage, costs as much as it does to run thanks to the requirement to burn premium (and admittedly due to the way I drive it), and that the monstrous old Oldsmobile does so well, even though it also requires premium. (The Olds is a jewel, 68,000 actual miles, still in near showroom condition, and a fabulous interstate cruiser.)
But gas economy doesn't tell the whole story. When you look at total costs to own and operate, the Ford wins big, followed by the two Jeeps, the Olds, and the Intrepid. The RAM, and especially the 350Z, are just plain expensive to own and operate because their initial costs, and insurance costs, are so much higher than the others.
Now I've got to crank up the Ford and go do a job which requires its size, and the crane mounted on it.
Gary
Reply to
Gary Coffman
Hmmm, on our vacation in Cali, Nick picked up his 60s-era Mini Cooper from the Richmond Military shipping place... anyways, we went like 300 miles (from SF area to Fresno) on 1 1/2 tanks, which are around 7 gallons, so say 300/11 = 30MPG (would probably be better if he didn't floor it every so often ;), and at $2.25 or so per gallon, that's 12 miles per dollar. Don't know what our cars get exactly. Can't be too bad around here though, gas is still $1.98. >:D
Tim
-- "I have misplaced my pants." - Homer Simpson | Electronics, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --+ Metalcasting and Games:
formatting link

Reply to
Tim Williams
On Sun, 30 May 2004 15:31:58 -0400, Gary Coffman stated wide-eyed, with arms akimbo:
-snip-
What's the rear nut ratio on each?
-snip-
-snip of gazillion others in the fleet-
The crane helps explain the lower mpd of the dually.
P.S: I'd hate to be paying your auto insurance bills. =:0
---------------------------------------------------------- Please return Stewardess to her original upright position. --------------------------------------
formatting link
Tagline-based T-shirts!
Reply to
Larry Jaques
Same, at least the tach shows the same RPM on both at the same speed. The Cherokee has more zip, though, since it weighs quite a bit less.
The welder, the air compressor, the big jobbox, etc also make a difference. It is a heavy pig.
Surprisingly not so bad, except for the Z. That one costs me as much to insure as all the others combined.
Gary
Reply to
Gary Coffman
On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:03:22 -0400, Gary Coffman stated wide-eyed, with arms akimbo:
If you have OD trannies on one or both, that could make a difference, even with the same nut. Are both EFI fed? The 302 in my '91 F-150 has over a hundred horse more than the carbureted version in my old '68 Ranch Wagon and it gets 18mpg while the old wagon got 17.
What does your Haynes/Motor/Chilton manual say? ;)
That's because the Z is old, inexpensive to buy, and way underpowered. (Or did I get those reversed?) ;)
---------------------------------------------------------- Please return Stewardess to her original upright position. --------------------------------------
formatting link
Tagline-based T-shirts!
Reply to
Larry Jaques
22.5 mpd @ $2US/gal- 600 miles per tank- CARB ultra-low emissions- decal for the car pool lane- $2000 tax deduction.
2003 Honda Civic Hybrid
D.
Reply to
Capt.Doug
Looked it up in the owner's manuals, it is 3.23:1 on both.
Same engines, same transmissions, same ratios, thus the same tach readings at the same speeds. Both have lock up torque converters. Both are EFI, also the same systems. The engines are rated the same hp and torque at the same RPMs.
The pickup has a transfer case, because it is a 4x4, but the MPG figures are for operation in 2 wheel high, which is 1:1, so it shouldn't affect performance other than to add a bit of gear drag.
Note that it is the older, heavier, and 4 wheel drive, pickup that gets the better gas mileage. It shouldn't, because it has more weight to carry, and more drag from the 4x4 drivetrain. But it does anyway, and has since both vehicles were new.
Note that in these year models, the two vehicles share everything from the back of the cab forward. The pickup is long wheel base, and has a bed, of course. The Cherokee has a shorter wheel base, and the rear is enclosed, ie a SUV body.
I don't think that the aerodynamics of the Cherokee are that much worse than the Comanche. They should be better. But that's the only difference I can see between them which might give the pickup the edge over the SUV in MPG.
Gary
Reply to
Gary Coffman
My daily driver:
'93 Volvo 945 w/ 347 Ford V8, Tremec 3550 and 3.54 gears Requires premium at $2.70 per gallon in SF 3.3 MPD around town and 7.4 MPD on the highway
Sigh.
Peter
Reply to
Peter Grey
The Miles per dollar issue prompted me to ask opinions on vehicles as I am going to be needing a replacement soon.
My problem is I need to get everything from one vehicle...hauling, long road trips, 4WD offroad stuff...and need to be economical on fuel and repairs. I do a lot of business travel...about 20,000 miles a year of freeway stuff. Out here in the west that means lots of hills and mountain passes so a "gutless wonder" won't cut it. However, I also need something on the order of a 3/4 ton pick-up for hauling stuff about 10% of the time. Additionally, I do some rockhounding so need something that can handle slippery gravel and dirt roads after a rain (no rough stuff though). Oh yea..it needs to seat 4 like a crew cab. Needs to be able to haul a 4 x 10 sheet with no problems also.
I've thought about a car AND a truck but working the numbers on fuel costs, the insurance for the second vehicle eats the idea up. Also, I hate to store a truck that is only driven only a few days a month. Trucks can be great but most I have driven get really tiring to drive after about 10 hours. I used to drive an old cadillac for the business trips and after 17 hours of driving, you'd get out feeling like you had been in bed all day resting.
Currently I am driving an AWD chevy astro van and get about 10 miles per dollar. It does the job but is NOT good for hauling the rough stuff. Works great on the slippery back roads through and I've never had a problem on snow.
Any suggestions for a value vehicle that does it all?
mrbill2 wrote:
Reply to
Koz
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 01:10:30 -0400, Gary Coffman stated wide-eyed, with arms akimbo:
Wow, that's short for an off-road vehicle!
Hmm, how about weight differences? I'll bet the newer one is a bit lighter, xfer case variable notwithstanding. (Never mind, I just caught your paragraphs later on.)
And that wouldn't show up in MPG.
Strange. How about performance? Could they have set the 4x4 up a bit differently so it gets better performance, over- compensating for the 4x drag?
I did a test with my F-150 and found that I got 1mpg better mileage with the tailgate up than I did with it removed or down, ruining the theory for those who thought it up. Someone in the auto arena did a similar test and debunked it, too.
It's an interesting "problem", huh? Could it be added drag on the Cherokee with all those billowy Indian spirits hanging around? (Sorry, really lame joke there.)
Reply to
Larry Jaques
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:55:01 -0700, Koz stated wide-eyed, with arms akimbo:
You forgot the part about the wet bar, waterbed, and built-in fridge, stove, and dance hall, Koz.
Get a Subaru Outback and rent a Borg truck on the days you need to haul 4 x 10 sheets. I checked out the Subarus when my sister said she wanted to get one. They're really nice. (She ended up with a Mazda 4wd SUV because it was about $8k cheaper. The 4wd is for her many trips to a friend's house near Lake Tahoe.)
Reply to
Larry Jaques

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.