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.
@ $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.
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
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:
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.
--------------------------------------
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
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.
--------------------------------------
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
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
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:
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.)
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.)
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.