Posted by user on June 8, 2009, 3:17 pm
Richard W. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
>>>> AID=/20090530/BUSINESS03/905300338/0/BUSINESS02
>>>> Wauseon plant to open Monday for 110-mpg car engines
>>>> Photo
>>>> Doug Pelmear says his engine more than quadruples the efficiency of the
>>>> average car engine.
>>>> ( SPECIAL TO THE BLADE )
>>>> Zoom | Photo Reprints
>>>> By LARRY P. VELLEQUETTE
>>>> BLADE BUSINESS WRITER
>>>> WAUSEON - The man who drove his 20-year-old Mustang from Napoleon,
>>>> Ohio,
>>>> to Las Vegas and back last year on 39 gallons of fuel will open his
>> first
>>>> manufacturing facility Monday to allow others to get 110 miles per
>>>> gallon.
>>> Yes, but will it pass the California emissions test?
>>>
>>> The 1983 Ford Ranger with a small 4 cylinder engine and manual trans was
>>> rated at up to 41 mpg. The 2008 with the small 4 cylinder engine and
>> manual
>>> trans was rated at up to 26. I imagine that the 41 mpg engine produced a
>>> lot more bad emissions.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Or that the 2008 was forced to claim more realistic mileage. There
>> was a lot of BS back in the 80s about how much mileage cars would get.
>>
>> Harry K
>>
>> No doubt what you say is true to some extent and I read somewhere that
>> they
>> changed the way they rate gas mileage for 2009 cars but still, I used to
>> get
>> 32-33 mpg with my '93 Ford Escort (manual trans, 1.9L engine) and I got
>> about 22-23 mpg with my '66 Mustang with a 3-speed auto and 289 V8 engine
>> with my foot on the floor most of the time. From what I've read it
>> *appears* that most cars get lower gas mileage than comparable cars from
>> the
>> not-too-distant past.
>>
>>
>
> I consistently get 27 mpg back and forth to work. Which is a mix of country
> and city driving. About 32 mpg on the freeway, this is in my 95 Escort wagon
> with 1.9L engine and auto transmission. My wife had an 84 Mercury grand
> Marquis which got 22 mpg on the freeway and 17 in town. That's with the 302
> (5.0 liter) engine.
>
>
A lot depends on how you drive. I've got a 99 Saturn with a 1.9LT
engine, with a light foot on the highway you can get over 50mpg. I used
to own a Pontiac Lemans with a 350 v8/ four barrel, I think it was a
1970. If I drove it like a Grannyon the highway the best I could do was
22 mpg, but if you drove with your foot in it all the time 10 mpg was
pretty common.
Posted by harry k on June 12, 2009, 9:28 am
> > >http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
> > > AID=/20090530/BUSINESS03/905300338/0/BUSINESS02
> > > Wauseon plant to open Monday for 110-mpg car engines
> > > Photo
> > > Doug Pelmear says his engine more than quadruples the efficiency of the
> > > average car engine.
> > > ( SPECIAL TO THE BLADE )
> > > Zoom | Photo Reprints
> > > By LARRY P. VELLEQUETTE
> > > BLADE BUSINESS WRITER
> > > WAUSEON - The man who drove his 20-year-old Mustang from Napoleon, Ohio,
> > > to Las Vegas and back last year on 39 gallons of fuel will open his
> first
> > > manufacturing facility Monday to allow others to get 110 miles per
> > > gallon.
> > Yes, but will it pass the California emissions test?
> > The 1983 Ford Ranger with a small 4 cylinder engine and manual trans was
> > rated at up to 41 mpg. The 2008 with the small 4 cylinder engine and
> manual
> > trans was rated at up to 26. I imagine that the 41 mpg engine produced a
> > lot more bad emissions.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Or that the 2008 was forced to claim more realistic mileage. There
> was a lot of BS back in the 80s about how much mileage cars would get.
> Harry K
> No doubt what you say is true to some extent and I read somewhere that they
> changed the way they rate gas mileage for 2009 cars but still, I used to get
> 32-33 mpg with my '93 Ford Escort (manual trans, 1.9L engine) and I got
> about 22-23 mpg with my '66 Mustang with a 3-speed auto and 289 V8 engine
> with my foot on the floor most of the time. From what I've read it
> *appears* that most cars get lower gas mileage than comparable cars from the
> not-too-distant past.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
There is also the negative effect caused by adding ethanol to gas. I
have seen 10 percent loss of mileage claimed.
Harry K
Posted by z on June 8, 2009, 2:09 pm
>
>> http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
>> AID=/20090530/BUSINESS03/905300338/0/BUSINESS02
>> Wauseon plant to open Monday for 110-mpg car engines
>> Photo
>> Doug Pelmear says his engine more than quadruples the efficiency of
>> the average car engine.
>> ( SPECIAL TO THE BLADE )
>> Zoom | Photo Reprints
>> By LARRY P. VELLEQUETTE
>> BLADE BUSINESS WRITER
>>
>> WAUSEON - The man who drove his 20-year-old Mustang from Napoleon,
>> Ohio, to Las Vegas and back last year on 39 gallons of fuel will open
>> his first manufacturing facility Monday to allow others to get 110
>> miles per gallon.
>>
>
> Yes, but will it pass the California emissions test?
>
> The 1983 Ford Ranger with a small 4 cylinder engine and manual trans
> was rated at up to 41 mpg. The 2008 with the small 4 cylinder engine
> and manual trans was rated at up to 26. I imagine that the 41 mpg
> engine produced a lot more bad emissions.
>
>
Yeah once certain cali cars gets to oregon we take all that crap off and
gain horse power and fuel mileage.
Posted by harry on June 12, 2009, 3:11 pm
> >http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
> > AID=/20090530/BUSINESS03/905300338/0/BUSINESS02
> > Wauseon plant to open Monday for 110-mpg car engines
> > Photo
> > Doug Pelmear says his engine more than quadruples the efficiency of the
> > average car engine.
> > ( SPECIAL TO THE BLADE )
> > Zoom | Photo Reprints
> > By LARRY P. VELLEQUETTE
> > BLADE BUSINESS WRITER
> > WAUSEON - The man who drove his 20-year-old Mustang from Napoleon, Ohio,
> > to Las Vegas and back last year on 39 gallons of fuel will open his first
> > manufacturing facility Monday to allow others to get 110 miles per
> > gallon.
> Yes, but will it pass the California emissions test?
> The 1983 Ford Ranger with a small 4 cylinder engine and manual trans was
> rated at up to 41 mpg. The 2008 with the small 4 cylinder engine and manual
> trans was rated at up to 26. I imagine that the 41 mpg engine produced a
> lot more bad emissions.
There's plenty of European cars do more than 60mpg though our gallons
are bigger than yours. Even some that do 80mpg. All cars are
officially tested and the town/country/average mpg has to be put on
any advertising. Most are turbocharged diesel. We have limos over
here do 40 plus. These are all low emission, that is controlled by
law too.
No wonder Chrysler and GM went bust with such primitive gas guzzlers
http://www.fuel-economy.co.uk/stats.shtml
Posted by Eeyore on June 8, 2009, 1:39 pm
z wrote:
> http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
> AID=/20090530/BUSINESS03/905300338/0/BUSINESS02
DEAD LINK
XML site map
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
>>>> AID=/20090530/BUSINESS03/905300338/0/BUSINESS02
>>>> Wauseon plant to open Monday for 110-mpg car engines
>>>> Photo
>>>> Doug Pelmear says his engine more than quadruples the efficiency of the
>>>> average car engine.
>>>> ( SPECIAL TO THE BLADE )
>>>> Zoom | Photo Reprints
>>>> By LARRY P. VELLEQUETTE
>>>> BLADE BUSINESS WRITER
>>>> WAUSEON - The man who drove his 20-year-old Mustang from Napoleon,
>>>> Ohio,
>>>> to Las Vegas and back last year on 39 gallons of fuel will open his
>> first
>>>> manufacturing facility Monday to allow others to get 110 miles per
>>>> gallon.
>>> Yes, but will it pass the California emissions test?
>>>
>>> The 1983 Ford Ranger with a small 4 cylinder engine and manual trans was
>>> rated at up to 41 mpg. The 2008 with the small 4 cylinder engine and
>> manual
>>> trans was rated at up to 26. I imagine that the 41 mpg engine produced a
>>> lot more bad emissions.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Or that the 2008 was forced to claim more realistic mileage. There
>> was a lot of BS back in the 80s about how much mileage cars would get.
>>
>> Harry K
>>
>> No doubt what you say is true to some extent and I read somewhere that
>> they
>> changed the way they rate gas mileage for 2009 cars but still, I used to
>> get
>> 32-33 mpg with my '93 Ford Escort (manual trans, 1.9L engine) and I got
>> about 22-23 mpg with my '66 Mustang with a 3-speed auto and 289 V8 engine
>> with my foot on the floor most of the time. From what I've read it
>> *appears* that most cars get lower gas mileage than comparable cars from
>> the
>> not-too-distant past.
>>
>>
>
> I consistently get 27 mpg back and forth to work. Which is a mix of country
> and city driving. About 32 mpg on the freeway, this is in my 95 Escort wagon
> with 1.9L engine and auto transmission. My wife had an 84 Mercury grand
> Marquis which got 22 mpg on the freeway and 17 in town. That's with the 302
> (5.0 liter) engine.
>
>