| Author | Message | ||
     Pwnzor |
1988 Honda CRX Si gets the job done! Over 2300 miles in 3 days, total fuel expenditure $197.31. I arrived last Saturday, but I just sat down and added up my gas receipts and I was blown away. I averaged over 40mpg even when I was crossing the Continental Divide. 23 year old Japanese technology (or lack of) 4TW!  | ||
| Froggy |
If you took a Blast it would of been under $100  Oh, and the lack of modern safety and emissions requirements is fantastic for keeping weight down to allow good fuel economy, but you should be doing MUCH better than 40mpg with a CRX. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I forgot to mention I had the car loaded down with about 800 pounds of gear, and maintained 75-85mph the whole way. Heavy weather and long, steep grades were also a factor. I think I did pretty well, all things considered. This car passes smog in California with no issues. (Message edited by pwnzor on July 22, 2010) | ||
| Sycho |
Makes ya wonder, how and why did we ever stray from those MPG figures and technology? Instead automakers started making gas guzzling SUV's and now they're all struggling to get to the 40 MPG or better ratings. | ||
| Pwnzor |
My 1972 Cadillac Coupe deVille got 10mpg on it's best day, having a 472ci big block v8. My 1974 Chevy Nova got about 12-14mpg with a 270ci straight-6. My 1978 Dodge van got about 10-12mpg with a 318ci V8. Didn't matter if I was pulling a trailer or not. My 1997 Isuzu FTR got a solid 10mpg fully loaded (16,000# cargo) with an 8.7L diesel. My 2000 Peterbilt 378 got up to 8mpg with a 14.3L engine with an empty trailer. Loaded, I got about 5-6 mpg. American vehicles in the 1970's were gas guzzling hogs, and when the gas crunch hit, we had to wait in line on a Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday to get gas, and we were limited to a 10 gallon purchase. When the price went to $0.78 per gallon it was considered outrageous and people started flocking to public transportation. Just a little perspective. | ||
| Xbrad9r |
The new Ford Fiesta, like a middle finger pointed straight at the gas companies. It actually has better mpg than most Hybrids. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I had a 1986 CRX Si, great little car. I would consistently get between 38 and 43 MPG on the thing... except for one time driving to Snowshow WV in a snow storm. Crappy traction, never got above 45 mph, pulled 65 MPG. | ||
| Sifo |
Makes ya wonder, how and why did we ever stray from those MPG figures and technology? Instead automakers started making gas guzzling SUV's and now they're all struggling to get to the 40 MPG or better ratings. Welcome to government regulations. They forced government regulations to make us take cars people didn't really want. Now there's the great divide of cars that meet CAFE regulations and those that are large enough to be exempt from them. All that has been done is to regulate away a reasonable middle ground. | ||
| Froggy |
We didn't stray away from the technology. Want to know whats involved with high gas mileage older cars? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. They are very basic cars lacking modern crash and emission regulations. Most of them have low displacement engines. Many of them also lack creature comforts like power windows, and AC. These cars cannot legally be sold today due to regulations. Another factor you need to take into consideration is the measure of fuel economy. The EPA changed the testing procedure a few years ago, so newer cars look like they get worse fuel economy (about 15-20% lower). | ||
| Froggy |
Problem is, the automakers only build what people want. Even to this day, people still want excessively big SUVs. Then the moment gas prices go up, nobody wants them anymore and they stop selling. People suddenly want something else, and there isn't anything really available as it takes several years for a new vehicle to be developed. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I have a 2001 Saab 9-3 that I bought used for $7000. Leather seats, nice stereo, power everything, and it pushes 180+ HP stock. Crash rated with the best of 'em, seats 4 easily, hatchback, can haul a trailer with three bikes, and pulls 30 MPG highway. Got it with 80k miles, up to 125k miles now, only had to do minor work to it. So there are still a few gems out there, you just have to hunt them down... | ||
| Rah7777777 |
40mpg on a loaded car cross country is good! Especially that old of a rig! I say she's a keeper and I'm betting it's paid off :-) So it's a win win!! My old modded VW TDI ( diesel ) would get my about 46 on long road trips. The auto makers are pressed by all the new regs for emissions. Your 88 passed emissions testing based on 1988 regs. By today's regs I doubt it would pass. Not saying it's bad by any means! They've just gotten tougher and gas happy Americans are part of the problem too! I have a V8 in my truck, best I have ever seen is 17 MPG and average 13 MPG. But I only drove 2200 miles last year. ( 800 being a road trip ill never take in that gas hog again!! ). so it's not a big deal for me. I try riding my bicycle to work when I can. I say congrats and keep that little car til she won't start anymore..... Then fix her she fires right up :-) | ||
| Greg_e |
I keep my cars until the body rusts out so much that it is time for the crusher. That's the problem with living where I do is the winters kill the bodywork. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I love the idea of TDI. Any downsides emerging in real day to day life, like those high pressure fuel pumps? | ||
| Bosh |
My brother has a Prius, we were going on a trip and trying to decide on which car to take. We decided to take my 91 Honda CRX HF instead of that gas hog Prius. My HF gets 50+ mpg on trips and has 210,000 miles on it. It used to get 57 mpg highway so the old beast must be wearing out. Probably should clean the fuel injectors one of these days. Think of the fuel economy car manufacturers could achieve with the technology available today (if the government would get out of the way). | ||
| Rah7777777 |
The 1999 to 2005.5 TDI's are the ones you want. The second half of 05 they went with a new injection system ( pump duece I think it's called ) The new PD system doesn't get as good of mileage as the slightly older ones. They are BULLETPROOF!!! (assuming you get the 5-speed manual trans ) I used to be on a forum and a few had the pump go out, but not many. I had a buddy who had one and his turbo seals pop, but he never let it warm up or cool down. I always let it idle for a few minutes before driving and let the turbo cool off before killing the engine. I had a turbo timer on it set at 1 min for daily driving. Mine had bigger injectors, upgraded ECU chip, FMIC, exhaust cut off ( but NOT loud ), intake and the boost set at 23 psi. Pulled 39 on SOLID city driving and 46 on road trips. My buddies stock 03 pulled 45 city and 54 highway. I wish I still had that car! | ||
| Brumbear |
 I had me one a these back in the day in Germany in 1985 I paid $400 dollars for a Silver 1978 ford festiva it was freekin awesome !!!! | ||
| Aesquire |
00 Dodge Grand Caravan... 17-22mpg (crushed) 99 Ford Conversion van...10-17mpg (running good...bought used) 09 VW TDI Sportwagen...about 40mpg (keeper) Fuel for the TDI is about the same cost as premium locally. Torque is excellent, but it doesn't wind like a gas 2.0L turbo. Damn good for a diesel, 4500 red line. handling is prime, needs stainless brake lines ( when that's the only performance bitch...that's not bad ) or the GTI's Brembo's, other that that, same suspension as GTI. Turbo lag, but better than any 70's turbo, and dropping the shift lever into S mode takes care of that. Small vehicle you climb down into, but a surprisingly comfortable cross country cruiser. Real world mileage 38+ over 10,000 miles. Daily commute...35-40mpg, cut & thrust high speed stuff in moderate traffic. Best to date? 47mpg speed limit, cruise control, A/C off. Those are all honest numbers, not flash readings. ( sure, it gets 100+mpg downhill.... who cares? you have to go back up sometime ) All in all TDI is a good vehicle with a premium price ( +$1100) that has quirks ( filling up where the bozo's spill fuell ) but is IMHO worth it. You could get a nice Korean car or the new Ford Fiesta for 5-7000 less, and save money over a ten year hitch.... but I doubt it's as much car. Also, the Fiesta only gets it's best mileage with the fuel saver pkg. with airdam & belly pan. I can't have one, since I'd kill the airdam on friends driveways. Just being realistic. Can't have a Lambo either for that reason. The older mileage cars mass far less than current cars because of crash regulations, no way around that without expensive bits, like aluminum/carbon body & frame bits. A/C is going to knock 2-4 mpg off as is northern winter driving. I love the CRX, but it's as obsolete as a '67 Barracuda. Which by the way... got real good mileage with the 225 slant six, especially if you hopped it up a bit & tuned it right. | ||
| Ourdee |
I drove a datsun 1200 in the 70s. Got 44 mpg. | ||
| Etennuly |
I started out with a 53 hp 1968 VW Beetle. It would get 33 mpg no matter how bad this sixteen year old driver hammered on it. A couple of years later I was in a 1971 Camaro RS for which I built a nasty 327, turbo 400, with a 9" Ford rear with many sets of gears. Somehow, I went to 6 to 8 mpg!  Since then, being in the collision repair business, I have fielded many new, used, or rebuilt vehicles. The best mpg car I had was a '71 Fiat 850 Spyder. It would do 62 mpg running as fast as it would go on the roads in NW Pa. My dad had a '68 Fiat 124 sedan that could hit 43 mpg. These were throw away cars though. They would fold up like aluminum foil in a wreck. Fun to drive in the days before we had to feel safe in a car. My last big cruiser was a full size 2003 GMC Denali 4wd with a 6.0 gas V8. A vehicle that a single city dweller could not understand. But when you have four grown children and three or four grand children, a boat to tow, and a couple trailers for the business that needed towing, there is a proper need for that vehicle. It did amazingly well on gas, 16.0 mpg around town, and it did 18.8 on the highway at 75 mph with five people in it. It lost nearly 2 mpg when alcohol fuels were introduced. Prior years I had a new Suburban 2WD that I had in 1997 did 12 mpg in town and never reached 15 on the highway. My even larger/heavier '98 Dodge dually did 22 mpg running with less than a 1000 pound load. I now sport an F550 diesel 4x4 for work and towing needs, I don't know what the mileage is on it yet, 2 months and still on the first tank of fuel, and a VW passat that is doing 25 to 30 mpg on premium, for running about. But I ride the Buell most of the time getting around 50 + or -. | ||
| Hughlysses |
The second half of 05 they went with a new injection system ( pump duece I think it's called ) The new PD system doesn't get as good of mileage as the slightly older ones. The PD fuel injection was only on the 05/06 models. I have a 2006 TDI Jetta with the PD engine, and I get 40-45 MPG in normal driving. I LIKE the engine; it has Buell-like torque. The 2009-up TDI's (there weren't any 2007 or 2008 models due to VW having to change engine design to meet U.S. emission regs) use common-rail injection, which is the same concept as current gasoline engine fuel injection except using MUCH higher pressures. Like Froggy said, any loss of fuel economy on newer TDI's, like other cars, can be blamed on the cars getting bigger and heavier due to comfort and safety features. An excellent forum for VW TDI's is: www.tdiclub.com (Message edited by Hughlysses on July 23, 2010) | ||
| Ikeman |
+1 on the VW TDIs. I've got 2: 2005 Jetta TDI 5-spd wagon 117K miles (early 2005 - old body style) - consistently gets mid-40s mpg. I've never gotten less than 40mpg no matter how hard I was flogging it. Other than eating tires this has been the cheapest car to maintain that I've ever owned. 2009 Jetta TDI sedan 6-spd DSG 35K miles - pretty consistent 38-39 mpg. High-end on a highway trip was 45 mpg (75-80mph/AC blasting). The TDIs went away for a couple years in the US while they introduced the new engine in Europe. Main engine differences: 2005 - PD (Pumpe-Duse) - individual fuel pump for each injector 1.9 liter/100hp Can generate a decent cloud of smoke when you really jump on it (great for getting tailgaters to back off  ) 2009 - CRD (common rail diesel) - single pump producing high pressure to the fuel rail shared by all cylinders 2.0 liter/140hp Additional downstream filter/catalyst in the exhaust system Have never seen smoke from the exhaust no matter what the driving style. Posting same time as Hughlysses... (Message edited by ikeman on July 23, 2010) | ||
| Oldfartnbuell |
2812 miles, phoenix to boston, 41 mpg averaging 75 mph, all freeway, 08 ford focus, 3 very loooooong days. good enough for me. | ||
| Dynasport |
I never get the mileage other people claim. I just don't understand it. | ||
| Rah7777777 |
TDIclub.com That's right! That's the one I was on. Couldn't remember the name.  ( my old bike too ) | ||
| Hootowl |
The cool thing about the new common rail system is that it produces fuel pressure all the time, not just during the brief period of rotation when the pump is "on the lobe" (the PDs are cam driven) so they can do multiple fueling events per combustion cycle. Amazing technology in the new diesels. Common rail is nothing new, but the pressures involved in the new systems are mind boggling, on the order of 30K PSI. Compare that to gasoline FI at 50 PSI or so. | ||
| Aesquire |
My experience from the muscle car days is that a mild build on a V8, (headers, torque cam, proper intake,etc.) gave much better mileage than stock, especially the mid to late 70's -80's cars. Part of that was defeating/deleting pollution crap, but the real goodness was increasing pumping efficiency. It's actually amazing what a 70-72 'Cuda or even a Satellite can do with a small block and a 6-pack. ( with proper vacuum gear set up & lubed ) You could sleeper around on the Primaries and get 17+ mpg. Then make beautiful music and change gas into speed. You can do the same with a 4 bbl, it's just cooler with a 6-pack.  The goodness of increased pumping efficiency is IMHO why Buell's get such good mileage. | ||
| Fast1075 |
I had a '71 Chevelle with a 350/350 in it. Facing a 2,000 mile summer vacation trip, I pulled the 4.10 equipped rear end out and installed a 2.41 geared rear...only took a couple of hours...the normal fuel mileage for the car was around 10-11 mpg...on the interstate with the higher gear, the car got an astonishing 21 mpg. My first car, a '64 Opel Caddette with a monster 1100cc engine got 40-45mpg as a matter of routine...but it wouldn't run over 60 if it fell off a cliff... (Message edited by fast1075 on July 27, 2010) |
