A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Drving faster, in my experience does not make a significant change in mileage...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 20th 05, 11:53 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cory do you really want to get added mileage and improve the life of
you engine. I read all the articles here . I suggest a test on the dyno
to set a base line and make any adjustments from there . you can always
go back to the dyno and see if your still holding true . I did with
this new product called CCF from American CCF and it showed a 10 -15%
increase torque and HP at 4000 ft. checkit out at americanccf.com

Ads
  #22  
Old January 21st 05, 12:21 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Larry Bud wrote:
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > You're a liar about the mileage but that's not really the issue.
> > Speeders waste gas but more importantly they murder innocent

people.
>
> You're wrong about both. The OP didn't kill anybody.
> But someday when we see your ass crossing the street...

And we won't even have to speed up to do it!

  #23  
Old January 21st 05, 12:28 AM
Timothy J. Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Cory Dunkle > wrote:
>It was about 225 miles each way. I drove the same route: Rt. 70, cut through
>back roads to Rt. 73, NJ Turnpike, Palisades Pkwy, Tappan Zee Br, 87, 287,
>684, 84, then about 2 miles off 84 on rural roads to my buddies house. Took
>the same route back home.


Going opposite directions on the same route may result in different fuel
economy at the same speeds due to differences in elevation and wind effects.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
  #25  
Old January 21st 05, 01:04 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cory Dunkle wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >, Cory Dunkle wrote:
>>
>>>Driving at 85 MPH vs 70 MPH only reduced my mileage by .3 MPG. So take

>
> that
>
>>>you speed kills freaks and tree huggers. Anyhow...
>>>
>>>This is in my '68 Galaxie 500 with a 302, FMX, and 2.80:1 gears.

>>
>>2.80 is good milage axle. Anyways.... if you're going to be going over 70
>>regularly and it's not on an empty interstate I suggest you upgrade the
>>braking system on that car.

>
>
> I'm thinking I may do just as well with a 3.25 or 3.50 as it would get my
> RPM where the motor is more efficient but at a lower speed that I normally
> travel on local trips. Anyhow, the transmission slips on the 2-3 shift until
> warmed up when the weather is below freezing. So when it goes I'm gonna
> upgrade to an AOD for mileage and put something in the neighborhood of
> 3.50:1 - 4.11:1 gears out back. Should give me a slightly better final drive
> for lower RPM and give much better acceleration with that little 302. I may
> even see an increase in around town mileage. Anyhow, for the time being I
> just shift manually for the first 2-3 minutes and when I go to 3rd I let go
> of the gas while it shifts so it doesn't slip. Seems to be a problem FMX
> transmission gets after a while. My '67 had the same problem though it
> developed it around 200,000 miles, the '68 has about 113,000 miles, but then
> again when my uncle drove it he never put fluids in it or anything.


Unless you really feel the need for the OD, I'd keep the FMX. AFAIK
it's closely related to the old Ford-O-Matic and therefore the
Borg-Warner automatic that Studebaker used from 56-64, and that tranny
is one of the most underrated units out there - very durable, reliable,
and basically abusable. I know a guy that was pumping over 600 RWHP
through a Powershift (basically a fancied up HD Flightomatic) and
ditched it for a THM400 because everyone told him it would be
stronger... and promptly blew the THM400... I'm really not sure what
the reliability of a good AOD is, but I seriously doubt it's as
cast-iron, dead-nuts reliable as the FMX/Ford-O-Matic/Flightomatic.

Of course, if you have a 9" rear, it's trivially easy to play with the
rear gear ratio, and I can see the appeal of having a tranny with a
wider gear spread. So if that's what you really want, and this car you
think is a keeper, by all means go for it. I guess I just felt
compelled to stand up and defend the honor of the FMX there for a second

>
> As for the brakes, I generally don't drive faster than 80-85 as that's about
> the upper limit of what my car can do in a full-out emergency stop and not
> have the brakes overheat as I approach a stop. These old Gals have big
> 2.5"x11" drums all around which stop pretty well compared to other drum
> brake cars, like Mustangs which have tiny drums. I'm keeping my eyes open
> for a good disc brake donor though. It's not on the top of my list of things
> to do but should I come across the parts I'll probably snag them when I have
> the chance. Would be a nice thing to have since I do a fairly large amount
> of highway miles and most of the econo-boxes on the roads can stop pretty
> darned quickly.
>
> Cory
>


You may want to consider an aftermarket disc brake conversion; a lot of
late '60s cars used 4-pot fixed calipers which work, but are expensive,
finicky, and don't really work any *better* than a cheaper, simpler
single or dual piston caliper (which is usually what the aftermarket
kits have)

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #26  
Old January 21st 05, 06:01 AM
Cory Dunkle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
>
> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>In article >, Cory Dunkle wrote:
> >>
> >>>Driving at 85 MPH vs 70 MPH only reduced my mileage by .3 MPG. So take

> >
> > that
> >
> >>>you speed kills freaks and tree huggers. Anyhow...
> >>>
> >>>This is in my '68 Galaxie 500 with a 302, FMX, and 2.80:1 gears.
> >>
> >>2.80 is good milage axle. Anyways.... if you're going to be going over

70
> >>regularly and it's not on an empty interstate I suggest you upgrade the
> >>braking system on that car.

> >
> >
> > I'm thinking I may do just as well with a 3.25 or 3.50 as it would get

my
> > RPM where the motor is more efficient but at a lower speed that I

normally
> > travel on local trips. Anyhow, the transmission slips on the 2-3 shift

until
> > warmed up when the weather is below freezing. So when it goes I'm gonna
> > upgrade to an AOD for mileage and put something in the neighborhood of
> > 3.50:1 - 4.11:1 gears out back. Should give me a slightly better final

drive
> > for lower RPM and give much better acceleration with that little 302. I

may
> > even see an increase in around town mileage. Anyhow, for the time being

I
> > just shift manually for the first 2-3 minutes and when I go to 3rd I let

go
> > of the gas while it shifts so it doesn't slip. Seems to be a problem FMX
> > transmission gets after a while. My '67 had the same problem though it
> > developed it around 200,000 miles, the '68 has about 113,000 miles, but

then
> > again when my uncle drove it he never put fluids in it or anything.

>
> Unless you really feel the need for the OD, I'd keep the FMX. AFAIK
> it's closely related to the old Ford-O-Matic and therefore the
> Borg-Warner automatic that Studebaker used from 56-64, and that tranny
> is one of the most underrated units out there - very durable, reliable,
> and basically abusable. I know a guy that was pumping over 600 RWHP
> through a Powershift (basically a fancied up HD Flightomatic) and
> ditched it for a THM400 because everyone told him it would be
> stronger... and promptly blew the THM400... I'm really not sure what
> the reliability of a good AOD is, but I seriously doubt it's as
> cast-iron, dead-nuts reliable as the FMX/Ford-O-Matic/Flightomatic.


The FMX can definitely take more abuse than the AOD (and yes, it is very
similar to the old Borg-Warner, was based on that design). Also not fancy TV
linkage to worry about getting out of adjustement and burning up the
overdrive band. The FMX is a heavy trans that robs a lot of power though.
I've got a heavy car with a small engine, so a lighter more efficient
transmission may do me better. I think the old FMX still has a good 50k-100k
left in her though. Shifts very nicely when it above freezing or it gets
warmed up. I just figgure if I'm gonna be shelling out for a new tranny I
may as well get one that will help with mileage since this car is gonna be
my daily driver for a long, long time.

> Of course, if you have a 9" rear, it's trivially easy to play with the
> rear gear ratio, and I can see the appeal of having a tranny with a
> wider gear spread. So if that's what you really want, and this car you
> think is a keeper, by all means go for it. I guess I just felt
> compelled to stand up and defend the honor of the FMX there for a second



Unfortunately I don't ahve a 9" out back... Many small block cars came with
a smaller rear which got the job done fine. As I understand it there aren't
really any option for gearing for this rear end. I know of a couple '67 and
'68 Gals in a pick'n'pull yard not far from here. At least two have 390s so
I figgure I have a good chance of finding a 9" that'll just bolt right in.
Maybe I'll get lucky and find one with a decent gear ratio. Then I can just
clean it up, put new bearings in, and be all set to go. I actually pulled a
gas tank a year or two ago from a '67 with a 390... Didn't pay much
attention to the rear end but IIRC it was a 9". Anyhow, the FMX certainly is
a good reliable transmission. The one in my '67 went to 200k before it
started slipping on the 2-3 shift when cold out.

> > As for the brakes, I generally don't drive faster than 80-85 as that's

about
> > the upper limit of what my car can do in a full-out emergency stop and

not
> > have the brakes overheat as I approach a stop. These old Gals have big
> > 2.5"x11" drums all around which stop pretty well compared to other drum
> > brake cars, like Mustangs which have tiny drums. I'm keeping my eyes

open
> > for a good disc brake donor though. It's not on the top of my list of

things
> > to do but should I come across the parts I'll probably snag them when I

have
> > the chance. Would be a nice thing to have since I do a fairly large

amount
> > of highway miles and most of the econo-boxes on the roads can stop

pretty
> > darned quickly.
> >
> > Cory
> >

>
> You may want to consider an aftermarket disc brake conversion; a lot of
> late '60s cars used 4-pot fixed calipers which work, but are expensive,
> finicky, and don't really work any *better* than a cheaper, simpler
> single or dual piston caliper (which is usually what the aftermarket
> kits have)


I've seen a few kits and they are tempting. I like the ones where I don't
have to replace the spindles or any of the steering linkage. Just bolt it on
and be done with it. Thanks for the input on the brakes, definitely
something to consider when the time comes to do the swap.


  #27  
Old January 21st 05, 06:05 AM
Cory Dunkle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> Around 1/19/2005 11:07 PM, Magnulus wrote:
>
> > "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Driving at 85 MPH vs 70 MPH only reduced my mileage by .3 MPG. So take

that
> >>you speed kills freaks and tree huggers. Anyhow...
> >>
> >>This is in my '68 Galaxie 500 with a 302, FMX, and 2.80:1 gears.

> >
> >
> > That's because it's a sports car/muscle car.

>
> LOL! Now *that's* funny!


Yeah, that's what I was thinking... This was my great grandma's car. The
Galaxie is a family car, and a 2 ton car with a small engine and tall
'highway' gears isn't exactly a sporty muscle car. The vinyl top (which I
think looks sharp) probably doesn't help the 'sporty' idea much either. If
it was a fastback it'd be sporty looking. My old '67 Galaxie hardtop
(hardtops only came in a faskback style) was pretty sporty lookin', but
certainly wasn't the quickest thing around with a little 289 and 2.80:1
gears. Both my '67 and '68 were made for mileage with the small engines and
tall gears. The highest I ever saw was a hair over 17 MPG with the '68 using
a 2 barrel carb. The '67 got slightly less than that at most.


  #28  
Old January 21st 05, 06:14 AM
Cory Dunkle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Larry Bud" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > Driving at 85 MPH vs 70 MPH only reduced my mileage by .3 MPG. So

> take that
> > you speed kills freaks and tree huggers. Anyhow...

>
> You need more stats:
>
> -How far did you drive at each speed

~225 miles
> -Did you do them within the same time period (atmospheric conditions,
> temperature, affecting combustion and tire pressure)?

Approximately the same temp, wasn't very windy in either direction,
everything was pretty much the same.
> -On the same stretch of road (hilly?)

Yep, same roads each way, both directions run next to eachother the whole
way.
> -What about wind?

Not much wind going either direction
> -How did you calculate MPG? (Car computers are not THAT accurate IME).

Computers? We're talkin' about a '68 Galaxie here. I filled the tnak and did
the math... No topping it off or anything either way.
> -Same type of gas?

Ran 93 octane both directions. Bought Sunoco in NJ and Shell in CT. Both are
good quality gas so I doubt there is much difference in fuel quality.
> -Same vehicle weight?

I had a few extra things on the way back, not more than a 20-25 lb increase
though.

Even if you figgure a couple tenths of a MPG error from various things, such
as perhaps the pumps at the gas stations shutting off at different levels
giving slgihtly more or less gas at one station, it still isn't a
significant change in mileage for the time saved (over half an hour). I will
say though that driving at the higher speed took more attention and left me
feeling a little more drained when I got home. Perhaps most of that was from
not sleeping much while I was in CT though.


  #29  
Old January 21st 05, 06:24 AM
Cory Dunkle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Cory do you really want to get added mileage and improve the life of
> you engine. I read all the articles here . I suggest a test on the dyno
> to set a base line and make any adjustments from there . you can always
> go back to the dyno and see if your still holding true . I did with
> this new product called CCF from American CCF and it showed a 10 -15%
> increase torque and HP at 4000 ft. checkit out at americanccf.com


I have never put any additives in my oil. The oil manufacturer puts in the
required additives. More is usually overkill and typically hurts the
effectiveness of the oil. I also don't like the idea of putting ceramics
(solids/particulates) in my engine. Solids in an engine can't be good for
it, not to mention that a good oil filter (I use only Purolator PureOne)
should filter most, if not all, of that stuff before it gets to the bearings
or has much chance to get on the cylinder walls.

My engine only has ~16,000 miles on it. If it needs a freshening up I'll
pull it out, put new bearings in, hone the cylinder and re-ring it. Cheap
and effective. I may do just that come spring when I pull the engine to put
new performance heads on, a Weiland Stealth intake, and change my oil pan
gasket, timing cover gasket, and water pump (got a new aluminum pump laying
around I may as well use). I figgure while I've got the engine out it'll be
cheap insurance.

I think a day on the dyno is a bit much for a mild daily driver. I'm fine
with doing my tuning with trial and error on the road, reading plugs, etc.
May not squeeze as much out of it as on the dyno, but it's good enough for
what the car's purpose is. Now if I had a built up motor a good tune on the
dyno would be worth it. For a mild 302 in ym daily driver... Nah, it's not
worth the extra cost (to me anyway).

Cory


  #30  
Old January 21st 05, 09:53 AM
magnulus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry, I wasn't alive back then but the car does seem like a muscle car
to me. I saw two doors on the car when I did a websearch. A coupe tends
to be more sporty looking.

If you don't want to call it an American sportscar/musclecar, you can't
deny it's a big, heavy car with a typical American build for the time
period - heavy, big inefficient engine, sucks lots of gas. Of course
driving it fast won't make that much difference in mileage.

Now lets compare a modern car. Speed will make a difference in mileage
there.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2003 Accord Headlamp Change? Make sure you have these... Gene S. Berkowitz Honda 0 October 17th 04 01:23 AM
Subject: Traffic School - online traffic school experience response [email protected] Corvette 0 October 9th 04 05:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.