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 makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

M-body road trip success



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 11th 06, 04:57 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 691
Default M-body road trip success

Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this
somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern
Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of
the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road
speed: around 62 MPH.

Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter
clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic
timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average
octane "regular."

Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada
state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination
(just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up"
idling, etc.

Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level.
Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major
6-8% grades northbound.

Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG
" " return: 28.9 MPG
Average: 27.2 MPG

All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no
disconnected EGR or other illegal mods.

The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV
to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH.

I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse?
One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same.
Ads
  #2  
Old September 11th 06, 11:03 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,410
Default M-body road trip success

DeserTBoB wrote:
> Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this
> somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern
> Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of
> the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road
> speed: around 62 MPH.
>
> Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter
> clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic
> timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average
> octane "regular."
>
> Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada
> state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination
> (just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up"
> idling, etc.
>
> Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level.
> Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major
> 6-8% grades northbound.
>
> Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG
> " " return: 28.9 MPG
> Average: 27.2 MPG
>
> All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no
> disconnected EGR or other illegal mods.
>
> The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV
> to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH.
>
> I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse?
> One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same.


The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde
would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop
highway.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
  #3  
Old September 11th 06, 11:12 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,410
Default M-body road trip success

Bill Putney wrote:

> The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde
> would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop
> highway.


In too much of a hurry. I meant '98 -'04 LH bodies (300M '98-'04).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
  #4  
Old September 11th 06, 12:40 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
duty-honor-country[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default M-body road trip success


Bill Putney wrote:
> DeserTBoB wrote:
> > Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this
> > somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern
> > Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of
> > the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road
> > speed: around 62 MPH.
> >
> > Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter
> > clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic
> > timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average
> > octane "regular."
> >
> > Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada
> > state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination
> > (just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up"
> > idling, etc.
> >
> > Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level.
> > Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major
> > 6-8% grades northbound.
> >
> > Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG
> > " " return: 28.9 MPG
> > Average: 27.2 MPG
> >
> > All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no
> > disconnected EGR or other illegal mods.
> >
> > The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV
> > to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH.
> >
> > I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse?
> > One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same.

>
> The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde
> would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop
> highway.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')



good post- he's trying to impress people with that rolling POS car that
is 20 years old- all of a sudden he's a "big USA car" man- when before,
all he talked about was his Honda.

His Honda has a 60 HP engine in it.

How much HP does this ' 86 Chrysler have, around 100 ?

this "Bob" guy obviously has no clue just how much further advanced
modern automotive technology has come. NOTHING has a carburetor on it
anymore- all the new cars are fuel injected. 30 MPG highway is the
norm, or better. Many get 35 MPG with 350 CID V-8's in them

  #5  
Old September 11th 06, 02:42 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
Steve[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,043
Default M-body road trip success

DeserTBoB wrote:

> Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this
> somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern
> Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of
> the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road
> speed: around 62 MPH.
>
> Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter
> clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic
> timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average
> octane "regular."
>
> Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada
> state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination
> (just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up"
> idling, etc.
>
> Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level.
> Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major
> 6-8% grades northbound.
>
> Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG
> " " return: 28.9 MPG
> Average: 27.2 MPG
>
> All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no
> disconnected EGR or other illegal mods.
>
> The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV
> to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH.
>
> I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse?
> One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same.



Way back when I owned an M-body (83 Gran Fury) it would consistently
turn in about 20-23 mpg highway. They were definitely sleepers when it
came to efficiency. Chrysler always did build the best, even in the dark
dismal days of the 80s.

But it also had a 2.45 rear gear and couldn't get out of its own way
off the line (though the top end was darn near unlimited). My wife's 93
v6 LH would simultaneously out-accelerate the M-body, AND get better
mileage, AND has cleaner exhaust. I still like driving my 60s cars
because a) they really ARE more powerful than modern cars, and b) they
have style. But I'd never argue that they meet the same kinds of
simultaneous performance objectives (power, efficiency, emissions) that
is possible today.
  #6  
Old September 11th 06, 05:01 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 691
Default M-body road trip success

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 06:12:41 -0400, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde
>> would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop
>> highway.

>
>In too much of a hurry. I meant '98 -'04 LH bodies (300M '98-'04). <snip>


True. Dad-in-law's '00 LH would get a reliable 30-32 on the highway,
but remember...this is a lighter, FWD car with a V6 and fuel
injection! The old M-body had a 318 and a 2 bbl carb! The V6, of
course, with it's more modern fuel and induction systems, would
actually produce more BHP than the 318s in the M-bodies. The later
Magnum incarnations of the LA engine would put them to shame, but they
only wound up in trucks.
  #7  
Old September 11th 06, 05:28 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 691
Default M-body road trip success

On 11 Sep 2006 04:40:05 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote:

>good post- he's trying to impress people with that rolling POS car that
>is 20 years old- all of a sudden he's a "big USA car" man- when before,
>all he talked about was his Honda. <snip>


My Honda gets better on the road (32-33), much better around town
(30.) Your point, as usual, is that you're simply a troll with no
knowledge, and you're still angry about my crushing of your eBay fraud
empire.

>His Honda has a 60 HP engine in it. <snip>


65.

>How much HP does this ' 86 Chrysler have, around 100 ? <snip>


120. I don't require a car to be a "dick extension" like you do,
Noodles.

>this "Bob" guy obviously has no clue just how much further advanced
>modern automotive technology has come. NOTHING has a carburetor on it
>anymore- all the new cars are fuel injected. 30 MPG highway is the
>norm, or better. Many get 35 MPG with 350 CID V-8's in them <snip>


Try 20-25. The Chevy small block's a pig...always has been. Modern
V6s, yes. As Bill Putney says, the LHs were good on fuel economy
while providing good power and response. The later roller cam 318s,
while an improvement in emissions and economy, were lethargic in their
2 bbl version, which came in most M-bodies of that era. The 360 with
a Carter Thermoquad fixed the power, but tanked the economy. The 360
was standard only on the Fifth Avenue Brougham. They were good for
maybe 20-23 on the road tops, but produced good power. Most police
packages ordered in those days had special cam grind 360s.

The California Highway Patrol had fleets of 1980s Dodge Diplomats, and
a few batches came with a special version of the 318. Although
economy shot up, saving the state millions of dollars a quarter, they
couldn't chase an overpowered muscle car or a Euro sportster like a
Porsche. For that duty, the 5 speed Ford Mustang 302s were introduced
as an interceptor. Didn't really matter...maybe Porsche WAS faster
than Chrysler, but it sure wasn't faster than Motorola or a Bell
chopper! What the CHP liked about the Diplomats, though, was their
toughness and longevity, even though they were lacking in pursuit
power. The Mustangs barely lasted the two years duty cycle, while the
'92 Camaros were retired after 6 months due to high maintenance and
low reliability.

The Camaro also suffered from dangerous wet surface handling. Most
districts would "ground" the Camaros during rainy weather, as their
accident rate was 5 times the fleet average on slick pavement. I know
this well...my wife bought a '92 RS and the rear end would come
completely unglued on wet pavement, even with Goodrich T/As. She had
the 3.1 60° V6, which would turn in 30 MPG on the road and was a tough
little mill, but reliability of that car overall was fair to poor. I
got really tired of replacing speed transducers on the 4L60
transmission (later, lighter version of the THM700) at $78 a pop, too.
The 1980s vintage ECM was less than forthright on giving good
information for troubleshooting, as well.
  #8  
Old September 11th 06, 05:41 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 691
Default M-body road trip success

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:42:07 -0500, Steve > wrote:

>Way back when I owned an M-body (83 Gran Fury) it would consistently
>turn in about 20-23 mpg highway. They were definitely sleepers when it
>came to efficiency. Chrysler always did build the best, even in the dark
>dismal days of the 80s. <snip>


I agree...the M-bodies were much maligned but really good, honest
cars, if not "flashy" like GM's FWD competitors.

>But it also had a 2.45 rear gear and couldn't get out of its own way
>off the line (though the top end was darn near unlimited). My wife's 93
>v6 LH would simultaneously out-accelerate the M-body, AND get better
>mileage, AND has cleaner exhaust. <snip>


I have the 2:45 Dana 44 rear end as well, and once the converter locks
up in third at 36 MPH, you just wait for awhile to get up to speed.
I'm no speed merchant, so I don't care. The point is exactly as you
state...even though Chrysler was reeling from almost collapsing in the
late '70s, they alway still did their best in terms of putting out a
good product, and their economy and emissions were far better than
what GM and Ford could offer in an RWD sedan at that time.
  #9  
Old September 11th 06, 08:01 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
Steve[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,043
Default M-body road trip success

DeserTBoB wrote:

>
>>But it also had a 2.45 rear gear and couldn't get out of its own way
>>off the line (though the top end was darn near unlimited). My wife's 93
>>v6 LH would simultaneously out-accelerate the M-body, AND get better
>>mileage, AND has cleaner exhaust. <snip>

>
>
> I have the 2:45 Dana 44 rear end as well


No Dana 44 in an M-body. Either Chrysler 7.25 (behind /6 engines through
1983) or Chrysler 8.25

> The point is exactly as you
> state...even though Chrysler was reeling from almost collapsing in the
> late '70s, they alway still did their best in terms of putting out a
> good product, and their economy and emissions were far better than
> what GM and Ford could offer in an RWD sedan at that time.


They did *well* but not always their best. The M-body would have been
far better with a simple throttle-body fuel injection system, such as GM
was already using at the time on its high-end cars, and Chrysler was
already using on THEIR OWN 4-cylinder turbo cars. If you could take an
equivalent the nice engine management system that GM put on the Cad
HT4100 off that piece of sh*t engine and put it on the bulletproof 318
engine from an M-body, you'd have the mythical "good" 80s drivetrain
that never actually existed in any form. Of course anything beat Ford
screwing around with the "variable venturi" carb for so long, but I digress.



  #10  
Old September 11th 06, 08:12 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
Steve[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,043
Default M-body road trip success

DeserTBoB wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 06:12:41 -0400, Bill Putney >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde
>>>would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop
>>>highway.

>>
>>In too much of a hurry. I meant '98 -'04 LH bodies (300M '98-'04). <snip>

>
>
> True. Dad-in-law's '00 LH would get a reliable 30-32 on the highway,
> but remember...this is a lighter, FWD car with a V6 and fuel
> injection!


Actually, an LH car weighs about the same as an M-body. Maybe more,
mabye less- depending on trim level.
There are a few things about current (and within the last 10 years) cars
that people forget:
1) Interior plastic is actually a lot heavier than you'd think
2) Mandatory safety equipment is *heavy*
3) Optional equipment weight (8-way seats, ABS, etc.) adds up fast.

The M-body was always a lightweight car- after all the F/M/J body was
designed as an even lighter and more efficient replacement for the
A-body family of cars (Dart/Valiant/Duster/Demon), and that was
Chrysler's SMALL car chassis. The M became a "large" car only by default
when everything else shrank. And it was still smaller than contemporary
Ford and GM "full-size" cars like the Crown Vic, DeVille, Olds 88, etc.



 




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
Road Trip, NSW & Vic, Australia Sir Lex Driving 2 December 1st 05 05:09 AM
Get real milerage on a 97 Jeep Wrangler Fidelio Jeep 11 September 18th 05 02:15 AM
Body off - body support? Remco VW air cooled 15 July 19th 05 01:23 PM
Car Dies When Stops; Excudes Burning Smell from Exhaust; Can I drive to on road trip today? kalexand33 Driving 8 January 2nd 05 11:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:20 PM.


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