Re: Don't believe Corvette owners lies about supposed fuel economy

Sarah Czepiel wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:08:15 -0400, "tww1491" <twaugh5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> :>
> :>"Sarah Czepiel" <ninety7gt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> :>news:lkrq04h5hfrhtskon1arth1br0sk62pdkj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> :>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Sal
<jackwhite200@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> :>> wrote:
> :>>
> :>> :>They'll lie and tell people that Corvettes get 28 MPG, when the
truth
> :>> :>is that the C6 ZO6 gets 24 MPG, the C6 Auto Coupe gets 25 mpg, and
the
> :>> :>C6 Manual gets 26 MPG.
> :>>
> :>> Husband and I averaged 29mpg last summer on a trip from Maryland to
Rhode
> :>> Island.
> :>
> :>Surprising! Things must have changed since the day I owned Vettes.  My
71 
> :>454 4 speed with a 3.08 rear could never get better than 16 running
around 
> :>80.  In town, it was near 10.
> 
> Ex husband had both a '69 Cougar [ essentially the Eliminator but
without
> the paint, spoiler, etc ] and a '69 Judge.    If I remember correctly
the
> best either of those two could pump out was 14mpg and it was a rare
> occurrence even at that.  :)
> 

Ah Sarah, you have shoved me into the, 'can you 
top this' thread.

My record was with a '57 Olds 88 with J-2 engine 
option.  Over 400 cubes (Dad might recall the 
actual displacement of that block) with tandem 
4bbl carbs and a chassis/frame that must have 
been made from a blend of cast iron and depleted 
Uranium.  14 mpg with a tail wind and 7-10 
around town.  Ate brake linings for dessert. 
Nice gold paint job with lots of stainless-steel 
trim.  Smooth Hydramatic with a stall ratio that 
made it quick off the line (no TCC in those days 
except on Studebakers and Packards).

In retrospect, premium for that monster was 
about 28 cents a gallon, roughly equal to $3.55 
in today's dollars.  (I was in the top 10% of 
wage-earners then, with an $ 7K annual salary.)

Just filled the C5 this morning at $4.059/gal. 
But, after I run all the numbers, the adjusted 
cost (2008 dollars) of fuel/mile for the C5 is 
about 1/2 of what it cost to run a "muscle car" 
of yesteryear.

Even my old C4 produces 24mpg highway and over 
21 in mixed freeway/city commuting. 
(Interesting thing with the C4 is that it gets 
better gas mileage at 75 than it does at 65). 
(probably a poor match of that ancient ECM to 
the 'performance' axle ratio @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 65mph)

In contrast, the leased FX35 that I dumped 
*required* premium, got 22 highway and just 
under 20 when commuting.  One of that car's 
difficulties was a crappy choice of final drive 
ratio.  It would turn close to 3000 rpm at the 
highway speed limit. The C4 and C5 'vettes each 
  run well under 2K rpm at the same speed.

The Nissan engineers missed the point that 
friction increases as the square of speed/rpm. 
More likely were caught in a marketing squeeze 
and foisted the car into production before they 
had all the necessary pieces to do it right. 
All of that sophisticated valve train sucked a 
lot of HP at highway speed and that meant poor 
fuel efficiency. (More parts in motion x higher 
rpm = more friction.)

Nissan grasped that issue and has has spent a 
bunch of bucks on transmission development.

Good news, if one believes in catch-up baseball!

--
pj