On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:09:03 -0700, pj <pj4380@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
:>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.
LOL. Ok.....
:>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)
I've always thought like the remembrances of " the good old days", the
same
thing can be said about the old muscle cars. After driving the newer
Corvettes, Mustangs, etc... the old Judges, Roadrunners, 442's, etc..
while nostalgic have no where near the comfort, or amenities of the new.
While I might like to have a 1969 Mach 1 in the garage, my cars are daily
drivers and in my opinion you can't beat the modern versions. The new
Corvettes are some of the best bang for your buck on the market today.
:>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.
Yep, the C6 runs around 2K rpm at highway 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!
Hey I'm a Red Sox fan. Of course we believe in catch up baseball! ;)
|
