What's Your Car's Gas Milage? Poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gas Poll

Gas Mileage

  • Total voters
    34
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
92 replies · 44K views
I get 45mpg on the motorway, and about 40 on a combined.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I voted greater than 28 mpg because my 4-cyl Nissan pickup gets about 25 mpg, but whenever I can travel light, I use my HD Softail. It's fuel-injected and when I put on lower-restriction pipes and a low-restriction air filter (K&N), I also installed a Power Commander - a programmable control module with downloadable performance maps. I'm not only getting much more usable torque than the stock set-up, but better gas mileage too. Close to 50 mpg, if I ride conservatively.
 
Danger said:
It's been rotting away in my mother's back yard for over 20 years, so please don't cry too much when you see what shape it's in. It will be rebuilt eventually, but it'll cost over $50,000 to do it. Although it is literally the only one of its kind ever built, the collector value is already gone due to engine mods. If I'd thought of it, I would have kept all of the parts, then I just would have needed a stock block (not overbored) to put it back to original condition. As it is, I've designed my own engine to replace the 440. I'm not going to get into details, but leave it suffice to be said that it's 600 ci with over 2,000 hp. :biggrin: :devil: (hint: doesn't that space between the hood nostrils just cry out for a 6-71 with a bird-catcher? :devil: :devil: )



You didn't say anything about the neato horn...does it still work? My cousin used to have one of those cars. Her's was bright yellow. The only reason I remember it was because of the horn!
 
Last edited:
I wish that you were better looking, Cyrus, 'cause I love you for posting that pic!
As you can see, my hood is different and there's no chin spoiler. (That little sticker on the front bumper, incidentally, is from Motor City Rod and Custom who did the first engine mods.)
Larkspur, the horn never did make a proper 'beep-beep'. There's a tuning bolt on it, but it's siezed. It won't be a problem to replace it, though. (I'll keep the original [pink :eek: ] one, but wire in an aftermarket unit for the sound.)
As for the one-of-a-kind factor; there's no paperwork to back this up, so you'll just have to take (or not) my word for it. I bought it from the widow of the original owner in '75. He worked at Chrysler in Windsor, so he followed the car down the line and built it himself.
It came out of the factory with the following features which were not officially available:
split bench front seat, made for the Polara station wagon--Roadrunners came with buckets
Hurst air shocks with the air tits drilled into the bottom of the back bumper
10" slotted chrome-reverse mags on the back with L-60x15 Goodyears--he folded the inner fender lips up against the outer wall for tire clearance
emblems in the wrong places
Oh crap! I'm late for work. Will continue this when I get there.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
For anyone who hasn't seen Dangers car in it's original glory

71Roadrunner-440-6-1.jpg


http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2001/cars4kids/plym7101.JPG

That car use pure badass. :cool:

My two cents, replace the black roof liner and ditch the hood for the later model style. Then give her a nice black color. Deep gloss black that will highlight all that chrome trim. She will be spectacular.

It would be best to just keep the engine an put it in a car that can handle
better, may be a 2cv or trabant.:smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, I'm at work now. Pardon the delay... there were things to do when I got here--damned customers .
Anyhow, the major unique thing about it was the engine itself. All that I knew when I bought it was that it went like stink. Going by the VIN, it was the hi-perf 440. (The options were the standard or the Commando.) That indicated the 4-barrel carb, 10:1 compression, and 295 hp. (It's a GTX, by the way, but that package deals with suspension, brakes and cooling.) The factory redline was 5,500 rpm, but it didn't really start making power until 5,000. My rule was that the valves floated at 6,500 so I shifted at 6,400. It's an A-833 4 gear tranny with the long-throw Hurst pistol grip shifter, going into a 3.23:1 Dana 60. If I were going balls to the wall, I shifted to 2nd at 65 mph, third at 85, and 4th at 115--and 4th is a .73:1 overdrive. Top end was 160 mph. The estimated hp by performance (never dynoed it) was about 390.
440's don't particularly like to oil the #4 rod bearing for some reason, and the damned thing spun out on me whilst on vacation. The piston collapsed and took the bore with it. Hence the rebuild. When we took it apart, it surprised the hell out of us to find that it had 6 10:1 pistons and 2 8:1's. Also 6 4-barrel rods and 2 Commando ones. The odd rods were not linked to the off-spec pistons. The only explanation that I can think of is that it was the builder's way of balancing the motor. If so, it worked; the thing ran like a turbine at 6,000+ rpm.
And as for the paint job, Cyrus, it's getting the same one that's on my pool cue. If I can get it to show up properly, I'll post a pic. Starting at the front, it fog-fades from emerald green through teal, deep royal purple, and finally black.

edit: I just saw your post, Woolie; you sneaked it in while I was typing mine. As you've probably foreseen, my response is :-p .

2nd edit: Cyrus, there was something nagging me about that picture, but I didn't realize until now what it was. That's a '73; mine's a '72. You can tell because the side markers are 3-section jobbies and mine are single.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I realized that too. I like the 73' body personally.

As for the 3 color paint job, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I don't know if that would look proper on a muscle car. I'd stick with solid black. Nothing looks sharper than a solid black car. :-p

http://classiccars.kfunk.net/plymouth/72plymouth_roadrunner.jpg

Meep Meep.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cyrusabdollahi said:
Yeah, I realized that too. I like the 73' body personally.

As for the 3 color paint job, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I don't know if that would look proper on a muscle car. I'd stick with solid black. Nothing looks sharper than a solid black car. :-p

http://classiccars.kfunk.net/plymouth/72plymouth_roadrunner.jpg

Meep Meep.
That's it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danger said:
There's no 'legal' limit to horsepower.

I never said there was one.

You must have Dyno Sheets to back that claim. And no one throws away 2000HP Dyno Sheets.
 
You misinterpreted the statement, Jason. I haven't built the thing yet. 2,000 is admittedly a rough estimate, but I know for sure that it'll be over 1,800. It's not at all unreasonable when you consider that a lot of street rods are well over 1,000 using more conventional and much smaller engines.
 
I can't see it happening though. Not with an old muscle car.

Your best shot would probably be like a Corvette engine rebuilt with a massive turbo strapped on, but even then that would be tough.
 
JasonRox said:
Your best shot would probably be like a Corvette engine rebuilt with a massive turbo strapped on
 
Danger said:
You misinterpreted the statement, Jason. I haven't built the thing yet. 2,000 is admittedly a rough estimate, but I know for sure that it'll be over 1,800. It's not at all unreasonable when you consider that a lot of street rods are well over 1,000 using more conventional and much smaller engines.

I hope to get the power of 35 horses from my tuned velo, it is going to have special crack cases, a pollished con rod, an 8 to 1 piss ton, a hairy cam, a light head, oh yes and trendy followers.
 
Oh baby, check this out Danger.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1971-Plymouth-Road-runner-440-6-pack-V-code-rotisserie_W0QQitemZ4652022135QQihZ002QQcategoryZ43921QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#mainImage

This is your car in its original condition 71', she's a beaut.
 
Last edited:
Jeez, that's sweet! I must have been mistaken about '73s having the split side makers, because this one does. In most other regards, other than colours, it's sure almost identical to mine's original look. Mine, however, didn't have the deck spoiler or H-pipe, it had the air shock tits sticking out about an inch from the bottom of the rear bumper, and there were the mags on the back instead of factory rims. Also, the body trim was different and the emblems weren't in the regular locations.
Thanks millions for the links.

By the bye, one of my friends who watches the auction in Vegas told me that one just like it went for slightly under $100,000 US last fall.

edit: For Jason: My design is based upon the 'kangaroo' motor. If you can find anything about it, you'll know what sort of monstrosity I'm planning. :biggrin: :devil:
 
Last edited:
I have an 82 VW Rabbit pick-up. I get 42-44 with diesel fuel, 40-42 with bio-diesel. It had a SVO conversion but it was disconnected so I removed it, found that bio-diesel was more convenient.
 
Skyhunter said:
I have an 82 VW Rabbit pick-up.
Tell me again why I continue to let you live on my planet? :confused:
 
AhAHAHA, I am watching shaft right now (original). Hes rolling around in his red roadrunner. :smile: You damnnnnnnn right!
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not, I've never seen that movie. Guess I'll have to check it out. :biggrin:
 
I think we should be using gpm instead of mpg. The savings in going from 8 mpg to 12 mpg, is much greater than in going from 28 mpg to 32 mpg, even though the "difference" is the same, 4 mpg. The more logical system is clearly linear in fuel. I mean, who here, when driving, thinks to theirself "well, I've decided to use 2.37 gallons on this trip, so where will I go?" Rather, we think "I'm going to X today, so how many gallons will I use?" Who agrees?

8mpg = 0.125 gpm
10mpg = 0.100 gpm
20mpg = 0.050 gpm
30mpg = 0.034 gpm
60mpg = 0.017 gpm
 
The mpg system we're using understates the economic impact of things like Hummers. We should be using a language in which "Hummers use ten times more fuel than small cars" is a common phrase, not meaningless statements like "X" gets 20 miles more than "Y" to the gallon. (relative to what?) I think this is really necessary, since very few Americans really understand how deal with an inverse measure like mpg, so they have no ability to make smart decisions about this.
 
I think they have the ability to make these decision. Your GPM system is awkward and inconvenient. Its all in decimals! No thank you!

MPG is relative to one gallon. So what? GPM is relative to one mile! That's not any more linear than MPG. I don't buy gasoline by the mile...

A side, where do you live Rach? I thought you were in Europe?
 
Last edited:
cyrusabdollahi said:
A side, where do you live Rach? I thought you were in Europe?
I'm obviously an American, where else do people have to live with Hummers on their roads? (aside from Iraq and Afghanistan...)
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
I think they have the ability to make these decision. Your GPM system is awkward and inconvenient. Its all in decimals! No thank you!

Multiply it by 1000x and call it "Gallons per thousand" (gpt). Then you have the same range as with mpg, and things look like this:

10-15 gpt - motorcycles
~15 gpt - hybrids
~30 gpt - small cars
~50 gpt - medium-sized sedans
80-120+ SUVs

Puts things in perspective.
 
No, your making things way to complicated! Gallons per thousand miles! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: This is getting lame!

Like I said, no one buys gasoline by the mile...
 
Last edited:
What, buys miles? Buying miles makes no sense.

Yes, when you go to the station, you buy x gallons of fuel. Your car gets Y MPG, you can drive XY miles. Is that so hard?

Now your system:

You buy x gallons of fuel. Your car gets Y=1000/Z MPG. Now I have to find out how far I can go, 1000*X/Z...:rolleyes:

No one in their right mind would want to use that system!

It's LAME!
 
Last edited:
Well then, let's simplify it and go with our Canuk way. Litres per 100 kilometres. :biggrin:
 
Or we can do fuel efficency in inverse hectares... :rolleyes:

My point is this: what we really want to measure is some sort of "rate of fuel consumption", not this "inverse rate of fuel consumption". How much will fuel cost per year? You multiply X thousands of miles by Y gallons per thousand-mile, and get a figure of gallons. This is practical. The scale is linear in the quantity of fuel. This strange "mpg" system depends inversely on quantity of fuel.

Measuring the number of miles between gas station trips to make decisions is, IMO, a myopic way of doing economics.