With $4/gal gas, I need more MPG's!!

Bump tire pressures to 40PSI. I refuse to believe that 10PSI makes zero difference, unless your commute is 5 miles a day at 20mph. Stay out of the throttle. Time/avoid traffic lights. Don't sit and idle. Don't start the car until you're ready to move. Park at the far end of parking lots. Remove anything that unnecessarily causes wind resistance (mud flaps, side mirrors, etc.) Get additional weight out (junk in the bed, cab, if you have 4 good tires and a plug kit, leave the spare at home.) Check plugs/gap.

OR

Sell the truck and buy a 4-seat hypermiler. Metro, Festiva, Ass-pyre, etc.

How long is your commute every day? Hwy. or back-roads?

leaner does not necessarily equal better mpg! Tune the mixture for best BSFC under the right circumstances - that's the only way.

someone mentioned ethanol .... ding ding ding ding..... we have a winner

when all the stations here in my end of NC stopped offering "pure" gasoline my milage dropped in the Integra ( 36 avg to 32) the CRX (40 avg to 34) ... the Impreza doesn't seem to be affected 22 in winter (AT takes FOREVER to shift when cold ... so I'm on the hwy at 60 / 4krpm as opposed to 60 at 2500) and 24 in summer...

so if you can find "real" gas the trip distance to fillup could be worth the difference in overall price

I'm another on the fuel mix bandwagen... I use to commute 63 miles one way, 60 of the miles highway. I would notice about a 8%-10% mileage drop off on my commute during winter mix

Hows the alignment??? set @ factory specs? A bit of extra toe, or camber will screw up mileage too

tuna55 wrote: For some reason Dakotas seem to do very badly in the fuel economy environment.

They weigh a LOT. (Says the person using the front end off a 1990 Dakota)

Tire size will not affect indicated mileage, since the speedometer is driven off the transmision. Tire size will have an effect on true mileage only if you go by measured miles. Now if you have a Beetle with a wheel driven speedometer ,that is another thing.

914Driver wrote: Ranger 50, I have a 2001 Ranger with a 2.3 four cylinder five speed. I get 20 mpg. That's it! Baby it, push it, still 20 mpg and with two less cylinders. I think you need a motorcycle. Dan

pft...I'm only getting 40 with my BMW R1200 GS on this corn-syrup gas. My V-Rod is lucky to do 35

I got 55 mpg on a trip strictly between 55 and 65 mph; otherwise I get 45 on the SV. This is also not answering the original question.

In reply to poopshovel:

Drive is mostly "55 mph" 4 lane divided highway. Except for the last 5 or so miles down the road to get to work. Total distance is roughly 22 miles.

Taking off things like side mirrors will get you ticketed around here. There isn't anything extra on the exterior anymore. Cab is barren except for some wheel bearings, tub of grease, tow strap, and a few misc combo wrenches and bungee straps.

Selling it is NOT an option. It's paid for and it's value is zilch.

wbjones wrote: someone mentioned ethanol .... ding ding ding ding..... we have a winner when all the stations here in my end of NC stopped offering "pure" gasoline my milage dropped in the Integra ( 36 avg to 32) the CRX (40 avg to 34) ... the Impreza doesn't seem to be affected 22 in winter (AT takes FOREVER to shift when cold ... so I'm on the hwy at 60 / 4krpm as opposed to 60 at 2500) and 24 in summer... so if you can find "real" gas the trip distance to fillup could be worth the difference in overall price

The 26 mpg tank was on the crappy 10% ethanol gas available in Lexington, KY.

oldeskewltoy wrote: Hows the alignment??? set @ factory specs? A bit of extra toe, or camber will screw up mileage too

In specs. I set it myself when I did the spindles and blocks. New ball joints too.

SVreX wrote: I don't think there is anything wrong with your truck. I think the station you buy from started selling ethanol blended fuel. The mpg drop you describe is almost exactly what I would expect from a 15% blend, now being sold through most pumps. Look for a station selling 100% gasoline.

...100% still exists?... not around here from where i've seen :(

alfadriver wrote: Unless we get the conditions about that magical 26mpg tank, it will be hard to figure if 1) the enigne was just running great, 2) the conditions were perfect- right temp, down hill, wind, etc, or 3) fill issues- or any combination of all of that.

It was a business trip from Lexington, KY to the Chrysler Training Center in Cincinnati, OH with one back and forth commute to my buddy's house next to Dickmann's in Fort Wright, KY. Filled the tank both times at the same gas station in Lexington. Drove the trip 65-70mph for the most part. I want to say I got 14gals for right around 360 miles.

iceracer wrote: Tire size will not affect indicated mileage, since the speedometer is driven off the transmision. Tire size will have an effect on true mileage only if you go by measured miles. Now if you have a Beetle with a wheel driven speedometer ,that is another thing.

Yes it will. The transmission thinks your car is going faster/slower than it is... get it?

Streetwiseguy wrote: How old is the oxygen sensor?

6 months.

SVreX wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: In reply to doc_speeder: Smaller. 225/75R15's to 215/70R15's or 28" tall to 27" tall. I have an 8% error, smaller tire and smaller then original gear, in the speedo/odo that I calculate into the MPG's per tank.

How are you doing the math? The difference from a 27" tire to a 28" tire is not 8%, it's 3.703%. Are you saying you also changed the speedo gear effectively doubling the tire error? That would make the 8% make sense.

You must have missed where I said changed out the speedo gear to one tooth smaller, only one I could get at the time. The difference is 4% with the same 21T output shaft. So, 4+4=8.

I'm sure new tires are out of the question, but I got the best FE in my CRX when I had the original narrow tires...

Tough situation to be in, for sure.....

JoeyM wrote:

tuna55 wrote: For some reason Dakotas seem to do very badly in the fuel economy environment.

They weigh a LOT. (Says the person using the front end off a 1990 Dakota)

Sources I have say anywhere from 3200-3450# empty with a full tank. So, not exactly light, but not the 3700+ # porkers from 97-03.

Ranger50 wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

tuna55 wrote: For some reason Dakotas seem to do very badly in the fuel economy environment.

They weigh a LOT. (Says the person using the front end off a 1990 Dakota)

Sources I have say anywhere from 3200-3450# empty with a full tank. So, not exactly light, but not the 3700+ # porkers from 97-03.

So, roughly the same as my fullsize chevy that got 20 highway with the 350 and carb. Weird?

Ranger50 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Unless we get the conditions about that magical 26mpg tank, it will be hard to figure if 1) the enigne was just running great, 2) the conditions were perfect- right temp, down hill, wind, etc, or 3) fill issues- or any combination of all of that.

It was a business trip from Lexington, KY to the Chrysler Training Center in Cincinnati, OH with one back and forth commute to my buddy's house next to Dickmann's in Fort Wright, KY. Filled the tank both times at the same gas station in Lexington. Drove the trip 65-70mph for the most part. I want to say I got 14gals for right around 360 miles.

For your current commute, how far do you drive?

Fully warmed is can be a lot different than mostly. I have had a new F150 that I took home, and only after about 25 miles of freeway driving did the trans temp finally get above 150. What I'm saying is that if your daily commute it <30 miles, it's going to be tough to match that tank.

One thing that can be interesting to play with- blocking off the radiator. It was designed to cool the car at 45mph going up a 10% grade, fully laden, with trailer. I'm sure you can help your areo out some by blocking part of it off. And an electric fan will help. For best FE without too much of a risk of sludge, you want that engine to run mostly between 200-215 F. I see 225 in testing all the time without issue- but it does not translate to the real world. (real movement is better than a feeble fan)

I would suggest the tail gate net, for a minor benefit. It will still form the eddy to help the airflow over the bed, but allow some leakage to also help drag.

(BTW, comparing to carbs can be tricky. some of them were tuned to run pretty lean at cruising loads, which was only partially good- but it was easy for them to swing entirely the other way, too- depending on the driver)

40 MPG with my VFR as well.

Getting an SV650 would probably be one of the best things most people could do to improve their lives. And the OP would get better gas mileage as well.

End of thread.

tuna55 wrote:

iceracer wrote: Tire size will not affect indicated mileage, since the speedometer is driven off the transmision. Tire size will have an effect on true mileage only if you go by measured miles. Now if you have a Beetle with a wheel driven speedometer ,that is another thing.

Yes it will. The transmission thinks your car is going faster/slower than it is... get it?

Think about that statement.

tuna55 wrote:

iceracer wrote: Tire size will not affect indicated mileage, since the speedometer is driven off the transmision. Tire size will have an effect on true mileage only if you go by measured miles. Now if you have a Beetle with a wheel driven speedometer ,that is another thing.

Yes it will. The transmission thinks your car is going faster/slower than it is... get it?

Think about that statement.

tuna55 wrote:

iceracer wrote: Tire size will not affect indicated mileage, since the speedometer is driven off the transmision. Tire size will have an effect on true mileage only if you go by measured miles. Now if you have a Beetle with a wheel driven speedometer ,that is another thing.

Yes it will. The transmission thinks your car is going faster/slower than it is... get it?

Think about that statement.

I have thought about it three times. A taller diameter tire will result in less rotations per mile, when coupled with an engine that has is more efficient at lower RPMS it may result in markedly greater MPGs even though you are adding a lot of unneeded rotational mass. From experience my Cobalt got better fuel mileage over 10K miles while running 205/65r15 tires when compared to the 195/60r15 OE tires in the range of 4mpg consistantly.