30 mpg

TurboStreetCar

Formerly Nosechunks
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
2,773
Likes
0
Location
Long Island, Ny
#41
No, but there's been times I wish I was :)

chunks: 700-800 miles but since the thing wasn't made for traveling it's rarely used for that...
Hmm seems a little low for a plane? Stunt plane? I don't know much about them other then there expensive and not much traffic.
 

Suprapowaz!(2)

Active Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
2,870
Likes
0
Location
San Antonio, Tx.
#42
I remeber gas prices being around $0.89/gal when I first started driving in 1990. I was 16. $10 would fill up your car and you could go all week. When I bought my supra in 1995 93 octane was $1.05/gal. Those were the days.
 

radiod

Supramania Contributor
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,342
Likes
0
Location
Abbotsford, BC
#43
Local gas here is $5.63/US Gal for 94 octane :(. At these prices, buying a propper ECU replacement and tuning could actually pay themselves off in the long run if you do it right. Gotta think of that when I try and sell the new fuel system to the wife :naughty:
 

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,614
Likes
1
Location
WHYoming
#44
Wow, you Canadians are getting screwed even harder than we are... not that I'm complaining, short of wearing a turban and moving to the opposite side of the world, I think the US has the lowest gas prices in the world. Isn't the Canadian dollar worth more than the USD though?
 

Nick M

Established 1994
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
8,799
Likes
7
Location
U.S.
#45
I'll be the first to follow that twat when he buys himself an *armored* vehicle that gets better than 30mpg.
I am curious. Why do you think it matters what he gets from MPG in an armored vehicle?

---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

I remeber gas prices being around $0.89/gal when I first started driving in 1990. I was 16. $10 would fill up your car and you could go all week. When I bought my supra in 1995 93 octane was $1.05/gal. Those were the days.
Seems more like $1.50 or so on the high end. 1.25-1.50, depending on locale.

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------

Wow, you Canadians are getting screwed even harder than we are...
How is that free health care working out? We are not far behind, although Obamacare was already struck down, and is in Federal appeals court.
 

radiod

Supramania Contributor
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,342
Likes
0
Location
Abbotsford, BC
#47
Wow, you Canadians are getting screwed even harder than we are... not that I'm complaining, short of wearing a turban and moving to the opposite side of the world, I think the US has the lowest gas prices in the world. Isn't the Canadian dollar worth more than the USD though?
Marginally. If you want to take currency conversion in to account it would be $5.40. What's horrible is the price of gas out here is like a yo yo. It had spiked up to that price 2 - 3 days ago, now it's down to $4.93 (currency corrected already). A 25 to 35 cent jump in price of gas per gallon is not unheard of out here at all :(
 

Nick M

Established 1994
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
8,799
Likes
7
Location
U.S.
#48
So, mind your fuel trim. Avoid jackrabbit starts. Doing this, you will not get 30 mpg. I was on the highway, set the cruise to indicated 78, and my next stop was 370 miles away to refuel. That is how I got it. But you should be able to get 21-23 on a tank. If you drive hard expect the high teens, or worse.
 

Smartparts

New Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
146
Likes
0
Location
CT
#49
I fill up every monday and keep track of how much I but and at what price I buy it stand calculate mpg. I drive about 45 miles a day and the best I've done is like 27 mpg in my a4. Not terrible but not great either. I hope my supra is much lowered when I get it going.

On gas prices. You can't blame speculators for price increases on the way up wihout blaming them on the way down, which I've never heard anyone do. What should anger you is gas stations that are quick to raise the price with rising oil but slow to lower.
 

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,614
Likes
1
Location
WHYoming
#50
I am curious. Why do you think it matters what he gets from MPG in an armored vehicle?

How is that free health care working out? We are not far behind, although Obamacare was already struck down, and is in Federal appeals court.

Just find it hypocritical that politicians say that "we're average Americans too, we have to pay for gas as well, we drive the same cars you do, etc...", while trying to shove higher and higher CAFE mandated mileage on manufacturers... I'm all for getting better mileage as technology allows, but I'd be surprised if average mileage these days is significantly better than it was in the late 80's. You'd think 20+ years would afford quite a bit better efficiency given that your average v6 these days puts out as much power as your average 80's Vette.

I guess my rant was more directed at our President trying to push the whole 'do as I say not as I do' mindset on the country. If his vehicles (all of which, we could reasonably believe, are armored) could get more than 30mpg, then maybe it's time to look into a modern car like ol' Obama would like us to do. :)

800 miles isn't much but neither is the 2 hours spent getting there.
Heh, good point... Last plane I was on was doing ~475mph for most of the journey. Got from Baltimore to SLC in a litle over 4 hours if I remember correctly.

On gas prices. You can't blame speculators for price increases on the way up wihout blaming them on the way down, which I've never heard anyone do. What should anger you is gas stations that are quick to raise the price with rising oil but slow to lower.
That's true, everybody's happy when gas is going down, but is it really the speculator's doing that causes this to happen? I still get the feeling they're just toying with people just to skim a bit more profit out of our wallets. If oil is $140/bbl today, and $95/bbl tomorrow, then where does this crazy cycle start at??? I know I'm very ignorant of the whole process, but it does seem weird to me. You can't believe the cost of transportation, refining, storage, etc changes THAT drastically on a week to week basis, it seems to me that the original price per barrel has the biggest impact on the end user price.

Definitely agree with you on the "slow to lower" bit though, that's BS. Understandable BS, because as a business, you want to be able to hold a price for as long as possible. If my costs go down drastically, I'm going to wait at least as long as it takes to confirm with my suppliers that my costs are going to be stable, before I think about lowering my customer's costs. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), this is just how a commodity based business is run...
 

Canuckrz

Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
852
Likes
0
Location
Calgary, Alberta
#51
I'd be curious to see what useful mods can be done to increase fuel economy that are more supra specific. Has anyone actually done and recorded a fuel economy build on one of our supras?

How is that free health care working out? We are not far behind, although Obamacare was already struck down, and is in Federal appeals court.
Fine up here, in the USA is another matter. And its not free healthcare its universal healthcare.
 

Nick M

Established 1994
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
8,799
Likes
7
Location
U.S.
#52
I'd be curious to see what useful mods can be done to increase fuel economy that are more supra specific.
See the O.P. The A340E has a taller overdrive than the R154 or W58. And the 3.73 is lower (taller) than the 3.91 in yours. Assuming you have a 3.91 based on your avatar of the old grill emblem. Make sure the tune is fresh, and drive easy for a few tanks. The car will lean out through fuel trim. A little bit.

Just find it hypocritical that politicians say that "we're average Americans too, we have to pay for gas as well, we drive the same cars you do, etc...",
As much as I hate Obama, he is the President of the United States, holds secrets, and needs to be protected. I also don't care how much fuel an M1 goes through.


I'm all for getting better mileage as technology allows, but I'd be surprised if average mileage these days is significantly better than it was in the late 80's. You'd think 20+ years would afford quite a bit better efficiency given that your average v6 these days puts out as much power as your average 80's Vette.
Did you really think about what you just wrote? A V6 in the mid 80's that had 150 hp was strong. Now they have 275 or more, and burn the same amount of fuel. That is an increase in effeciency. They do more work with the same fuel. And a C5 will get the same milage I did, where as a C4 had no chance.

Free was a misstatement on purpose. It (socialized medicince) is paid for by taxes.
 

destrux

Active Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
1,188
Likes
5
Location
PA
#53
I'm all for getting better mileage as technology allows, but I'd be surprised if average mileage these days is significantly better than it was in the late 80's. You'd think 20+ years would afford quite a bit better efficiency given that your average v6 these days puts out as much power as your average 80's Vette.
The problem is, as engine efficiency went up, so did safety standards, and as a result... curb weight. The CRX HF got ~50mpg, but it only had to pull around 1,713 (!) pounds. Even a tiny Mazda 2, Yaris hatchback, or Prius has to pull around 600 pounds more (actually, 1,200 more in the case of the Prius). Crash an 84' CRX HF head on into a Mazda 2 though, and you'll find out just how much safety that 600 pounds can provide (and how much plastic the CRX has in the front end, lol).


I'm chasing better fuel economy with my car, sort of. More as a curiosity than anything. I didn't buy the car for fuel economy... but I would like to be able to take it on a few long trips instead of always defaulting to our 34MPG (70mph highway) Mazdaspeed3.

When I first put my car on the road in March this year I was only getting 10mpg. Yeah, wtf indeed. I found sticking rear brake pads, dirty leaking fuel injectors (I saved the dirt from them, since it was JDM dirt), and cracked ignition coils. I painted the coils with clear nail polish (it worked!.. no misfires anymore) and cleaned the rust off the rear pad sliders. I got 2JZ side feed 440's, had them cleaned and tested (professionally), and just put them in yesterday, so I have to see what my MPG is up to now.

I have a few other plans... stuff I found from other projects I saw (motoiq project sipster) and from some of those hypermiling forums. I'm planning on blocking off the foglight holes and ducting air to my oil cooler from the main opening to reduce turbulence through the front end. My stock undertray is gone, and so is my front lip, so I'm making a complete front splitter and undertray out of either thin plywood or ABS (it will only go as far back as the front cross member). It will look better than the image that just flashed into your mind. Well, I hope. The back of the car will also be getting a few pieces of strategically placed flat ABS plastic to smooth airflow under the car around the transmission, rear subframe, and fuel tank. I'm also considering taking the stock spoiler off, it adds drag (+.02 to the cD according to Toyota) and I'm not sure that it does anything noticeable for downforce or stability. I already shaved the antenna and rear wiper (they were also both broken and weighed something). I already took quite a bit of weight out of the car too. I'm figuring the W58 is helping my city mileage, with it's taller ratio's in 1st through 3rd. My car has the 3.91 LSD, so they are even taller than they are in a non-turbo with it's 4.30 rear. Downside to the W58 ratios is the shorter 5th gear (0.85 IIRC) which hurts highway mileage. The alloy plate W58 itself is 35 pounds lighter than the R154, plus the clutch and flywheel are lighter (5 pounds less rotating mass there alone), and the driveshaft is smaller diameter and lighter by 6 pounds (than the A340E shaft I took out). The 190wt SevereGear in the trans is probably killing a MPG or two, but I'm too nervous that it's the only thing holding it together to put normal 80W-90 in there.

Anyway... pretty much anything I'm planning to do for economy is helping performance too, so it's win-win.

Oh, and also, I'm willing to bet that driving with the headlights up kills at least 1 MPG. I can feel the car slow down when I open the damn things.
 

Canuckrz

Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
852
Likes
0
Location
Calgary, Alberta
#54
I was pondering with the idea of replacing all the lights in the car with the LED bulbs. Except for the headlights ofcourse, phillips ecopowers or similar for them in hella housings. I wonder what sorts of gains could be had from that, if nothing else it could be a way to offset the increased draw of an electric fan setup.
 

Nick M

Established 1994
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
8,799
Likes
7
Location
U.S.
#56
But you have to put in the passenger seat. Or something else. Cutting weight is a great solution, this is true. If you can drop 400 lbs without hurting the car in some way, do it. It would make for better all around performance including breaking and turning. One other thing, I would get better milage with shorter rear end with all my city driving. The engine isn't loaded as much with 4.30's. But you will suffer at 75 mph.

Fiberglass hood (costs way less than ugly CF). Smaller battery. No A/C. :runaway: Tubular intake manifold. Sound deadener. Rustproofing. Aluminium driveshaft ( other issues). Get rid of the sound system, use stock speakers only ditch the woofer and amp. The Seats. Basicly make it a Mustang (old 5.0) instead of a Supra. The 1UZFE weighs 70 lbs less than the 7MGTE. Get a Celica Supra and do a swap.



It makes me drool. As the wifes eyes roll.
 

RazoE

Boobs/Boost, my favorite
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
4,942
Likes
0
Location
Los Angeles
#57
I was pondering with the idea of replacing all the lights in the car with the LED bulbs. Except for the headlights ofcourse, phillips ecopowers or similar for them in hella housings. I wonder what sorts of gains could be had from that, if nothing else it could be a way to offset the increased draw of an electric fan setup.

It wont do too much, the only filament bulbs in my Supras are the headlights, reverse lights, signals (well, my 86.5 has LED signals), and the warning lights, and im getting the same mileage, i have however performned the foglight mod to be able to drive with my headlights down in mid light (never in pure dark thats illegal/stupid)...
 

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,614
Likes
1
Location
WHYoming
#58
As much as I hate Obama, he is the President of the United States, holds secrets, and needs to be protected. I also don't care how much fuel an M1 goes through.

Did you really think about what you just wrote? A V6 in the mid 80's that had 150 hp was strong. Now they have 275 or more, and burn the same amount of fuel. That is an increase in effeciency. They do more work with the same fuel. And a C5 will get the same milage I did, where as a C4 had no chance.
Good point on both accounts, I've just never been a fan of someone trying to force their eco-agenda on anybody. Give Obama the power, and I'm sure you'd see truck production banned before too long. The guy is so ridiculously out of touch with the automotive world it isn't even funny some days. I hadn't really taken into account the power increase of relative sized engines merely because (like was mentioned by destrux) of increasing curb weights. When is enough BS frilly features on an economy car going to be enough? Give it 10 years and I'd be surprised if we don't start seeing Corollas that weigh 3500lbs all in the name of safety and comfort.

Can you even buy a proper economy car these days? Is there anything on sale in NA that gets 65+ mpg that isn't a bike? That was the point I was getting at... Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like the European model of automotive economics, but some days I feel we really are behind the development curve.
 

suprarx7nut

YotaMD.com author
Authorized Seller
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
3,902
Likes
20
Location
Arizona
#59
We should have small diesel cars in na. But as a whole we are fat pigs and don't want a smaller, louder car.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
 

destrux

Active Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
1,188
Likes
5
Location
PA
#60
When is enough BS frilly features on an economy car going to be enough? Give it 10 years and I'd be surprised if we don't start seeing Corollas that weigh 3500lbs all in the name of safety and comfort.
Exactly....

Look at the 2011 Ford Fiesta vs the Mazda 2. Basically the same chassis (different engines though, oddly), but Ford managed to stick an extra 200 to 300 pounds of crap onto the car (depending on trim level). With a car that small... where do they even find a place to stick that much extra weight?

I'd love to have some extra cash and a legitimate reason to buy a Mazda 2 for a DD. I think they have some potential to be really fun cars if modded a little. I used to love driving my wifes old 86 CRX, it had no power but it was like driving a go-kart.
 

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,614
Likes
1
Location
WHYoming
#61
We should have small diesel cars in na. But as a whole we are fat pigs and don't want a smaller, louder car.
When I hear that similarly equipped VW Rabbits, Polos, and the like (as far as small commuter cars go) in England are getting over 60mpg easily because of a small turbo diesel engine, it makes me a little sad that we don't get them over here. Not that I'd really want to drive one, and would be horrified to try getting on a freeway in one, but it's nice to have options.

Exactly....

Look at the 2011 Ford Fiesta vs the Mazda 2. Basically the same chassis (different engines though, oddly), but Ford managed to stick an extra 200 to 300 pounds of crap onto the car (depending on trim level). With a car that small... where do they even find a place to stick that much extra weight?
Probably in the 12 airbags, stability control sensors, traction control sensors (hah!), electronic nanny sensors, and 100lbs of sound deadening I'd imagine...
 

RazoE

Boobs/Boost, my favorite
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
4,942
Likes
0
Location
Los Angeles
#62
Would be curious to know what that does for things, please update when you can? I usually cruise around town in 3rd, but we have ~35mph limits most places around here.

That said, raise your hand if you bought your car for the mileage...


Here's the update...

4/11/2011 – 191,652.1 miles

12.88 gallons $55.63 -$4.319 per gallon


5/5/2011 – 191,847 miles - travelled 194.9 = 14.01 mpg

13.191 gallons $58.29 – $4.418 per gallon


5/16/2011 – 192,047 miles – travelled 200.2 = 15.79 mpg*

12.633 gallons $55.32 – $4.379 per gallon

*Included driving to TORC about 16.7 miles each way, so 33.4 miles on freeway in 5th, around 80mph, romping it to keep up with an 87 turbo BPU and 350Z


So I improved 1.78 mpg by changing my tires from 245/45/16 back to 225/50/16, and driving in 5th instead of 4th @40mph, and no engine braking..

I’m sure there’s more I can do, as I’m due for an oil change, new shocks, new filter, new spark plugs, and I use my heater on full blast in medium the entire time I drive (love the heat)…



p.s. all 3 fill-ups were 91 octane, at the same gas station at the same time, the first two were from the same pump, 3rd fill-up was from the pump directly in front.
 
Last edited:

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,614
Likes
1
Location
WHYoming
#63
Interesting, I think I'll stick with 3rd gear around town (lower speed limits I'm sure), I don't think I've ever seen worse than 17mpg in my car. Then again my odometer has been broken for a while now so I haven't been keeping track of mileage...

Your comment about engine braking makes me wonder though. Under deceleration, an engine doesn't use fuel, right?
 

Nick M

Established 1994
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
8,799
Likes
7
Location
U.S.
#64
Don't drive in too tall of a gear. Lugging the engine isn't good for it or effeciency. If you have a 5 speed, upshift at 3000 rpm.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
1,830
Likes
0
Location
Las Vegas NV.
#65
Just got back from Northern Cali, Put a Total of 1600 miles on my car.. With an average of 24mpg.. Automatic, 4.30 rear end, Original GE engine NA-T. Not bad :) Doing 80mph RPM was at 3400. Thats what I cruised at the whole time
 

Nick M

Established 1994
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
8,799
Likes
7
Location
U.S.
#68
so your saying, id have better gas mileage if i drive all my gears under 3000 rpm & shift at 3000 rpm?
Injection duration is based primarily on engine speed. (and airflow). More engine speed, more fuel. I was refering to acceleration, not steady cruise.
 

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,614
Likes
1
Location
WHYoming
#69
I always tend to shift right at the point when it's about to start boosting under partial throttle. Friend of mine thinks I'm the biggest tease there is haha...
 

Nick M

Established 1994
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
8,799
Likes
7
Location
U.S.
#70
You should not be approaching load to go into boost if you are trying to save fuel. I know those of you in large metro areas have to accelerate to merge with traffic. Sell the Supra and go with a C5.
 

IJ.

Grumpy Old Man
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
38,726
Likes
3
Location
I come from a land down under
#71
One observation I can add is gentle long acceleration to cruise speed uses more fuel than a quick medium throttle run up to cruise as you're not in the ACCEL part of the ECU for as long.
i.e.
caaaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccccc
cAAAccccccccccccccccccccccccc

c= 14.7:1
a= 13.8:1
A= 12.8:1

it all comes down to "time" in each.
 

kneedragger85

New Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
363
Likes
0
Location
Boulder, CO
#72
I used to get 19mpg highway with a Lex/550 and stock CT26. The old Holset and Maft-Pro tuned with a wideband gave me 29mpg highway hitting between 14.7-15.1 AFR's.
 

te72

Classifieds Moderator
Staff member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,614
Likes
1
Location
WHYoming
#74
You should not be approaching load to go into boost if you are trying to save fuel. I know those of you in large metro areas have to accelerate to merge with traffic. Sell the Supra and go with a C5.
I'm one of the crowd driving a Supra for the fun of it, not the mileage, otherwise I would have kept my old Miata. But a C5 would make a nice daily, not much to dislike with those, except for maybe the side mirrors being worthless. The torque is nice for cruising around town though.

One observation I can add is gentle long acceleration to cruise speed uses more fuel than a quick medium throttle run up to cruise as you're not in the ACCEL part of the ECU for as long.
i.e.
caaaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccccc
cAAAccccccccccccccccccccccccc

c= 14.7:1
a= 13.8:1
A= 12.8:1

it all comes down to "time" in each.
Makes sense, get up and going, then get off the throttle as quick as you can... has worked for me with some cars.

Above decel fuel cut it does not with closed throttle.
How come then my car goes to ~21.0:1 AFR's whenever I let off the throttle in gear? Just pulling air through the engine, no fuel, correct?
 

allfans26

New Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
29
Likes
0
Location
Georgia
#75
I know this post as been dead for 7 years now, but how about an update? My commute in a 90 turbo auto 100 miles a day at 75 mph (2 hour/day)returns 20-21 mpg. I still don't understand how your numbers greater than 22 mpg are possible. Perhaps an error in calculating mileage? I'd love to get at least 25 mpg. Hell, I have to stay behind a large semi-truck for 45 minutes just to get 22 mpg...

What can I do to achieve the same fuel mileage you guys obtained?
 
Last edited:

twin2turbo

Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
60
Likes
5
Location
Mill Creek, Wa
#76
What can I do to achieve the same fuel mileage you guys obtained?
Dont drive an AUTO turbo car from the 90s lol

You simple are not going to get much better mileage. They're heavy inefficient cars.

gearing, weight, roads, tires, drag, driving style, fuel, tune, alignment, tire pressure. There is a huge number of variables that are taken into consideration to get said mpg.
 

allfans26

New Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
29
Likes
0
Location
Georgia
#77
Dont drive an AUTO turbo car from the 90s lol

You simple are not going to get much better mileage. They're heavy inefficient cars.

gearing, weight, roads, tires, drag, driving style, fuel, tune, alignment, tire pressure. There is a huge number of variables that are taken into consideration to get said mpg.
So, how did the original poster (Nick M) achieve his 29 mpg status with his auto?
 

twin2turbo

Member
Authorized Seller
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
60
Likes
5
Location
Mill Creek, Wa
#78
So, how did the original poster (Nick M) achieve his 29 mpg status with his auto?
Honestly it probably wasn't very accurate.
Like I said, there is a ton of variables. Its not apples to apples

You could have an injector that is sticking open or he could have a few that are only spraying 60% and his engine is running hot. The variables are pretty much endless.

If you ran 195s at 60psi with a great alignment you'd get better mileage. If you have 275 at 25 psi, a track setup alignment , it would be worse.
 
Likes: allfans26

GC89

BoostRodeo
Authorized Seller
Contributor
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
996
Likes
8
Location
Spokane, WA
#79
I used to get high 27-28 mpg regularly in my 89 3.73 turbo 5spd. I was running 16s w bfg 225s all around. The trip from college to home was about 80 highway miles and if i stuck at 60 and didn't pass it did it nearly every time. The car was tuned on a maft pro with a 57 trim, cleaned and flowed stock injectors and was setup for a nice lean 15-15.2 to 1 open loop cruise.
 
Likes: allfans26

Piratetip

Far From Maddening Crowds
Authorized Seller
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
1,297
Likes
42
Location
MKE, WI
#80
I remember getting 30mpg on my stock 87 back in college also.

Virtually no modifications, car wasn't very fast either.
Kept speed below 70mph.

Now...maybe 17mpg, if I am lucky. LOL

I have a supramonitor but manually calculate mpg with mileage and gallons pumped.
Supramonitor used to be fairly accurate actually, but not anymore.
 
Likes: allfans26