Ken1997TL

I believe my record is 450 miles on a single tank. 30 mpg all done on country roads at 60 mph.

vas25tl

I get about 16-18mpg. Drive only city, fill up every 2 weeks - 234K miles. If I actually drive on the freeway, I get about 21-23mpg mixed.

Mr_Outside

So what are some of the things you guys have done to achieve this high mileage?

Go90go

Resurrecting an old thread.

So, mashing it up the grapevine at 90+ with the HVAC on level 5, windows open and smoking a cigarette, and carrying 4 big rims sized 295 width:

24MPG

Spirited city and mountain driving to get to 5, then 80-110 cruising: 26MPG.

~Cheers~

tmnhs81

^Gotta be fuckin' kidding me. I filled up today morning to see what I got. I drove 151.5 miles and filled 9.7 gallons @ $3.19/gallon for 91 grade. A whopping 15.61 MPG average... Yes Art I was doing what you told me, D3 below 30-35 MPH. I had my AC on for little while though, lets say for 90 miles but still its the shitty mileage but I still love this car...


/

EDIT: I just had to kill this douchbag in civic, I swear thats the only time I went 3000+ RPM.

DAiNiUS

Why use D3 - less shifting better mileage? And does AC make that much of a difference because I use it ALL the time?

5point9Limited

Leave it in drive. That is horrible mileage.

Go90go

AC matters because of the added load on the engine. Try mashing it from a stop with the AC at 60 on level 3, then do it again with it completely off. There's a big difference.

Having the windows down is also bad because of the added drag. add to the fact my bumper is kinda crooked, I don't have a splash shield, nore the two front fender liners. My aero sucks up front.
^ I don't. I usually leave it on D3 because maintaining the RPMs where you actually make power is better than having to load it at 1500 RPM. Apparently, I've got one of the best fuel economy numbers, too.

~Cheers~

tmnhs81

But I still can't figure out, since you have bigger engine but you still get a lot better gas mileage...

Go90go

And I drive fast, and in the city alot. My foot is heavy when it needs to be, haha.

~Cheers~

DarkNinja75

I almost got 24mpg once, all freeway at 75. Typically I get 21. I'll try the D3 thing.

Go90go

Only for starting out and if you know you aren't going to exceed 40 or so!

~Cheers~

evotronix

Yes, but you have the 3.5 right?
It is weird, but I've seen it happen - slightly bigger engines, because of the way they are tuned (or detuned?) compared to a smaller displacement , but similar(same manufacturer) engine tend to get better fuel mileage, I guess the higher torque and less load on the engine @ same RPM has to do with it.
I, personally never got more than 24 mpg, and that was all highway @ around 70 - 75, no AC and just me in the car, with tires @ 35psi and windows up. And my daily "commute" to work is 8 miles and I get an average of 20 -21.5 mpg with some highway driving thrown in.

Go90go

EXACTLY! The torque helps plenty, but what's offsetting everything is that I run super sticky tires, wider than stock, and soft. So even though my RE-01Rs are at 30 PSI of nitrogen, I'm still getting good numbers.

BTW, I could've made it back from LA on one tank, but after taking 3 pit stops (too much grapefruit juice) I decided not to chance it. I had to pump Shell before I left, so I got crappier mileage: only 23.3MPG with about half a tank.

~Cheers~

bigwerm187

i saw that 100 oct 8.99 a gal tho... lol... anyways could you put that in the TL and it would run fine still or what...?

Go90go

Man, that was an old post, haha! You could use it, but unless you're running advanced timing and you need the more controlled burn, it's wasting money.

~Cheers~

Bluish

My 96 3.2TL gets about 26 MPG. Last month I got 430 miles on one tank. When I filled up, it took 16.75 gallons. I drive fast (~75 mph), but I don't accelerate hard since the engine has 216K miles and I need it to run for another 3 years.

I used to get 22-24 MPG, but when I replaced my front and rear calipers, it stepped up to 26. Also, I've noticed better gas mileage when the oil level is right on the lowest permitted level.

石春林

I bought a 2.5 for the purpose of a smaller engine... more mileage. >.<

Why am I hitting only 14-16 mpg!!! I know the way I drive is one major contributor... but there's got to be other underlying problems.

I just recently replaced my harmonic balancer (broken for a while, ate my belts and damaged my alternator--how i found out about my balancer--over time), replaced the front O2 sensor, and rewelded a massive crack in my exhaust manifold... but those three couldn't been the problem... could they've? I know I have a slow oil leak.... but I run with Royal Purple constantly topped off...

desired_speeds

If you check the original MPG ratings for the 2.5 and compare it to the 3.2, its fairly similar. I'd say driving style has a lot to do with it. Are your brakes dragging by any chance? and how are you doing with maintanence? These factors can contribute greatly to gas mileage.

石春林

My rear brakes are grinding horribly... I'm still waiting on the new pair to come in to replace ASAP. I was lagging due to expenses with engine repair (harmonic balancer, alternator, belts, exhaust manifold...)

I even have two new tires (Kumho Ecsta LX Platinums) waiting to replace my old zero-tread tires in the rear--once my brakes come in. Considering I'm planning on a 5-lug conversion down the line I didn't order anything special... just the cheapest cross-drilled rotors I could find.

I actually chose the car for the i5, finding it optimal for my taste compared to i4 or v6... I one day hope to drop the engine down to the 2.0TL

Go90go

^ It won't have enough torque to pull the heavy car. You'll end up wasting even more gas.

~Cheers~

石春林

What weight reductions does the stock 2.0TL have compared to the 2.5TL? I don't mind doing the 2.0 alterations.

vas25tl

24.71 miles/gallon on my last tank.

石春林

Second thought, I'm beginning to think you don't know half of what you talk about... mostly just arrogant in thinking all your own ideas are the only legitimate ones (or those shared with your incentives)... but that's why you burn fuel and still lose on strips. ~cheers...

Go90go

Ok.

~Cheers~

Ken1997TL

A 2.0 engine of that era doesn't have the torque just as Go90go mentioned, it'll have to work harder during acceleration and hills.

Unless you do a lot of freeway driving with the cruise control, I don't see much fuel savings. Not to mention, how much would a G20 motor cost? Are they common in junkyards in Japan?

Go90go

^ It's pretty cheap there, since it was used in other cars as well. The thing is, no one here will import one for you since they can't make any money from it and the space it takes up could've been an SR or something.

~Cheers~

石春林

Evidence of your lack of connections... tsk tsk. Throwing money around doesn't prove anything. All this American ideals of "bigger is better" makes me sick... obviously you guys should know by now there are other factors to making a car efficient and perform better aside from the simple engine modifications... I thought you guys knew about the Inspire, which also had a 2.0L i5 engine... driven in Japan... Mr. DaiNpn "great japanese empire"

Go90go

I didn't say anything about my ability to get that motor. Of course I know about the UA1. We aren't talking about that.

We're talking about whether or not the G20A found in the UA1 would be practical on American roads, in your UA2. Where did I say anything about throwing money around?

Oh, and before you go sprouting ideas about saving gas, I have the numbers to prove it. You don't. I'm running stickier, wider, and shittier aero, and I'm STILL getting better mileage than you.

Calm the fuck down.

~Cheers~

Ken1997TL

We all know about the 2.0 engine.

We also know its not something people really sought after because its quite frankly too little in displacement for a 3300+ pound vehicle.

If I had to guess, its purpose in Japan was to satisfy tax laws or to keep the base price of the car lower.

I really don't see why this is such a debate.

Go90go

^ Oh, it's also cheaper to register since it qualifies for a "500" number plate.

Ken, he's just trying to find some excuse to satisfy his apparent need to attack me. Oh well, he's just a kid who left high school recently, .

~Cheers~

石春林

No needs to justify any attacks, I'm not attacking you--rather I'm attacking your ideas... and left HS recently?!?! LMAO, son I'm a lot older than you think.

石春林

Ok, I am asking both of you which you think is better for fuel efficiency then... 2.5 or 3.2? Or even the 3.5 from your swap idea...

I know for sure my body is smaller and therefore lighter.. not to mention it is base, not premium

There are many controversies in efficiency such as turbo, intake, exhaust... do they increase the efficiency? Well, if you drive like a granny then yes... the only true thing I see burning more gas is the wider throttle body. Everything else displaces the gas being used with air... while the bored throttle simply pushes more gas through... am I wrong in my logic?

I wouldn't put it past Japan to release a non-practical car just to meet quota... but I've read that the 2.0L did provide sufficient torque somewhere... do you guys speak from experience? Even if, I still had plans on meeting the torque challenges at other points in the car..

Acceleration isn't my issue... but hills will be a bitch in the City... I don't use my cruise control except for the strip on Ocean Beach or up Sunset when timing lights, and rarely do I use them then too.

Ken1997TL

The 2.5 is obviously better on gas than the 3.2 but not by much.

Realistically I get 20 mpg in the city and 27 mpg on the freeway. Close to 30 mpg if the wind is right and there are no hills at 65 mph.

My wife gets the same gas mileage too, so its not just me 'hypermiling' it.

Instead of spending hundreds if not thousands on a 'new' engine, buy some low rolling resistance tires, in other words, tires that are hard as rocks, don't grip and are incredibly noisy. They'll last you 80,000+ miles and give you better gas mileage

I can see the 'argument' if these cars were new and you had the three engine choices. The 2.0 is possibly fine for one person who never has passengers and doesn't need the torque for hills.

I have hills where I live and generally there are two or more people in the car plus our luggage, the 3.2 is overkill surely but considering the gas mileage penalty is minimal I can't complain.

Go90go

For SF, it's be the 3.2. Intakes usually give better mileage and power by leaning out the AF since the MAF is set to a static ratio of flow vs volume. If you increase the piping size, you have more volume, but the MAF itself still calcs based on the original ratio.

A larger throttle body follows the same principle as the intake, by allowing more air to be crammed into the combustion chamber. It adds response, and if not adjusted for, will by default lean the AF a little more. Our cars run rich from the get go, so there's room to play.

Remember that the LSx motors can get almost 30MPG highway, but are 6.0l. It's all about keeping the motor in it's power band, or at least at the start of it. That's why the D3 trick works for city driving.

~Cheers~

石春林

I was under the impression throttle bodies simply only allow more gas to go through... combusting more... whilst intake displaces the gas with richer air and pushes it through faster so combusts less gasoline per rev.

I think you just answered my question in another thread Ken, regarding the compound of tires... when it comes to my tires I'm just going with thinner tires, but I am probably gonna go for luxury compound...

Considering we roll in luxury cars I may go for white/gold-walled vogues or Kumho-scented tires to add flavour for the passengers [I'm a bit eccentric like that at times... don't ask, they love 'em]

Ken1997TL

@ white walled tires..

You might have to steal them off a Buick

Forgive my ignorance but if I remember correctly, your screen name is Rock, Spring and Forest, is that correct?

石春林

Yes'sir, "sher chewn lin" is how it would be pronounced... although the pinyin spelling would be "shi chun lin" ...but I like to translate it as "stone spring forest" but that is just semantics considering lots are lost in translation. idioms tend to be lost in translation as well without context or culture implied.

I'm leaning more towards the vogues than the kumho considering the scent only lasts so long.. but the classiness of vogues last the entire life of the treads. Having whitewalls is more of a statement than anything... if only they sold the tire without the rims... I'll be one of a kind rocking white-wall tires on a set of racing rims

Go90go

No, the throttle body has nothing to do with gas being put into the combustion chamber. Those are the injectors. To burn more, not only do you add gas, you need to add air. Richer means more gas to air, leaner means more air to gas. When fuel is burned, or anything really, it consumes oxygen. Without enough oxygen, the fire dies out. Light a candle, then flip a jar over it. You'll see that soon the flame goes out.

~Cheers~

石春林

LMAO, I understand the concept of oxygen... science is my forte. That is why I am better when you explain the mechanics instead of just dictating them to me. I guess I had the throttle body confused with some other device in the car--like I said I'm horrible with nomenclature.

I guess I'm looking for the leanest modifications... picky picky with use of words I see...