On 5/23/15 6:44 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 5/23/15 1:16 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 5/23/15 11:37 AM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:45:49 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
Got talked into a test ride today in a 2015 Corvette convertible (don't
ask) at a dealership while I was waiting for something else and was
impressed and disappointed. I was impressed with the car's get up and go
and its cornering abilities...very nice. I was disappointed with the
seeming hugeness of the car from the exterior and the relatively tiny
passenger space inside. I was disappointed with the garishness of the
interior, and the fit and finish of some items. I didn't like the seats
all that much, and I thought the car rode, well, hard.

The sticker price on the car was $80,000. Dunno what it might sell for...

Be this has what to do with boating?

Hey it is an overpriced chunk of fiberglass, with an oversized engine,
sold to people with an over riding desire to boost their self esteem.
Sounds like a lot of "performance" boats they sell.

Lots of cars are overpriced. At least the Corvette is fun to,drive. Have
a friend with a new vette. Says ease up to 90 mph and it goes in to 4
cylinder mode and averages 46.5 mpg. Car ride hard? How many soft riding
cars handle worth a crap.



I know you won't understand this, but there is a difference between a
firm-riding car and a hard-riding car. Also, there are plenty of cars
that are fun to drive. Oh, and your friend is bull****ting you about
getting 46 mph at 90 mph while the car is running on four cylinders and,
even funnier, you believe it.

Of course you know all. Very aerodynamic vehicle. Does not take a lot of
power to maintain speed.


Oh, I wasn't disputing that half a Corvette engine could drive the car to
90 mph. That's still more than 200 hp, right?

The bull**** is the miles per gallon claim. I suspect the car's computer
is confused by the shutdown of four cylinders and is reporting three
times the MPG the drivetrain is actually producing.

I think it measures fuel flow, so hard to be confused.


Whatever is being measured, it isn't likely that car is delivering 46
mph at 90 mph. Period.

On Sat, 23 May 2015 18:49:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Whatever is being measured, it isn't likely that car is delivering 46
mph at 90 mph. Period.

===

Ignoring your drunken typo, let's do the math. If a car is getting
46 miles per gallon at 90 mph, that means it is burning 2 gallons per
hour. 2 gph with a gasoline engine implies about 20 horsepower (10 hp
for every 1 gph - good rule of thumb). It seems unlikely that even a
slinky car like a 'vette could do a sustained 90 mph with only 20
horsepower. More likely it was either a transient reading or some
sort of glitch in the instrumentation.

wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 19:24:23 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 23 May 2015 18:49:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Whatever is being measured, it isn't likely that car is delivering 46
mph at 90 mph. Period.
===

Ignoring your drunken typo, let's do the math. If a car is getting
46 miles per gallon at 90 mph, that means it is burning 2 gallons per
hour. 2 gph with a gasoline engine implies about 20 horsepower (10 hp
for every 1 gph - good rule of thumb). It seems unlikely that even a
slinky car like a 'vette could do a sustained 90 mph with only 20
horsepower. More likely it was either a transient reading or some
sort of glitch in the instrumentation.

I had the instant MPG on my old LeBaron and it was fun to peg it at
99MPG ... coasting down the Sunshine Skyway bridge. It would be
interesting to see how long he could keep up that number at 90



99mpg is probably the highest it would read. Coasting would be much higher!

Username wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 19:24:23 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 23 May 2015 18:49:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Whatever is being measured, it isn't likely that car is delivering 46
mph at 90 mph. Period.
===

Ignoring your drunken typo, let's do the math. If a car is getting
46 miles per gallon at 90 mph, that means it is burning 2 gallons per
hour. 2 gph with a gasoline engine implies about 20 horsepower (10 hp
for every 1 gph - good rule of thumb). It seems unlikely that even a
slinky car like a 'vette could do a sustained 90 mph with only 20
horsepower. More likely it was either a transient reading or some
sort of glitch in the instrumentation.

I had the instant MPG on my old LeBaron and it was fun to peg it at
99MPG ... coasting down the Sunshine Skyway bridge. It would be
interesting to see how long he could keep up that number at 90



99mpg is probably the highest it would read. Coasting would be much higher!

Highest it reads. But is infinite pretty much. Has a de fuel solenoid.
So coasting shuts off fuel to the engine on modern EFI.

wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 23:15:08 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Username wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 19:24:23 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 23 May 2015 18:49:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Whatever is being measured, it isn't likely that car is delivering 46
mph at 90 mph. Period.
===

Ignoring your drunken typo, let's do the math. If a car is getting
46 miles per gallon at 90 mph, that means it is burning 2 gallons per
hour. 2 gph with a gasoline engine implies about 20 horsepower (10 hp
for every 1 gph - good rule of thumb). It seems unlikely that even a
slinky car like a 'vette could do a sustained 90 mph with only 20
horsepower. More likely it was either a transient reading or some
sort of glitch in the instrumentation.

I had the instant MPG on my old LeBaron and it was fun to peg it at
99MPG ... coasting down the Sunshine Skyway bridge. It would be
interesting to see how long he could keep up that number at 90



99mpg is probably the highest it would read. Coasting would be much higher!

Highest it reads. But is infinite pretty much. Has a de fuel solenoid.
So coasting shuts off fuel to the engine on modern EFI.

That is the highest it read but the engine was still running, if for
nothing else to keep the AC going so it was using fuel. It was still a
very small amount when plotted against a speed of 75 or 80..

May just be the engine being driven by the drivetrain.

wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:54:54 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:

That is the highest it read but the engine was still running, if for
nothing else to keep the AC going so it was using fuel. It was still a
very small amount when plotted against a speed of 75 or 80..

May just be the engine being driven by the drivetrain.

Not likely since it was out of gear, hence "coasting". I am not even
sure the Chrysler has a rear pump in the transmission.
In 1986 I am not sure the EFI was all that smart anyway.

My cars coasting in neutral do not get 99 mpg these days.

wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:32:30 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:54:54 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:

That is the highest it read but the engine was still running, if for
nothing else to keep the AC going so it was using fuel. It was still a
very small amount when plotted against a speed of 75 or 80..

May just be the engine being driven by the drivetrain.

Not likely since it was out of gear, hence "coasting". I am not even
sure the Chrysler has a rear pump in the transmission.
In 1986 I am not sure the EFI was all that smart anyway.

My cars coasting in neutral do not get 99 mpg these days.

How long did you coast?
This was off the Skyway bridge so I was able to maintain 70-75 for
well over a mile maybe close to 2.
As soon as you put it back in gear the mileage came down pretty fast.
It was still in the high 20s tho driving at that speed on the flat.
It was one of my favorite cars, as unlikely as that may seem.
.

My cars show 99 if coasting downhill or backing on on the highway. Put in
neutral and see 60-70 mpg. Hill is some of those things you saw in NZ.
Not in Florida. ;(