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. ;(

On 5/26/15 3:20 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 00:15:43 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

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. ;(

That is why I needed the bridge. Maybe there is something that makes
your car use more gas. I only know what I saw and I did it many times.



Gee, I wonder how many MPGs my garden tractor would get coasting down
that bridge? I think it is an 18 hp twin cylinder engine.

On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:28:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 5/26/15 3:20 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 00:15:43 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

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. ;(

That is why I needed the bridge. Maybe there is something that makes
your car use more gas. I only know what I saw and I did it many times.



Gee, I wonder how many MPGs my garden tractor would get coasting down
that bridge? I think it is an 18 hp twin cylinder engine.

Will it out run your 'sports car'? That's the question.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 6:28:16 AM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:

Gee, I wonder how many MPGs my garden tractor would get coasting down
that bridge? I think it is an 18 hp twin cylinder engine.

You think? You don't have one. Another imaginary possession.

just like your Pahhh-kerrr

On 5/26/15 7:00 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:28:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Gee, I wonder how many MPGs my garden tractor would get coasting down
that bridge? I think it is an 18 hp twin cylinder engine.

Does it have a flow meter, speedometer and a computer analyzing the
results?

I doubt it will return the MPG of my Honda when it is actually running
around the yard. My 18HP tractor uses more than a GPH and I doubt it
goes much more than 15 MPH with the deck off.

That is one of the EPA complaints about small engines on lawn
equipment. They are huge polluters and not very efficient, compared to
a modern car. The 2 strokes on weedeaters and chainsaws are even
worse.



I have the Kawasaki Dual Chamber Flux Capacitor Engine in my garden
tractor and have no need for those gauges...there's an *app* for that!

I recall reading in the manual that the tractor is geared for a maximum
speed of 7 mph, or something like that.