"Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
newsan.2008.07.09.22.08.38.952534@e86.GTS...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:51:26 -0400, Willy wrote:
>
>>> I forgot to mention; I only use high-grade Premium gas.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you done a comparison using 87 versus 92, or whatever your premium
>> grade is?
>>
>> In a car designed for 87, I have found zero difference. it's a huge
>> waste
>> of money.
>>
>> however, I'll use my Murano as an example as it recommended high octane,
>> I
>> dropped 1.5-2.0 per mile when I used 87.
>
> I have posted my results a couple times in this group.
> Like I said, I keep a 'black book' for all my cars.
> A few years ago, I bought a used '95 Tercel with slightly <100,000 miles
> on it. Since it was a Tercel, I wasn't going to run premium, but I just
> can't bring myself to push the button for 87. So, 89 it was.
>
> After a few tanks, I saw the average was about 35 MPG. Hmmmm... Let's try
> 93.
>
> After a few tanks, I noticed the average was about 39. Then I added a
> 'cold air intake' and economy jumped to about 44-45 consistantly.
>
> I figure running Premium I *SAVED* about $225 while I owned the car.
>
> Then I sold it to buy an '88 Supra. Ten days before gas jumped
> ~$0.20/gallon in 2004.
>
> We, uh, don't talk about the Supra's 'economy'...
>
> And now, the caveat: I bought an '89 Mazda 626 about 18 months ago for a
> winter car. I was getting ~25-26 MPG running premium. When the price went
> up again I switched to a tank of 89 octane, and mileage has been ~29 MPG
> since...
>
>

Go figure? You're finding more radical swings in mileage than I ever did.

Willy

In article <Rmadk.4932$cn7.4280@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com>,
"Willy" <wesk@prodigy.net> wrote:

> "Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> newsan.2008.07.09.22.08.38.952534@e86.GTS...
> > On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:51:26 -0400, Willy wrote:
> >
> >>> I forgot to mention; I only use high-grade Premium gas.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Have you done a comparison using 87 versus 92, or whatever your premium
> >> grade is?
> >>
> >> In a car designed for 87, I have found zero difference. it's a huge
> >> waste
> >> of money.
> >>
> >> however, I'll use my Murano as an example as it recommended high octane,
> >> I
> >> dropped 1.5-2.0 per mile when I used 87.
> >
> > I have posted my results a couple times in this group.
> > Like I said, I keep a 'black book' for all my cars.
> > A few years ago, I bought a used '95 Tercel with slightly <100,000 miles
> > on it. Since it was a Tercel, I wasn't going to run premium, but I just
> > can't bring myself to push the button for 87. So, 89 it was.
> >
> > After a few tanks, I saw the average was about 35 MPG. Hmmmm... Let's try
> > 93.
> >
> > After a few tanks, I noticed the average was about 39. Then I added a
> > 'cold air intake' and economy jumped to about 44-45 consistantly.
> >
> > I figure running Premium I *SAVED* about $225 while I owned the car.
> >
> > Then I sold it to buy an '88 Supra. Ten days before gas jumped
> > ~$0.20/gallon in 2004.
> >
> > We, uh, don't talk about the Supra's 'economy'...
> >
> > And now, the caveat: I bought an '89 Mazda 626 about 18 months ago for a
> > winter car. I was getting ~25-26 MPG running premium. When the price went
> > up again I switched to a tank of 89 octane, and mileage has been ~29 MPG
> > since...
> >
> >
>
> Go figure? You're finding more radical swings in mileage than I ever did.
>
> Willy

55 didn't work during the carter years, nobody paid any attention to it.
The cops couldn't catch everybody. The truckers hated it because their
trucks got max milage at a higher speed, has something to do with gear
ratio. 55 is a dumb idea.
--

On Jul 4, 10:28*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Moe" <BubbleleL...@Fat.City> wrote in message
>
> news:486e04bc$0$4029$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net. ..
>
> > I'd rather see some kind of if you can drive this fast and still get 30
> > MPG and traffic permitting, you can drive 65 or 70.
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/...er_speed_limit
>
> I'd rather see a president say "Do the math, people. For a 1/2 hour trip,do
> you really need to get there a minute sooner? Try keeping it under 2000 RPMs
> for a few weeks & see if your wallet likes the results. But don't do this
> coming off a red light if it means jamming up 8 cars behind you who can't
> get through the light. Use your heads and your rear view mirrors."
>
> We'll have to wait for a real president, I guess.

Are "they" taking into consideration that most of the cars since thge
mid-90's are 4- and 5-speed automatics? I coulfdnot drive 55 MPH. No
way and I'm not a speed demon. I keep myself under 70.

<edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7e356640-d570-4027-8287-e639612e1a86@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 4, 10:28 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Moe" <BubbleleL...@Fat.City> wrote in message
>
> news:486e04bc$0$4029$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net. ..
>
> > I'd rather see some kind of if you can drive this fast and still get 30
> > MPG and traffic permitting, you can drive 65 or 70.
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/...er_speed_limit
>
> I'd rather see a president say "Do the math, people. For a 1/2 hour trip,
> do
> you really need to get there a minute sooner? Try keeping it under 2000
> RPMs
> for a few weeks & see if your wallet likes the results. But don't do this
> coming off a red light if it means jamming up 8 cars behind you who can't
> get through the light. Use your heads and your rear view mirrors."
>
> We'll have to wait for a real president, I guess.

Are "they" taking into consideration that most of the cars since thge
mid-90's are 4- and 5-speed automatics? I coulfdnot drive 55 MPH. No
way and I'm not a speed demon. I keep myself under 70.


<JS>
The most effective speed is right around 2500 RPMs, a bit to the low side of
that for some engine/transmission combinations. The engine likes that the
best.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:29:38 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:

>
> <edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7e356640-d570-4027-8287-e639612e1a86@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 4, 10:28 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Moe" <BubbleleL...@Fat.City> wrote in message
>>
>> news:486e04bc$0$4029$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net. ..
>>
>> > I'd rather see some kind of if you can drive this fast and still get 30
>> > MPG and traffic permitting, you can drive 65 or 70.
>> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/...er_speed_limit
>>
>> I'd rather see a president say "Do the math, people. For a 1/2 hour trip,
>> do
>> you really need to get there a minute sooner? Try keeping it under 2000
>> RPMs
>> for a few weeks & see if your wallet likes the results. But don't do this
>> coming off a red light if it means jamming up 8 cars behind you who can't
>> get through the light. Use your heads and your rear view mirrors."
>>
>> We'll have to wait for a real president, I guess.
>
> Are "they" taking into consideration that most of the cars since thge
> mid-90's are 4- and 5-speed automatics? I coulfdnot drive 55 MPH. No
> way and I'm not a speed demon. I keep myself under 70.
>
>
> <JS>
> The most effective speed is right around 2500 RPMs, a bit to the low side of
> that for some engine/transmission combinations. The engine likes that the
> best.


My cars all do their best ~3,000...

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:21:32 -0700 (PDT), "edspyhill01@yahoo.com"
<edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jul 4, 10:28*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Moe" <BubbleleL...@Fat.City> wrote in message
>>
>> news:486e04bc$0$4029$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net. ..
>>
>> > I'd rather see some kind of if you can drive this fast and still get 30
>> > MPG and traffic permitting, you can drive 65 or 70.
>> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/...er_speed_limit
>>
>> I'd rather see a president say "Do the math, people. For a 1/2 hour trip, do
>> you really need to get there a minute sooner? Try keeping it under 2000 RPMs
>> for a few weeks & see if your wallet likes the results. But don't do this
>> coming off a red light if it means jamming up 8 cars behind you who can't
>> get through the light. Use your heads and your rear view mirrors."
>>
>> We'll have to wait for a real president, I guess.
>
>Are "they" taking into consideration that most of the cars since thge
>mid-90's are 4- and 5-speed automatics?

No, they surely aren't.

>I coulfdnot drive 55 MPH. No way and I'm not a speed demon. I keep myself under 70.

I do in town.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
================================================== =========================

Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote:

> My cars all do their best ~3,000...

Define "best" because they don't get their best efficiency at 3,000
RPM.

On Jul 9, 8:29*pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
> <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7e356640-d570-4027-8287-e639612e1a86@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 4, 10:28 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Moe" <BubbleleL...@Fat.City> wrote in message
>
> >news:486e04bc$0$4029$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net ...
>
> > > I'd rather see some kind of if you can drive this fast and still get 30
> > > MPG and traffic permitting, you can drive 65 or 70.
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/...er_speed_limit
>
> > I'd rather see a president say "Do the math, people. For a 1/2 hour trip,
> > do
> > you really need to get there a minute sooner? Try keeping it under 2000
> > RPMs
> > for a few weeks & see if your wallet likes the results. But don't do this
> > coming off a red light if it means jamming up 8 cars behind you who can't
> > get through the light. Use your heads and your rear view mirrors."
>
> > We'll have to wait for a real president, I guess.
>
> Are "they" taking into consideration that most of the cars since thge
> mid-90's are 4- and 5-speed automatics? *I coulfdnot drive 55 MPH. *No
> way and I'm not a speed demon. *I keep myself under 70.
>
> <JS>
> The most effective speed is right around 2500 RPMs, a bit to the low sideof
> that for some engine/transmission combinations. The engine likes that the
> best.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You were right. I watched my tach this morning and the engine ran at
~2500 RPM at 65 MPH. Even at 70 MPH the RPM never got above about
~2900 RPM.

I think I will call my wimpy elected drones about this. Pah-leeze, 55
MPH?