If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
M-body road trip success
Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this
somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road speed: around 62 MPH. Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average octane "regular." Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination (just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up" idling, etc. Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level. Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major 6-8% grades northbound. Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG " " return: 28.9 MPG Average: 27.2 MPG All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no disconnected EGR or other illegal mods. The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH. I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse? One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
M-body road trip success
DeserTBoB wrote:
> Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this > somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern > Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of > the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road > speed: around 62 MPH. > > Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter > clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic > timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average > octane "regular." > > Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada > state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination > (just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up" > idling, etc. > > Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level. > Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major > 6-8% grades northbound. > > Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG > " " return: 28.9 MPG > Average: 27.2 MPG > > All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no > disconnected EGR or other illegal mods. > > The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV > to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH. > > I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse? > One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same. The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop highway. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
M-body road trip success
Bill Putney wrote:
> The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde > would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop > highway. In too much of a hurry. I meant '98 -'04 LH bodies (300M '98-'04). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
M-body road trip success
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 06:12:41 -0400, Bill Putney >
wrote: >Bill Putney wrote: > >> The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde >> would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop >> highway. > >In too much of a hurry. I meant '98 -'04 LH bodies (300M '98-'04). <snip> True. Dad-in-law's '00 LH would get a reliable 30-32 on the highway, but remember...this is a lighter, FWD car with a V6 and fuel injection! The old M-body had a 318 and a 2 bbl carb! The V6, of course, with it's more modern fuel and induction systems, would actually produce more BHP than the 318s in the M-bodies. The later Magnum incarnations of the LA engine would put them to shame, but they only wound up in trucks. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
M-body road trip success
DeserTBoB wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 06:12:41 -0400, Bill Putney > > wrote: > > >>Bill Putney wrote: >> >> >>>The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde >>>would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop >>>highway. >> >>In too much of a hurry. I meant '98 -'04 LH bodies (300M '98-'04). <snip> > > > True. Dad-in-law's '00 LH would get a reliable 30-32 on the highway, > but remember...this is a lighter, FWD car with a V6 and fuel > injection! Actually, an LH car weighs about the same as an M-body. Maybe more, mabye less- depending on trim level. There are a few things about current (and within the last 10 years) cars that people forget: 1) Interior plastic is actually a lot heavier than you'd think 2) Mandatory safety equipment is *heavy* 3) Optional equipment weight (8-way seats, ABS, etc.) adds up fast. The M-body was always a lightweight car- after all the F/M/J body was designed as an even lighter and more efficient replacement for the A-body family of cars (Dart/Valiant/Duster/Demon), and that was Chrysler's SMALL car chassis. The M became a "large" car only by default when everything else shrank. And it was still smaller than contemporary Ford and GM "full-size" cars like the Crown Vic, DeVille, Olds 88, etc. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
M-body road trip success
Bill Putney wrote: > DeserTBoB wrote: > > Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this > > somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern > > Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of > > the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road > > speed: around 62 MPH. > > > > Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter > > clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic > > timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average > > octane "regular." > > > > Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada > > state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination > > (just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up" > > idling, etc. > > > > Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level. > > Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major > > 6-8% grades northbound. > > > > Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG > > " " return: 28.9 MPG > > Average: 27.2 MPG > > > > All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no > > disconnected EGR or other illegal mods. > > > > The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV > > to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH. > > > > I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse? > > One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same. > > The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde > would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop > highway. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') good post- he's trying to impress people with that rolling POS car that is 20 years old- all of a sudden he's a "big USA car" man- when before, all he talked about was his Honda. His Honda has a 60 HP engine in it. How much HP does this ' 86 Chrysler have, around 100 ? this "Bob" guy obviously has no clue just how much further advanced modern automotive technology has come. NOTHING has a carburetor on it anymore- all the new cars are fuel injected. 30 MPG highway is the norm, or better. Many get 35 MPG with 350 CID V-8's in them |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
M-body road trip success
On 11 Sep 2006 04:40:05 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote: >good post- he's trying to impress people with that rolling POS car that >is 20 years old- all of a sudden he's a "big USA car" man- when before, >all he talked about was his Honda. <snip> My Honda gets better on the road (32-33), much better around town (30.) Your point, as usual, is that you're simply a troll with no knowledge, and you're still angry about my crushing of your eBay fraud empire. >His Honda has a 60 HP engine in it. <snip> 65. >How much HP does this ' 86 Chrysler have, around 100 ? <snip> 120. I don't require a car to be a "dick extension" like you do, Noodles. >this "Bob" guy obviously has no clue just how much further advanced >modern automotive technology has come. NOTHING has a carburetor on it >anymore- all the new cars are fuel injected. 30 MPG highway is the >norm, or better. Many get 35 MPG with 350 CID V-8's in them <snip> Try 20-25. The Chevy small block's a pig...always has been. Modern V6s, yes. As Bill Putney says, the LHs were good on fuel economy while providing good power and response. The later roller cam 318s, while an improvement in emissions and economy, were lethargic in their 2 bbl version, which came in most M-bodies of that era. The 360 with a Carter Thermoquad fixed the power, but tanked the economy. The 360 was standard only on the Fifth Avenue Brougham. They were good for maybe 20-23 on the road tops, but produced good power. Most police packages ordered in those days had special cam grind 360s. The California Highway Patrol had fleets of 1980s Dodge Diplomats, and a few batches came with a special version of the 318. Although economy shot up, saving the state millions of dollars a quarter, they couldn't chase an overpowered muscle car or a Euro sportster like a Porsche. For that duty, the 5 speed Ford Mustang 302s were introduced as an interceptor. Didn't really matter...maybe Porsche WAS faster than Chrysler, but it sure wasn't faster than Motorola or a Bell chopper! What the CHP liked about the Diplomats, though, was their toughness and longevity, even though they were lacking in pursuit power. The Mustangs barely lasted the two years duty cycle, while the '92 Camaros were retired after 6 months due to high maintenance and low reliability. The Camaro also suffered from dangerous wet surface handling. Most districts would "ground" the Camaros during rainy weather, as their accident rate was 5 times the fleet average on slick pavement. I know this well...my wife bought a '92 RS and the rear end would come completely unglued on wet pavement, even with Goodrich T/As. She had the 3.1 60° V6, which would turn in 30 MPG on the road and was a tough little mill, but reliability of that car overall was fair to poor. I got really tired of replacing speed transducers on the 4L60 transmission (later, lighter version of the THM700) at $78 a pop, too. The 1980s vintage ECM was less than forthright on giving good information for troubleshooting, as well. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
M-body road trip success
Bill Putney" > wrote in message
... > DeserTBoB wrote: >> Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this >> somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern >> Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of >> the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road >> speed: around 62 MPH. >> >> Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter >> clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic >> timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average >> octane "regular." >> >> Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada >> state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination >> (just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up" >> idling, etc. >> >> Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level. >> Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major >> 6-8% grades northbound. >> >> Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG >> " " return: 28.9 MPG >> Average: 27.2 MPG >> >> All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no >> disconnected EGR or other illegal mods. >> >> The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV >> to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH. >> >> I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse? >> One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same. > > The '99-'04 M body cars would do better than that. I know my Concorde > would. It gets 26-28 on its daily 80 mile commute, 31-32 on non-stop > highway. > > Bill Putney Well, since you mentioned that, I just got back from a 1000 mile roadtrip in a 96 LHS. It got about 28, and that's the most I've ever gotten. I thought that kind of invites comparison to the 5th avenue above. I didn't drive all that fast, and that seems to help quite a bit. I was around 70 mph on average, I guess. That's with the 24 valve 3.5, 214 hp. Probably more horsepower than the M body that Bob has. It's geared extremely well, I think. Not a bit too high for good acceleration. Rpms get well above 2500 on the interstate. My 3.5 only gets 20 around town, compared to Bill's 26-28. It's interesting to me that smaller new cars with similar horsepower to the 3.5 don't get better gas mileage. We need to replace it, but nothing offers any improvement except a much smaller car with less horsepower. Smaller cars with more horspower, like a V6 Camry or Accord, for instance, get around 20/28 EPA ratings. It seems like they could do better. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
M-body road trip success
DeserTBoB wrote:
> Those who read what I did to my '86 Fifth Avenue may find this > somewhat interesting. I just took a 678 mile road trip to northern > Nevada via US 395 in the car, using cruise control, AC about 40% of > the time, speeds at posted limits not exceeding 65. Average max road > speed: around 62 MPH. > > Vehicle/drive train: '86 M-body, LA roller cam 318, Holly "Carter > clone" 6280 feedback carb., A-904 trans with lockup converter. Basic > timing: 7° BTDC @ 630 RPM per California spec. Fuel: 87 average > octane "regular." > > Trip plan: Lv Lancaster CA via north CA 14 to US 395 to the Nevada > state line at Topaz Lake and return. No local driving at destination > (just bicycling around the lake), no idling with AC on, no "warm up" > idling, etc. > > Elevation at start and destination: 2580 and 5950 ft above sea level. > Maximum elevation: Conway Summit, 8130 ft. Route has three major > 6-8% grades northbound. > > Fuel economy going: 25.4 MPG > " " return: 28.9 MPG > Average: 27.2 MPG > > All CA smog gear is working as per spec., as well, with no > disconnected EGR or other illegal mods. > > The best mileage ever from this vehicle was a trip from Laughlin, NV > to Barstow, CA: 29.1 MPG, average max speed 55 MPH. > > I think it's fixed. Why do newer, smaller models with V6s get worse? > One can only ponder, but the answer always comes back the same. Way back when I owned an M-body (83 Gran Fury) it would consistently turn in about 20-23 mpg highway. They were definitely sleepers when it came to efficiency. Chrysler always did build the best, even in the dark dismal days of the 80s. But it also had a 2.45 rear gear and couldn't get out of its own way off the line (though the top end was darn near unlimited). My wife's 93 v6 LH would simultaneously out-accelerate the M-body, AND get better mileage, AND has cleaner exhaust. I still like driving my 60s cars because a) they really ARE more powerful than modern cars, and b) they have style. But I'd never argue that they meet the same kinds of simultaneous performance objectives (power, efficiency, emissions) that is possible today. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
M-body road trip success
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:42:07 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>Way back when I owned an M-body (83 Gran Fury) it would consistently >turn in about 20-23 mpg highway. They were definitely sleepers when it >came to efficiency. Chrysler always did build the best, even in the dark >dismal days of the 80s. <snip> I agree...the M-bodies were much maligned but really good, honest cars, if not "flashy" like GM's FWD competitors. >But it also had a 2.45 rear gear and couldn't get out of its own way >off the line (though the top end was darn near unlimited). My wife's 93 >v6 LH would simultaneously out-accelerate the M-body, AND get better >mileage, AND has cleaner exhaust. <snip> I have the 2:45 Dana 44 rear end as well, and once the converter locks up in third at 36 MPH, you just wait for awhile to get up to speed. I'm no speed merchant, so I don't care. The point is exactly as you state...even though Chrysler was reeling from almost collapsing in the late '70s, they alway still did their best in terms of putting out a good product, and their economy and emissions were far better than what GM and Ford could offer in an RWD sedan at that time. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Road Trip, NSW & Vic, Australia | Sir Lex | Driving | 2 | December 1st 05 04:09 AM |
Get real milerage on a 97 Jeep Wrangler | Fidelio | Jeep | 11 | September 18th 05 02:15 AM |
Body off - body support? | Remco | VW air cooled | 15 | July 19th 05 01:23 PM |
Car Dies When Stops; Excudes Burning Smell from Exhaust; Can I drive to on road trip today? | kalexand33 | Driving | 8 | January 2nd 05 10:37 PM |