
|
I thought about gears, but I drive 110 miles to the track on the highway, and thats pretty much out of the question. Not to mention the cost.
|
|
Thats so strange Brent because i have 4.10's and average 18.2 and get highway of 26 at 75 mph. Many people report better MPG and longer between fill ups with geared Marks.
|

|
The difference between 3rd and 4th gear is the nearly the same as a Mark running stock gears vs 4.10's, etc..
|
|
Having driven more than a couple hundred thousand miles in these cars has allowed me the ability to provide you with this unique and in-depth analysis.
![]() . |
|
But as said, where you drive, how you drive... and what you drive play a roll in mileage and the best gearing option. |
|
quick question, around town, does driving with o/d off make a difference?
what about driving on the highway with o/d off? |
|
Don't think I'm trying to argue... I mostly agree with you (as I think you can see); I'm just making a blanket point that there is no one solution to fit everyone.
All this talk of mileage did make me think... I one time got 29 (I believe it was 29) mpg in my LS doing about 65mph... do you think I've been able to replicate that since? HELL no... talk about agrivating... best I've been able to do since then was about 25ish. If only I had a constant tail wind that followed me everywhere I go. |
|
MPG?
You're driving a Luxury Sport Coupe. If you want mpg, maybe you should be driving a prius. ![]() |
|
quick question, around town, does driving with o/d off make a difference?
what about driving on the highway with o/d off? |
|
just for reference, I was not implying that 4.10, 4.30's or 5.10's would give better mileage. But to argue that if a 1:1 ratio were available, you'd get the best mileage with this gearing, it would be extrodinarily inaccurate. I have personally seen mileage improvements in mustangs going from 2.73's to 3.55's. As stated before, the engine needs to be operating in a RPM range where it will be most efficient with concern to the vehicle. This is not idle... and it is not 3500 RPMs.
This is somewhat like arguing the point that more HP will automatically mean less MPG. There is a "sweet spot" of efficiency for both the power output of an engine and an RPM used to move a car. And I think we all know the OEM usually misses the mark on that sweet spot for power(were this not the case, CAI, Cat-backs and tuners would never show a mileage gain). So is it hard to imagine they perhaps don't have it just right for the gearing? But as said, where you drive, how you drive... and what you drive play a roll in mileage and the best gearing option. |
|
I can get as much as 32 MPG highway in my Mark VIII with cruise off at a steady 60 MPH on the highway. But I have been able to achieve 35 - 36 MPG's on the exact same road, going in the exact same direction doing 65 MPH. .... Want to prove that to yourself, Zero out you MPG's on your computer and watch the instant MPG readings getting to speed VS at speed.
|

|
Well dang sorry to hear that.. you should come over and I'll hook a brutha up.
|
|
Same here, at 396,000 miles I think I've pretty much ran into EVERYTHING under the sun, except the moon. |
|
MPG?
You're driving a Luxury Sport Coupe. If you want mpg, maybe you should be driving a prius. ![]() |
|
Last night I went to the track (see other post) and tried to get into the 14's and ran 15.034. I would like to do some mod to get my car to consistantly run 14's.
Here is a list of things I have done to the car thusfar: K&N drop in filter removed all air silencers MSD wires Autolite 764's Magnaflow catback exhaust 245\45\18 tires Switched all fluids to synthetic SCT xcal2 from Torrie |
|
odd mine turned high 14's all day long stock no mods no nothing
|
|
No to change the subject but what '94 did you have (in your sig) and what mods were on it to run 11.8?
|
|
This is somewhat like arguing the point that more HP will automatically mean less MPG. There is a "sweet spot" of efficiency for both the power output of an engine and an RPM used to move a car. And I think we all know the OEM usually misses the mark on that sweet spot for power(were this not the case, CAI, Cat-backs and tuners would never show a mileage gain). So is it hard to imagine they perhaps don't have it just right for the gearing?
|
1:The engine is turning at a higher RPM, so even though less fuel is being shot into the cylinders, per revolution, to create cumbustion and move the piston, the engine is running at a much higher RPM. More revolutions equal more gas. There would have to be a 50% drop in gas used per revolution to maintain the same gas mileage at 2000 RPM's as you would have at 1000 RPM's.
2: You don't need to make all the horsepower availible at that balance point to maintain highway speeds. driving at that higher RPM is wasting energy and gas. Look at how the vairable displacement engines work. The shut off cylinders at crusing speeds, reducing both fuel consumption and horsepower.Your argument seems to be built around the idea that more horsepower equals better gas mileage. On the highway, under normal driving conditions, that is untrue.
I miss smoking pot. Fill up your tank, drive a long distance, fill up the tank to the same level. Take miles driven divided by gallons added and presto, mpg. Everything else is bunk and a 3.73 equipped Mark getting 35-36 mpg is total bunk. Just fighting fiction with reality. ![]() I wonder sometimes how much money Ford wasted trying to obtain 18 city and 26 highway ratings for this car when they just could have went to one of you guys for the expertise of adding some 3.73's or 4.10's or heck, 4.56's must get 40 mpg, using some fancy new one-step colder plugs, taking the spare out of the trunk, and putting that fancy Mobil 1 in the crankcase and increasing the mpg by 35%. Ford doesn't even need the new Eco-Boost motor now. All they have to do is add an electric supercharger instead of the direct-port twin-turbo that runs on E-85 they are introducing now. |
|
You achive the maximum efficient balance point where the tradeoff between horsepower and gas is at its best.
Here is where I see a flaw in your thinking in two areas... 1:The engine is turning at a higher RPM, so even though less fuel is being shot into the cylinders, per revolution, to create cumbustion and move the piston, the engine is running at a much higher RPM. More revolutions equal more gas. There would have to be a 50% drop in gas used per revolution to maintain the same gas mileage at 2000 RPM's as you would have at 1000 RPM's. 2: You don't need to make all the horsepower availible at that balance point to maintain highway speeds. driving at that higher RPM is wasting energy and gas. Look at how the vairable displacement engines work. The shut off cylinders at crusing speeds, reducing both fuel consumption and horsepower.Your argument seems to be built around the idea that more horsepower equals better gas mileage. On the highway, under normal driving conditions, that is untrue. |
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser