A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Saturn
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bad fuel mileage - '00 SL1



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 19th 04, 01:59 PM
Rincewind
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bad fuel mileage - '00 SL1

I have noticed that the fuel mileage in my '00 SL1 has slowly been
deteriorating over the last few months. I am currently only getting aroun
22-24 MPG (dpending on how accurate my conversion is). I feel that I should
be getting better, especially since the pric of gas has increased so
dramatically...

The car is an automatic, and has been well maintained since new. It has
65,000 kms on it and I have owned it since 40,000. The air filter was
changed at 52,000 as were the tranny fluid and filter, and spark plugs. I
change the oil as soon as the light comes on.

I was told by someone that the O2 sensor May be the culprit, but I wanted to
ask some people in the know before I take it somewhere to have it looked at.

Any ideas or recommendations?


Ads
  #2  
Old May 19th 04, 07:45 PM
Shawn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I had replaced my o2 sensor on mine. It wasn't reading right. The car was
getting to much fuel. You could actually smell it coming from the exhaust.
The car was warmed up, but with the sensor gone, the computer figured the
engine was still cold. Therefore sending out to much fuel.
The sensor was fairly cheap. $60 Aftermarket part(not from the dealer). It
took only minutes to put in. It cured my problem

Good luck
"Rincewind" > wrote in message
...
> I have noticed that the fuel mileage in my '00 SL1 has slowly been
> deteriorating over the last few months. I am currently only getting aroun
> 22-24 MPG (dpending on how accurate my conversion is). I feel that I

should
> be getting better, especially since the pric of gas has increased so
> dramatically...
>
> The car is an automatic, and has been well maintained since new. It has
> 65,000 kms on it and I have owned it since 40,000. The air filter was
> changed at 52,000 as were the tranny fluid and filter, and spark plugs. I
> change the oil as soon as the light comes on.
>
> I was told by someone that the O2 sensor May be the culprit, but I wanted

to
> ask some people in the know before I take it somewhere to have it looked

at.
>
> Any ideas or recommendations?
>
>



  #3  
Old May 20th 04, 02:25 AM
Jonnie Santos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Isn't there two sensors? If so, which one did you swap (exhaust manifold)?

"Shawn" > wrote in message
...
> I had replaced my o2 sensor on mine. It wasn't reading right. The car was
> getting to much fuel. You could actually smell it coming from the exhaust.
> The car was warmed up, but with the sensor gone, the computer figured the
> engine was still cold. Therefore sending out to much fuel.
> The sensor was fairly cheap. $60 Aftermarket part(not from the dealer). It
> took only minutes to put in. It cured my problem
>
> Good luck
> "Rincewind" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have noticed that the fuel mileage in my '00 SL1 has slowly been
> > deteriorating over the last few months. I am currently only getting

aroun
> > 22-24 MPG (dpending on how accurate my conversion is). I feel that I

> should
> > be getting better, especially since the pric of gas has increased so
> > dramatically...
> >
> > The car is an automatic, and has been well maintained since new. It has
> > 65,000 kms on it and I have owned it since 40,000. The air filter was
> > changed at 52,000 as were the tranny fluid and filter, and spark plugs.

I
> > change the oil as soon as the light comes on.
> >
> > I was told by someone that the O2 sensor May be the culprit, but I

wanted
> to
> > ask some people in the know before I take it somewhere to have it looked

> at.
> >
> > Any ideas or recommendations?
> >
> >

>
>



  #4  
Old May 26th 04, 03:20 AM
TC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd have a look at the ECTS. That's the coolant temp sensor screwed into
the cylinder head. Prior to 2002, they were made of plastic and had a
tendency to crack. The new ones are brass. Symptoms of a failed ECTS are
poor gas mileage, hard starting, and erratic temp gauge readings. They
won't throw any diagnostic codes when they go, however the O2 sensor
will.
  #5  
Old May 26th 04, 02:15 PM
Rincewind
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"TC" > wrote in message
...
> I'd have a look at the ECTS. That's the coolant temp sensor screwed into
> the cylinder head. Prior to 2002, they were made of plastic and had a
> tendency to crack. The new ones are brass. Symptoms of a failed ECTS are
> poor gas mileage, hard starting, and erratic temp gauge readings. They
> won't throw any diagnostic codes when they go, however the O2 sensor
> will.


Thanks, I will look into that too. Sometimes, the car is a llittle hard to
start...


  #6  
Old May 28th 04, 05:13 PM
Rincewind
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"TheSnipe at anti-spamdotmemindspringdotmecom" >
wrote in message ...
> What is "normal" mileage for a '00 SL1 auto ? I do round town and
> some highway mixed driving and it seems rather sad at 25 mpg-27 mpg.
> combined with the smallish gas tank it is a short range drive between
> gas stations for me...
>
> I just got the car Apr 3 with just over 9,100 miles on it from a
> Saturn dealership. I'd been driving a '90 Corolla 5spd with just over
> 58k on it before that and the Corolla was getting a min of 31 mpg for
> the same driving.
>
> I had expected that 10 years of advancements in design etc would have
> had the Saturn doing much better than the old Corolla. I know autos
> get lower mpg than standards, but I did not expect such a poor
> showing.
>
> The sales dude played dumb on mpg to be expected of course.
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
> Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Ben Franklin


I was curious of the same thing after I posted my message. I did some
research and the '00 SL1 was rated for 29 MPG city, and 40 MPG highway. I am
getting nowhere near that...


  #7  
Old May 28th 04, 05:24 PM
ns
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Those showroom ratings are for reference only. They are taken under very
favourable conditions, such as DRL turned off, no accessories used, constant
speed, fixed temperature, no wind, etc.

Real life fuel consumption is influenced by all of the above variables AND
driving habits (how hard do you accelerate, what are you AC or heat
settings). They will vary from car to car and driver to driver.

"Rincewind" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TheSnipe at anti-spamdotmemindspringdotmecom" >
> wrote in message ...
> > What is "normal" mileage for a '00 SL1 auto ? I do round town and
> > some highway mixed driving and it seems rather sad at 25 mpg-27 mpg.
> > combined with the smallish gas tank it is a short range drive between
> > gas stations for me...
> >
> > I just got the car Apr 3 with just over 9,100 miles on it from a
> > Saturn dealership. I'd been driving a '90 Corolla 5spd with just over
> > 58k on it before that and the Corolla was getting a min of 31 mpg for
> > the same driving.
> >
> > I had expected that 10 years of advancements in design etc would have
> > had the Saturn doing much better than the old Corolla. I know autos
> > get lower mpg than standards, but I did not expect such a poor
> > showing.
> >
> > The sales dude played dumb on mpg to be expected of course.
> > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
> > Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Ben Franklin

>
> I was curious of the same thing after I posted my message. I did some
> research and the '00 SL1 was rated for 29 MPG city, and 40 MPG highway. I

am
> getting nowhere near that...
>
>



  #8  
Old June 1st 04, 09:14 PM
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am getting 41-43 MPG highway and 35-37 MPG city (summer) - 2002 SL
5-sp. BTW, believe it or not, I started getting better MPG (1-2 miles)
after I disabled DRL about a year ago.

"Rincewind" > wrote in message >...

> I was curious of the same thing after I posted my message. I did some
> research and the '00 SL1 was rated for 29 MPG city, and 40 MPG highway. I am
> getting nowhere near that...

  #9  
Old June 1st 04, 10:13 PM
richard hornsby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jerry wrote:

> I am getting 41-43 MPG highway and 35-37 MPG city (summer) - 2002 SL
> 5-sp. BTW, believe it or not, I started getting better MPG (1-2 miles)
> after I disabled DRL about a year ago.


The highbeam lamps are running in series when in a 'DRL' state, meaning
that each uses about half of the electricty normally used to power the
lamps. How could this possibly affect the MPG? Do the DRLs really put
that big of a strain on the alternator? If it really does, then it
seems logical to disable all "extraneous" electrical equipment - radio,
instrument panel, etc.

I would tend toward saying that 1-2MPG difference could be attributed to
a whole host of factors including slight average temperature
differences, tire pressure, road conditions, different fuel mixtures
from the oil companies, slightly different if imperceptible driving
habits, etc. Without proper experimental control conditions, it really
is nearly impossible to account for that slight of a change. It would
be VERY interesting to measure alternator output (amps, volts) and
engine output (RPMS) in a garage setting with and without: the DRLs,
normal headlights, high beams. While not conclusive, I think it would
be enlightening.

Secondly, disabling the DRLs, while your choice, is also defeating a
safety feature of the vehicle. We don't turn on our headlights in the
rain (the law in most states) because it helps us see better - but
because it helps others see us better. Before DRLs were popularized, a
study in Europe found that you were some 30% less likely to be in an
accident with your headlights on - simply because of the added
visibility and how our brains react when we see light rushing toward us.
Since I read that, I always turn on my headlights in vehicles not
equipped with DRLs; and turn on the parking lights on my DRL-equipped
saturn so that I'm (slightly) more visible from behind as well.

-rj
98SL2
  #10  
Old June 1st 04, 11:10 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



richard hornsby wrote:

> .........Before DRLs were popularized, a
> study in Europe found that you were some 30% less likely to be in an
> accident with your headlights on - simply because of the added
> visibility and how our brains react when we see light rushing toward us.


Most of us don't live in Finland or Sweden or Norway, so a
study conducted a Nordic Country before DRL were common (and
thus obviously different), probably has very little
relevance to some guy riding around in Florida in August.
Persoanlly I hate DRLs, and I especially hate my Vue's DRL.
They are too bright, and I can't tell you how often I have
forgotten to turn on my "real" lights at dusk becasue they
appear to me to be just like the headlights (except for the
stupid green warning light on the dash).

Ed
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Magnum RT Fuel Mileage Dan Dodge 48 October 30th 04 02:47 PM
Increasing fuel mileage by injecting ether. Burt Squareman Honda 41 September 30th 04 05:01 AM
76 Difficult Cold Starts daveo76 Corvette 22 September 9th 04 12:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.