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
|
|||
|
|||
Gas mileage info on '78 Buick Regal?
Hello,
I was wondering, is there anywhere (like a website) that would have the gas mileage figures for an older car, to be specific a 1978 Buick Regal? The owner's manual doesnt have it, neither does the Chilton's book, and the govt. site doesn't have cars that old. I ask this because I just stumbled on an old ad claiming that my car (a 1978 Buick Regal with a 3.8 liter 231cc V6) gets 27 mpg highway and 19 city. In practice, my car gets 20 hwy (with cruise, and driving like a grandma) and 15 city- which I had figured must be normal for such an old car. I have to wonder, is the ad inflating the figures, or is something perhaps wrong with my car that's killing my gas mileage? (For starters, the carb could probably use a rebuild). Given the $3 gas and all, I'm really curious about this.. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gas mileage info on '78 Buick Regal?
In rec.autos.antique Bill Johnston > wrote:
BJ> Hello, BJ> I was wondering, is there anywhere (like a website) that would have the BJ> gas mileage figures for an older car, to be specific a 1978 Buick BJ> Regal? The owner's manual doesnt have it, neither does the Chilton's BJ> book, and the govt. site doesn't have cars that old. BJ> BJ> I ask this because I just stumbled on an old ad claiming that my car (a BJ> 1978 Buick Regal with a 3.8 liter 231cc V6) gets 27 mpg highway and 19 BJ> city. In practice, my car gets 20 hwy (with cruise, and driving like a BJ> grandma) and 15 city- which I had figured must be normal for such an BJ> old car. I have to wonder, is the ad inflating the figures, or is BJ> something perhaps wrong with my car that's killing my gas mileage? (For BJ> starters, the carb could probably use a rebuild). Given the $3 gas and BJ> all, I'm really curious about this.. BJ> That ad was probably running in '78 or '77, and even then those figures should have been taken with a block of salt. The 3800 is/was a great motor, but after almost 30 years it ain't new. A thorough tune-up and/or minor repairs might boost your mileage a little bit (or quite a bit if it's been totally neglected) but expect no miracles. As they say, YMMV. -- "... I shook my family tree, and a bunch of NUTS fell out ..." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Gas mileage info on '78 Buick Regal?
Bill Johnston wrote:
> Hello, > I was wondering, is there anywhere (like a website) that would have the > gas mileage figures for an older car, to be specific a 1978 Buick > Regal? The owner's manual doesnt have it, neither does the Chilton's > book, and the govt. site doesn't have cars that old. > > I ask this because I just stumbled on an old ad claiming that my car (a > 1978 Buick Regal with a 3.8 liter 231cc V6) gets 27 mpg highway and 19 > city. In practice, my car gets 20 hwy (with cruise, and driving like a > grandma) and 15 city- which I had figured must be normal for such an > old car. I have to wonder, is the ad inflating the figures, or is > something perhaps wrong with my car that's killing my gas mileage? (For > starters, the carb could probably use a rebuild). Given the $3 gas and > all, I'm really curious about this.. > Cars of the 1970's were saddled with primitive emissions equipment that resulted in poor gas mileage. Only by the mid 1980's did the mpg figures improve. As an aside, ignore the highly inflated EPA mileage figures for cars of the era... JT |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Gas mileage info on '78 Buick Regal?
On 6 Jul 2006 23:18:11 -0700, "Bill Johnston" >
wrote: > >I ask this because I just stumbled on an old ad claiming that my car (a >1978 Buick Regal with a 3.8 liter 231cc V6) gets 27 mpg highway and 19 >city. In practice, my car gets 20 hwy (with cruise, and driving like a >grandma) and 15 city- which I had figured must be normal for such an >old car. I have to wonder, is the ad inflating the figures, or is My vague recollection is that the EPA values of that era didn't reflect what you'd get in the real world. CBS news archive item: http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...19-CBS-10.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Gas mileage info on '78 Buick Regal?
Bill Johnston wrote:
> I ask this because I just stumbled on an old ad claiming that my car (a > 1978 Buick Regal with a 3.8 liter 231cc V6) gets 27 mpg highway and 19 > city. Those would probably be EPA mileage figures. Back then, everybody joked about them. People expected to get about 75% of the EPA figures. One thing you can do to improve matters is to quit using cruise control. The cruise control of that period was less efficient than the typical driver; it would typically accelerate to just past the speed setting, back off on the throttle until the speed dropped below it, then accelerate again. This constantly works the accelerator pump on the carb. Today's fuel injection has eliminated that problem. George Patterson Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to your slightly older self. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Gas mileage info on '78 Buick Regal?
Bill Johnston wrote: > I ask this because I just stumbled on an old ad claiming that my car (a > 1978 Buick Regal with a 3.8 liter 231cc V6) gets 27 mpg highway and 19 > city. In practice, my car gets 20 hwy (with cruise, and driving like a > grandma) and 15 city- which I had figured must be normal for such an > old car. I have to wonder, is the ad inflating the figures, or is > something perhaps wrong with my car that's killing my gas mileage? (For > starters, the carb could probably use a rebuild). Given the $3 gas and > all, I'm really curious about this.. The EPA figures in the ad may be a bit optimistic, but you ought to be able to do better than 20 MPG on the highway. I knew someone who had a Cutlass with the 3.8, a late '70s-early '80s car similar to yours, and he said that he got very good mileage, although I no longer remember the exact numbers and he would have been quoting Imperial MPG. Unlike current cars, a non-feedback carbureted car can go out of adjustment without any obvious signs like "Check Engine" lights. Also, rear end ratios varied considerably more back then; you would get better fuel economy with a 2.41:1 rear than a 3.23:1. I don't know what range of rear ratios were available for your car/engine; the EPA figure quoted in the ad will certainly be for the most economical--numerically lowest--ratio. I had a '79 Firebird with a 2-bbl 301 V8 that did 10-11 L/100 km on a good day, which would be around 22 MPG. That car had a 2.41:1 rear ratio. My '78 Trans Am with 400-4bbl can get 13 L/100 km on the highway or a bit better, which is 18-19 MPG, and that's a big heavy car with a big engine and 3.08:1 gears, and the smog stuff in place (except for dual catalytic converters). What can you do? Check tire inflation Tune up the engine--carb overhaul, check distributor spark advance curves, new plugs, new air filter Use lighter-weight engine oil and rear diff lube (presumably your transmission is a TH-200 or TH-350; not much to be done there) Check timing chain wear--your cam may be getting retarded due to chain stretch Check if your catalytic converter is plugged--the GM pellet-type converters were pretty restrictive; a modern replacement converter will flow much better Check rear end gear ratio (easier if you can find the axle code stamping)--change to a lower numerical ratio |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Gas mileage info on '78 Buick Regal?
Those are ideal figures for a carefully driven car in good tune. Note also that in 1985 the EPA started adjusting their dynamometer-based fuel economy figures in some way (I think with a sizeable fudge factor) in response to widespread compaints that they were simplistic tests that gave unrealistically high results. (Another major change in the way the testing is done is now being discussed or perhaps it has already been mandated, and is expected to ratchet the numbers down again.) Not until that platform got the redesigned "3800" version of the engine (1988?) and consistent fitment of a 4-speed (1986-ish) would I look for even an mpg or two increment on that, although driveability and power doubtless improved. (I had some first experience with an '80 Cutlass Supreme with the V6 and distinctly recall it as being labor-intensive to keep in tune, as well as finicky about gasoline.) By today's standards it was a sizeable vehicle with a large aerodynamic cross section, a fairly lossy tranny, and what a friend of mine refers to as the heart-lung machine era of engine controls. Progress over the fuel economy of earlier models was merely incremental until they started building quite different cars with much better engine controls. Note also that by now, the engine could be worn or the carb aging orout of adjustment or the tranny slipping or whatnot -- additional factors against getting the theoretical mileage potential. Cheers, --Joe |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
99 CRV, lower gas mileage after timing belt replacement | DelCRVOwner | Honda | 7 | July 4th 06 02:13 AM |
1994 Buick Regal | kelshawmic | Technology | 2 | June 29th 06 12:54 AM |
Need 94 Buick Regal or Chevy Lumina lighting wire diagram | [email protected] | Technology | 0 | April 30th 06 04:53 AM |
96 Buick Regal misfire, #4 cylinder | [email protected] | Technology | 7 | April 20th 06 04:11 PM |
buick regal 3.8 knocking/pinging | Whitey | Technology | 4 | August 1st 05 01:05 AM |