MPG?

hello all. my father has a 1997 lincoln town car, which has the 4.6 litre
v8. I am wondering, why does it, weighing as much as my Pac, get 30 mpg plus
on the highway, while i get 25?

William Warren wrote:

> hello all. my father has a 1997 lincoln town car, which has the 4.6 litre
> v8. I am wondering, why does it, weighing as much as my Pac, get 30 mpg
> plus on the highway, while i get 25?

Just a wild guess ... if Pac stands for Pacifica it is like a bookshelf when
it comes to aerodynamics, while the Town Car is more like a couch ...

Wir mailen uns ... Hans
--
2005/09/24 12:20
EDDS 241220Z 09005KT 9999 FEW046 21/11 Q1018 NOSIG

If the '97 Town Car is allegedly getting 30mpg on the highway,
something's wrong. I rented a Grand Marquis of that general vintage,
when it was a current model year vehicle, and it did good to break
24mpg at 65mph, much less 30mpg. This was from the onboard trip
computer in "Instant Fuel Economy" mode. Only way I could get it to
read higher was to "Coast" rather than "Cruise".

It also was a total slug in performance. I found the traction control
switch and turned it off and it would not spin the Mich Symmetrys in
dirt. Adequate power in normal driving speeds, but it did have a good
"run" at WOT from 75mph to 100mph (had to get away from some pesky
traffic groups on the interstate before getting back to the normal
cruising speed).

Just my observations . . .

C-BODY

I have a 1995 Ford T-Bird LX 4.6 v8.
On a fairly flat interstate run, cruise control on, doing 60 mph the
cars gets an easy 29 mpg on regular gas.

My 88 New Yorker 3.0 v6 still gets up to 32 mpg on the highway

My 2000 300M has gotten up to 27.8 mpg highway with tires inflated to 32
psi. Dropping air pressure to suggested levels results in 26.5 mpg
highway.

I've been told that cars designed and built in the mid 80's and early
90's do not weigh as much as current models and this affects mpg.

The version of the 4.6 v8 in my T-Bird is rated at 205 hp.
The speed limiter clicks in at 105 mph. 1500 rpm gets you 55 mph, just
loafing along in 4th gear.

The engine was designed during a time when mpg was more important than
perfomance. The engine seems weak by todays standard but provides
reasonable highway mpg.

Newer versions of the Ford 4.6 had performance improvements, heads,
intake, ignition redesigns that improved seat of the pants feel at
expense of mpg.

I don't know enough about the Pacifica to comment on drivetrain, engine
or weight and how that impacts mpg.

Steve

In article >,
Steve Stone > wrote:

> I've been told that cars designed and built in the mid 80's and early
> 90's do not weigh as much as current models and this affects mpg.

Unfortunately recent cars have increased weight significantly.

For example he base Chrysler 300 is much heavier than my similar sized
'95 Concord,
but they do need much more metal to contain that huge gas consuming
hemi engine. The more reasonable 3.5L 300 model suffers because of is
monster engine brother.