Wollf

Im thinking of picking up a 91 Cavalier 3.1 and am wondering what kind of mileage you are getting from your cars?? im driving a V8 jeep atm and getting maybe 15mpg at best so anything better then that would be good , but i am curious as too some numbers...

What was factory MPG off the line ?
Factory HP ?
Any base stats would be great... i understand this car is 15 years old so know its not new , just curious what i might be getting into!

__________________
I work as a partsman in the BC Area if you need help finding something you cant find pm me here and i will see what i can do. www.lordco.com
Better to sit in silence and be thought stupid , then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

94VL

I would figure low 20s in MPG.The 4cylinder/Manual cars got mid-upper 20s thru low 30s mpg.Certainly better than an SUV,and easier to park and handle.

FinchUsed

I'd have to agree with that. I'd expect low 20's. Low low 20's. The car does have some age after all. I couldn't tell you what the HP is on a 3.1 but I'm sure someone will be able to if you wait until tomorrow or so.

OverAllComa

I got mid 20's on my old Z24. I mean, so long as you don't dog it it'll do alright.

__________________
1992 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 *R.I.P.*
3.1L MPFI (3.1 6cylinder Pushrod 12V)
1997 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 *R.I.P.*
2.4L "Twin Cam" (2.4 4cylinder DOHC 16V)
2003 Honda Accord EX V6 - The new hotness

Cheetoe00

on my 01 2.4L I get about 24mpg in the city and about 30 on the Hwy

94VL

The hp is around 140.Old carbureted 2.8s were 110,and then EFI 2.8s were 120 or so.As comparison,the old 250 straight 6 was rated at 110 hp with a 1 barrel carb back in the late 70s,I think it gained 5 hp when it went to a progressive 2 barrel,but 115 hp for a 250 vs 110 for a 2.8 (173) wasnt all that bad! (however,the 2.8 lacked torque,and had massive oil circulation problems).The 60 degree GM V6 was much happier in FWD cars than S10s and Camaros.....(its original purpose was for the 1979 GM X-cars,it found its way into everything else by simple economics...meaning GMs cheapness).