AVP MPG Questions
ESP6
01-03-2007, 10:52 AM
Hello everyone. My question today is what is everyone getting for mileage?
I have a 93 with a 3.1L and only seem to be getting about 16-19 MPG. Its got a new air filter & plugs, and I run the tires at 32PSI. What should I expect for mileage? The current mileage is 260K but I beleive the engine goesnt have that much... And what else can I do to improve mileage?
My next question is does someone have aschematic or can tell me the (+) wire for the dash illumination lights either off the h-light sw or the wiper switch?
Thanks...
I have a 93 with a 3.1L and only seem to be getting about 16-19 MPG. Its got a new air filter & plugs, and I run the tires at 32PSI. What should I expect for mileage? The current mileage is 260K but I beleive the engine goesnt have that much... And what else can I do to improve mileage?
My next question is does someone have aschematic or can tell me the (+) wire for the dash illumination lights either off the h-light sw or the wiper switch?
Thanks...
LMP
01-03-2007, 11:35 AM
Dash lights are from headlights through the electronic dimmer control and LPSfuse.
www.avigex.ca/xport/interiorlightsdimming.jpg
www.avigex.ca/xport/fusepanel31.jpg
FAct is the 3.1 gets less mileage than the 3800 overall but city driving about same . If mileage you talk includes city driving 50/50 then this is quite OK. Highway only would be somewhat low..but also depends on outside temperature. SO numbers must be put in relation with actual driving conditions.
Last summer drove 2500km..well 1600 miles in 4 days with my '93 3.8, including only 10% city driving, got a little over 25 mpusg overall . Found that OK.
www.avigex.ca/xport/interiorlightsdimming.jpg
www.avigex.ca/xport/fusepanel31.jpg
FAct is the 3.1 gets less mileage than the 3800 overall but city driving about same . If mileage you talk includes city driving 50/50 then this is quite OK. Highway only would be somewhat low..but also depends on outside temperature. SO numbers must be put in relation with actual driving conditions.
Last summer drove 2500km..well 1600 miles in 4 days with my '93 3.8, including only 10% city driving, got a little over 25 mpusg overall . Found that OK.
ESP6
01-03-2007, 09:02 PM
Thank you. The diagrams help alot. That gives me the info I need..
On the mileage. Thats about 80% highway & I know the torque convertor lock up is functioning.. . It just seemss low to me given it is the smaller/heavier engine though, I would have expected a little better... I going to run a road test this weekend to know exactly what the average is..
Thanks again...
On the mileage. Thats about 80% highway & I know the torque convertor lock up is functioning.. . It just seemss low to me given it is the smaller/heavier engine though, I would have expected a little better... I going to run a road test this weekend to know exactly what the average is..
Thanks again...
BlazinK30
01-04-2007, 08:28 PM
I haven't checked mine since the first few months I had it. At that time I was getting about 21 MPG highway, and 16 / 17 MPG around town. Its a 92 with a 3.1 with the 3 speed trans, and 168,000 miles. Its time for a tune up so I will check it again after I do that.
ESP6
01-05-2007, 10:48 AM
Today I ran a test. Drained fuel tank completely and added exact;y only one gallon of gas. Took on highway, too risky for city driving, and drove until I ran out. I got, averaging 55-65mph about 25 miles so I guess my mileage seems good on the road. With citing driving and estimating with refilling, I seem to be in that 16-18 range. I guess I'm just suprised that there is such a difference between city and highway mileage...
Thanks all.
Thanks all.
BlazinK30
01-07-2007, 10:46 AM
sounds like alot of work when you could just fill it up zero you trip odometer and divide the miles buy the gals. next time you fill it up. Plus running it dry like that just sucks up the dirt from the bottom of your tank and plugs up the fuel filter.
ESP6
01-08-2007, 04:24 PM
I suppose it would... I always change the filter frequently just to not overload the fuel pump.. Thanks.. I suppose that method would work but I dont know how accurate it would be, for instance of you fill up on a colder day and get more fuel in the tank and end on a warmer day, may affect volume, mileage etc. Thanks
BlazinK30
01-08-2007, 07:43 PM
Temp. would not affect it. For example if you filled it drove 400 miles and had to put 20 gallons in to fill it again. 400 miles divided by 20 gallons = 20 MPG.
ESP6
01-11-2007, 10:42 AM
Ok. Thank you. I'll keep it in mind. I would have assumed that it would. Thanks
LMP
01-11-2007, 01:20 PM
THe fuel station fuel pump is temperature compensated, so what it indicates are equivalent gallons as if they were measured at a constant temperature. Read carefully on the fuel pump meter: it says so. So technically speaking, it is a mass meter rather than a volume meter....although the reading is given in equivalent volume. Between two fillup, the temperature of the fuel in the station fuel tank is rather dependant of its under ground solid surroundings, not the atmospheric or your tank temperature so there is a good chance two consecutive fill-ups will be made at quite the same fuel temperature...otherwise indeed a tank of cold fuel would contain more fuel mass than the same tank of warm fuel..but it would take a rather large temperature difference to be significant. a 10°F variation corresponds to a mass differeence of 0.4%....meaning about 0.1 mpg equivalent..less than the margin of error of calculation.
Indeed fuel mileage calculation using tank fillup can bear a large margin of error, due to the air gap that is left in the tank; the actual level of the tank when it stops the gun by throwing out will vary depending on terrain slope and uneven car load..and depending on how long you insist to fill-up to the edge with small increments. However makling measurments using the sum of several consecutive tankfuls spreads the uncertainties over the number of fillups, so you end up with something quite precise. That also explains why calculations using one fill-up and then the next each by itself can suggest wide variation in apparent fuel burn.
Indeed fuel mileage calculation using tank fillup can bear a large margin of error, due to the air gap that is left in the tank; the actual level of the tank when it stops the gun by throwing out will vary depending on terrain slope and uneven car load..and depending on how long you insist to fill-up to the edge with small increments. However makling measurments using the sum of several consecutive tankfuls spreads the uncertainties over the number of fillups, so you end up with something quite precise. That also explains why calculations using one fill-up and then the next each by itself can suggest wide variation in apparent fuel burn.
ESP6
01-15-2007, 09:02 AM
Hmm. Very good.. My main concern was in filling up and over (estimated) 400miles to calculate MPG. In my part of the work in one week the temp can change 20 degrees,, Thanks
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026
