g2k556, welcome to the site.

Check your car's manual for flat-towing ability. If it says you can tow it with all four wheels down then it's probably okay to EOC. If not then you are risking your transmission.

Good advice. I think those saturns are fine, though. I've seen them behind RV's.

yep, i just checked the owners manual and they are good for towing :thumbup:

One more thing. I tested this morning, and my Honda does fuel cut down to 1200 rpm.

I am impressed!
 

Guys - I really like how this thread is continuing. I was afraid it would die on the vine when I made the original post since it seemed like very few people who cared about FE had auto trans vehicles.

I have to say that my continued work on driving style (and lately and more importantly driving route) has really increased my MPG even further. I hit 44 mpg this morning when I filled up. Not bad since the newly adjusted EPA estimate puts it at 28 or 29 combined. That's 52% above the gov't estimate. This is really important since I am trending towards putting 23,000 miles on my car this year with my daily commute, etc. (right now, 1894 miles a month).

I still don't have a ScanGauge but am developing a pretty good feel for what works and what doesn't. I am sure I am still missing out on some techniques that might bump me up another 1 or 2 mpg but can't convince myself to drop the $160 or so on a ScanGauge unit.

Thanks to everyone that has participated on this thread so far. A lot of you guys are a LOT more technically minded than I am and I haven't completely followed everything said but I am learning.

Thanks again!

Scott - all good stuff. That's about all I'm able to do in my Mustang, as with a carbureted car like my Mustang, there's no ScanGauge, no DFCO, and little if any benefit to neutral at stoplights. Indeed...I think neutral for me would be worse as the primaries are open to the same position, but in N it's revving 200rpm higher than in gear. I've inflated my tires to sidewall max (35psi) but won't go any further as they're pushing 14 years of age and one has a plug in it. Using the downhills to build momentum for uphills is an important one here, as we have a landscape dotted with rolling hills, and it usually helps to the tune of 5-7%.

So far, the biggest help to me has actually been installing a fan clutch (these cars didn't come stock with one unless it was a/c equipped, which mine is not), much more than even my right foot. Like the '68 hardtop I had in high school, the car has so much torque for its weight that your acceleratory style has little effect on the mileage - I've noticed less than 1mpg difference in both cars between my granny driving and harder driving. The fan clutch has a double whammy effect in that the car is able to run ~15* warmer and the motor isn't slinging a 5-bladed fan around at 1.8x engine speed everywhere I go. Informal observations about having my top up vs. down hasn't revealed the expected gain from having the top up, either.

jcp123,

I hear ya. Those older Mustangs were built well but not for mpg fuel efficiency. You could do a lot of things to make your Mustang get better gas mileage but then it wouldn't feel or drive like a Mustang any more. I think the best bet for you is to ride your 1100 motorcycle as much as possible. You could take it easy from a riding style with the bike and still get around 40 mpg or so. Plus, you would continue to get the surround sound sensory experience that can be only had with a bike or a convertable.

I know it is tough to find right now, but if you drive quite a bit, it might be worth trying to pick up a mid-90's subcompact import that can get better gas mileage and keep the 'stang and bike around for those enjoyable rides.

Hmm, I should update that sig. The bike's been gone for about 5 months now, but it was really easy on fuel - my commutes actually averaged around 47mpg, highway trips were pretty consistent at 52-53mpg! Fantastic for an 1100cc, but the dated design of the Shadows really comes through. Right now I'm saving up for a Harley Sportster to build a bobber bike out of as my fuelsaver - the big, heavy flywheel allows these torque monsters to cruise at low RPM's with bigger throttle inputs, reducing pumping losses and yielding pretty impressive mileage. My Dad and I are also working to get a '61 Mercedes 190b roadworthy for a family grocery getter. With a 1.9l SOHC four and a four-on-the-tree, it should be pretty decent in the mileage department.

After I'm done with school and move out, space permitting, I'd love to get a late '65 Mustang with the 200ci I6/3-speed stick combo - they're capable of touching 30mpg on the highway weighing in at only around ~2600lbs. The other option would be a '58 Chevy Biscayne 2-door post, Chevy's base model, with a 235 I6 and 3-speed overdrive. It's physically a large car, the same size as Chevy's Bel Air and Impalas, but weighs in at only about 3400lbs since it's a no-frills, radio-delete kinda car. Chevy's 235 is arguably a better-designed engine than Ford's 200, and with overdrive is able to push the extra 800lbs along at 30mpg as well.

The only problem with carb'd cars is that a lot of the little hidden tricks like DFCO and neutral at stoplights don't work on them. Other than that, they're capable of fine mileage, but automatics hold them way back, much more so than modern auto'd cars.

1980 Buick Lesabre is 3400 lbs too, not quite as no-frills, and has a trunk big enough to park my VW in. Mine's got a 252 (4.1l) v6. I hope to eventually change it to fuel injection, but I think it's a bigger project than I originally anticipated. I originally thought I could throw a TBI, ECM, a few sensors, and maybe a fuel pump on it and it would work. I've come to realize that it seems I'll also need to change the gas tank and all the gas lines, and maybe some other stuff I've missed.

I've not really noticed a difference in RPM in Drive or neutral while at a stop light. I normally flux between 575 and 625 in both. In fact in neutral it takes longer to drop below the 600 line. Of course the car has always been an odd duck.

1989 Caddilac El