I personally believe there is some sort of "barrier" around the current 29'ish MPGs that most mid-size vehicles get today.

Heck my parents owned an older Ford Crown Victoria for several years and it always got 29MPG on the highway. They traded it in when it had 243K miles on it and got a small Subaru...but guess what...it is 10x smaller and still only gets 29MPG...hhhmmmm

Makes me wonder why Ford can build a full-size car 10 years ago that gets the same MPG as a compact car of today.

This is the reason why we (USA) don't drive compact cars.

Bring back the diesels and we would instantly have vehicles getting 40'ish+ MPGs at the mid/full-size size and we (USA) would buy them up! Oh too bad, CARB won't get us....come on people!

I think the barrier you are speaking about this the one between most people's ears. They want cars that are fast enough that they can drive without any planning or thought whatsoever. The V-8 in that CV barely puts out as much power as that little Subaru that replaced the CV. I had a 97 CV police car that I bought on ebay, and it was plenty fast :D but didn't rate as highly as most of the smaller cars now in the power department.

My wife's 2003 Taurus 3.0 V-6 puts out almost as power as my 1996 Bronco 5.8 V-8 did...although it gets just a *BIT* better MPG than the green monster did. ;)

Now...if CARB doesn't like diesels...then let the rest of the country have 'em and the heck with CA! Too bad most of the new diesels are cleaner than the vast majority of the gassers running around in CA...too bad they use less fuel...require fewer parts to maintain...much better to pursue short-term gains.

do not mean to jack this thread, but i'm getting close to 29mpg in my olds 88(full size).
i drive consistently 35%city/65%hwy(at 70mph with the a/c on). my guess is i'm WAY over 29mpg hwy@55mph and a/c off.

BTW, fill out a garage page. i'm interested in your olds' FE. do you like your intrigue? my 88 has an incredibly low $/mile ratio.

If by way over you mean getting an extra ~5mpg, then yes. Otherwise, no. Most cars these days are geared so they can go ~120-1xxmph in top gear, which is nice if we want to go 120+mph, but from the standpoint of efficiency at lower cruising speeds, sucks. A change of gearing, provided the cars stays in gear if it's an auto, should let most full sized sedans get ~50+mpg@55mph. But, since they're geared crappy, most only see ~35mpg@55mph. The increase in energy needed to go 70mph compared to 55mph is masked because at the same time the engine efficiency is increasing going from 55mph to 70mph. While it doesn't increase as fast as the power requirements increase, it still increases enough to mask the difference in power required between the two speeds.

thanks.

29 to 34(5mpg increase)~17%. agreed, that IS way over.

makes sense. my olds FE peaks @ 50mph(TC lockup) @ 1500rpm. scan gauge on wife's car(same motor) confirms that.

Mine locks at the same engine speed at ~40mph, the difference being mine was a shorter 4th because it's a 3L. Like theclencher said, it's a pain to regear autos since they're finicky and will just unlock/kickdown too much. But... if ya don't mind a manual, 50mpg@50mph is no sweat, and at 70mph it should be in the high thirties. :thumbup:

i would love to see a big 3.8 buick fitted with a nice tall 5 speed stick and see what she'd do!

*cough*4300 w/ a T56*cough*
All bolt's up and will fit in anything a SBC fits in IIRC. Supercharger kit's available, etc...

yes!

i wuz thinking of the fwd le sabres and such that get 30 already

is there a fwd stick tranny for that?

would also throw out about 20 of those belt driven thingys

I think the trans out of a 3.4L fwd would bolt up, but don't take my word for it. I also think a 3L I4 diesel/manual trans will fit in the Camry w/ the right mounts, so I tend to be optimistic.