On 28/05/2012 7:21 PM, Mitch Haley wrote:
Randy Bennell wrote:
Drove my car to the lake and back on each of the past 2 weekends. 326
miles round trip. Some 4 lane and some 2 lane. 65-75 mph on 4 lane
and about 60 mph on 2 lane.
Did 28 mpg imp and about 23+ mpg US - on the first trip. Have yet to
take it to be filled for the 2nd trip.
Raining both times and a bit cool. Will likely do better come warmer
summer weather.
Runs good and uses no oil. Not bad for a 36 year old car.
My W116 300sd does about 28 mpg US if you run a whole tank through it
in one day.
Mitch.
Yes, I am certain everyone knows the following but will say it anyway.
The turbo models are more efficient. My poor old normally aspirated
engine has to work hard to run highway speeds. It does not appear to
mind doing so but by current standards, it is not as fuel efficient as
many others. In 1976, most North American cars were not making anywhere
near 20+ mpg and diesel was much less expensive. It was a true economy
car then.
Time has passed it by to a great extent. My wife's Honda Accord is
about the same size when parked next to it in the garage and has more
power and makes better mileage and is quieter- at least in terms of
engine noise.
I don't think that is true of chassis noise etc. I am truly amazed at
how well the old car rides and handles on those skinny tires. I might
enjoy the turbo if I had it but I am stuck as I really do not need
another one and I do not wish to part with my current one. I need to win
a lottery and buy more land and build a big garage to store more MB
toys. I am sure I am not the only one with that dream.
Randy
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
