I’m with Mitch. I’m not hung up on mpg, but when I have the ability to improve it with my driving habits or otherwise I’ll do it.
When I was driving the Ford Fusion hybrid when the S420 got totaled, they had a little thing in the instrument panel that showed a tree with leaves on it. That is, you got “leafs” as you drove the car more efficiently. So now it’s a challenge for me. After driving the car for 2-1/2 weeks I think I put 10 gallons of gas in it and the “tree” was pretty well “leafed” out. I joked with the wife about how if she had a car like that the tree would just be a bunch of dead sticks…. -D > On Dec 8, 2018, at 8:17 AM, Curley McLain via Mercedes > <mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > > Back in 1971 when I bought my first MB, cars got 17-18 MPG if you drove for > mileage. My 67 Chevelle got 10, no matter what I did to try to improve > mileage. My 66 Bronco (acquired in 1973) got 10, no matter what I did to > try to get better mileage. Gas was mostly 35.9¢ and Diesel 27.9 to 28.8¢/gal. > In this environment, my 190Dc and later 200D got 27 to 30 and as much as 35 > mpg. You can figger out what a savings that was. > > Later I had the wabbit at 50 mpg, the escort at 50-55 mpg and the quantum at > 45 mpg, loaded to the gills and going 75. In high MPG conditions it would > probably do 50-55 also. > I gave up the high mileage game when I got the first SDL. The speed and > comfort was amazing. The kids not only didn't complain about riding in it, > but enjoyed riding in the back seat. > > It was the reliability and MPG that sold many people on a MB Diesel in the > early 80s, after 15 yrs of detriot iron getting worse all the time. Most > 73-74 land yachts did no better than 10 mpg, up from 18, due to all the > gooberment mandated "improvements." I believe 1983 was the high point of > MB Diesel sales in the USA. That was when I went to a MBCA meeting in the > quad cities, and in place of all gassers with a couple Diesels, there was all > (mostly new) Diesels, with a couple gassers. [yes, I said 10 MPG, UP from > 18. That is goober-speak, reflecting the "improvements" mandated.] > > Mitch Haley via Mercedes wrote on 12/8/18 6:52 AM: >> >> I'm not Pious about mpg but I do get an odd satisfaction from a vehicle that >> gives better than expected fuel economy. I loved my Saab 99, but it got >> 24mpg, didn't seem to matter much whether in town or open road, while my >> backup car, a $435 rusty POS 1980 Citation I bought in 1985 with 145,000 >> miles on it, would get 39 mpg indicated, 37 mpg actual, in rural driving in >> warm weather. The mpg was one reason I was fond of that Citation, another >> was its extreme utility, I could carry 1000lb of tools and tool cabinets in >> it and it never complained. Back when gas was 80-90 cents a gallon I never >> felt any pain filling up the Saab, but filling the Citation always felt >> good. Funny thing is, I have no idea what mpg I got in my 1975 Civic, other >> than it was not that good for a 1850lb car with a stratified charge engine, >> I'm guessing around 28-30mpg, the fault of the 2 speed semi auto trans no >> doubt. >> >> Now I play the 'how high can my mpg get' game with a 2016 Chevy Cruze. Last >> summer I went 630 miles on 12.6 gallons of gas. I bought a tuner for it >> Thanksgiving weekend, now I want to set up a manual mode for the auto >> transmission and see if I can hit 60mpg in the sort of 55mph driving that >> got 37 in the Citation 40 years ago. >> >> Mitch >> >> > > > _______________________________________ > http://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 > _______________________________________ http://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
