MPG Pt.1

[Stewart G Griffin]

Ok, for the third "cup" it is 17.20.  i really can't explain the continual rise upwards except that when i switched oil, i was already, say, 1/4 into the second tankful.  So, therefore that might explain the rise from 3rd tank from 2nd tank.  But switching to synthetic wouldn't account for a 1 and a 1/2 mpg increase?  Or would it?  i also forgot to mention that during the oil change, i also added "Prolong" engine treatment.  Now, there probably is a big controversy regarding engine additives and, honestly, i really don't know.  But i do know that one of the proponents of "Prolong" was Smokey Yunick and he was not a B.S.er, nor was he a sellout.  And that is the only reason why i use it.

302.6 miles,  17.59 gallons to fill up.  $71.41  lasted about 5 days.

The only reason why i'm driving the truck everyday is because the cavalier, my daily driver, needs new brake pads and i ordered ceramics and they haven't come in yet;  The use of ceramics vs. semi-metallic, looking back on it, was probably unnessesary as the semi-metallics lasted 3.5 yrs.  But my philosophy is when you don't have monthly payments, you can afford to buy the best parts.

2) Here is a link to the economy special engine:
i've cut + pasted the info regarding the LE9 305 engine.  It is from wikipedia, so it's ok to cut and paste.  And, yes i am aware of the accuracy problems with wikipedia, but i think in this case the info is pretty accurate:

LE9
Years: 1981-1986

The LE9 305 was the truck/van version of the High Output 305. It also had flattop pistons for a 9.5:1 compression ratio, the "929" truck 350 camshaft for more torque, 14022601 casting heads featuring 1.84/1.50" valves and 53 cc chambers, a specially calibrated 4bbl Q-Jet, the weird hybrid centrifugal/vacuum advance distributor with ESC knock sensor setup, and lower restriction exhaust. The engine made 210 hp (157 kW) @ 4,600 and 250 lb·ft (339 N·m) @ 2,000 rpm.

Or you can scoll down to the LE9 section under the 305 section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Small-Block_engine


3) i'm thinking maybe i should have held out longer for a TBI truck or better yet a 4.3 tbi truck.

[SUX2BU99]

A truck high-output 305? Wow, never heard of it. And that was what they put in the "special economy" package? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense they would market it that way, since it made around 60 or more horse than the regular 305 in the trucks.  I'm trying to think in what application they would have sold that in the trucks. That made more power than the 350 too, if it indeed was 210 hp. A special economy 305 I believe, but one that makes more power than the rest I do not, when considering factory-built engines in the early 80s.

[Stewart G Griffin]

1) yes, this was, apparently, the "truck" hi-output version of the 305;  The monte carlo ss had the car version----L69.  Both were very good engines;  i'd like to duplicate either one. i think chevy marketed the engines along with the base engines due to cost----the special ones were higher priced;  The monte carlo ss's engine made more power AND got better mpg then the other monte carlos with 305.  So why would anyone want a base LG4 305?  Go figure?

2) For the forth "serving," the "honeymoon" is (possibly) over.  16.11  290 miles even and 18.0 gallons even.  $71.82.  i seem to be getting 5 days usage out of a tank.  The only explaination i have for the mpg drop is that i got caught in a bad traffic jam this time.  i couldn't shut the engine off because it was the kind where you creep up every few seconds etc.  This was for probably a 1/2 hour.  Also, there was a little more "city" driving this time.

3)Did any of the 73-87 have CCC and if so, it would be interesting to know what kind of mpg these trucks get?

[Captkaos]

LE9 was NOT the economy version of the 305. 
The economy version was the LG9.  It was a 2bbl 8.5:1 305 without the ESC.  It made 130hp and 240lb/ft and was only available in 1981.

Wikipedia is about as accurate as the person inputting the information, and that info is fairly broad and inaccurate.   In 1981 the LE9 only made 160hp and was the same in 1986 when it was replaced., it never saw 210hp.  It also was only 9.2:1, not 9.5:1.  LE9 was the base motor for all 81-86 trucks and it was the ONLY engine for 1/2T 2WD pickups from 81-86.

1986 I am pretty sure was the only year CCC was used...

[Stewart G Griffin]

Upon further research----checking the brochures, it turns out that the LE9 engine generally "only" made 160hp and 235 tq at 2000rpms, but in the 1/2 tons it made 185hp and 240torque at 2000rpms which is still pretty good.

It's unfortunate about wikipedia;  i guess the moral of the story is we really can't trust wikipedia all the time at this point.  I thought the 210hp was a bit of a stretch; Maybe they got it confused with the big-block which was rated at 210 for these model years.

[VileZambonie]

Wikipedia is good for nothing. Don't believe everything you read unless I wrote it 

[Captkaos]

And I proof read it... 

[SUX2BU99]

LOL You guys sound like my brother when he posts stuff about car audio. Few, if any, can challenge him though.

Heyyyyyyy, I'm pretty sure than my 81 Jimmy 2wd had that LG9 motor. It was an 81, did not have ESC, had a 2bbl 305 and........it was gutless  lol   And I sure don't remember it ever getting anything good for gas mileage. But hey, I was 17 and gas was 50 cents a litre (unlike $1.50 now). I wouldn't have noticed if it got good mileage anyway lol

I remember when I bought it in 1992 it did 0-60 in 14 sec. I had a tune-up done, put on a 10" open-element air cleaner and shaved 3 SECONDS off.  Too funny.

[DnStClr]

Gads I love this post.. LOL what happened to Sgt Del?

[Lt.Del]

what happened to Sgt Del?

As Buckweat would say,......"Here I is!"

Stewart wants us to get serious, so I had to bail.  Serious is no fun.  In actuality, when I said....

Move closer to Home Depot.

I was being half way serious. Moving closer to a Home Depot is not a bad idea, point being, if you live out in the sticks, you gotta pay for it.

When it comes to MPG, I really have no input.  My sub gets around 12 on good days, and my 383 stroker, well, she won't top that ('cause I like to keep my foot in it and pass a Ford each time I see one those duals sound so niiiishe). But, I live within 4 miles of three Lowe's, two Home Depots, three McDonald's, two libraries, and 3 WalMarts (no kidding).  Except when I am pulling my home on wheels on vacation (my 30' camper trailer), I don't use much gas because of my location.  In fact, wife, son and I went out to dinner tonight---had to travel a whole 1/2 mile to get to the restaraunt--which is right next to the Richmond Amtrak Station.  Son likes watching the trains go by. (we drove the Taurus [29mpg] to save gas.)

MPG?  who cares?  What is, is, and what ain't ain't.  How's that for the thought of the day?  Nuttin' much we can do about the trucks we drive. Besides, we don't have $700/month truck payments!  For some reason, an 80's era song comes to mind....ooohh,ooooh,ooooh, Don't worry, be happy....ooooh,ooohoooooh. 

Now I need to calculate which month I need to fill up my sub tank....maybe late August I'll drop another $130 on it--gotta start saving now--darn, why did we go out tonight when I could've fixed hotdogs for everyone for less than $2 and shown my son pics of trains?   

[VileZambonie]

3 Wal-Marts?! I would move! lol

[TexasRed]

With 3 Walmarts he can probably barely get outta the neighbourhood with all the traffic.

[Lt.Del]

I gotta say, it's convenient.  Not too much traffic, i live off the main highways so my street is kind of quiet.  It's rare to have a traffic jam 'round here---except on I 95 when accidents occur.  Three miles west is a pretty busy place w/ all the big stores.  4 miles north, same thing.  Two miles east is a pretty big shopping complex.   I am kind of centrally located.  Oh, I am 1.5 miles from work. 

[VileZambonie]

Wal-Mart, you'll never find a more

[Lt.Del]

Tell us what you really think