Non lock up Gas mileage check in !

[V8killR4U]

What are you guys seeings during city and highway driving with your non lock up trans?

Im trying to decide if its worth going back to Lock up?

What would be the rpm difference in OD when crusing at round 75-80 on the highway?

 

[turbo nasty]

L/u is going to be about 300 or so rpm difference lower vs. a good effic non l/u convertor.

 

[bison]

I got 21 mpg highway with a NL combo similar to the one i have in the black car in my sig but the comp ratio was 9.1:1. Overall its around 16 mpg. I dont care much about mpg though. I didnt ever own a TR to have a ***** foot while driving it. The difference between lock and non lock in most instances is about 1.5 mpg. Not worth it imo.

 

[brian]

The difference between lock and non lock in most instances is about 1.5 mpg. Not worth it imo.[/QUOTE]


X`s 2

Did you make any headway on your "quirks"?

 

[Brer Rabbit]

Ive seen a bit more than that I think.

On the way back from the Buick Meet in Iowa a few years ago I was on fumes when I got off the expressway and the Wrath (boardmember) had a half a tank still.We had both topped off at the same time and we were taking it easy all the way backaround 60 -65mph. I Dont remember the overall distance traveled but a half of a tank is a lot of gas no matter how U look at it. Maybe its not the 300 rpms that make such a difference. Im no expert by any means but dont the efficiency factors come into play in this scenario?

 

[bison]

On the way back from the Buick Meet in Iowa a few years ago I was on fumes when I got off the expressway and the Wrath (boardmember) had a half a tank still.We had both topped off at the same time and we were taking it easy all the way backaround 60 -65mph. I Dont remember the overall distance traveled but a half of a tank is a lot of gas no matter how U look at it. Maybe its not the 300 rpms that make such a difference. Im no expert by any means but dont the efficiency factors come into play in this scenario?

Theres a lot of factors that could change the mpg. If you have an 8.0:1 engine with a cam over 200@.050 you are going to give up a few regardless of the converter. Thats if the tune is good and the blm is at 128 cruising. If you have a blm issue thenthe mog could be way worse . If you were truly on fumes then you would have put in about 16.5 gallons when you re-filled. How do you know he had half a tank? Did he also top off after the trip? The stock fuel tank capacity is listed as 18.1 gallons. That would mean he put in about 7.5 gallons vs. your 16.5 if you had about 1.5 gallons left in the tank. The stock sending units are notorious for being off a bunch so they arent worth s_hit when trying to figure out mpg. You have to fill drive then re-fill and do the math to get anything that is accurate. I find it hard to believe you used 2x as much fuel as your friend unless you had a tune issue and the blm was way below 128 for the entire cruise. Ive used locking and non locking converters in the same cars with the same combo with no other difference but the converter and the difference in the most extreme case was about 1.5mpg. If you built a 9.0-9.5:1 engine with a stock cam or one not much bigger than that and set the car up for lean cruise by stand alone or a TT chip and had a light foot and everything else was good then i would expect high 20's and maybe even 30mpg with a converter locked on the highway.

 

[V8killR4U]

The difference between lock and non lock in most instances is about 1.5 mpg. Not worth it imo.

X`s 2

Did you make any headway on your "quirks"?[/QUOTE]

No changes yet. I will try drilling the holes in the bracket like you suggested and if that doesnt work, then back to the drawing board.

Im thinking I dont want to even try fixing the trans, that may open another can of worms trying to re engineer someones elses work. I may just start fresh, sometimes its better that way. I was gona call you last night but wasnt sure if I was going non LU or LU. I think Im going to stay non Lock Up based on everyones comments. Doesnt look like I'll be losing to much rpm on the highway or to much MPG

 

[Bobs rare 6]

I have got over 26mpg. running 70 with a\c on with ac n\l . Later, Bob.

 

[Brer Rabbit]

Im sure the tune was off

Theres a lot of factors that could change the mpg. If you have an 8.0:1 engine with a cam over 200@.050 you are going to give up a few regardless of the converter. Thats if the tune is good and the blm is at 128 cruising. If you have a blm issue thenthe mog could be way worse . If you were truly on fumes then you would have put in about 16.5 gallons when you re-filled. How do you know he had half a tank? Did he also top off after the trip? The stock fuel tank capacity is listed as 18.1 gallons. That would mean he put in about 7.5 gallons vs. your 16.5 if you had about 1.5 gallons left in the tank. The stock sending units are notorious for being off a bunch so they arent worth s_hit when trying to figure out mpg. You have to fill drive then re-fill and do the math to get anything that is accurate. I find it hard to believe you used 2x as much fuel as your friend unless you had a tune issue and the blm was way below 128 for the entire cruise. Ive used locking and non locking converters in the same cars with the same combo with no other difference but the converter and the difference in the most extreme case was about 1.5mpg. If you built a 9.0-9.5:1 engine with a stock cam or one not much bigger than that and set the car up for lean cruise by stand alone or a TT chip and had a light foot and everything else was good then i would expect high 20's and maybe even 30mpg with a converter locked on the highway.

I was running a gen 6 dfi at the time and I did have a knock issue when I jumped on it so Im sure it was off to an extent. We talked on the cell phones a few times towards the end of the trip. We stuck together incase someone broke, I was shocked when he told me that he had a 1/2 tank and I was running out. I didnt fill it up because I wanted to run race gas later that week to try and determine if I was getting false knock. Car is much better now but I attribute that to the 3.08 gearing.

 

[brian]

Im thinking I dont want to even try fixing the trans, that may open another can of worms trying to re engineer someones elses work. I may just start fresh, sometimes its better that way. I was gona call you last night but wasnt sure if I was going non LU or LU. I think Im going to stay non Lock Up based on everyones comments. Doesnt look like I'll be losing to much rpm on the highway or to much MPG [/QUOTE]

Just let me know. We can do it either way. We have the technology!
Better before things get messed up in what you have.:smile:

 

[bison]

I was running a gen 6 dfi at the time and I did have a knock issue when I jumped on it so Im sure it was off to an extent. We talked on the cell phones a few times towards the end of the trip. We stuck together incase someone broke, I was shocked when he told me that he had a 1/2 tank and I was running out. I didnt fill it up because I wanted to run race gas later that week to try and determine if I was getting false knock. Car is much better now but I attribute that to the 3.08 gearing.

So he stated he had a half tank. Maybe an indicated half tank? I doubt he had a half tank in reality. What was your cruising a/f? MAybe you had a pre O2 sensor exhaust leak? That would explain a couple mpg down the drain. The ECM is trying to add fuel to an already rich mixture if you have an oxygen leak pre sensor. Ive seen a lot of cars recently with problems like this when trying to get a stand alone dialed in. Not just TR's either. Mostly on LS engines.

 

[SITHV6]

better MPG than a Mini cooper!

Dont know if you all remember the 1996 january issue of Car Craft...But they had a "real street eliminator shootout" series for a bit and the Turbo buick was always on top when entered... First shootout had an 85 el camino with 86/87 Turbo Buick motor and WON overall and had an average of 28.57 mpg for the gas mileage competition...This 96 edition shootout had an 87 t-type with a mostly stock ta-49, 40#inj, stock 200R4 With Art Carr valve body drivetrain and got 46.17!!! and the car was running 12.87 @108! I can see how this can be obtained since i was getting close to 37mpg if i babied it on the highway during my cross country trips to el paso from miami! If i remember a Kenne-bell tech article stating these cars cruise at 1800 rpm around 60-65mph. and this was with a factory Lock-up. I've since then gone to a KB 9/11L/U 40#s (Soon 60'S) and now a comp 210/215 rollor.... lets see if i get the same mpg! lol. So overall est 500hp at 37mpg with a lock up MUST mean something??? Viper performance at Geo mileage!!! WooHoo!

 

[bison]

Dont know if you all remember the 1996 january issue of Car Craft...But they had a "real street eliminator shootout" series for a bit and the Turbo buick was always on top when entered... First shootout had an 85 el camino with 86/87 Turbo Buick motor and WON overall and had an average of 28.57 mpg for the gas mileage competition...This 96 edition shootout had an 87 t-type with a mostly stock ta-49, 40#inj, stock 200R4 With Art Carr valve body drivetrain and got 46.17!!! and the car was running 12.87 @108! I can see how this can be obtained since i was getting close to 37mpg if i babied it on the highway during my cross country trips to el paso from miami! If i remember a Kenne-bell tech article stating these cars cruise at 1800 rpm around 60-65mph. and this was with a factory Lock-up. I've since then gone to a KB 9/11L/U 40#s (Soon 60'S) and now a comp 210/215 rollor.... lets see if i get the same mpg! lol. So overall est 500hp at 37mpg with a lock up MUST mean something??? Viper performance at Geo mileage!!! WooHoo!

Those mpg numbers sound a little out of kilter since the new series III 3800 doesnt even come close to that with much better engine tech, more compression, small roller cam , less rolling resistance, better aerodynamics, etc. A lot of info in magazines is erroneous. They may have only driven 50-100 miles and topped off better the first time and not as much the second time when getting the gallons used info. The car needs to be driven a long distance with a verified trip mileage. Ive seen TR's with the wrong speedo gear combos be way off. I have never seen anymore than about 30 mpg that could be verifed. I got 30mpg myself but it was with a higher comp ratio and a relatively small cam and converter locked.
HAS ANYONE EVER ELSE EVER BEEN ABLE TO DOCUMENT MORE THAN 30 MPG?Remember the factory sticker was a 17/25. I highly doubt you will be getting more than 10% over that in almost all driving conditions unless you are increasing the comp ratio and reducing rolling resistance and drag to a great extent.

 

[SITHV6]

this could expensive but FUN!...

According to the Car Craft RSE article...they topped off the cars first to get zeroed right before going on a 61 miles course from Palmdale CA to San Bernadino CA. Sounds to me the fueling conditions were fine. As for my personal experiences...I was stationed at Ft Bliss in El Paso for 3 years and every Christmas I would drive home. Traffic thru Texas varied a lot those 3 years so i cant get a baseline where my first fuel stop was... BUT i do know for a fact that i would top off here in Miami and drive from turnpike to I-75 to I-10 AND REFUEL THE FIRST TIME at a Mobil gas station at the end of a long A$$ bridge at pensacola just at the alabama border. Dont know how far it is from miami to pensacola but i'm sure its a hella more than 25mpg capable. at the time car had a LOT of Kenne Bell bolt ons, OEM 200R4, and a completely stock unopened motor . well...i actually DID replace the factory POS metal intake gasket that rusted.... Not to mention at the very first Buicks at Bristol event I went from my driveway in miami to the savanah GA area for my first refuel before pushing on to stop at Boone NC to sleep (this was with a KB 9/11 convertor and lucas 40#s with hotwire pump, stock cam and GN1s ).
Come towards the end of this month once the Brick gets out of the shop I'm going to see AND DOCUMENT what MPG a combination of GN1s...TE44 ...40#s...comp 210/215 roller...KB 9/11LU...and BGC intake can do on a cross florida trip...with todays prices...gonna be expensive lol.

 

[bmackinnon]

Briefly, that crazy MPG that Heath Elmer got way back when in the CC RSE competition WAS correct.... but you gotta remember, the car was running a chip done by THE!! GM EFI calibration engineer/GURU(!) who was working for Delphi or Delco, so it was some super-trick calibration/programming in there that resulted in those numbers. Definitely WAY lean/advanced and who knows what else for the hiway cruise portion of the contest. Same guy who did the Thrasher chip, then got sued/threatened/blackmailed by an un-named popular TR vendor, threatening to 'get him fired' from his job if he didn't get out of the aftermarket chip business.... which he did.... :frown: I want to say it was Kent Chu, but that's not him... longtime board members know the whole story... doubt they want to elaborate....

Brian (Thrasher equipped... :biggrin: )

 

[bison]

Briefly, that crazy MPG that Heath Elmer got way back when in the CC RSE competition WAS correct.... but you gotta remember, the car was running a chip done by THE!! GM EFI calibration engineer/GURU(!) who was working for Delphi or Delco, so it was some super-trick calibration/programming in there that resulted in those numbers. Definitely WAY lean/advanced and who knows what else for the hiway cruise portion of the contest. Same guy who did the Thrasher chip, then got sued/threatened/blackmailed by an un-named popular TR vendor, threatening to 'get him fired' from his job if he didn't get out of the aftermarket chip business.... which he did.... :frown: I want to say it was Kent Chu, but that's not him... longtime board members know the whole story... doubt they want to elaborate....

Brian (Thrasher equipped... :biggrin: )

You cant go much leaner than 16.5:1 on gas or it will lose power from mis-fries. That may give you one or two more mpg. Not 20. No chip burning "Guru" is going to wring out those numbers either. Your not going to get nearly 2x the energy out of the same amount of fuel when both cars have the same technology. It would have been duplicated by now for sure. No one has ever been able to even come close to that number. Its only been 10 years since then and the tech hasnt really evolved that much .

A 61 mile cruise between topping off isnt going to give you an accurate number at all. I can always squeeze in another gallon when the fuel is just about pouring out of the neck if i pump it slow. You would need to drive at least 200 miles to get a somewhat accurate number. The longer the distance driven and the more fuel used the more accurate the number. No 46 mpg though. Not going to happen. Maybe they pissed in the fuel tank after eating a lot of spicy food or something to give it a little more mpg. Most of what magazines print is a bunch of crap imo.