Going for 40 MPG, Let me hear your 2 Cents worth Options

[Root_Werks]

I think most also don't factor in cost of this high mpg figure.

A 40-ish mpg 914-4 isn't going to break the bank by any stretch.

A 45mpg Prius will set you back what, $45-50k?

Umm, gonna never see a return on that fuel savings vs another new car for $25k that would get 35mpg and be twice as fun let alone a decent little 914 for $5-8k.

[zymurgist]

Umm, gonna never see a return on that fuel savings vs another new car for $25k that would get 35mpg and be twice as fun let alone a decent little 914 for $5-8k.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) although the VW TDI contingent might not agree.

[DblDog]

Way back when...

I drove my 72, 1.7, which was about 2 or so years at the time, from Portland O, to the SF Bay area, a distance of about 640± miles. Tuned regularly, all stock, lowered slightly, 165 x 15 tires, top on, driving in the 60 to 65 mph range...many miles of straight line driving, weather was generally cool. Left about 7 am, got in about 8 pm, I-5 wasn't quite complete then...the mileage: 41.5± mpg. I was amazed...beside the mileage, I drove straight through...with one or two p stops.

As road trips go it was not as much fun as the drive up...many more stops!

[Al Meredith]

Back in the 70's there were several articles in "Hot VWs and Dunebuggies" on high mileage Type 1s. I still have some of these. The one I still want to build is a 2 cylinder. Very easy to do using the rear two jugs. Some airplane engines I'v seen use two on the same side. They bolt a plate over the other side. Cooling no issue as they are "slipstream" cooled. The other thing I remember from those high mileage engines is that you want a lot of rotating weight, IE heavy flywheel and front pully. I'll build a 2 cylinder one of these days.

[Dave_Darling]

Our little CRX ran about 2.5K at 65 MPH, so I wouldn't call that real tall gears.

My 2nd-gen Si runs 3000 RPM at 60 MPH. Short gearing. (0.771 5th, 4.25 final drive)

The 2nd-gen HF runs about 2000 RPM at 60 MPH. Much taller gearing. (0.695 5th, 2.95 final drive)


...An as I said, it is one of the reasons. The 2nd-gen HF had a 1.5L engine, but only made about 60 HP. The 1.5L "DX" (or standard model) made about 90 HP. The Si only had 100cc more displacement, and made 108 HP. Much worse mileage; EPA rating of about 30 on the freeway as opposed to 50 for the HF.



One reason that we don't see high MPG simple cars any more is because nobody will buy them. They fold up like accordions in a wreck, they don't carry much stuff or many people, they don't have 67 cupholders, there are no airbags, no ABS, no air conditioning, they accelerated from 0 to 60 MPH in about a month... They made compromises that were acceptable in the 60s, or 70s, or 80s, but that nobody is willing to make these days.

Don't blame today's cars for not being yesterday's cars.

--DD

[Rick_Eberle]

I got 42mpg driving from L.A. to Las Vegas in my 1.7 once. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Just once...
A head melted on the trip back. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[Elliot Cannon]

I think only one post even mentioned aerodynamics, which plays a huge roll in gas mileage. I like to run my car with roof off and windows rolled down as much as possible. With the 3.2 liter car I get 23 MPG with that configuration. With the roof on and at least the passenger side window up I get 26 MPG. A 3MPG difference just for putting on the roof and rolling up a window.

Cheers, Elliot

[Root_Werks]

Back in the 70's there were several articles in "Hot VWs and Dunebuggies" on high mileage Type 1s. I still have some of these. The one I still want to build is a 2 cylinder. Very easy to do using the rear two jugs. Some airplane engines I'v seen use two on the same side. They bolt a plate over the other side. Cooling no issue as they are "slipstream" cooled. The other thing I remember from those high mileage engines is that you want a lot of rotating weight, IE heavy flywheel and front pully. I'll build a 2 cylinder one of these days.

They did another series not to long ago as well. I believe they produced a Super Beetle with 100hp that was touching 40mpg averaged out. Pretty impresive.

If I remember correctly, the best combo they got was using little dual 34's, not the EFI kit, single carb combos or dual 36's or 40's etc. I wish I still had the magazine. I probably still do somewhere.

I think the EFI tunned for mpg lost power over the 34's, but only yeilded like 1mpg better than the carbs. Tuned for the same power as the carbs, it lost 2-3mpg vs the little carbs. It was a really good series. I read through it the same time I was building my mpg super beetle. It really brought to light the significance of tire size, pressure, alignment, body CD, brake drag etc. Lowering the beetle too much didn't help, but some did and so on.

Very good series. It's probably online somewhere.

[realred914]

I got theese figures from a french magazine called "Autojournal". The figures come from three different issues from 1970 to 1973.
The test was always made at the same place: Montlhery speed track.

Mpg are mesured at constant speed in fifth gear, so they are the best you can reach.
The tests are made with regular cars with regular tires at regular pressure (the 1.7 had 155 tires).
Targa top in on, windows closed, headlights are turned off and there is only the driver on board.

These figures are for european cars wthith slightly higher compression and may be a little better than the US cars...

As you can see, you better drive slowly if you want to achieve 40 mpg, but it is doable with a regular 1.7 914.

remember to subtract about 4-6 mpg from the peak value shown onthe chart to account for todays oxygenated fuel that has about 10-15% less energy content per gallon than the typical fuel found when this report was written.

that 40 mpg quoated could be translated to low as 34 mpg with the "improved " gasoline forced on some of us.

all my cars dropped this percentage in mpg when they switched to the reformulated fuel. (plus the price per gallon went up )

[Katmanken]

Ain't the green thought process wonderful.

You go to a lot of trouble to figure out how to to better yer mileage, and they diddle the fuel to reduce your mileage.

[swl]

ain't that the truth. so many shades of green. Sustainability versus air quality versus global warming. only answer is going back to living in caves. I'm working on converting my old teener to the fred flintstone look. rust is doing most of the work for me.

[majkos]

Somebody say RUST?

[majkos]

This 914 wasn't getting 40 MPG!
Time to lighten her up (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happy11.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sawzall-smiley.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smash.gif)

[computers4kids]

This thread has peaked my curiousity.
As many of you know, I have a stock 1.8 ljet with an Audi automatic. I've never checked the gas mileage. Now the tub is a 75 and currently has the anchor bumpers and is completely stock, except it does have an early 2ltr exhaust system (exhchangers, banana muffler, no cat).

Any predictions for gas mileage?

1st = 2.71
2nd = 1.50
3rd = 1.00
Rev = 2.43
Final = 3.45