Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
914World.com _ 914World Garage _ whats the best mpg
Posted by: messix Sep 12 2005, 10:46 PM
on the a road run with the guys last month on back roads not even taken it easy i got 29.5mpg.
i'm trying something this tank while drivin to an fro to work, 8 miles of surface streets and a little freeway. short shift [edit; i ment skip shift] using 1st , 3rd, and 5th.
all on flat easy roads. use brakes only not down shifting while decel. or stopping.
its hard to not just row through the gears, but i'll try my best.
Posted by: Pugbug Sep 12 2005, 10:59 PM
Downshifting while decelerating does not use gas, but not downshifting wears brakes faster.
I haven't checked my mileage....but not using nearly as much as my pickup, so i don't care... Gassed up today... $1.29 for a litre of 92 grade! 4.55 litres per imperial gallon. Yikes!
Posted by: MattR Sep 12 2005, 11:12 PM
0 miles
1 gallon of gas
2 jackstands
Posted by: smg914 Sep 12 2005, 11:13 PM
Back in the 70's on a trip from New Jersey to Lynchburg Virginia I went 550 miles on one tank full in my 1973 914 2.0.
Posted by: lapuwali Sep 12 2005, 11:20 PM
| QUOTE (Pugbug @ Sep 12 2005, 08:59 PM) |
| Downshifting while decelerating does not use gas, but not downshifting wears brakes faster. I haven't checked my mileage....but not using nearly as much as my pickup, so i don't care... Gassed up today... $1.29 for a litre of 92 grade! 4.55 litres per imperial gallon. Yikes! |
So, would you rather use brake pads to slow the car, or use the clutch to slow the car? SOMETHING has to slip, and brake pads are a lot easier and cheaper to replace than clutches...
Posted by: pete-stevers Sep 12 2005, 11:23 PM
Well....the worst gas milage I got was when a gas line poped of, the motor shut off, I tried to start the car a couple of times....yup the ground was covered in gas, a nice big puddle.....but yippie 
...no fire,
sorry for the 
Posted by: Joe Sharp Sep 12 2005, 11:27 PM
Soo,,, What is this, most of us don't have wdorking odometers and the rest are too embarassed to say?????
:PERMAGRIN: Joe
Posted by: messix Sep 12 2005, 11:38 PM
if i understand l-jet f/i correctly the air valve senses fuel demand by how much air goes thru it. there for even when the throttle is closed there is still air going by the the throttle plate for idle. now under the high "vaccum" of decel. the engine is pulling more air passed the throttle plate even though its closed and this greater volume of air being sensed by the air valve and is firing longer fuel pulses to the injectors.
do i have this right or wrong
Posted by: redshift Sep 12 2005, 11:40 PM
I dunno... I cheat.
I had this Saab, with all that information up to the second.. I loved doing the back side of hills in that thing... "Ahhh 143 miles per gallon.. I rock"...
M
Posted by: redshift Sep 12 2005, 11:43 PM
| QUOTE (messix @ Sep 13 2005, 01:38 AM) |
| do i have this right or wrong |
If the TPS is at idle, that's how much gas is flowing... I am pretty sure.
M
Posted by: Travis Neff Sep 13 2005, 12:00 AM
With my recently transplanted injected 2056 I think I got in the neighborhood of 23mpg, mixed driving. Engine had sat for a year, then before that it sat longer - so I think I have some crap in the injectors, all other components check out fine (mps was tested and charted by Brad Anders).
With the injected 1.7 I got 34mpg going out to WCC.
Gotta figure out why the mileage isn't that great in the 2.0
Posted by: V6914 Sep 13 2005, 01:22 AM
After, all these years, collecting speedo's, I finally got one with a working odometer, and I just checked it the other day, 21.4, and thats with a 2.6 4 cyl with 48 Dell's and I would get more if I could keep my foot out of it 
Posted by: Gustl Sep 13 2005, 01:23 AM
if someone could tell me the conversion from liter to gallon I could calculate ...
normally my 1.8 L-Jet is about 8.5 - 9.0 liter on 100 km*
but I didn't try to save on fuel yet - the teener is my hobby, not my daily driver 
* 100 km = 62.5 miles (AFAIK)
Posted by: SpecialK Sep 13 2005, 02:39 AM
My '74 2.0L got 50.7 mpg on a 180 mile leg of a trip from Chicago to St. Louis...all highway. After I fixed all of the vacuum leaks 
it got significantly worse (time to start pokin' some holes in stuff!)
Posted by: Hammy Sep 13 2005, 02:44 AM
| QUOTE (lapuwali @ Sep 12 2005, 10:20 PM) | ||
So, would you rather use brake pads to slow the car, or use the clutch to slow the car? SOMETHING has to slip, and brake pads are a lot easier and cheaper to replace than clutches... |
So do I downshift or not?
Posted by: cbenitah Sep 13 2005, 03:13 AM
| QUOTE (Gustl @ Sep 12 2005, 11:23 PM) |
| if someone could tell me the conversion from liter to gallon I could calculate ... normally my 1.8 L-Jet is about 8.5 - 9.0 liter on 100 km* but I didn't try to save on fuel yet - the teener is my hobby, not my daily driver * 100 km = 62.5 miles (AFAIK) |
1 L = 10 DL = 100 CL = 1000 ML
1 Gallon = 3.7854118 L
Little help from Sweden
Posted by: iamchappy Sep 13 2005, 06:22 AM
I was able to get 72 while averaging 90 to 105 mph on a cross country trip.
Posted by: BarberDave Sep 13 2005, 06:26 AM
From Maumee to Effingham Ill. for the Fun Fest 37 MPG
Return 39 MPG about 400 miles each leg all but 50 miles Xway.
Iam leaving Fri For Kerrys event in Eastern Pa. Map Quest says 502 miles all turnpike will post results Mon.
1.7with small Webers 34's Dave
Posted by: Gint Sep 13 2005, 06:43 AM
Bay area to Denver, all highway, averaged 44 mpg in a 72 1.7.
Posted by: Gustl Sep 13 2005, 08:00 AM
| QUOTE (cbenitah @ Sep 13 2005, 11:13 AM) | ||
1 L = 10 DL = 100 CL = 1000 ML 1 Gallon = 3.7854118 L Little help from Sweden |
now that was really helpful
if my calculation was correct, my teener goes about 27.8 mpg - through Tyrolean mountains and so
I'd say not that bad ...
Posted by: DblDog Sep 13 2005, 08:48 AM
Salem, Oregon to the east bay (Oakland),,,non stop, all highway: 42 mpg, all stock 72 1.7. it was about 600+ miles. Part of Oregon and Nor Cal are really BORING! 
Posted by: JmuRiz Sep 13 2005, 09:45 AM
I got 31mpg when I picked up my car, from Altanta to DC. That's with a 2.0 with webber 40's and going about 72mph the whole trip. Not so bad for a new-buy that hadn't been tuned up correctly.
Posted by: davep Sep 13 2005, 11:09 AM
Back in the old days I used to calculate my mileage. With a '73 1.7 I used to get about 37 mpg on average. On long trips I could get around 50 mpg. I agree with Steve, 550 miles per tank was not unknown. One trip I calculated that on a portion of it I got close to 60 mpg.
Posted by: Brando Sep 13 2005, 11:11 AM
1.8 with L-Jet. Changed to early 2.0 exhaust, no muffler, took off the 'snorkel' to my airbox and that's it. Valves are seriously out of adjustment.
I still average 28.4 mpg highway driving only (keepin the tach between 3000 & 3200 RPMs).
Much less for stop & go street traffic, of course. Somewhere around 18-22 (I get the RPMs up to 4500 & 5000 in 2nd and 3rd alot in street traffic).
Posted by: goose2 Sep 13 2005, 12:25 PM
1.7 D-Jet: 32 mpg mixed driving
2.4 carbed six: 21 mpg mixed (very hard not to put your foot down)
Posted by: Bleyseng Sep 13 2005, 12:26 PM
I got 31.5mpg coming back from Aminity, Ore a few yrs ago. That was driving 80-90 mph at night on I-5
Posted by: Marty Yeoman Sep 13 2005, 01:07 PM
I'm shocked at how many working odometers there are on this thread.
Maybe everybody just estimates like me!
Posted by: jd74914 Sep 13 2005, 01:10 PM
| QUOTE (Pugbug @ Sep 12 2005, 11:59 PM) |
| Downshifting while decelerating does not use gas, but not downshifting wears brakes faster. |
It also wears out piston rings. I personally would rather replace brake pads.
Posted by: goose2 Sep 13 2005, 01:15 PM
| QUOTE |
| I personally would rather replace brake pads. |
brake pads much cheaper than clutches and gear parts.
Posted by: Joe Ricard Sep 13 2005, 01:30 PM
There are some tall tales about milage. Some of ya'll are full of it.
My red Neck Racer gets such good gas milage that every 100 miles I have to take gas out so it don't spill out the filler neck. 
Posted by: airsix Sep 13 2005, 01:31 PM
If you get more than 27mpg then you are either running lean or you drive too slow. 
Last summer I was doing tuning on the turbo and got 4mpg one afternoon (20 miles/ 5 gal.). Basically 20 miles at full throttle. I can understand why Jake needs so much fuel for his dyno runs. Under normal driving I get about 27mpg highway.
-Ben M.
Posted by: davep Sep 13 2005, 01:48 PM
| QUOTE (Joe Ricard @ Sep 13 2005, 11:30 AM) |
| There are some tall tales about milage. Some of ya'll are full of it. |
No tall tales on my part. Mine was done cruising at 70 mph. Also, it was using stock tires, 165SR15. When I went to 185/70VR15 CN36's the mileage went down. Like everything else, it depends on conditions.
Posted by: cooltimes Sep 13 2005, 03:19 PM
The Year was1970
1970 Porsche 914 1.7 (less than a month old)
Memphis TN to Panama City FL
via Jackson MS to Hattiesburg MS to Mobile AL to PC Florida
Distance of route taken =565 miles
914 Fuel tank 16.4
answer = 34 mpg using Premium gas
Total one way cost for fuel for the trip was about $6 or less.
And most thought the years 2000 on were going to be the good old days..... Flying cars, fueled by atoms.
Posted by: merrill Sep 13 2005, 04:07 PM
I drove my 1.7 FI from Seattle to Reno and averaged 36 mpg for the trip.
My new 2.0 with webbers gets 29 when I don't get into it and 22-24 when "I drive it like I stole it!".
Posted by: redshift Sep 13 2005, 04:23 PM
I put my motor in overrun.. it's still going to last around 90-100k before it needs a new car.. just like all the ones before it. (hopefully)
Oh, and on the teener miles per gallon, usually averaged, over 20 years, prolly about 20mpg.
M
Posted by: theol00 Sep 13 2005, 04:32 PM
....sounds like fishing stories to me - my Weber carburated 2.2 6cyl makes about 240 -260 miles on one tank - on a good day 
Posted by: airsix Sep 13 2005, 05:00 PM
Seems like a lot of people with carbs are getting good mileage. Too good. Sounds like lean mixtures to me.
-Ben M.
Posted by: SirAndy Sep 13 2005, 05:46 PM
| QUOTE (davep @ Sep 13 2005, 10:09 AM) |
| Back in the old days I used to calculate my mileage. With a '73 1.7 I used to get about 37 mpg on average. On long trips I could get around 50 mpg. I agree with Steve, 550 miles per tank was not unknown. One trip I calculated that on a portion of it I got close to 60 mpg. |
now here is what really irritates me ...
back in the days when the 914s were new, they were considered "gas-guzzlers" in germany.
at 30+ mpg ...
now, 35 years later (!) i just saw a commercial for some totally redesigned, totally new and totally fuel economical honda and they boast that it gets 30 mpg like this was pure magick ...
35 freaking years later!
am i the only one thinking this is nuts?
Andy
Posted by: Flat VW Sep 13 2005, 05:54 PM
| QUOTE (Travis Neff @ Sep 12 2005, 10:00 PM) |
With the injected 1.7 I got 34mpg going out to WCC. Gotta figure out why the mileage isn't that great in the 2.0 |
The 1.7 cars are great like that, NOT drag racers, without a doubt, but fantastic range, 34-35mpg Highway with a 75-80 Mph cruise.
John
Posted by: BIGKAT_83 Sep 13 2005, 05:56 PM
| QUOTE (Joe Ricard @ Sep 13 2005, 03:30 PM) |
| There are some tall tales about milage. Some of ya'll are full of it. My red Neck Racer gets such good gas milage that every 100 miles I have to take gas out so it don't spill out the filler neck. |
Some of these threads need to start with THIS IS NO BULLSHIT.
Bob
Posted by: type47fan Sep 13 2005, 06:44 PM
| QUOTE (Flat VW @ Sep 13 2005, 04:54 PM) |
The 1.7 cars are great like that, NOT drag racers, without a doubt, but fantastic range, 34-35mpg Highway with a 75-80 Mph cruise. |
Back in the late '70s, I drove my '72 1.7 120 miles round trip to work, 5 days/week and averaged between 36 - 38 MPG. Did this for 4 years on 165SR15 Michelins at 36 psi. However, I felt fortunate if I ever got over 26 MPG in my '76 2.0.
Posted by: buck toenges Sep 13 2005, 07:05 PM
I drove from cincinnati Oh to Daytona beach fl back in 1979 for spring break. Gas was .69 a gallon(which was outrageous) It cost us $14.00 to drive 900 miles..... You do the math.
Posted by: redshift Sep 13 2005, 07:27 PM
| QUOTE (buck toenges @ Sep 13 2005, 09:05 PM) |
| I drove from cincinnati Oh to Daytona beach fl back in 1979 for spring break. Gas was .69 a gallon(which was outrageous) It cost us $14.00 to drive 900 miles..... You do the math. |
2028.985 gallons?
M
Posted by: effutuo101 Sep 13 2005, 08:31 PM
San Jose to San Diego with a friend driving...26 MPG. San Diego to Denver...24 MPG...wife driving. She drives like she stole it. I don't know the speed, but she was clocking 26 - 32 second miles for hours. we made a 400 mile run in 4 hours 15 minutes....Yes, I take lessons from her!
Posted by: Howard Sep 13 2005, 08:53 PM
That's nuttin'! One trip to Willow Springs I averaged 9750 mpg with the 2.0.
Send me $5 for setup and pictures.
Duh! I was towing it, ya nitwits. 97.5 miles estimate 1/10 of a gallon evaporation.
Posted by: airsix Sep 13 2005, 09:30 PM
| QUOTE (SirAndy @ Sep 13 2005, 03:46 PM) |
| now, 35 years later (!) i just saw a commercial for some totally redesigned, totally new and totally fuel economical honda and they boast that it gets 30 mpg like this was pure magick ... 35 freaking years later! am i the only one thinking this is nuts? Andy |
The engines are more efficient today, but the problem is the cars now weigh 7,000 pounds and the average American weighs 300. If a modern car weighed 2,000 pounds and the driver and passenger each weighed 150 that Honda would get 45mpg.
-Ben M.
Posted by: SirAndy Sep 13 2005, 11:27 PM
| QUOTE (airsix @ Sep 13 2005, 08:30 PM) |
| but the problem is the cars now weigh 7,000 pounds |
nope, the car in the ad was some small-size compact. no SUV or anything ...
you know, toyota camry style car ... 30 mpg and they were mighty proud of it ...
what a heap of bull
Andy
Posted by: Brando Sep 13 2005, 11:43 PM
SUV - nearly 6000 lbs.
Our cars... 1800 - 2200 lbs.
Get down to the 1800lb mark, a nice 200HP motor... you'll get good fuel economy cruising 
Posted by: Joe Ricard Sep 14 2005, 05:17 AM
Speaking of fuel milage .... Jake when are we going to see some results from the the Super 2 liter. 50MPG in a bug would be pretty cool.
Just don't let the Government find out they will make you stop and start driving a an SUV.
Posted by: dmenche914 Sep 14 2005, 11:22 AM
keep in mind in the good ole days before gasoline became oxygenated, the BTU content of the gasoline was higher, and thus you could travel more per gallon. When oxygenated gas was forced in californazia we were told in the news to expect 10-15% drop in MPG. Sure enough, I lost 3-5 MPG on all my cars that had been getting 30 -35 mpg.
So keep in mind the type of gasoline you use in your MPG comparisions.
The 1.7 engine gets considerably better mileage than the 2.0 engine
Posted by: Jake Raby Sep 14 2005, 05:17 PM
I took my dad to the Doctor today in Atlanta in the 912E... Running the RAT/ SDS EFI leaned a bit I was able to get almost 38 MPG while running 75-85 MPH!!!!
Anyway- The Super 2 Liter is finished and is only wairting on detail and powdercoat before it'll hit the dyno.
Posted by: SpecialK Sep 14 2005, 05:42 PM
| QUOTE (dmenche914 @ Sep 14 2005, 11:22 AM) |
| keep in mind in the good ole days before gasoline became oxygenated, the BTU content of the gasoline was higher, and thus you could travel more per gallon. When oxygenated gas was forced in californazia we were told in the news to expect 10-15% drop in MPG. Sure enough, I lost 3-5 MPG on all my cars that had been getting 30 -35 mpg. So keep in mind the type of gasoline you use in your MPG comparisions. The 1.7 engine gets considerably better mileage than the 2.0 engine |
I'm not pickin' up what you're layin' down.
If that's the case, then why didn't the "new" 1.7L 914's get like 40 - 50 mpg right out of the box?
I got 48 - 50 mpg (running lean for sure [vacuum leak city]) running crappy IL ethanol (10%) from Chicago to St. Louis, and it ran like a raped ape all the way without a buck or sputter.
If your theory was the case, I'd still be on the same tank of gas! 
Posted by: Qarl Sep 14 2005, 06:02 PM
| QUOTE |
| If a modern car weighed 2,000 pounds and the driver and passenger each weighed 150 that Honda would get 45mpg. |
Close... the Elise (at 1950 lbs) gets 29-32 mpg with it's 1.8L Toyota 2zz-ge engine.
That's combo city/highway driving. Some owners have reported up to 34 mpg with mostly highway driving.
Of course, due to it's high reving nature, it's no Honda.
I remember always getting about 29-32 mpg with the 914 (1.8Ls).
Posted by: dmenche914 Sep 15 2005, 03:40 PM
What you need to pick up from what i lay down is that the "new" gas in california that is oxygenated has about 10-15% less enegy per gallon than did the old gas. This means more gallons burned to do the same work. On non-feedback cars (pre-O2 sensors), the engines would run lean on this mixure, thus it was widely recommended on carbed cars to up the jet size if car ran too lean. or tweek FI as needed. Cars with feed back (O2 sensors) would automatically make this adjustment. At anyrate, you would lose about 10-15% mpg with this new gas. I experinced the decrease in milage on my cars as predicted in the news when this new gas came out. Other issues with the new gas was incompatibility with some of the materials used in older fuel systems, resulting in gas leaks in older cars (I had no personnal experience with this.)
The oxygenated gas added O2, but O2 has no BTU value. The added O2 resulted in less fuel (ie BTU's) per a gallon of gas, hence less power and mileage.
Footnote: we also got a price increase with the new less efficient gas.
Posted by: goose2 Sep 15 2005, 03:46 PM
I posed this question on the Pelican board too: If you wanted to configure a 914 for maximum fuel economy, what would you do? Assume a 1.7 gas engine...or some other nearly bolt-in VW/Porsche power.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)