Agreed.

A lockup high stall t/c would be even better. That would generate 6-7% fuel economy improvement on the highway.

If there were a way to fit a lockup TC to the 722.3 I'd be all over it.

-J

I used to get that kind of mileage before I sold it to you.

Once you clear out the fuel system I bet you will jump 2 mpg.

After all said and done i am going to guess you will end up with 24-25mpg.

Actually, that's exactly what I meant, that most people drive faster than the test. Perhaps you should put your assumptions away before pontificating.

And, for the record, while I do use hypermiling techniques, I do also keep up with traffic and often am doing 80mph or more. Usually downhill of course....

I'd rather take the hit in fuel economy and drive faster, around here if you go 60-65 on the freeway you're going to be sent into the ditch by other drivers. Minimum truck speed for MI is 65 just for reference. For cars its 70, though most do around 80-85. :D I don't understand why so many other states drive like its 1940. Ohio/Indiana are the worst!

My TDI will average 46-47mpg on cruise at 79mph. At this point it comes down to technology....modern injection tech wins out.

You made the claim that the test is not representative of real world highway fuel economy and that folks can achieve better highway fuel economy than the EPA test.

Then you go on to suggest that most people drive faster than the test.

So, apparently, you conclude that driving faster results in better fuel economy figures.

You also claim to practice "hypermiling" and then go on to say that you often drive 80mph or more.

And you wish the forum to believe you can beat the EPA test, despite the fact that you're going nearly 20mph faster than the test.


Another ridiculous claim without the slightest shred of honesty.

Since you're wealthy and those five extra minutes are very important for you...........knock yourself out. Most folks are spending close to $4K on fuel with their consumption levels below 20 mpg. If that's OK...........have at it.

Great to see the project worked, the reduction in sound alone would be worth it.

Mine is creeping up on 300k. Found out my fan bearing bracket was my front oil leak, not the side of the timing case. Good news there.

Thanks Eric.

It's a fine vehicle with a transmission that shifts perfectly and it's supremely quiet. In fact, I recently forgot that I left it in 3rd and was on the highway with the engine turning 3K. Still, I hardly noticed it.

It's also got 150K less miles than the SD and it's a pleasure to drive a W126 that feels almost like new.

I could really be tempted to get rid of the diesel if I can get the combined fuel economy up to 24 on 89 octane. The fuel cost as compared to the diesel would be very close.

Are you down to the SD, one SDL, and the E38?

I love my SD again since I have that Sanden A/C kit is on there from Klima. Now I can drive it all year long. But that is not the topic of this thread, sorry.

24mpg seems attainable now that the motor is turning around 1000rpm less at speed, I have done 18-21mpg in the 300SEL before going between Houston and Dallas more than a few times. My speeds on that drive are usually 65-70mph... in the slow lane. Also depends on the season, once it becomes hot, I lose some econ due to running the compressor and the fan clutch being locked more often than not. Heat soak is a big issue here.

BTW, I have been burning 87 in my 300SEL for years now and no adverse issues have been noticed. Head was uncracked when removed for valve job, HG failed due to age (was the OE one, or OE replacement due to MB star), etc

Correct..........SD, SE, SDL (not running) and E38.

I'm doing better on the second tank. It appears that I might touch 290 miles at the 1/2 mark. This would be pushing it into the mid '23s. I'd be quite pleased with that prior to doing any engine adjustments.

Interesting that you mention the use of 87 for the M103. Nobody can quite figure out why this engine needs 91 octane for a compression of 10:1. I can state, with certainty, that it's perfectly fine on 89 and I'll run a few tanks of that before I drop down to 87.

The timing curves for this engine are not at all aggressive and I'd like to find a way to bump the timing a bit. I'm not sure if this can be done with the distributor because of the pickup that it has whereby it knows where zero is.

Yes. Are they mutually exclusive?

Yes.


No, YOU concluded that. I never at any time stated that going faster will yield better than EPA fuel efficiency. I simply stated that the EPA test does not properly reflect most peoples driving habits, and that most people drive faster than prescribed for the EPA test. The rest was your assumptionating.


Yes. Well, actually, I said "I use hypermiling techniques..." and I additionally stated that in regards to my 80mph driving, it was often downhill.

Again, Yes.
Except here you've made a leap in logic and assumed that my driving is always at 80mph. That's not what I said, is it? And your stated question there belies the fact that my average fuel economy could be high enough that the occasional 80mph jaunt doesn't bring the FE below the EPA average. Especially being that I was pretty clear in stating that while I often did 80mph, most of the time it was while I was going downhill. That highlighted part is very important, as its consideration prevents one from jumping to conclusions.

It's a good practise when you read, to parse the facts, the information given if you will, from the text, and then apply reason. Not to make up your own facts, but to use the information given. Here is a simple example.

Hypermile= most likely better than EPA fuel efficiency. Unlikely to accelerate uphill, or drag race from starts.
80mph= Oooh, not good for efficiency.
80mph, but downhill, = perhaps no negative effect to FE, or only a slight negative effect
80mph+ most of the time only when it's downhill= probably a negligible effect on overall FE.


I have my fuel and milage logs in my phone, my profile on fuelly, what actual proof do YOU have that substantiates your disbelief?

For the record, my best tank ever, in my 94 E320 was 519 miles. It worked out to 28.XXmpg and the average speed for that trip was just over 70mph. Los Angeles to Anthem, Arizona with some local Anthem driving included.

I also did a 447 mile round trip in my 94 E320 to San Luis Obispo with 3 teamates for a rugby game. All four of us were rugby forwards and probably had an average mass of ~240lbs (two props, a hooker, and a flanker/ 8th man (me, probably the lightest at 225lbs) The other guys (front rowers) are usually the heaviest players in a rugby team) and not only did we all have our individual kit bags in the trunk, but I also had the team kit (2 sets of jerseys (44 jerseys,) 35 pairs of rugby shorts, 30 odd pairs of socks, and a few random med kit items) a 24 bottle case of water and my tool kit. We averaged 70- 75 mph the whole way there AND back and I managed a fantastic 24.XXmpg for that fully loaded trip. Actually ABOVE the cars GVWR.

Additionally I did a round trip to Denver, Colorado, from here in Los Angeles, in my 300E 2.6 and frequently did 80mph, (I was trying to keep it 5- 10 over the entire way there and back) and even managed some 100mph jaunts in the middle of the night in Utah on the downhills in those eerie, awesome canyons. Even with some 6000 rpm 3rd gear ascents sprinkled in there, I managed a very healthy 25.XXmpg for the entire trip. That's a 15 City, 18 Combined, 21 Freeway EPA rated car.

Just because I employ "hypermiling techniques," doesn't mean I always practise every aspect of hypermiling, at every instance. I f@ck off with the best of them and have the speeding tickets to prove it. But I also reset my odometer and fill up completely every time I fill up and enter the data on my phone app. If I hadn't had to reset my phone (and therefore lost all my data) I would have gladly posted all my fuel and milage logs that then reflected a then 25.XXmpg average. I now use fuelly and will be able to substantiate my results in the future while you do nothing but blow hot air.

Since I no longer drive to Arizona twice a month (in the rugby off season,) and since i've stopped playing rugby (which necessitated away games in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Las Vegas, San Diego every year) my combined average has dropped to 23.48mpg. I can post those numbers if you want, but what will you say when confronted with actual facts, when the data refute your position? You have not a single datum to refute me, other than EPA estimates which, as i've already established, don't reflect my driving at all.

The vehicle is rated at 23 mpg highway per the EPA test.

You want the forum to believe you got over 28 while going 70 mph.

There isn't anything else to say.

Reminds me of the boys on the BMW forum getting 29 in their E-38's.

Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that your claims are fictitious.

We're done.

We speak B-M Trouble-U here?????

Yes, Facts are hard.

You should pay attention to what your signature says in the future. ;)