How's this for depressing? Reply #15 – April 15, 2006, 06:35:30 PM Might have a chance at a job on the other side of the county. If it looks like I'll be getting something like that, I think I'll be looking into getting something really efficient like an old '90-ish CRX or Civic 2-door hatchback. (don't worry, it won't be riced.. I like NOT being noticed) Won't be getting rid of the '86 or '89 or truck to make room for it, though.I'd love whipping up some Fox-based experiment on fuel efficiency.. like maybe a 4-door Fairmont with a turbo-diesel Mark VII drivetrain.. but that's not likely on short notice. Quote Selected
How's this for depressing? Reply #16 – April 15, 2006, 08:24:40 PM I got a bit of a shock filling my Cougar yesterday. 2.969 for premium :(@ 15.5 MPG the stuff doesn't go far... Quote Selected
How's this for depressing? Reply #17 – April 15, 2006, 08:27:23 PM $3.04 or something like that for premium around here, and with the Mark still knocking under load, sometimes I think about using it even if the knocking might be unrelated.. but I'm going to try that Auto-RX engine flush soon, and see if things improve. Don't want to keep getting 89 and/or 93.Don't mind me, I'm on a double-dose of pain meds.. :p Quote Selected
How's this for depressing? Reply #18 – April 15, 2006, 08:31:26 PM Quote from: Cougar5.0I got a bit of a shock filling my Cougar yesterday. 2.969 for premium :(@ 15.5 MPG the stuff doesn't go far...*mumbles something about having to pay about $8.50/gallon for premium, and $6/gallon for regular unleaded* Quote Selected
How's this for depressing? Reply #19 – April 15, 2006, 08:35:52 PM Wimps. Gas is $4.38/gal for regular here ($1.139/liter @ 3.8 liters to the gallon).I had a feeling that Thunderbird didn't burn what that Volvo does, and that chart seems to vindicate me. I think the Volvo actually does worse than that EPA estimate, while the T-Bird does better (I average 29MPG highway and have actually did 33 or 34 on a 40-mile trip once when I was really trying) The Dakota does pretty poorly, too: Quote Selected
How's this for depressing? Reply #20 – April 15, 2006, 09:06:04 PM IF that fuel economy site we're all quoting from is correct and LPG can be had as low as they say, I'm seriously thinking again about the switch to dual-fuel on the truck.. and maybe trying to swap a stick into it or something. Hopefully I could find a place on one of the alternate-fuel locator sites that isn't insanely inconvenient, and just pick some up now and again. *shrug* Quote Selected
How's this for depressing? Reply #21 – April 15, 2006, 09:25:44 PM Quote from: Bird351IF that fuel economy site we're all quoting from is correct and LPG can be had as low as they say, I'm seriously thinking again about the switch to dual-fuel on the truck.. and maybe trying to swap a stick into it or something. Hopefully I could find a place on one of the alternate-fuel locator sites that isn't insanely inconvenient, and just pick some up now and again. *shrug*Dunno about the USA but here LPG costs about half of regular unleaded, so most people that own US cars here have a LPG setup.For me it's not an option yet, we get to pay taxes to our lovely gummint based on how heavy the car is, and what kind of fuel you use. Even though LPG is much cleaner than gasoline, it adds to the taxes; and for me it'd pretty much double them. Gotta wait till my car's 25 years old, then you're exempt from the tax thing. To get back on topic, if you can get LPG in your area, and you can find someone that can do the dual setup, go for it. You'll lose out on some power, get slightly worse fuel economy (but due to prices it doesn't matter), but overall it works out being a shiznitload cheaper if you drive a lot. Quote Selected
Topic: How's this for depressing? (Read 2554 times)
previous topic - next topic
