Was the EPA sniffing glue? This is insane...
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 1
From: Alston, MI
Was the EPA sniffing glue? This is insane...
Found this a few minutes ago, and thought I'd share:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1977_feg.pdf
So, what they're basically saying is that one of these lead tanks with the aerodynamics of a fridge with a 4x12 chunk of plywood strapped to them equipped with a 351M can pull off (queue the drum roll) 20mpg? A 400 can pull off 18mpg?
Please, if anyone can tell me how they got these numbers (13-14mpg in town, too, which kicked the crap out of the 9mpg I got with my 87 with the 300 i6 before I sold it), my ears are open!
Note: They pulled off these numbers with both the C6 AND the 4 gear.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1977_feg.pdf
So, what they're basically saying is that one of these lead tanks with the aerodynamics of a fridge with a 4x12 chunk of plywood strapped to them equipped with a 351M can pull off (queue the drum roll) 20mpg? A 400 can pull off 18mpg?
Please, if anyone can tell me how they got these numbers (13-14mpg in town, too, which kicked the crap out of the 9mpg I got with my 87 with the 300 i6 before I sold it), my ears are open!
Note: They pulled off these numbers with both the C6 AND the 4 gear.
MSEE
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,386
Likes: 35
From: Austin, TX
Yep. Those EPA numbers were real, but based off extremely controlled test conditions in unrealistic environments.
If your truck, in brand-new tuned up condition coasts straight down the highway with no headwind at 55 mph driven by a 105-pound woman with no cargo, then yes it's possible to get insane mileage. That all changes when you drive your truck to work and actually drive it realistically.
If your truck, in brand-new tuned up condition coasts straight down the highway with no headwind at 55 mph driven by a 105-pound woman with no cargo, then yes it's possible to get insane mileage. That all changes when you drive your truck to work and actually drive it realistically.
FTE Legend
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 53,890
Likes: 2,371
From: NY and VA
[QUOTE=justforkicks;11450163]Found this a few minutes ago, and thought I'd share:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1977_feg.pdf
So, what they're basically saying is that one of these lead tanks with the aerodynamics of a fridge with a 4x12 chunk of plywood strapped to them equipped with a 351M can pull off (queue the drum roll) 20mpg? A 400 can pull off 18mpg?
You're just finding out about the EPA sniffing glue?
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1977_feg.pdf
So, what they're basically saying is that one of these lead tanks with the aerodynamics of a fridge with a 4x12 chunk of plywood strapped to them equipped with a 351M can pull off (queue the drum roll) 20mpg? A 400 can pull off 18mpg?
You're just finding out about the EPA sniffing glue?
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 1
From: Alston, MI
Yeah, I'd have to agree with the unrealistic part, because the best I could pull off with my old 87 F150 4x4 300 six c6 was 15, and this here is telling me a 351 could do better? Haha.
If I could pull 18hwy with my old 77, I'd sell my Ranger right now! lol
If I could pull 18hwy with my old 77, I'd sell my Ranger right now! lol
Hotshot
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,726
Likes: 2,584
From: The Shenandoah Valley
... and one long leg after several days saw very near 17mpg up Easetrn Shore and across into MD. She was lean though, response was sluggish.
That was with the F-glass shell and we had stuff in there like air matress, heater, small TV, shop light for night, etc. 3.50 gears and c-6 and 31/11.50-15 Coursa tires that would not balance, ...
... guess maybe I had her too lean, she burnt a couple valves shortly after that trip. I fattened the jetting back up while doing my head swap, 14 mpg was good then but she run better.
And if your driving was limited to always leaving Denver and driving to anyplace in western Kansas, you might see some good numbers.
Certified Thread Hijacker
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,441
Likes: 59
The current/ modern fuel we have today has been more of a detriment to MPG than just about anything else. Second place would be the insane curb weights of current vehicles.
The mild 390 I had in my 74 F100 from 1993-1995 would easily get 17+ mpg @ 65 mph with a stock C6 and 3.00 gears.
Then the speed limit in 1995 upped to 75 mph, which meant going at least 80 to stay with traffic and MPG plummeted to around 14, no other changes.
No coincidence that our fuel started having 10% MTBE. Then later it was switched to 10% ethanol and MPG further went into the crapper.
Even the full race 427 I had from 1996-1997 would average 12 mpg.
Several years later the high performance, but certainly not full race, 428 I had would only average 9-10 mpg.
It really makes one wonder just how well the EPA is doing for the environment when vehicles are getting worse mileage than ever. Think of 80s 4 cylinder cars that easily got 35-45 mpg. Now they pat themselves on the back when they can report 28-32.
Early VW diesels netting 60+ mpg. Now they can barely do 40 mpg.
Josh
The mild 390 I had in my 74 F100 from 1993-1995 would easily get 17+ mpg @ 65 mph with a stock C6 and 3.00 gears.
Then the speed limit in 1995 upped to 75 mph, which meant going at least 80 to stay with traffic and MPG plummeted to around 14, no other changes.
No coincidence that our fuel started having 10% MTBE. Then later it was switched to 10% ethanol and MPG further went into the crapper.
Even the full race 427 I had from 1996-1997 would average 12 mpg.
Several years later the high performance, but certainly not full race, 428 I had would only average 9-10 mpg.
It really makes one wonder just how well the EPA is doing for the environment when vehicles are getting worse mileage than ever. Think of 80s 4 cylinder cars that easily got 35-45 mpg. Now they pat themselves on the back when they can report 28-32.
Early VW diesels netting 60+ mpg. Now they can barely do 40 mpg.
Josh
Trending Topics
FTE Legend
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 53,890
Likes: 2,371
From: NY and VA
A couple of years ago I contacted the EPA, asking why if using 10% E makes my vehicles use more fuel, how can I be not polluting the air more. Response: public comment period for this topic is over.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Ford Super Duty: 5 Things Owners LOVE, 5 Things They LOATHE!
Joe Kucinski
Every 2026 Ford Truck Engine RANKED from WORST to FIRST!
Michael S. Palmer
The Best F-150 Deal of Every Trim Level (XL through Raptor)
Joe Kucinski
Certified Thread Hijacker
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,441
Likes: 59
Josh
Certified Thread Hijacker
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,441
Likes: 59
Nope. Congress banned it, but has allowed a couple test markets. Nevada being one of them that I know.
I have read two different reports on it, one said it is banned until 2017 and another that said to 2025.
Basically testing has shown substantial decrease in fuel economy using E15, especially over straight E0 gasoline.
Josh
I have read two different reports on it, one said it is banned until 2017 and another that said to 2025.
Basically testing has shown substantial decrease in fuel economy using E15, especially over straight E0 gasoline.
Josh
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 6
From: Cranbrook, Ont., Canada
Don't know about your governments BUT up here in Canada, our governments , both Provincial AND federal the politicians are on dime store drugs. Not ONE of them has a click and it takes 1000 clicks to make a clue. These clowns are so educated they are stupid!!!! Most don't even know what common sense is. Just my thoughts on the EPA Popa John
Tuned
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 491
Likes: 7
All the gas here in Northern VA is 10% Ethanol 90% Gasoline.
It annoys me because while it artificially boosts the octane, Ethanol has LESS specific energy per Gallon/Liter/whatever than straight gas does - meaning you have to burn MORE of it to get the same amount of power (i.e. instead of "perfect" ratios around 14.7:1 air/gas, you need to run between 13.5-14:1)
When they switched gas, I had a twin-turbo mustang. I had to change the tuning and richen it up across the board by about 5-6% to keep EGT's in a happy range.
-Brad
It annoys me because while it artificially boosts the octane, Ethanol has LESS specific energy per Gallon/Liter/whatever than straight gas does - meaning you have to burn MORE of it to get the same amount of power (i.e. instead of "perfect" ratios around 14.7:1 air/gas, you need to run between 13.5-14:1)
When they switched gas, I had a twin-turbo mustang. I had to change the tuning and richen it up across the board by about 5-6% to keep EGT's in a happy range.
-Brad
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 1
From: Alston, MI
Yeah all gas everywhere is crap nowadays. And now the EPA wants "MORE, MORE, MORE" mileage out of FS pickups. If I owned an auto company, I'd tell the EPA "HOW, HOW, HOW?!?"
They want us all driving Priuses.
They want us all driving Priuses.
Certified Thread Hijacker
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,441
Likes: 59
Josh