Year ago (many years ago…) I owned a carbureted 4WD Subaru wagon. The normal MPG for these cars on the highway was 27 MPG. Over 5 years time that was the best it ever got.
I also spent a lot of time over those years wrestling the Hitachi carburetor which was half junk when new and pure junk after a few years. They had a LOT of issues with warpage of the body sections. rough idle, hard starts at time, and so .
I lost my temper one day and decided to make a change. I made an adapter plate and put a one barrel carb from a Ford 200 C.I. 6 cylinder on it., Amazing. Instant start hot and cold, smooth idle, etc.,
My gut feeling was that the fuel mileage would go lower because of the carb. A month later I made a road trip to Tulsa and checked the mileage with the miles driven divided by gallons to fill. It got 38 MPG.
I thought oh hxxx no. No way can that happen and I thought I was delusional. Over the next year I checked mileage on a number of road trips (including one to Colorado) and it got 36-38 steady as a clock.
Maybe Subaru should have used a Carter one barrel on all of their models…
I consistently got over 50mpg, combined city/ highway. On the specific trip I referred to, I did drive conservatively to see how high mpg I could get. At 62mph in sixth gear, you were only 200-300 rpm over idle. I believe that was the key, gear ratio.
Normally I beat on that car, it was a blast to drive, like a go cart. You could make it to 70mph while still in second gear!
Of all the naysayers of the mpg, how many of you owned an '84 1.3l ??? I would say that number is very close to 0 mpg
I used to co-run a CRX club that was affiliated with a national CRX owner’s group. Between us we owned all of the years, and all of the trim levels. No one got 70mpg. If any of us had gotten 70mpg we’d have definitely bragged to the others about it. No offense intended, but I’m going to go with the numbers I actually saw, not a random poster on the internet.
There was a project in the national CRX owners group back in the day to try to get max mileage out of a 2nd gen HF. Some aero parts were designed to be fabricated out of fiberglass, including one that looked like the tail cone they used on the space shuttle when they were transporting it on the back of an airplane, but I don’t think it got off the drawing board.
The second gen as you call them, only got around 50 mpg and they called them HF. “Ha”, I used to say, “high fuel”… hmmm I got nearly 20mpg more out of my '84, non-HF.
I’m not a “car buff” per sey, I’m just a guy that happened to be lucky enough to get one of these. They were actually very hard to come by in the day.
Again all I am doing is sharing my experience, personal, real, experience. You don’t have to believe me, but It does amaze me that you and others would call me a liar. You obviously don’t know me. And again, none of you have ever owned one and have no basis for your non-belief.
Although it was a while ago, I had a regular customer whose 318 V8 Plymouth I regularly maintained in the dealership. He was a traveling salesman. He would not let me or anyone touch the carburetor, saying the car got 35 mpg and he didn’t want to risk losing that.
My meticulously-maintained '71 Charger had the venerable 318 under the hood, and even on all-day expressway trips, I was never able to eke-out more than 17 mpg from that car. I even installed a transistorized ignition in the hope of boosting my mileage, but that car consistently got 13-14 mpg in town, and a max of 17 mpg on the highway.
I call them second gen because that’s what they are.
No you didn’t, but I think I know what happened.
We’re not calling you a liar, we’re saying you’re wrong. I, for one, am not assuming malicious intent in your error.
Here’s what I think happened: The car was originally rated 67mpg. But that was under the old EPA mpg formula. Once the new formula came out, the same car (same year, same engine, same transmission) was rated at 47mpg (these are both highway mileage).
That’s where your mileage drop came in - not because the car was less efficient, but because the EPA realized their previous mpg measurements were too unrealistic - they allowed for high air temperatures during measurements, no accessory use, etc, an absurdly slow average speed (48mph) and no faster than 18 second 0-60 accelerations.
If you drive your car like that, and the weather is appropriately warm, and you aren’t going up hills/etc, I can see you getting close to 70mpg in that car, but you’re also infuriating everyone behind you by going boulevard speeds on 70mph highways.
If you drive your car like a normal person, you’re very unlikely to see those numbers on a consistent basis.
This was my first new car. I drove it from round trip Indianapolis to Houston and I got 91 MPG. $46 in my pocket, $20 hotel room, ate from a cooler, $26 gas.
I have gone my entire life wondering why this miracle vehicle wasn’t in every garage.
Trip planning was 2200 miles / 72MPG @ $1.10 / gallon. I didn’t think I would make it on $26. I did. Gas was a little less than planned down south. This has stuck with me for a long time. I attributed the increase from 72MPG to very hot conditions and 100% highway. Doubt me. I don’t care.
Having done almost 50 years of research on these miracle cures and miracles in the bottle I believe I’ve isolated the miracle solution
Alcohol,
When taken internally my old car was 50 mph faster, the MPG increased by 20, I grew 6 inches taller, looked like James Bond and could even dance like Fred Astair!
Unfortunatly, by the next morning all the benefits were reversed
