Big car MPG?

[michiganjim]

After posting, "Exceed EPA estimate" Holycow and another replied. In the thread, he suggested I look at the "sleeper thread". This was in response to my asking if here was a topic or subforum to discuss the kind of big, luxury car I drive.

Looking at the sleeper forum, I read comments about how small efficient cars are. In reply to that, someone posted several VWs were surprisingly roomy inside. Of course, "roomy" is a perception and highly dependent on how big the body is trying to occupy the space. I didn't read all the posts but none of the cars mentioned were what I'd call "luxury".

I'd be interested to hear from others who drive what might be considered a land yacht. (Ironically, I also have a 30 ft boat which gets fantastic MPG, but that's another story. It's a sailboat!)

I won't repeat everything I wrote in the my post mentioned above, but are there any drivers of full size cadilac, buick, pontiac, mercedes, lexus, etc (perhaps with a V8) who get good mileage?

[Jay2TheRescue]

A late model crown vic or grand marquis can easily do 27-28 highway, with simply setting the cruise at 65. I'm sure a seasoned hypermiler can do over 30. Also, late model Buick park avenues with the 3.8 v-6 can do over 30 on the highway with nothing more than setting the cruise at 65.

[low&slow]

I drive a 2000 Jaguar S-Type and average 27-28 mpg with a best tankfill of 36mpg. It's EPA rated at 19 mpg. Check out the Garage for other luxury cars and their results. The Lincoln LS is a clone of the Jaguar S-Type. Some of the earlier 3.0L V-6 models came with manual transmissions. All cars can produce well above their EPA rating if driven efficiently and well-maintained.
good luck L&S

[GasSavers_Pete]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

Also, late model Buick park avenues with the 3.8 v-6 can do over 30 on the highway with nothing more than setting the cruise at 65.

I own a locally built GM product using this engine with 4L60E trans in a body about the size of a Pontiac G8 (the four door sedan - I think it is called the G8 in the US) and average 36 MPG US (6.5 ltr/100 klms) at a steady 90 km/h (55 MPH) so a decent fuel economy number IS obtainable IF you are willing to make it happen.

Peter.

[theclencher]

Too bad GM killed the 3.8; it was an outstanding combo of power and economy for larger vehicles. In fact, GM was going to kill it much earlier (IIRC 10 years?) than it did, but the public outcry against doing that convinced them to keep it as long as they did.

I just wish they would have made more 3.8/5-speed manual transmission combos.

[IndyFetch]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Too bad GM killed the 3.8; it was an outstanding combo of power and economy for larger vehicles. In fact, GM was going to kill it much earlier (IIRC 10 years?) than it did, but the public outcry against doing that convinced them to keep it as long as they did.

I just wish they would have made more 3.8/5-speed manual transmission combos.

I remember when GM replaced the 3.8L with its new DOHC 3.5L in the Intrigue a year or so after it came out. The 3.5 had 15 more hp, a lot less torque, and 3 less MPG than the 3.8. It was slower and got worse mileage, but GM had to have a DOHC V6 to compete with the imports, as was the Intrigue's purpose. The car flopped, and GM announced Olds's death a short while later. They should've kept the 3.8 rather than replacing it with the half-cooked 3.5. With the 3.8, Car and Driver voted it the best mid-size sedan in a comparison test.

[slurp812]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Too bad GM killed the 3.8; it was an outstanding combo of power and economy for larger vehicles. In fact, GM was going to kill it much earlier (IIRC 10 years?) than it did, but the public outcry against doing that convinced them to keep it as long as they did.

I just wish they would have made more 3.8/5-speed manual transmission combos.

The 3.8 was based on a Buick motor, the 231 v6 from the 60's so it is dated. We have a 2004 monte with a 3.8, gets around 26 mpg average. lots of highway miles, and no hyper-miling (i don't drive it) techniques used.

[Jay2TheRescue]

My 81 Regal has the 231 V6.

[spazzer]

The GM C/H cars with the 3.8s can get 30+ mpg highway.

My mom has a '95 88 Royale, the thing can coast for miles with little drop in speed.

My wife's 1995 Ford Taurus with the 3.0 can get 30 or so if driven gingerly.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Too bad GM killed the 3.8; it was an outstanding combo of power and economy for larger vehicles. In fact, GM was going to kill it much earlier (IIRC 10 years?) than it did, but the public outcry against doing that convinced them to keep it as long as they did.

Considering current attitudes about the 3.8 found on internet forums, I am surprised to hear that there was a public outcry.

Originally Posted by slurp812

The 3.8 was based on a Buick motor, the 231 v6 from the 60's so it is dated. We have a 2004 monte with a 3.8, gets around 26 mpg average. lots of highway miles, and no hyper-miling (i don't drive it) techniques used.

The Series II 3800 was not based on the Buick 231, but engineered from scratch using experience from the 231.