TeamSwift

drive 55 mph.

65-70 kinda high.

55 is optimal.



and have your gps checked your cluster accuracy,

you could be driving a mile, and it only trips .8 of a mile.

hence you getting less miles per gallon, on the math

45 isn't a bad average.

You want some reasons?
The speed limit way back in the days of Bethlehem was only 55.
If you lived north of the Border, you were using Imperial gallons.
The previous car wasn't modified to remove all the emissions equipment?
You had a different final drive ratio

Get a vacuum gauge and watch it instead of texting.

This thread will be waiting for you once you get it figured out.

_________________
DIY Broken Bolt Removal: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=41042
DIY Clutch Adjustment: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48281
DIY Wheel Bearings: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29003
DIY Shocks: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=45483
DIY Wheel Align: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42479
Once you get the cars dialed-in (compression, leaks, bearings, alignment, brakes) swap in new rubber and glass, you've got something which should last for years!

I was under the impression that mid 50's with the econo cam & gear was more than a reasonable expectation at current highway speeds? I thought mid 40's was stock performance? I haven't removed any emission related equiptment? I even have the original size tires and rims. Very funny about the texting. ... what am I checking with my vacuum gauge? Do I check it at idle or while driving? are you suggesting to change out all the vacuum lines? I have seen in other posts people claiming that this solved some issues due to removing old cracked micro-leaking lines.

_________________
"with these powers, I could be a Super-Hero!"
...name the game and voice actor?

The higher reading on the vacuum gauge while driving means better gas mileage.

_________________
Cars and Harleys

ok. where do I connect it ? what range is good vs bad? optimal?

_________________
"with these powers, I could be a Super-Hero!"
...name the game and voice actor?

more negative numbers are better. the higher the negative pressure, the easier it is for atmospheric pressure to fill the cylinder.

on a normally aspirated car, a good place for the vacuum gauge is to tee it into the hose that runs to the map sensor on the firewall next to the wiper motor.

_________________
1991 Blue Geo Metro Convertible highly modified 1.0L Turbo3 5 spd. - 1991 Red Geo Metro Convertible customized with a Twincam 5 spd.

My Turbo3 Project
My Cardomain Page -Ol' Blue
My YouTube Channel
My Photo Gallery
SAAB Sonett II

Just watching the gauge won't do didly. you use it to adjust your driving habits.....higher readings mean the engine is not working as hard,(better mileage), lower readings mean your foot is in it, lower mileage. The idea is to spend as much time at higher vacuum, as possible. Google "hypermiling"

my 90 metro hatchback averages 48-53 mpg @ 75 mph

_________________
-91 Swift GTi 1.3 DOHC -wrecked now shell swapping to 1/4 mile car
-90 Metro 3/5 daily driver

'87 Chevy Sprint, first actual trip with it I estimate a good 50MPG with an average speed of 65MPH.

Add me to the club at last I'm here...45 town 50-55 highway at 65mph. Did it in my 85 MK1 sprint with Hitachi carbrator 5 speed with ac with timing set at10deg BTDC with rebuilt engine. Compression 191 192 191. 90 main jet 120 secondary jet. With matching bleeders. Also Back barrel vacuum caped off... 35 Air gap on NGK plugs on 82 octane gas. On highway 99 from exeter,ca to fresno,ca. 50.8 MPG

_________________
1985 chevy sprint 5speed 1.0 Mk1 (Blue). 1999 Geo metro 5speed 1.0 (Silver). 2003 XL-7 2.7l V6 AUTO (White). 2005 XL-7 2.7L V6 AUTO (Cobalt Blue). 1996 mercury cougar 4.6 auto (Goldish?). New to the family 1998 VW new Bettle 2.0 5speed (Black) Restord <--- (hers)<---- Gone to a new home. Replaced with 2003 Turbo 1.8T 6speed (black) ... In One 1986 chevy sprint ER (White) In line for a restore <---None runner <---(parts). Thats 7... So I'm under a hood alot... Why? Kuzz we love cars!

94 3/5 hatch best tank average 62.8mpg U.S. No hypermiling. Just limit speed to about 60mph.

I have now changed my program to trying to raise cruising speed while maintaining reasonable mileage. Now averaging 58 mpg U.S at 70mph. Saves me 20-25 minutes total /day on my commute. For me, well worth the sacrifice.

_________________

Run with the big dogs

Wooo hooo I got 50.09 mpg in my 89gti man is it running great. on 500 mile trip at 65 mph.now I got 2 Cars with over 50mpg. Now I got to get my 1992 swift GL running to see what a 1.3 sohc and 3:52 gear will get .

_________________
Cars and Harleys

Last 3 tanks in this:

were 47.0, 47.3 and 49.2............................
So much for April Fools Day.
CLOSE, but no cigar.

Weather is heating up, so I'll be using the A/C more and the mileage will probably drop.

Hopefully, it will soon have a parking spot indoors.

_________________
DIY Broken Bolt Removal: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=41042
DIY Clutch Adjustment: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48281
DIY Wheel Bearings: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29003
DIY Shocks: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=45483
DIY Wheel Align: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42479
Once you get the cars dialed-in (compression, leaks, bearings, alignment, brakes) swap in new rubber and glass, you've got something which should last for years!

Sagacious advice for injected engines, and I plan on doing that or running a dedicated line out of the intake manifold on 4 of our cars.

I purchased 5 of these:

(Autogauge 2337)
vs. other available vacuum gauges because I like the sweep direction and the color chart.
Yeah, real high tech, I know. Chalk it up to bling, bling, bling.
But it makes it easier to explain to passengers: "More vacuum = better mileage".
Still waiting for the install on this '87 carbureted Chevy Sprint.

Same car as pictured above, stock trim.
Moved timing 2 degrees prior to smog test last month.
Apparently, that 2 degrees made a difference.
15 years of driving the same car; maybe it deserves its own thread.

Good luck on today's tank.
Mostly LA freeway driving with mixed traffic - VERY boring drives.
300.6 miles and 5.853 U.S. gallons = 51.36 mpg.
No hypermiling, and Federally approved defensive driving techniques.

We are paying $3.50 a gallon in California.
That tank ran about 6.7 cents a mile vs. a typical cost of 10 cents a mile.


Officially induct me into the 50+ mpg club according to these latest figures.

I'm glad you made it my friend ... LOL But I think you been sand bagging with those MPG results for a long time
What kind of numbers did you blow with 2 deg advanced ? I'm assuming you advanced the timing? Why would you retard timing..Right? lol

_________________
1985 chevy sprint 5speed 1.0 Mk1 (Blue). 1999 Geo metro 5speed 1.0 (Silver). 2003 XL-7 2.7l V6 AUTO (White). 2005 XL-7 2.7L V6 AUTO (Cobalt Blue). 1996 mercury cougar 4.6 auto (Goldish?). New to the family 1998 VW new Bettle 2.0 5speed (Black) Restord <--- (hers)<---- Gone to a new home. Replaced with 2003 Turbo 1.8T 6speed (black) ... In One 1986 chevy sprint ER (White) In line for a restore <---None runner <---(parts). Thats 7... So I'm under a hood alot... Why? Kuzz we love cars!

Long story, but briefly:
-timing was off 2 degrees (don't remember if it was 12 or 8 BTDC)
-slop in lower timing belt/crankshaft pulley was the problem
-fixed it
-reset timing to 10 degrees BTDC
-ran it through smog and drove it as usual
-it is almost due for a rebuild, but all the emissions are installed and working correctly

On a long and boring highway trip she exceeded 50 mpg.

If I'm alone, it is too tempting to run it at 75-80 mph.
If the Mrs. is along, then sometimes we park it in the slow lane at 60-65 mph and let the world pass us by.

People who consistently get 50 mpg in a tired low compression engine scare me.
Their lean condition burn is completely unknown to them and they are SO surprised when they burn exhaust valves.

If you do the math, an engine with consistent 150-150-150 compression across the board is functioning at 3/4 capacity.
It is reasonable to assume that such an engine wastes 25% of the fuel you put into the tank.
You can read about super duper clowns with financial problems putting cars with worse compression back on the road.
They will defend their behavior on many different levels.
Been there, done that.
Best they lay off the beer, soda and cigarettes until they get the parts and put it together right.
That would require sacrifice, eh?
But they keep defending their stupid behavior.
And they never get out of debt.
"I put it together and she's got 120-110-130
BUT IT GETS OVER 50 MILES PER GALLON
Ha!
Our illustrious newbie has created a 3 cylinder grenade.
Then he'll be pissed because he has no core to rebuild.
Whatever...

Glacierburst has some great posts on how to fix the MK1.
He sticks with the job until he gets it right and then he drives the sh*t out of the car because it doesn't need any maintenance except fluid and filter changes.

We can all learn from him.
But you've got to put your pride in your back pocket, and read what he's written.
Then you've got to put it to use.

That is what Teamswift is all about.

Last week we took the trustworthy MK1 4 door hatchback to Vegas, baby.
(A reunion at the Monte Carlo.)
This is still the hot time of the year with temps around 100F during the day.
Driving the back way (very little Interstate driving) during the heat of the day, sometimes along Route 66 we used the A/C once up to speed and got these numbers:

- 54.3 mpg
- 43.9 mpg
- 51.1 mpg and
- 47.5 mpg.

This is with mostly highway driving miles on a relaxed 60 mph course and little traffic.

I am not recommending it, but I did pump the tires up to 38-40ish psi prior to the trip.
In a few weeks, they will be back down to their usual 32 psi.

The car probably needs to have the carburetor rebuilt and the EGR cleaned out.
Compression is reaching the marginal level (probably around 160 across the board) thus it is time to think about pulling it off the road and either rebuilding the engine or doing something else with it.
Also, the front alignment is off a tad, and fixing that would help the gas mileage.
It isn't enough to really screw with the tire wear, but there's an ever so slight pull which can easily be corrected by a proper alignment.

Driving early in the morning or late in the afternoon, using less A/C would also help the numbers.

Also, the A/C should be serviced properly to reduce the drag on the engine.
An A/C in spec won't pull very much horsepower off the system.
This one could use an evaporator and a fresh refrigerant charge so it cycles less frequently.

After driving the car for 15 years, I will have to give it an A+++ for good service and reliability.

Fainya drove it last year and said he couldn't hear any whines from the gears and he wouldn't rebuild the tranny because it seemed okay to him.
I would agree.

Honestly achieving 50 miles per gallon US is not as easy as it might sound.
I'm going to say this car can get 50 mpg when it is in new condition.
However, few MK1's are in 'new' condition, engine wise.

I paid $2 Canadian for my 91 Firefly 1.0 5 speed last year and have done a high of 76.1 miles per imperial gallon at 80 km/h or less during an 800 km trip so far. I have since done a tune up, changed the transaxle fluid, replaced one front and one rear wheel bearing and swapped on a set of 95 Metro wheels and new tires because 12's are just too expensive. Odometer is off by 10% and am looking forward to hitting the wreckers to find a 95 or newer speedo drive and see if that brings the odo back into shape.

Bought a '98 3-cylinder, 180K on it, last year for $300 with a 'bad transmission'. Bad drive axle, actually. Was going to fix and sell but my perfectionistic tendencies had me put a timing belt in it, which led to discovering a crankshaft keyway that had been hammered out by the AC. Rebuilt engine to stock; no rebore necessary. Full tuneup parts install including O2 sensors; fixed several exhaust leaks. Car would get 50 mpg if you kept it to 55, dropped to 45 or so at 70-75. Sold it to a friend's son just recently.

My '94 keeper seems to be getting around 45 or so on the highway, but I'm not driving it 55, either. More like 60-65. Hell, you can't hardly drive 55 anymore in Texas without getting run over. Car has slightly bumped compression and 8 degree advance camgear, and also has the heavier undercarriage of a '96 stuck on it, with 14" wheels, and about 60 lbs of sound deadening. None of that helps mileage but the handling/brakes/quiet improvements are well worth it.

So here's a question for everyone. Story I always heard was that with Ford EEC-4 vehicles, substituting a Mexican ECU led to improved fuel economy, as Mexico didn't have emission requirements in the '80's and '90's like the US did. Fuel economy, as we all know, comes from lean burn at light throttle which causes high nitrous oxides emissions. Ford, I heard from the inside, had gotten ahead of the emission requirements curve with the EPA with EEC-4--Generous Motors was still jacking around with throttle body and MCS carbs, and these EPA credits allowed Ford to run their vehicles lean on part throttle from '86 to around '90. Mexican vehicles ran even leaner than US vehicles, as MPFI and ESC made cars run better lean than carburetors and distributors ever could. Stock US spec Crown Vic's in those days got close to 30mpg going down the highway, which is pretty damned good for such a hogmobile. I drove a '89 Escort for a month that got an honest 41mpg on the highway. Tightened EPA emission requirements, and the onset of OBD-II emissions requirements that mandate a rich-lean cycling has really hurt everyone's fuel economy nowadays.

But did GM make different ECU's with even leaner fuel trim for export markets, like Mexico? Or did they not really have to--maybe, with emissions measured by gm/mile criteria, the emissions ppicture on light vehicles like Metros, with their light fuel burn and consequent light emissions/mile, mean that they didn't have to bother?

I'm in the process of getting a Mexican ECU for my '92 F-150 project vehicle and will report on how that goes to anyone interested. But if there is anyone who knows about export versus US/Canada fuel trim differences with Metros, I'd like to hear about it.

Dan White

That's a really interesting theory. I can't report on the Mexican ecu thing, but I would tend to agree about the ford eec4 system being more efficient than one would have expected. 10yrs ago I took a 88 lincoln apart and swapped the entire engine/trans, efi etc into a 1968 f100 long box 2wd. This is a 5.0 Ho, same as the fox body mustangs used. Ran 3.50 gears, and modded trans with no lockup converter. The truck gets ridiculous highway mileage, very often an honest 20mpg(Canadian gallon is larger remember, so perhaps 17mpg us.). Highest mileage was hand calculated at 28mpg after a tank of highway driving. That eec4 must run the engine very lean, but efficiently. I don't believe the later 5.0ho motors would get those numbers. Been scared to ever change anything because it not only ges that mileage, but is very powerful for such a little engine in a truck!

_________________
1995 Swift w/16V 4.39s, 3tech cam, Esteem t-body, Header, needs more.
1995 Gt Mustang "Boss Shinoda" package.
1999 F150 4x4 Supercharged
1967 Mustang 428 auto, never ending expensive project
1993 Civic si h22a, fell in my lap, couldn't resist!