Them plugs suck. Buddy of mine ran +4's and they would foul out quick.


- Your not-so-local, untrained, uncertified, backyard mechanic. But my @!#$ runs

pete toures wrote:when you had your 97 ,was the gas mixed w/ethanol.do you have ethanol in fuel today. that'll cost you mpg also.maybe a computer swap should be considered or a laptop tune to see how yours is set.i have a 99 s truck ext,auto w/2200. it took a while for increase in mpg, but winter 0-45 20, 60-65 mph about 27. 10% higher in summer.

we've had 10% ethanol in MN since before i started driving in 1990, and i run nothing but oxygenated gas in my daily drivers- and in fact, i could run up to E30 from a blender pump in my 97 without losing any fuel economy compared to the regular E10.. E50 would drop that car down to 35, and E85 would make it run like crap and get 25mpg.. i haven't tried any of the other ethanol blends in this car, but my brother tried half a tank of E85 when he had the car a couple of years ago and it almost wouldn't stay running without giving it gas.

pete toures wrote:when you had your 97 ,was the gas mixed w/ethanol.do you have ethanol in fuel today. that'll cost you mpg also.maybe a computer swap should be considered or a laptop tune to see how yours is set.i have a 99 s truck ext,auto w/2200. it took a while for increase in mpg, but winter 0-45 20, 60-65 mph about 27. 10% higher in summer.

Wait... You get 20 around town!? The best average in the city/highway loop is18.5!! And that's with 89-octane or higher (The LN2 seems to like more octane than "recommended", regardless of generation (2.2L/2200)) in a std-cab short-bed!!! WTH!?!


Go beyond the "bolt-on".

novaderrik wrote:

pete toures wrote:when you had your 97 ,was the gas mixed w/ethanol.do you have ethanol in fuel today. that'll cost you mpg also.maybe a computer swap should be considered or a laptop tune to see how yours is set.i have a 99 s truck ext,auto w/2200. it took a while for increase in mpg, but winter 0-45 20, 60-65 mph about 27. 10% higher in summer.

we've had 10% ethanol in MN since before i started driving in 1990, and i run nothing but oxygenated gas in my daily drivers- and in fact, i could run up to E30 from a blender pump in my 97 without losing any fuel economy compared to the regular E10.. E50 would drop that car down to 35, and E85 would make it run like crap and get 25mpg.. i haven't tried any of the other ethanol blends in this car, but my brother tried half a tank of E85 when he had the car a couple of years ago and it almost wouldn't stay running without giving it gas.

Unless the management is setup for it (Look for a tag inside the fuel-filler door!) or the engine is optimized for it, fuel with large percentages of alcohol won't work well with the intended vehicle. You're lucky you got away with 30%, considering how the only method of compensating your '97 had was a decent management-system with a knock-sensor. But then, that's all it really needed to run that strong of blend.

BTW: I envy you for having "blender" pumps. Where I live, it's either this orthat! I soooooo wish I could blend like you do... It'd save a lot in fuel costs, given the nature of the LN2's operational octane requirements complex. (The higher the octane, the better mileage it got!)


Go beyond the "bolt-on".

Nickelin Dimer wrote:

novaderrik wrote:

pete toures wrote:when you had your 97 ,was the gas mixed w/ethanol.do you have ethanol in fuel today. that'll cost you mpg also.maybe a computer swap should be considered or a laptop tune to see how yours is set.i have a 99 s truck ext,auto w/2200. it took a while for increase in mpg, but winter 0-45 20, 60-65 mph about 27. 10% higher in summer.

we've had 10% ethanol in MN since before i started driving in 1990, and i run nothing but oxygenated gas in my daily drivers- and in fact, i could run up to E30 from a blender pump in my 97 without losing any fuel economy compared to the regular E10.. E50 would drop that car down to 35, and E85 would make it run like crap and get 25mpg.. i haven't tried any of the other ethanol blends in this car, but my brother tried half a tank of E85 when he had the car a couple of years ago and it almost wouldn't stay running without giving it gas.

Unless the management is setup for it (Look for a tag inside the fuel-filler door!) or the engine is optimized for it, fuel with large percentages of alcohol won't work well with the intended vehicle. You're lucky you got away with 30%, considering how the only method of compensating your '97 had was a decent management-system with a knock-sensor. But then, that's all it really needed to run that strong of blend.

BTW: I envy you for having "blender" pumps. Where I live, it's either this orthat! I soooooo wish I could blend like you do... It'd save a lot in fuel costs, given the nature of the LN2's operational octane requirements complex. (The higher the octane, the better mileage it got!)

yeah, the blender pumps rock.. but there aren't too many of them around since they cost around $10k just for the pump and most stations don't sell enough blended fuel to make it worthwhile.. the one station close to me that has one sells mostly E30, which is the cutoff point for most vehicles where they start losing mpg's. and it doesn't seem to matter if the cars are supposed to be ethanol compatible or not. my mom's fiance ran E30 in his 92 GMC truck with the TBI 350 and had better power and fuel economy than he did with 87 octane E10.

novaderrik wrote:

Nickelin Dimer wrote:

novaderrik wrote:

pete toures wrote:when you had your 97 ,was the gas mixed w/ethanol.do you have ethanol in fuel today. that'll cost you mpg also.maybe a computer swap should be considered or a laptop tune to see how yours is set.i have a 99 s truck ext,auto w/2200. it took a while for increase in mpg, but winter 0-45 20, 60-65 mph about 27. 10% higher in summer.

we've had 10% ethanol in MN since before i started driving in 1990, and i run nothing but oxygenated gas in my daily drivers- and in fact, i could run up to E30 from a blender pump in my 97 without losing any fuel economy compared to the regular E10.. E50 would drop that car down to 35, and E85 would make it run like crap and get 25mpg.. i haven't tried any of the other ethanol blends in this car, but my brother tried half a tank of E85 when he had the car a couple of years ago and it almost wouldn't stay running without giving it gas.

Unless the management is setup for it (Look for a tag inside the fuel-filler door!) or the engine is optimized for it, fuel with large percentages of alcohol won't work well with the intended vehicle. You're lucky you got away with 30%, considering how the only method of compensating your '97 had was a decent management-system with a knock-sensor. But then, that's all it really needed to run that strong of blend.

BTW: I envy you for having "blender" pumps. Where I live, it's either this orthat! I soooooo wish I could blend like you do... It'd save a lot in fuel costs, given the nature of the LN2's operational octane requirements complex. (The higher the octane, the better mileage it got!)

yeah, the blender pumps rock.. but there aren't too many of them around since they cost around $10k just for the pump and most stations don't sell enough blended fuel to make it worthwhile.. the one station close to me that has one sells mostly E30, which is the cutoff point for most vehicles where they start losing mpg's. and it doesn't seem to matter if the cars are supposed to be ethanol compatible or not. my mom's fiance ran E30 in his 92 GMC truck with the TBI 350 and had better power and fuel economy than he did with 87 octane E10.

Again, I envy you. One can only wonder what the effective octane is with a 30% blend on, what? 87-octane? And what's the cost per-gallon comparatively to 87 or a gasoline with octane similar to the blend?


Go beyond the "bolt-on".

i think the octane of the E30 is listed as 95 or so. but octane's only a number that matters if you have detonation issues.

I have an 04 auto ls sport. I drive 54 miles to work every day, 24.5 of which is country roads where i stop 4 times and go a constant 65mph. Rest of the trip is interstate where i go 65-70 mph most of the way. during the summer i got up to 33.7mpg. i really had to drive like a grandma, and i also pop it in neutral and coast for up to a mile when im coming to a stop sign. normally coast for 4 whole miles or so on my trip home. I really dont know how i can drive any better to get any better mileage.

My dad has a 2007 civic si. he constantly gets 34-35 mpg when its only rated for like 30mpg.

I picked up a 1994 civic vx off a buddy just recently. the car has 544k miles on it. the vx is the ultra high mileage machine. it came with a d15z1 vtec-e which is a 1.5 balls-less motor with about 90 hp. the key to the 50+ mpg in these cars is the 'lean burn' mode that the car has. i ordered a new motor from japan, which is a d15b vtec-e. this is the japanese equivalent to the stock motor from the vx. new motor has 25k-35k miles on it, so it will last for a very long time.

I just got the motor in the car a couple weeks ago, but ive got a couple hickups with the car right now so i havent started driving it. i cant wait to see if i can get closer to 60mpg with thing.

Okay, Ben... A little something I read recently in Popular Mechanics: The old trick of coasting in neutral, including with the engine shut-off, has been debunked by fact that modern fuel-systems actually de-fuel while coasting in-gear while the throttle is shut. This results in better mileage than the other method, and is far safer in-case of a need of vacuum-assist in a panic-stop.

Derrick: 95-octane sounds about right for the pre-'98 LN2 & the TBI truck & van Chevy 350--as both, despite what the factory "recommends", really needed all the octane they could get to really work in a "Liberated" fashion... Especially the LN2, as my '94 always performed best in all respects on a minimum of 93. Running 87 on the highway, into a moderate wind, and trying to push it past 55mph made it knock to the point it started bucking. And my dads '89 Beauville ("K"-code TBI 350) would start to knock when into it while trying to attain merging speed up an on-ramp.


Go beyond the "bolt-on".

good to know. i was wondering that. part of the reason i put it in neutral is cause there is less resistance, so the car will coast for a lot farther when its in neutral.

i also pop the car into neutral when rolling up to stop signs or down long hills. you can just tell that the trans is holding the car back when the car is left in drive, and i figure that since it's gonna get there sooner without the trans and engine slowing it down, it's a win/win deal. i like to use momentum to my advantage..

novaderrik wrote:i also pop the car into neutral when rolling up to stop signs or down long hills. you can just tell that the trans is holding the car back when the car is left in drive, and i figure that since it's gonna get there sooner without the trans and engine slowing it down, it's a win/win deal. i like to use momentum to my advantage..

but with it in drive, you're not using ANY fuel, the computer shuts the injectors off...



JBO Stickers! Get yours today!

Rich Grayo Jr. wrote:

novaderrik wrote:i also pop the car into neutral when rolling up to stop signs or down long hills. you can just tell that the trans is holding the car back when the car is left in drive, and i figure that since it's gonna get there sooner without the trans and engine slowing it down, it's a win/win deal. i like to use momentum to my advantage..

but with it in drive, you're not using ANY fuel, the computer shuts the injectors off...

and the engine and trans are dragging down the momentum of the car, which means it takes longer to get to the bottom of the hill or to the stop sign.. you can feel it pulling the car back and the car almost feels like it speeds up when you slide it into neutral.

novaderrik wrote:

Rich Grayo Jr. wrote:

novaderrik wrote:i also pop the car into neutral when rolling up to stop signs or down long hills. you can just tell that the trans is holding the car back when the car is left in drive, and i figure that since it's gonna get there sooner without the trans and engine slowing it down, it's a win/win deal. i like to use momentum to my advantage..

but with it in drive, you're not using ANY fuel, the computer shuts the injectors off...

and the engine and trans are dragging down the momentum of the car, which means it takes longer to get to the bottom of the hill or to the stop sign.. you can feel it pulling the car back and the car almost feels like it speeds up when you slide it into neutral.

idle fueling for 30 seconds vs no fuel for 30 seconds... which uses less fuel? if you're hypermiling, even WITH an auto, it's all about knowing WHEN to shift with you particular car during deceleration. and for that matter, WHEN to begin deceleration. timing is everything.



JBO Stickers! Get yours today!

well, i've checked mileage with popping it in neutral and not popping it in neutral, and it gets consistently better when i do.. and it's been that way with every car i've logged mileage on. my 94 Chrysler LHS had a digital readout that showed real time mpg's, and if i put it in neutral and coasted it would max it out at 99mpg, but if i'd leave it in gear going down hills it would only hit about 60mpg.. yeah, i know those things aren't totally trustworthy for rock solid numbers, but they are good for showing trends. and a consistent loss of at least 40% under the same operating conditions is a pretty solid trend.


on the subject of coasting: i have a test i do mostly for fun and to break up the monotony with my cars where i hit the top of a certain hill at 60mph and throw the car in neutral and see how far it coasts up another hill and around a curve in the road.. my 97 Cavvy, 74 Monte Carlo, 86 Camaro, and 87 Celebrity would coast well over a mile before coming to a stop.. sometimes more, sometimes less depending on wind and what not.. my LHS would go about 3/4 mile. this cavvy goes just over 1/2 mile- almost exactly as far as my 87 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 pickup that weighs 5300 pounds empty and is lucky to see the high side of 10mpg.. it's got extra wind/road/drivetrain resistance compared to the other vehicles i've done the test on for some reason, and is probably why it gets such crappy mileage. i need to do some investigating and figure this out.

but i can report that putting the new old plugs in has brought the economy up to a solid 29mpg again after running a few tanks thru it.

Nickelin Dimer wrote:

pete toures wrote:when you had your 97 ,was the gas mixed w/ethanol.do you have ethanol in fuel today. that'll cost you mpg also.maybe a computer swap should be considered or a laptop tune to see how yours is set.i have a 99 s truck ext,auto w/2200. it took a while for increase in mpg, but winter 0-45 20, 60-65 mph about 27. 10% higher in summer.

Wait... You get 20 around town!? The best average in the city/highway loop is18.5!! And that's with 89-octane or higher (The LN2 seems to like more octane than "recommended", regardless of generation (2.2L/2200)) in a std-cab short-bed!!! WTH!?!

it's with 89 octane but i made a mistake on winter 0-45 i am getting between 18.2-19.when i added the pully,t/b/header/and efan my ext cab liked it.

Rich Grayo Jr. wrote:

novaderrik wrote:

Rich Grayo Jr. wrote:

novaderrik wrote:i also pop the car into neutral when rolling up to stop signs or down long hills. you can just tell that the trans is holding the car back when the car is left in drive, and i figure that since it's gonna get there sooner without the trans and engine slowing it down, it's a win/win deal. i like to use momentum to my advantage..

but with it in drive, you're not using ANY fuel, the computer shuts the injectors off...

and the engine and trans are dragging down the momentum of the car, which means it takes longer to get to the bottom of the hill or to the stop sign.. you can feel it pulling the car back and the car almost feels like it speeds up when you slide it into neutral.

idle fueling for 30 seconds vs no fuel for 30 seconds... which uses less fuel? if you're hypermiling, even WITH an auto, it's all about knowing WHEN to shift with you particular car during deceleration. and for that matter, WHEN to begin deceleration. timing is everything.

Let's not forget the measure of safety also had from "engine-braking" (What it's doing coming to a stop while in-gear), which is something highly recommended done by OTR operators of heavy-duty machines in snowy or heavy rain conditions. Not to mention how it saves brakes.


Go beyond the "bolt-on".

pete toures wrote:

Nickelin Dimer wrote:

pete toures wrote:when you had your 97 ,was the gas mixed w/ethanol.do you have ethanol in fuel today. that'll cost you mpg also.maybe a computer swap should be considered or a laptop tune to see how yours is set.i have a 99 s truck ext,auto w/2200. it took a while for increase in mpg, but winter 0-45 20, 60-65 mph about 27. 10% higher in summer.

Wait... You get 20 around town!? The best average in the city/highway loop is18.5!! And that's with 89-octane or higher (The LN2 seems to like more octane than "recommended", regardless of generation (2.2L/2200)) in a std-cab short-bed!!! WTH!?!

it's with 89 octane but i made a mistake on winter 0-45 i am getting between 18.2-19.when i added the pully,t/b/header/and efan my ext cab liked it.

Who's header? Al's? Pacesetter? I know it wasn't Clear Image Automotive's... because they were never able to get any interest, so it never went beyond the prototype. Which is still for sale, BTW... For $500!


Go beyond the "bolt-on".

als header.it's really good for that motor.a guy on the truck forum dynoed before and after and it was almost 15hp.

Nickelin Dimer wrote:

Let's not forget the measure of safety also had from "engine-braking" (What it's doing coming to a stop while in-gear), which is something highly recommended done by OTR operators of heavy-duty machines in snowy or heavy rain conditions. Not to mention how it saves brakes.

brake pads are cheap, and it's not a 90,000 pound rig..

Well, good rules are good rules... Just putting it up there for all to learn.

Pete: Was that forum S-10 Planet.com? If so, I'm a member there & believe to know which members posting you're mentioning.


Go beyond the "bolt-on".

no it was s10 forum.com. if anyone over there[s10planet] is looking for a stage one turbo kit pm me

I thought you were trying to be cheap here... You could off set the cost of gas just by replacing the brakes more often, and that wouldn't make sense.


- Your not-so-local, untrained, uncertified, backyard mechanic. But my @!#$ runs

Oedwards wrote:I thought you were trying to be cheap here... You could off set the cost of gas just by replacing the brakes more often, and that wouldn't make sense.

the car has 173,000 miles on it and is only on it's 3rd set of front brake pads and second set of shoes in the back. it's not a car that eats up brake parts..

and i did a test the other day regarding coasting.. someone posted that the ecm shuts off the fuel during decel when there is no throttle, which effectively shuts off the engine. he was saying that it's a way to save fuel over throwing it in neutral and coasting.. well, i did a coast down test where i shut off the car with the trans in "D" and turned the key back to "run" imediately after the engine shut off, and guess what- it doesn't use the engine for braking under these circumstances, and acts just like when i throw it in neutral (except for the loss of power steering, of course). this tells me that the ecm does not cut off the fuel and shut off the engine in decel, which means that there is little to no fuel to be saved by leaving it in gear. i guess i didn't rule out the ecm holding the trans in gear during decel in gear and releasing the pressure on the bands when i shut it off, but i'm too lazy to rig up a switch on the fuel injection fuse to test it..