You know, I usually don't bother with stuff like this, now I just have to. Sorry, no offence, but those figures seem pretty out far out.
An honest 19 mpg more like. 29 mpg (10l per 100km) on a 5.7l automatic carrying 2 metric ton car? Maybe not, unless you always drive downhill. In reality the mileage of an American V8 car of that vintage gets about 20 mpg (14l per 100km) combined on a very economical driving style. That particular model is quoted to be about 16 mpg (18l per 100km) on city streets and 25 mpg (11.5l per 100km) highway, which seem pretty optimistic to me, but I suppose it's possible.
I get a minimum of 10l per 100km in a Volvo V70 2.4 naturally aspirated gasoline engine if I drive the most economical way I possibly can on city streets only, and I dare say I am pretty good at it. The car weighs half a ton less than you Buick and has the same power, only less torque.
I think you rounded the conversion factors a little too much, but the general idea is clear. 🙂
It's not so bad. If your car gets X mpg or Y l/100km, then X*Y≈235
So divide 235 by the number you know.
235 / 29 mpg is 8.1 l/100 km
My 2002 Audi A2 is supposed to use 3 l/100 km, which I can only get uncomfortably. I get 3.2 l/100km highway and 4 l/100km city. Rounding down:
235/3 -> 78 mpg
235/3.2 -> 73 mpg
235/4 -> 58 mpg
But the maintenance costs completely outweigh the fuel savings, so I want to sell. 🙄
I had a peugeot 307 1.6l diesel that’d do under 4 l/100km if I drove like a nanna. More realistically though it was 5.5 odd. My new 2l toyota 86, with literally twice as many horses (where do they keep them all?) is right on the dot of 7 l/100km with 18,000km on the dial. I’m surprised. I was expecting more like 9.
My old Peugeot 206 gulping around 0,6 l/10km or around 39mpg. However I was eyeing up a Suzuki S-Cross a few days ago, and that one was very close to my 39mpg.
Btw, gotta pick up my medicin and some more parts for my car.
Btw, gotta pick up my medicin and some more parts for my car.
I think you rounded the conversion factors a little too much, but the general idea is clear. 🙂
It's not so bad. If your car gets X mpg or Y l/100km, then X*Y≈235
So divide 235 by the number you know.
235 / 29 mpg is 8.1 l/100 km
My 2002 Audi A2 is supposed to use 3 l/100 km, which I can only get uncomfortably. I get 3.2 l/100km highway and 4 l/100km city. Rounding down:
235/3 -> 78 mpg
235/3.2 -> 73 mpg
235/4 -> 58 mpg
But the maintenance costs completely outweigh the fuel savings, so I want to sell. 🙄
Bah, the conversion chart I used was apparently in UK gallons.
Hi vuohi,
Now you know why I bought the Buick. I had it until I couldn't drive it, then sold it on.
-Chris
Check the EPA ratings then. 33 mpg with the 5.7 L. I drive mostly highway in Canada and was getting 29 mpg. GM uses an overdrive transmission with torque converter lock-up.
Now you know why I bought the Buick. I had it until I couldn't drive it, then sold it on.
-Chris
Yesterday I bought a new macro lens for my camera. A Tamron 90mm. SP 90mm F/2.8 Di VC USD F017 - Tamron Australia
Today I bought something a bit more practical. A new coat. It's been a bit chilly and my old one is basically falling apart (which I guess after 20 odd years can be expected). MEN Wool Cashmere Chesterfield Coat | UNIQLO
Tony.
Today I bought something a bit more practical. A new coat. It's been a bit chilly and my old one is basically falling apart (which I guess after 20 odd years can be expected). MEN Wool Cashmere Chesterfield Coat | UNIQLO
Tony.
That works out to about 23.5 MPG for those of us on the other side of the Atlantic.
I had the same car (1999 V70). It would do 19 to 24 MPG around town depending on the traffic, the quality of the gas, and the use of air conditioning. If I pointed it out on the open road, and held a constant 70 MPH (112 KPH) with the AC on it got a fairly consistent 27 MPG.
The 5.7 available in 1993 would have been a variant of GM's "small block Chevy" engine. It could have been port fuel injected or throttle body injected.
In the late 70's and early 80's I had a 1968 Camaro convertible. I had removed the worn out 327 CID V8 and installed a 350 CID (5.7L) Small Block Chevy engine taken from a 1973 Chevy van. 1972 - 1975 were the worst year for SBC cylinder head designs. The compression ratio had been severely dropped to meet the 1972 N2O emission regs. The head improved consistently over the live of the SBC engine after that. The SBC was retired when the LS motor was introduced.
I had tuned the engine for decent performance moving a two ton shagged out 70's van around. The van got 10 to 11 MPG in town , and maybe 14 MPG on the road even when I drove it like grandma. I stuck the engine in the Camaro coupled with a 4 speed manual trans and swapped the carburetor for a 4 barrel that I could tune with a soldering gun. I ran the idle circuit slightly lean, the primary circuit extremely lean, and the secondaries quite rich. The car ran OK in typical traffic, but had the power to blow off most anything when the pedal hit the floor and all 4 gears were used.
I learned that 20 to 22 MPG could be achieved in city traffic by running 1st gear up to about 4500 RPM (about 25 MPH) at light throttle then shifting straight to 4th, since the engine had an aftermarket camshaft designed for maximum low to midrange torque. Typical driving speed in "big city" Florida is less that 30 MPH. Open road MPG peaked at about 25 MPG at 55 to 60 MPH and dropped off sharply at higher speeds.
The Roadmaster / Caprice Wagon was probably the most aerodynamic of the "large barge" vehicles produced by GM. Could it achieve 29 MPG? on the open road, possibly. Start - stop city traffic....doubtful. Modern US gasoline is typically 10% ethanol. This drops the MPG by at about 10% compared to pure gasoline. Don't know if such insanity ever occurred in Canada.
A friend with a Prius (good MPG metrics on the dash) tested several brands of gas in south Florida and found a 10% or more variance between brands, and a several percent drop in all when the "winter blend" appears in November.
I accidently bouth a 28mm micro lens for my Canon EOS M3. I knew I needed one for digitizing all my color slides and should have bought a 80-100mm, but I acted on impuls and this lens came with a reduced price.
However this lens have been a favourite as it works is all kinds of situations. Even has a super macro setting.
The advantage of a 28mm micro would be that it should have a lot of DOF compared to the 90 which when at 1:1 is so small it is scary!
I've thought about getting a reversing fitting to mount my 20mm in reverse which apparently gives an amazing close up capability.
edit: attached test shot should give an idea of just how shallow the dof is wide open at 1:1! Note that was shot in low light at 12800 ISO.
Tony.
I've thought about getting a reversing fitting to mount my 20mm in reverse which apparently gives an amazing close up capability.
edit: attached test shot should give an idea of just how shallow the dof is wide open at 1:1! Note that was shot in low light at 12800 ISO.
Tony.
Attachments
Last edited:
Back in the 35mm film days I taped a fixed 135mm lens in reverse to the 50 mm fixed lens that was on the camera. The resulting combination worked like a microscope. I got some good close ups of things like IC chip die.
Of course a sturdy tripod or stand is needed since DOF is a mm or two.
Of course a sturdy tripod or stand is needed since DOF is a mm or two.
Today I bought the Klipsch 2.1 Promedia THX computer speakers for my wife for our 5th Anniversary. They seem to get good reviews and she wanted something better than her crappy small Logitech computer speakers. There was a good deal on them at $149 USD on Amazon.com. She's left to go back to the US, so unfortunately there won't be a 6th Anniversary. I guess next year around this time I'll save like $200 Canadian, I guess that's a bonus :/
Re MPG & conversions - do these figures overlook the difference between imperial and US gallons - 4.54 vs 3.78 litres respectively, IIRC?
I’m old enough that I grew up learning to drive & gas up in MPH and (imperial gallons), and one of my current hobby horses is the crazy price fluctuations at the pumps here on the west coast. Within the last month or so, we’ve seen regular petrol range from $1.61/l * - to my most recent fill up at Costco at $1.39. So, in Canadian pesos, that equates to a difference of approx $1 per imperial gallon.
*peaked in lower mainland area at over 1.70 I think? - Uncle Cal can confirm that
Do some math, and even in the smaller US gallon, that’s over $6/g
I’m old enough that I grew up learning to drive & gas up in MPH and (imperial gallons), and one of my current hobby horses is the crazy price fluctuations at the pumps here on the west coast. Within the last month or so, we’ve seen regular petrol range from $1.61/l * - to my most recent fill up at Costco at $1.39. So, in Canadian pesos, that equates to a difference of approx $1 per imperial gallon.
*peaked in lower mainland area at over 1.70 I think? - Uncle Cal can confirm that
Do some math, and even in the smaller US gallon, that’s over $6/g
I've used a reverse adaptor with a DSLR and it does work pretty well with reasonable DOF. About a year ago I took my first stab at real microscopic photography and I made a lens using a microscope objective. Fun stuff, but very difficult to use. I have a few pictures on my website, if you feel like taking a look. The link is in my profile.
I got a haircut, a carton of cigs, and then spent $72 on groceries at ShopRite.
That's what I bought today.
That's what I bought today.
I know that there is a difference. I grew up in Miami Florida, where we used US gallons, but 80 miles east of us lies the Bahamas where the gallons are imperial and they drive US made cars on the wrong side of the road, many of which are not wide enough for two large American cars......that makes for a scary taxi ride as a young kid.
What I didn't know until Google just told me is that Canada also uses imperial gallons......that explains 29 MPG.
Yes. You have always been a wizard with the numbers and I hope they converted to Imperial so the Americans would come to Canada to buy, as their cars had better gas mileage here, right?
No disputing that.
Point of contention.
I can only confirm that it's 5 o'clock somewhere.
Cheers.