Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Fuel\s+Efficiency\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Fuel\s+Efficiency\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: Chris.S.Mottram@ecc.com; Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 22:55:41 -0400; Chris S. Mottram@ECCI 09/03/98 10:55 PM My new Mk1a get 11 miles per gallon on the interstate at about 65-70 mph. This seems low to me. It has a Carter AFB 650 carb that I have not figured out how to; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00049.html (7,328 bytes)
2. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <laifman@flash.net>; Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 07:40:08 -0700; Chris, The carb change (and manifold) plus "mild" cam has cut your mileage in half, at constant 65 mph speeds. What do you think's going to happen when the secondaries get in the act? Something is wr; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00056.html (8,720 bytes)
3. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu>; Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 07:51:34 -0700; You are just going to have to start thinking like a Tiger owner. None of us cares what our gas mileage is at 65-70, only how fast we can get that speed. Now, let's talk about why those secondaries w; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00057.html (8,054 bytes)
4. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: CoolVT@aol.com; Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:41:35 EDT; Sounds low to me. When I purchased the Tiger and drove it 1800 miles home, I averaged 25 MPG. This was a standard 260 with 2 barrel. I would think that if you aren't horsing it you should be able to; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00076.html (7,622 bytes)
5. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: James Barrett <jamesbrt@mindspring.com>; Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 19:45:02 -0400; Chris, When my Tiger II had the original motor in it I got 23 mpg in steady 70 mph driving and 17-19 in town. With the present 351C I get 19 mpg on the highway and 13 to 14 in town. I have a 650 doub; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00077.html (8,595 bytes)
6. RE: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: "Allan Connell" <alcon@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 09:50:05 -0700; I have a Holley 650 CFM double pumper which I consider to be a bit of over-carburetion in my case....running a mild cam, ported, polished, TRW pistons etc. When I traveled to Big Bear for TU, I got; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00090.html (8,920 bytes)
7. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: CoolVT@aol.com; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 17:33:59 EDT; If I go back to the 60's and think of a 273 HO with a 4 barrel I had in a Barracuda I remember that it could get 17 MPG on the highway as long as it wasn't horsed. I think the Barracuda must have we; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00095.html (8,200 bytes)
8. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu>; Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 16:52:17 -0700; A stock, or near-stock Tiger with 2.88s will get 25 mpg or even a little better on the highway at 70-80 mph. It goes down from there depending on just about everything. I still remember the Laifman'; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00097.html (9,092 bytes)
9. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: Colin Cobb <cobmeister@zianet.com>; Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 19:23:42 -0600; Since when does LaifMan have a quarter? Who loaned it to him? Maybe you meant "quarter-panel." --Colin; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00098.html (8,628 bytes)
10. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: "JAN HARDE" <harde@cyberesc.net>; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 19:13:01 -0700; Are you kidding, The Laif-Man has not invited you to his QUARTER mile track @ his Laif-Man Hacienda/track, with dinner in the world famous 5 star restaurant " Laif-Man Puck " , his track and Tiger te; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00099.html (10,289 bytes)
11. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: CoolVT@aol.com; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 23:01:38 EDT; Well, we've had the quotes and whatever, but I still haven't had anyone explain to me why a 289 or 302 can't do better than 11-12 MPG. Is it because Fords are gas hogs? Mark L.; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00100.html (8,148 bytes)
12. Fw: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: "JAN HARDE" <harde@cyberesc.net>; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 20:20:36 -0700; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00101.html (9,364 bytes)
13. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: MWood24020@aol.com; Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 00:25:12 EDT; << I still haven't had anyone explain to me why a 289 or 302 can't do better than 11-12 MPG. Is it because Fords are gas hogs? >> MarkIt is not that 289-302 Fords CAN'T do better than 11-12mpg, it is; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00102.html (8,810 bytes)
14. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <laifman@flash.net>; Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 22:23:45 -0700; Colin wonders where I got the quarter. Jan gives away my secret assets, so know the Feds will be after me. Bob is still mad because I didn't give proper homage to his pair of Tiger-Striped boxing sho; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00103.html (9,775 bytes)
15. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: Jim Parent <jparent@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 23:58:32 -0700 (PDT); "a 289 or 302 can't do better than 11-12 MPG. Is it because Fords are gas hogs?" They can do better than that and they can be gas hogs. How is the cam set-up? Lift, dwell, LCA, was it installed strai; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00104.html (8,322 bytes)
16. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: CoolVT@aol.com; Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:57:01 EDT; Well, a number of people have responded to the fuel efficiency item, and I appreciate it. It wasn't my Tiger I was discussing with 11-12MPG, I was commenting on a recent question posted here by someo; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00105.html (8,525 bytes)
17. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu>; Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 09:14:20 -0700; First off, with tongue somewhat in cheek, I'd suggest that this topic would probably be more appropriate in some other marque's enthusiast group; e.g. Geo Metro, etc. The point is that among the rea; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00107.html (10,448 bytes)
18. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <laifman@flash.net>; Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 10:44:37 -0700; The 'quotes' are simply saying that this is not normal for a Tiger, and something is wrong with either your set-up or your equipment installation. I suspect your clue lie in leakage of air or gas, b; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00108.html (8,092 bytes)
19. RE: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: "Allan Connell" <alcon@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 12:53:25 -0700; You are right and I do not think you are crazy. I probably should be getting much better mileage, but just have not had time to check it out. Heck, it runs and runs well at this point. Will definite; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00109.html (8,457 bytes)
20. Re: Fuel Efficiency (score: 1): Author: brockctella@juno.com; Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 07:30:46 -0700; My Lincoln Mark VII got 20 in town and 25 on highway, 302 motor; /html/tigers/1998-09/msg00110.html (8,980 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]