----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lieb"
> >I figure a 948 + 5 speed will break 50 mpg easily.
>> What rear axle ratio are you running?
>
> Only if you are only driving downhill. Too many people believe that a
> smaller engine equates to better gas mileage. Tain't necessarily so. It can
> be true within limits..
I disagree. From an economy perspective, and all other things being equal,
the 948 will beat the 1275.
However I think we should peruse some published data first.
How about Dymock's "Sprites & Midgets" Appendix E:
Mark Mpg @ 50 mph Mpg @ 70 mph Engine Axle
HAN 5 53.5 36.0 0948
4.22
GAN 1 49.5 39.0 0948
4.22
GAN 2 44.0 35.5 1098
4.22
GAN 3 44.0 34.0 1098
4.22
GAN 4 40.0 31.5 1275
4.22
GAN 5 55.0 35.5 1275
3.90
GAN 6 39.2 29.8 1493
3.90
The table in the book says " from contemporary road tests in Motor and Autocar"
Couple observations:
1) Up to GAN 4 they all had the same diff ratio. MPG constanly decreases as
the engine size goes up.
2) GAN 5 is either anomoulous or it really is all about the final drive
ratio...in which case a
948 will have a proportional jump in mpg when outfitted with a 3.9
It's probably imperial gallons listed here, which equals 1.20 US gallons
In which case a stock bugeye at 50 mph was really 44 mpg US.
That sounds about right because I recall my brother mentioning he would get
around 43 mpg with his Bugeye back in the 70's while driving from
Philadelphia to Penn State.
I'll stick to my guns, if you put a 5 speed in a 948 Bugeye you can probably
hit
50 mpg US...and with a little luck, sometime this spring I will find out for
sure.
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
http://www.team.net/archive
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/spridgets
|