On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:56:07 -0500, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net>
wrote:


>The 3.1L I mentioned was in a Malibu. You're right though - Buick does find
>mileage in those motors and not at the cost of power.

Makes you wonder if the carb is calibrated very lean. It makes the engine
run hot, but really helps mileage. The down side is that it could shorten
engine life a little.
--
Bob

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:%LzQf.7129$lb.621600@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>I have a 94 K1500 with the 4.3L V-6 and the wide ratio manual
>>transmission (I forget the designation, maybe MT8, but the one with the
>>granny low ratio). Mine pretty much is stuck on 16 like yours is on 15,
>>but I occasionally get 17 and occasionally 15 (mostly in winter). When
>>I plow I get 10-11.
>
>
> My Silverado is a '94 with a 350. Has a fiberglass cap on it also.
> High-rise style.
>

Same here. I suspect the difference between my mileage and yours is the
V-8 vs. the V-6.


Matt

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:%LzQf.7129$lb.621600@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>I have a 94 K1500 with the 4.3L V-6 and the wide ratio manual
>>transmission (I forget the designation, maybe MT8, but the one with the
>>granny low ratio). Mine pretty much is stuck on 16 like yours is on 15,
>>but I occasionally get 17 and occasionally 15 (mostly in winter). When
>>I plow I get 10-11.
>
>
> My Silverado is a '94 with a 350. Has a fiberglass cap on it also.
> High-rise style.
>

Same here. I suspect the difference between my mileage and yours is the
V-8 vs. the V-6.


Matt

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:%LzQf.7129$lb.621600@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>I have a 94 K1500 with the 4.3L V-6 and the wide ratio manual
>>transmission (I forget the designation, maybe MT8, but the one with the
>>granny low ratio). Mine pretty much is stuck on 16 like yours is on 15,
>>but I occasionally get 17 and occasionally 15 (mostly in winter). When
>>I plow I get 10-11.
>
>
> My Silverado is a '94 with a 350. Has a fiberglass cap on it also.
> High-rise style.
>

Same here. I suspect the difference between my mileage and yours is the
V-8 vs. the V-6.


Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:56:07 -0500, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The 3.1L I mentioned was in a Malibu. You're right though - Buick does find
>>mileage in those motors and not at the cost of power.
>
>
> Makes you wonder if the carb is calibrated very lean. It makes the engine
> run hot, but really helps mileage. The down side is that it could shorten
> engine life a little.

These cars haven't had carbs for probably two decades... Running
hotter, assuming good oil, will make an engine last longer in general.
Most engine damage occurs when the engine is cold, not hot, unless you
run it out of water and REALLY overheat it. But running at 220 water
temp vs. 180 will actually increate engine life if anything. These GM
engines are nearly bullet-proof mechanically. Hotter temps may lead to
shorter sensor life, but the mechanicals of the engine are happy to run
a little warmer.

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:56:07 -0500, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The 3.1L I mentioned was in a Malibu. You're right though - Buick does find
>>mileage in those motors and not at the cost of power.
>
>
> Makes you wonder if the carb is calibrated very lean. It makes the engine
> run hot, but really helps mileage. The down side is that it could shorten
> engine life a little.

These cars haven't had carbs for probably two decades... Running
hotter, assuming good oil, will make an engine last longer in general.
Most engine damage occurs when the engine is cold, not hot, unless you
run it out of water and REALLY overheat it. But running at 220 water
temp vs. 180 will actually increate engine life if anything. These GM
engines are nearly bullet-proof mechanically. Hotter temps may lead to
shorter sensor life, but the mechanicals of the engine are happy to run
a little warmer.

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:56:07 -0500, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The 3.1L I mentioned was in a Malibu. You're right though - Buick does find
>>mileage in those motors and not at the cost of power.
>
>
> Makes you wonder if the carb is calibrated very lean. It makes the engine
> run hot, but really helps mileage. The down side is that it could shorten
> engine life a little.

These cars haven't had carbs for probably two decades... Running
hotter, assuming good oil, will make an engine last longer in general.
Most engine damage occurs when the engine is cold, not hot, unless you
run it out of water and REALLY overheat it. But running at 220 water
temp vs. 180 will actually increate engine life if anything. These GM
engines are nearly bullet-proof mechanically. Hotter temps may lead to
shorter sensor life, but the mechanicals of the engine are happy to run
a little warmer.

Matt

 

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:04WQf.7166$lb.629344
@news1.epix.net:

> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:%LzQf.7129$lb.621600@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>
>>>I have a 94 K1500 with the 4.3L V-6 and the wide ratio manual
>>>transmission (I forget the designation, maybe MT8, but the one with the
>>>granny low ratio). Mine pretty much is stuck on 16 like yours is on 15,
>>>but I occasionally get 17 and occasionally 15 (mostly in winter). When
>>>I plow I get 10-11.
>>
>>
>> My Silverado is a '94 with a 350. Has a fiberglass cap on it also.
>> High-rise style.
>>
>
> Same here. I suspect the difference between my mileage and yours is the
> V-8 vs. the V-6.
>

Mine's an '88 305 V8 with a 3sp AT. I'm lucky if I get 11 MPG. I don't
drive it much anymore. No more than about 3,000 miles a year. It has just
under 180,000 miles on it. No cap either.

Eric

 

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:04WQf.7166$lb.629344
@news1.epix.net:

> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:%LzQf.7129$lb.621600@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>
>>>I have a 94 K1500 with the 4.3L V-6 and the wide ratio manual
>>>transmission (I forget the designation, maybe MT8, but the one with the
>>>granny low ratio). Mine pretty much is stuck on 16 like yours is on 15,
>>>but I occasionally get 17 and occasionally 15 (mostly in winter). When
>>>I plow I get 10-11.
>>
>>
>> My Silverado is a '94 with a 350. Has a fiberglass cap on it also.
>> High-rise style.
>>
>
> Same here. I suspect the difference between my mileage and yours is the
> V-8 vs. the V-6.
>

Mine's an '88 305 V8 with a 3sp AT. I'm lucky if I get 11 MPG. I don't
drive it much anymore. No more than about 3,000 miles a year. It has just
under 180,000 miles on it. No cap either.

Eric

 

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:04WQf.7166$lb.629344
@news1.epix.net:

> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:%LzQf.7129$lb.621600@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>
>>>I have a 94 K1500 with the 4.3L V-6 and the wide ratio manual
>>>transmission (I forget the designation, maybe MT8, but the one with the
>>>granny low ratio). Mine pretty much is stuck on 16 like yours is on 15,
>>>but I occasionally get 17 and occasionally 15 (mostly in winter). When
>>>I plow I get 10-11.
>>
>>
>> My Silverado is a '94 with a 350. Has a fiberglass cap on it also.
>> High-rise style.
>>
>
> Same here. I suspect the difference between my mileage and yours is the
> V-8 vs. the V-6.
>

Mine's an '88 305 V8 with a 3sp AT. I'm lucky if I get 11 MPG. I don't
drive it much anymore. No more than about 3,000 miles a year. It has just
under 180,000 miles on it. No cap either.

Eric

 

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:20:22 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:56:07 -0500, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The 3.1L I mentioned was in a Malibu. You're right though - Buick does find
>>>mileage in those motors and not at the cost of power.
>>
>>
>> Makes you wonder if the carb is calibrated very lean. It makes the engine
>> run hot, but really helps mileage. The down side is that it could shorten
>> engine life a little.
>
>These cars haven't had carbs for probably two decades...

You knew I meant fuel-air mixture.

>Running hotter, assuming good oil, will make an engine last longer in general.

Well now. That depends on [how hot].

>Most engine damage occurs when the engine is cold, not hot, unless you
>run it out of water and REALLY overheat it.

I think that's an overworked statement. If you start your engine dead cold
and rev it like an angry Klingon , you're asking for trouble. A good engine
will endure normal cold starts for 500,000 miles without measurable harm.

>But running at 220 water
>temp vs. 180 will actually increate engine life if anything. These GM
>engines are nearly bullet-proof mechanically. Hotter temps may lead to
>shorter sensor life, but the mechanicals of the engine are happy to run
>a little warmer.

The higher the average engine temperature, the faster oils, greases,
coolant, rubber, valve faces and seats, exhaust system, etc. break down.

As long as the oil comes up to operating temperature every start, moisture
and acids will not accumulate. Ideally, the engine would reach ~220 for 5
minutes then cool down to ~150. But we all know that's not very practical.
For 1 thing, hotter running engines get better gas mileage.
--
Bob

 

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:20:22 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:56:07 -0500, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The 3.1L I mentioned was in a Malibu. You're right though - Buick does find
>>>mileage in those motors and not at the cost of power.
>>
>>
>> Makes you wonder if the carb is calibrated very lean. It makes the engine
>> run hot, but really helps mileage. The down side is that it could shorten
>> engine life a little.
>
>These cars haven't had carbs for probably two decades...

You knew I meant fuel-air mixture.

>Running hotter, assuming good oil, will make an engine last longer in general.

Well now. That depends on [how hot].

>Most engine damage occurs when the engine is cold, not hot, unless you
>run it out of water and REALLY overheat it.

I think that's an overworked statement. If you start your engine dead cold
and rev it like an angry Klingon , you're asking for trouble. A good engine
will endure normal cold starts for 500,000 miles without measurable harm.

>But running at 220 water
>temp vs. 180 will actually increate engine life if anything. These GM
>engines are nearly bullet-proof mechanically. Hotter temps may lead to
>shorter sensor life, but the mechanicals of the engine are happy to run
>a little warmer.

The higher the average engine temperature, the faster oils, greases,
coolant, rubber, valve faces and seats, exhaust system, etc. break down.

As long as the oil comes up to operating temperature every start, moisture
and acids will not accumulate. Ideally, the engine would reach ~220 for 5
minutes then cool down to ~150. But we all know that's not very practical.
For 1 thing, hotter running engines get better gas mileage.
--
Bob

 

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:20:22 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:56:07 -0500, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The 3.1L I mentioned was in a Malibu. You're right though - Buick does find
>>>mileage in those motors and not at the cost of power.
>>
>>
>> Makes you wonder if the carb is calibrated very lean. It makes the engine
>> run hot, but really helps mileage. The down side is that it could shorten
>> engine life a little.
>
>These cars haven't had carbs for probably two decades...

You knew I meant fuel-air mixture.

>Running hotter, assuming good oil, will make an engine last longer in general.

Well now. That depends on [how hot].

>Most engine damage occurs when the engine is cold, not hot, unless you
>run it out of water and REALLY overheat it.

I think that's an overworked statement. If you start your engine dead cold
and rev it like an angry Klingon , you're asking for trouble. A good engine
will endure normal cold starts for 500,000 miles without measurable harm.

>But running at 220 water
>temp vs. 180 will actually increate engine life if anything. These GM
>engines are nearly bullet-proof mechanically. Hotter temps may lead to
>shorter sensor life, but the mechanicals of the engine are happy to run
>a little warmer.

The higher the average engine temperature, the faster oils, greases,
coolant, rubber, valve faces and seats, exhaust system, etc. break down.

As long as the oil comes up to operating temperature every start, moisture
and acids will not accumulate. Ideally, the engine would reach ~220 for 5
minutes then cool down to ~150. But we all know that's not very practical.
For 1 thing, hotter running engines get better gas mileage.
--
Bob

 

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:04WQf.7166$lb.629344
> @news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>>news:%LzQf.7129$lb.621600@news1.epix.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have a 94 K1500 with the 4.3L V-6 and the wide ratio manual
>>>>transmission (I forget the designation, maybe MT8, but the one with the
>>>>granny low ratio). Mine pretty much is stuck on 16 like yours is on 15,
>>>>but I occasionally get 17 and occasionally 15 (mostly in winter). When
>>>>I plow I get 10-11.
>>>
>>>
>>>My Silverado is a '94 with a 350. Has a fiberglass cap on it also.
>>>High-rise style.
>>>
>>
>>Same here. I suspect the difference between my mileage and yours is the
>> V-8 vs. the V-6.
>>
>
>
> Mine's an '88 305 V8 with a 3sp AT. I'm lucky if I get 11 MPG. I don't
> drive it much anymore. No more than about 3,000 miles a year. It has just
> under 180,000 miles on it. No cap either.

You better get it fixed as you'd have to work really hard to get 11 MPG
from a properly tuned 305 - unless your 3,000 miles are spent plowing
snow or pulling stumps! :-)


Matt

 

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:04WQf.7166$lb.629344
> @news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>>news:%LzQf.7129$lb.621600@news1.epix.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have a 94 K1500 with the 4.3L V-6 and the wide ratio manual
>>>>transmission (I forget the designation, maybe MT8, but the one with the
>>>>granny low ratio). Mine pretty much is stuck on 16 like yours is on 15,
>>>>but I occasionally get 17 and occasionally 15 (mostly in winter). When
>>>>I plow I get 10-11.
>>>
>>>
>>>My Silverado is a '94 with a 350. Has a fiberglass cap on it also.
>>>High-rise style.
>>>
>>
>>Same here. I suspect the difference between my mileage and yours is the
>> V-8 vs. the V-6.
>>
>
>
> Mine's an '88 305 V8 with a 3sp AT. I'm lucky if I get 11 MPG. I don't
> drive it much anymore. No more than about 3,000 miles a year. It has just
> under 180,000 miles on it. No cap either.

You better get it fixed as you'd have to work really hard to get 11 MPG
from a properly tuned 305 - unless your 3,000 miles are spent plowing
snow or pulling stumps! :-)


Matt