Finally got to do some serious highway driving today, about 125 miles one way, and then 110 the other way.

Kept the cruise at 70-72 most of the interstate, which was 60 miles each way, then on the highway, this was highway 70 east near Arcadia, kept it around 50-65. Burried the gas pedal a couple times passing some clowns,

I had the A/C on and off through out the entire trip.

That damn low coolant light has returned, I get up to 79 not even flooring it, the lights on, have it in over drive doing 55 or 65 and its on. Does this mean my engine is being starved for coolant when it comes on, or is it just something else?

I noticed that my MPG in the city bumped up from 14.2 mpg all the way up to 15, but let me tell you this. I went about 180 miles or so on this new oil change(10W30 Valvoline Durablend synthetic blend oil), and a new oil filter, have of that mileage was with the old oil and old air filter, and I was driving the car with a lead foot most of the way too. I am suprised to get 15 mpg, it should be around the block of 16 or 17 in the city next time, if I calm down on my driving habits. Moral: Oil and Air filter, very important.

I even got smoked by a semi. Thats a story for the kills section.

I get at and about 20mpg. Well, unless I bury the pedal alot then it is far less.

That damn low coolant light has returned, I get up to 79 not even flooring it, the lights on, have it in over drive doing 55 or 65 and its on. Does this mean my engine is being starved for coolant when it comes on, or is it just something else?

When was the last time you checked the coolant level?

A little while ago, but the coolant is reading normal.

I actually rounded this up a little while ago, its close to 22 MPG, that includes me burying the gas pedal a couple times, and easy acceleration up to 90 passing some clowns.

I think that was pretty descent, anyone else think around 22 MPG is descent? :thumbsup:
All in all, thats pretty damn good!
When was the last time you checked the coolant level?

I don't know if this will help you but it helps me keep my radiator full, park the car on a flat surface let it cool take off the radiator cap look in if it looks full have someone start the car while you watch the coolent level to make sure it doesn't surge up it should begain to drop as the thermostat opens then while its running fill it up plus check to see if you have a pinched hose running from the coolent resovor but be carful not to let any coolent spray out.

Carguy, do you have to add any radiator fluid when the light comes on? If not, it may just be a sticky switch. I've never taken the switch out, so I haven't inspected its construction, but it is installed in the front bottom of the full reservoir. Most likely it gets a good coating of the slime and grime buildup over time, which may increase its faulty readings.

If you are adding fluid you obviously may have a leak.

Hate to tell you this but the mileage you are getting is not very good for a stock LT1-powered Fleetwood. You should be more like 23-25 at least. I'm getting 22mpg on my car with all my mods. Around town, you should see about 15-16.

I'll be taking a trip from Northern Va. to CLeveland this weekend in my road warrior Fltwd. It's a business trip, so I'll be keeping the mileage. I'll try to get a good reading for the entire trip (720 mi round trip). I've had as much as 20 mpg combined mileage over a 250 mi trip.

Hate to tell you this but the mileage you are getting is not very good for a stock LT1-powered Fleetwood. You should be more like 23-25 at least. I'm getting 22mpg on my car with all my mods. Around town, you should see about 15-16.

I get about 23/18 (city/hwy) with 3.08's and an Eaton posi and a good tune. What you have to watch out for is speedo errors that will make it look like you're getting great mileage when actually you're just putting more miles on the car. I just caught someone's car, locally with that issue as they complained about my tune netting them less mpg. :cool:


Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS

Man! This thread is gonna make me cry. I'm getting like 11-12 mpg. I gotta look into this. Even with my stock motor I got crappy mileage, but I saw a bigger decrease after the swap. Oh well I'm used to spending $50.00 a week in gas anyway.

I get about 23/18 (city/hwy) with 3.08's and an Eaton posi and a good tune. What you have to watch out for is speedo errors that will make it look like you're getting great mileage when actually you're just putting more miles on the car. I just caught someone's car, locally with that issue as they complained about my tune netting them less mpg. :cool:


Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS

Good advice but in my case, I reflashed the PCM myself with LT1-Edit, so I know it's accurate. Plus I checked it against a police radar gun! On top of that, I'm running 3.73's and a Detroit Locker. It's all in how you set it up!

Kevin Donovan
'95 Cadillac FTS
(Click the link to see my car)
http://members.cardomain.com/katshot

Man! This thread is gonna make me cry. I'm getting like 11-12 mpg. I gotta look into this.

hey man, even though i don't have the same engine, i have the olds 307. i'm only getting 10-11mpg. and the car runs perfectly. ahh. eh, well i may be switching to a 403 in the future. so i won't worry too much. i also think my odometer is part of the problem. it doesn't register the correct amount of miles, they go by too slowly.

Good advice but in my case, I reflashed the PCM myself with LT1-Edit, so I know it's accurate. Plus I checked it against a police radar gun! On top of that, I'm running 3.73's and a Detroit Locker. It's all in how you set it up!

Kevin Donovan
'95 Cadillac FTS
(Click the link to see my car)
http://members.cardomain.com/katshot


MMMm, no....and yes, I guess.

With LT1 edit you could set the trans and speedo settings to reflect better mileage (my point earlier) but it won't be right. Even a 1% higher speedo reading will make it seem you're getting better mileage. Some people set that the other so they put less miles on the car! If you're referring to "that setup" then, well, I guess I agree.

I don't know any full size GM cars getting your mileage with 3.73's, set up correctly.

Is that through a whole tank of gas? Some people report great mileage of the run two exits down the HWY and fill up again. I'm talking about trips of 300 miles and more to get a good idea of your mileage.

Perhaps the radar and mileage are off. Radar guns are notorious for that (a point I win in court).

Did you measure the tires?

Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS (not starting a flame war, just speaking from lots of experience)

Yes, you CAN setup the speedo cal any way you want but what would be the point? In my case, I don't care about cumulative mileage. I want to know that when I blow by a cop, I know EXACTLY how fast I'm going. Yeah, the radar gun "could" be off but the chances of it being off the exactly the same as the speedo are rather remote I would think.
My tires are Goodyear Eagle RS-A's in 255/55-17 with an overall diameter of 28" as given by the manufacturer and crudely verified by myself.
As for my MPG, I was on a trip from Phila, PA to a small town in Connecticut a couple years ago when I checked it so I felt it was a solid number, especially since I DID have a couple road races on the way! ;)
I don't routinely check my mileage since I don't pay for my fuel (company gas card) so I can't say for sure what my "current" mileage is. But since I've only made minor changes in my PCM flash over the last year and HAVE installed new plugs and wires this past summer, my mileage should be at least as good as I stated previously.
As I said, it's all in the setup. Meaning how I have my car setup totally.

Yes, you CAN setup the speedo cal any way you want but what would be the point? In my case, I don't care about cumulative mileage. I want to know that when I blow by a cop, I know EXACTLY how fast I'm going. Yeah, the radar gun "could" be off but the chances of it being off the exactly the same as the speedo are rather remote I would think.
My tires are Goodyear Eagle RS-A's in 255/55-17 with an overall diameter of 28" as given by the manufacturer and crudely verified by myself.
As for my MPG, I was on a trip from Phila, PA to a small town in Connecticut a couple years ago when I checked it so I felt it was a solid number, especially since I DID have a couple road races on the way! ;)
I don't routinely check my mileage since I don't pay for my fuel (company gas card) so I can't say for sure what my "current" mileage is. But since I've only made minor changes in my PCM flash over the last year and HAVE installed new plugs and wires this past summer, my mileage should be at least as good as I stated previously.
As I said, it's all in the setup. Meaning how I have my car setup totally.


Check it again. I'll bet you're not seeing 25 mpg.

Also, typical 255/55/17's as in the Impala wheels/tires measure closer to 26" so that's a little off right there.

My engine's tight and I've only seen 24 mpg, using cruise control set at 75 across OH (where it's really flat), with the wind on a course of ~300 miles.

I'm from the mdwest so telling me you went from Philly to CT, doesn't mean much. Once you drive a good 300 miles calculate it back and you'll see that you're not getting that kind of mileage.

FOr the others who get 11-13 in the city, I can get that low too if I get on it stoplight to stop light -- very easily. It's all how you drive it. :thumbsup:

Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS

my 10-11 mpg in the city is when i hardly push on the gas. if i bury my foot at every stoplight. i get 7-8mpg

Check it again. I'll bet you're not seeing 25 mpg.

Also, typical 255/55/17's as in the Impala wheels/tires measure closer to 26" so that's a little off right there.

My engine's tight and I've only seen 24 mpg, using cruise control set at 75 across OH (where it's really flat), with the wind on a course of ~300 miles.

I'm from the mdwest so telling me you went from Philly to CT, doesn't mean much. Once you drive a good 300 miles calculate it back and you'll see that you're not getting that kind of mileage.

FOr the others who get 11-13 in the city, I can get that low too if I get on it stoplight to stop light -- very easily. It's all how you drive it. :thumbsup:

Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS

Where do I start? Ok, how about this?
# 1. You need to re-read my post. I said I get 22mpg, not 25. I said that a "stock" Fleetwood should get approx. 25mpg. (I had over 100 of them so I can tell you with a degree of certainty that it's a do-able MPG figure)
#2. You should look at the tires on your car. They "should" be 255/50-17 (the Impala SS's OEM size) which are 27" diameter, not 26"as you stated. My tires are taller "55-series" tires, hence the 28" diameter I mentioned.
#3. Even a little knowledge of US geography would tell you that a round-trip from Philadelphia, PA to virtually ANYWHERE in Connecticut and back would put on at least 300 miles (not that you need 300 miles of highway cruising to give you an accurate MPG reading), and that the trip would take you through a lot of high-traffic areas that would definately REDUCE your MPG over the course of the trip. So actually I got 22mpg in a rather congested area and could probably do even better in a less "urban" area.

Ok guys, I'm back from Cleveland. Total trip was 753 miles. My mileage was 22.6 MPG. I filled up the night before I left and topped off the tank after coming back into town before driving home. The total miles includes only (about) 25 miles of city driving, and my A/C compressor was on the entire trip. I forgot to use the ECON setting to get even a better MGP result. Even though the Fltwd is a '94, it only has 38K miles on it, and I changed the oil the day before the trip using (my standard) Mobil1.

This Fltwd. is a non-Brougham model (a little lighter) with standard 2.93 axle ratio.

Ok guys, I'm back from Cleveland. Total trip was 753 miles. My mileage was 22.6 MPG. I filled up the night before I left and topped off the tank after coming back into town before driving home. The total miles includes only (about) 25 miles of city driving, and my A/C compressor was on the entire trip. I forgot to use the ECON setting to get even a better MGP result. Even though the Fltwd is a '94, it only has 38K miles on it, and I changed the oil the day before the trip using (my standard) Mobil1.

This Fltwd. is a non-Brougham model (a little lighter) with standard 2.93 axle ratio.


I don't know how the regular Fleetwood is lighter but your mileage is WAY closer to truth than the other guy.


Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS

Where do I start? Ok, how about this?
# 1. You need to re-read my post. I said I get 22mpg, not 25. I said that a "stock" Fleetwood should get approx. 25mpg. (I had over 100 of them so I can tell you with a degree of certainty that it's a do-able MPG figure)
#2. You should look at the tires on your car. They "should" be 255/50-17 (the Impala SS's OEM size) which are 27" diameter, not 26"as you stated. My tires are taller "55-series" tires, hence the 28" diameter I mentioned.
#3. Even a little knowledge of US geography would tell you that a round-trip from Philadelphia, PA to virtually ANYWHERE in Connecticut and back would put on at least 300 miles (not that you need 300 miles of highway cruising to give you an accurate MPG reading), and that the trip would take you through a lot of high-traffic areas that would definately REDUCE your MPG over the course of the trip. So actually I got 22mpg in a rather congested area and could probably do even better in a less "urban" area.


22 or 25, it doesn't matter, because you're not getting either. GM only rated a new Fleetwood at 25 on the Hwy and everybody KNOWS you never see the rated mileage. I'd be curious to know how you've had 100 of them.... :bonkers:

Looking at the tires on my Fleetwood, the original ones....they are P235/70R15's. OEM, stock. I don't know what crack you're on but no 94-96 Fleetwood Caddy's come with 17 inch wheels. LT1 edit may show that in the tire size margin, but what's actually ON your car is different...much different. Besides, 70 series tires are taller, not 55 series so check your math again.....and your measurements. The 70 represents 70% of the width represented in height. So is 55 larger than 70??? I don't see how. Stock Impala wheels/tires are ~26, with maybe a 0.5" margin of difference as tires of the same manufacturer differ even between all 4 on your own car! BTW, correct measurement is taken across the tire through the center of the center cap. Not up and down.

And yes, I think you need AT LEAST 300 miles to get a good average mpg, before you start spitting news of great mpg's. I get ~120 miles per quarter tank and so my gas gauge is very accurate as is my odometer. How do I know, because on my own car and customer's cars we've checked against GPS and all are dead on using my measurement process.

Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS

This is getting interesting :bouncy:

Oooooh, yeah.....

Well, I'm not going off any IP indication. My mileage of 22.6 is actuall calcualted MPG. Miles driven/gas used. Oh, the non-Brougham has about 40 lbs less junk on it in my estimation.

Oooooh, yeah.....

Well, I'm not going off any IP indication. My mileage of 22.6 is actuall calcualted MPG. Miles driven/gas used. Oh, the non-Brougham has about 40 lbs less junk on it in my estimation.


BTW, did you buy that black one in VA that was owned by that Russian Diplomat?? If so that was a very sweet ride. I was looking into that one, myself! I have tons of pictures of it. :worship:

As for the differences in the two, I know the Brougham has a vinyl roof and seat heaters and some more interior lights......does that add up to ~40 lbs??

22 or 25, it doesn't matter, because you're not getting either. GM only rated a new Fleetwood at 25 on the Hwy and everybody KNOWS you never see the rated mileage. I'd be curious to know how you've had 100 of them.... :bonkers:

Looking at the tires on my Fleetwood, the original ones....they are P235/70R15's. OEM, stock. I don't know what crack you're on but no 94-96 Fleetwood Caddy's come with 17 inch wheels. LT1 edit may show that in the tire size margin, but what's actually ON your car is different...much different. Besides, 70 series tires are taller, not 55 series so check your math again.....and your measurements. The 70 represents 70% of the width represented in height. So is 55 larger than 70??? I don't see how. Stock Impala wheels/tires are ~26, with maybe a 0.5" margin of difference as tires of the same manufacturer differ even between all 4 on your own car! BTW, correct measurement is taken across the tire through the center of the center cap. Not up and down.

And yes, I think you need AT LEAST 300 miles to get a good average mpg, before you start spitting news of great mpg's. I get ~120 miles per quarter tank and so my gas gauge is very accurate as is my odometer. How do I know, because on my own car and customer's cars we've checked against GPS and all are dead on using my measurement process.

Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS


I'm not sure what your problem is Brian. Maybe there's a HUGE miscommunication here.
I never said that Fleetwoods came with 17's. I said that MY car has them. As I've pointed out, my car is NOT stock.
I was mentioning the tire sizes because of your statement about the tire size of an Impala SS as compared to my posted tire diameter. Obviously, you didn't bother actually re-reading my post(s) as I suggested.
Feel free to check out the link below and you'll see how my car is setup.
As for how I had 100 Fleetwoods, actually it was probably more than that. I just used that number. I was the fleet manager for the largest all-Cadillac fleet in the country from 1980 - 2000 and during the model years in question ('94 -'96) I was buying roughly 100 Fleetwood sedans, and 30-40 limousines per year.
During my time there, I tracked our fleet quite carefully and I assure you my numbers backed up my claims here. As for MY car, after reviewing my site and my mods, you should have a clear idea of what my car is, and I assure you, I did in fact get 22mpg on the trip I described. Believe it or don't I really don't care. I simply made a statement based on a rather large amount of experience and attempted to decipher your posts thereafter. At this point, you seem much more interested in running your mouth than reading my posts and trying to understand them, so I'm just going to leave you to it. As I said, I invite you to actually READ my posts, and visit the site to see my car so you might understand what I'm talking about and we MIGHT actually be able to get on the same page here.

Sorry, forgot to post the link to my site, DUH! :rolleyes:

Kevin Donovan
'95 Cadillac FTS
(Click the link to see my car)
http://members.cardomain.com/katshot

BTW, did you buy that black one in VA that was owned by that Russian Diplomat?? If so that was a very sweet ride. I was looking into that one, myself! I have tons of pictures of it.
lbs??

No, I didn't see that one. I found my non-Brougham Fltwd. in Newport News this summer. A funeral home fleet vehicle purchased by a retired Veterinarian.
He had three other vehicles including an STS, so he decided to sell the Fltwd.
It was so nice I had to buy it. I'm almost ashamed of my impulse purchase, but man... it is mint! As with any vehicle purchase, there were compromises. No Brougham package, no CD player, but I'll get over it.

Anytime you find a super-clean Fleetwood, it's a lucky find. They're getting pretty rare. Face it, the vast majority were purchased by fleets and the last one was built going on 9 years ago! As far as I'm seeing, Fleetwoods are actually a good investment nowadays.

I'm not sure what your problem is Brian. Maybe there's a HUGE miscommunication here.
I never said that Fleetwoods came with 17's. I said that MY car has them. As I've pointed out, my car is NOT stock.
I was mentioning the tire sizes because of your statement about the tire size of an Impala SS as compared to my posted tire diameter. Obviously, you didn't bother actually re-reading my post(s) as I suggested.
Feel free to check out the link below and you'll see how my car is setup.
As for how I had 100 Fleetwoods, actually it was probably more than that. I just used that number. I was the fleet manager for the largest all-Cadillac fleet in the country from 1980 - 2000 and during the model years in question ('94 -'96) I was buying roughly 100 Fleetwood sedans, and 30-40 limousines per year.
During my time there, I tracked our fleet quite carefully and I assure you my numbers backed up my claims here. As for MY car, after reviewing my site and my mods, you should have a clear idea of what my car is, and I assure you, I did in fact get 22mpg on the trip I described. Believe it or don't I really don't care. I simply made a statement based on a rather large amount of experience and attempted to decipher your posts thereafter. At this point, you seem much more interested in running your mouth than reading my posts and trying to understand them, so I'm just going to leave you to it. As I said, I invite you to actually READ my posts, and visit the site to see my car so you might understand what I'm talking about and we MIGHT actually be able to get on the same page here.


I read everything. You're lying or grossly misinformed. Now you're trying to say that limo's get hat awesome mileage?? Yes, I did read that in your above post.

Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS

I really wouldnt be suprised if a Fleetwood limo got that type of MPG on the highway, as your cruising at a constant speed, vs. moving the beast from a stop light. The only thing that changes is weight, that should knock a few percentage points of the gas mileage.

I read everything. You're lying or grossly misinformed. Now you're trying to say that limo's get hat awesome mileage?? Yes, I did read that in your above post.

Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS

Mr Cowl Hood, please read this:

"I was buying roughly 100 Fleetwood sedans, and 30-40 limousines per year."

He's saying he managed a fleet of a lot of fleetwood SEDANS and that's the kind of mileage they got. It's as simple as that.

...100 Fleetwood sedans, and 30-40 limousines per year.

Do they still teach reading comprehension skills in school? Or do people just leave school choosing to be ignorant? :hmm:

Katshot, you frickin liar!!!

How can you say that limo's do the 1/4 mile in less than 3.5 seconds?

And how can you say that Fleetwoods don't go to the moon and back on a tank of Tang.

And, the biggest issue I have, is that you said there was an ice maker in all of the armrests.

<end sarcasm>

Ok Brian, this is a joke, right? Because it's getting real funny. :histeric:

Maybe MR SCOWL would have been more appropriate. :welcome:

Katshot, you frickin liar!!!

How can you say that limo's do the 1/4 mile in less than 3.5 seconds?

And how can you say that Fleetwoods don't go to the moon and back on a tank of Tang.

And, the biggest issue I have, is that you said there was an ice maker in all of the armrests.

<end sarcasm>

Ok Brian, this is a joke, right? Because it's getting real funny. :histeric:

Maybe MR SCOWL would have been more appropriate. :welcome:

LOL!!!!!!!!! :rofl:
You're killing me! God I was hoping it wasn't me.

No, it wasn't you. I just leave the street and let the shoot'n commence. :hide:

No, it wasn't you. I just leave the street and let the shoot'n commence. :hide:


Sure, I'm ready. :lildevil: :cool:


Anyhow, what I'm arguing is that he maintains 22 mpg w/ 3.73 gears that, if it's not TOO obvious to most people radically increase RPM's -- at any speed. What that translates to is increased gas USAGE, not mileage. So, if Katshot admits to ~18 mpg Hwy, I'll conceid.

Also, there's no way Fleetwood limos's (stretched, that's what defines a limo, not just a sedan with different plates) can get the same gas mileage as the sedans. I just seriously pulled over a guy at a light driving a 94 stretch, to get his input and he told me he's getting on the order of 13 mpg! Less when he's driving in the city. :hmm:

If that point is argued here my head may explode at the sheer lack of logic. :banghead:

I just think if you're going to spread information, make it factual. That way people who come to places like this are well informed and feel good when their real world experiences are in line. :)


Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS

Brian,
It's obvious that everyone else gets it. You're either thick as a brick or love stirring up controversy. Either way, I'm tired of trying to explain this to you. Read my posts or don't, I don't care at this point.
Have a nice day.

THE HIGHWAY MILEAGE ON A NEW CAR STICKER IS BASED ON A CRUISE AT 49.6 MPH.
GRANNY COULD'NT ATTAIN THAT GOOD MILEAGE. :rolleyes:

3.73 gearing doesn't automatically mean worse milage. It will raise the rpm but as long as the rpm is a bit below the torque peak rpm of the engine the mileage won't get worse. He still never said limos get that kind of mileage, the only thing he said about limos is that the fleet he managed also happened to have limos in it.

THE HIGHWAY MILEAGE ON A NEW CAR STICKER IS BASED ON A CRUISE AT 49.6 MPH.
GRANNY COULD'NT ATTAIN THAT GOOD MILEAGE. :rolleyes:
That's true. The EPA ratings aren't designed to tell you what mileage you'll get when you drive, it's designed to be a standard test result that you can compare with EPA ratings on other cars. It's not all that accurate and fair, if the shift to 3rd or OD happens at say 50mph that car's going to get worse mileage.

:peeking: Man oh man. Kevin, what did you say to get these young boys all fired up? Do we dare tell them that the mileage gets worse in the winter because the computer demands more fuel to match the denser air??


I would be interested to hear what Katshot had to say about my FTS wanna-be. It doesn't sem to matter what gas, what weather, or what speed, I appear to get 20 MPG give or take <5%. Box stock but for the K&N FIPK, 1LE elbow, Sweet Thunder chambered exhaust (duals), and Impala rims w/ Kuhmos (SS size). No trouble codes. 51K miles. Got any ideas why I can't get better??:hmm:

[QUOTE=davesdeville]3.73 gearing doesn't automatically mean worse milage. It will raise the rpm but as long as the rpm is a bit below the torque peak rpm of the engine the mileage won't get worse. He still never said limos get that kind of mileage, the only thing he said about limos is that the fleet he managed also happened to have limos in it.

I don't know where you read that, but it's simply not true in practical application.

Try going from (2.93 gears) 80 mph at ~1950 rpm to (3.73 gears) 80 mph at ~3000 rpm. There's some additonal fuel used there, even though the air fuel ratio can regulate to 14.7:1. It's just a fact. Higher gears and/or more mods = more fuel to keep up. Now this is not necessarily inversley proprtional. If you went with, say 2.00 gears, would you get even better mileage than 2.93's? No. Why because you've hit a wall of diminising returns where the engine simply can't produce enough Tq to adequately maintain the vehicles needs for movement so the engine bogs and mileage suffers.

Besides, does anyone remember ads in the early 80's gas crunch times where the EPA showed tests where two cars ran around a track, one at 55 mph and the other at 70? The one that ran slower got better mileage by quite a margin, and the one that ran faster only beat the first car to it's destination by less than a minute. The same is true for gearing. Both cars traveled with the same gears, but the one going faster experienced higher rpms -- much like higher gears. Get it?

The only aspects that can be changed to make a vehicle operate more efficiently (barring any weight savings and super skinny tires or aerodynamics) is to use that correct, low ratio gear and adjust tuning such that a certain timing, and AFR is comensurate with what the vehicle needs to operate. Once that is optimized, you can't do any better. Thus, the 2.93 gears are just about as good as it's going to get (gearwise). 2.73's might do slightly better, but with other tradeoffs, not to mention here.

Some people just hate to admit such things or are just too obstanate to REALLY look into it. :rolleyes2 I deal with all kinds of personalities every day so I am used to debates and attitudes. No sweat off my back. So that's okay. I don't profit from arguing over it. Just don't try to debate me when I know I'm right. :bighead: lol Or at least have suitable proof to argue. Otherwise you're just spewing unfactual information.

As for his referrence to limos (stretched) then they should not have been added to the discussion if he's not including them in his point. I could talk about Saturns and Baseball teams and be in league with erronious information. I find it interesting that his first argument was that he had LT1 edit and programmed his own FW himself, and then changed his background info to "(I had over 100 of them ..." so I know argument. I could have a 1000, and still be inaccurate if I wanted. :drinker

Anyone else who has legible data want to contribute? This IS good!

Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS (anyone figure out how to auto sig this list yet??)

But thats just one dude in a 94 Fleetwood limo, theres more then one out there, can you really base your results on one???

I get 22 mpg highway, I was told i should be getting better for a stock LT-1, but you cant tell everyone all Fleetwoods get 22 mpg on the highway stock?

But thats just one dude in a 94 Fleetwood limo, theres more then one out there, can you really base your results on one???

I get 22 mpg highway, I was told i should be getting better for a stock LT-1, but you cant tell everyone all Fleetwoods get 22 mpg on the highway stock?


That was merely an example. I don't have to poll all drivers of LT1 limos, much less all people with large cars to correctly state no one's getting 25 mpg!

You've made a very weak statement.

Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS

Right, we forgot you're omnicient and something, while being reasonable and probably attainable, as long as you say it's not true then it's not true.


An engine is most efficient at the rpm at which its torque is at peak. Less than that shouldn't net you much extra mileage.

Right, we forgot you're omnicient and something, while being reasonable and probably attainable, as long as you say it's not true then it's not true.


An engine is most efficient at the rpm at which its torque is at peak. Less than that shouldn't net you much extra mileage.

...and don't forget it.

The LT1 engine's torque peak RPM value is ~4500 so in your world, I can drive around at 4500 rpms and save gas?...Oh, I'm sorry, 4499 rpms, then? I really just want to leaaarrrrn. :drinker Have another....

Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid154/p319e5bd37918d7fcfef99aeba5f5415c/f57dd7bb.jpg

In my 1995 Fleetwood brougham, I get about 15-18 MPG in mixed driving. I never got anywhere near the EPA ratings for this car, mainly because of my leadfoot driving. However, on a recent trip from Tampa FL - Savannah GA & back (about 800 miles total) I got 23.5 MPG, which was GRRRREAT (for me) , I suspect this was because I didn't leadfoot it for once (my wife was in the car bitching about my speed the entire trip).:drinker

Bear in mind that my Fleetwood has some 163,000 miles on it, but you would never know by looking at it or driving it.:D

The LT1 engine's torque peak RPM value is ~4500 so in your world, I can drive around at 4500 rpms and save gas?...Oh, I'm sorry, 4499 rpms, then?

Driving at a really low rpm like 2200 won't do you as much good as you might think it would, and driving over 4500 will kill the mileage. That's all I'm saying. Thanks for reading my post, I guess it's not too much to ask of you after all.

Driving at a really low rpm like 2200 won't do you as much good as you might think it would, and driving over 4500 will kill the mileage. That's all I'm saying. Thanks for reading my post, I guess it's not too much to ask of you after all.

PLease stop writing to this thread ...:bonkers:

regardless, I think a good even LOW rpm properly inflated tires gets the best mpg. oh and the least stops possible. Good temperature air between 40-70 degrees

If you want good mileage from a Fleetwood (why buy a FLW if mileage is your concern) just hook it up with some 26" wheels! :D

PLease stop writing to this thread ...:bonkers:

regardless, I think a good even LOW rpm properly inflated tires gets the best mpg. oh and the least stops possible. Good temperature air between 40-70 degrees

You bring up a really good point about proper tire inflation. That's really key too! Running cruise control can also add some miles per gallon. It seems a smoother gas pedal rather than pulsating the pedal does better.

So, is this thing dead yet? :bighead:


Brian 96 FWB / 96 Impala SS