General Monte Carlo Talk Talk about the Monte Carlo. Does not have to be your Monte. Can include pics and games.

Is it even possible...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 7, 2012 | 09:39 PM
  #11  
537's Avatar
537
1 Year Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 158
From: Redwood Falls, MN
Default

I have got up to 37 mpg on the highway in my car. Only thing done to it (as far as I know) is a K&N intake.
 
Old Feb 8, 2012 | 06:26 AM
  #12  
SupplySgt's Avatar
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,635
From: Central Oklahoma
5 Year Member
Default

I found that I get a few mpg better between 70 and 80 than I do around 60. 2300 RPM is about the ideal cruising RPM for a 3800.
 
Old Feb 8, 2012 | 07:57 AM
  #13  
bizparr's Avatar
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 162
From: Sarasota, FL
Default

I guess I need to try changing my plugs/wires. With my 05 3400 the most I've managed to get is right around 23-24 mostly highway. City I normally get 18-19. Only mods so far are l67 coils, exhaust, and fender-well intake (did help by about .5 mpg, give or take..)

I wonder if MPG is something that's effected by how the engine is broken in? Doesn't make sense that a bunch of people with the same car get such different results.
 
Old Feb 8, 2012 | 09:01 AM
  #14  
ChibiBlackSheep's Avatar

Monte Of The Month -- August 2014
10 Year Member5 Year Member3 Year Member1 Year Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 25,145
From: Southeast PA
15 Year Member
Default

Originally Posted by SupplySgt
Granted, it was a stick so less driveline loss but keep in mind the 96 Camaro ECM was non-flashable, so I could fine tune things.
The drivetrain loss on these cars is about the same 20%, it's still really terrible.
 
Old Feb 8, 2012 | 03:19 PM
  #15  
SupplySgt's Avatar
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,635
From: Central Oklahoma
5 Year Member
Default

I want to know how it's still 20% driveline loss. Was it that terribly made? General rule of thumb is 15% for manuals, 20-25% for RWD automatic, around 30% for FWD automatic, and around 40% for AWD.
 
Old Feb 8, 2012 | 04:01 PM
  #16  
Leprechaun93's Avatar
Monte Of The Month -- June 2013
Monte Of The Month -- December 2015
3 Year Member1 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,385
From: Middletown, NY
5 Year Member
Default

It baffles me that 3800 owners are getting such high mpg's. I struggle to achieve 25mpg anymorw with my 3100.
 
Old Feb 8, 2012 | 04:04 PM
  #17  
SupplySgt's Avatar
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,635
From: Central Oklahoma
5 Year Member
Default

Just goes to show how good of a design the 3800 was. Durable, efficient, powerful for a V6 of the era, especially in S/C form.
 
Old Feb 8, 2012 | 05:29 PM
  #18  
Leprechaun93's Avatar
Monte Of The Month -- June 2013
Monte Of The Month -- December 2015
3 Year Member1 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,385
From: Middletown, NY
5 Year Member
Default

Indeed, i would just think with a smaller engine i should atleast be able to get a little bit closer. Normally you'd think the bigger engine would have less mpg than a smaller one
 
Old Feb 8, 2012 | 05:36 PM
  #19  
KJRich's Avatar
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,386
From: Hopewell, PA
10 Year Member
Default

I'm not getting 30-40 mpg out of my 3800 either and it runs fine with no known problems. I'm at a loss.
 
Old Feb 8, 2012 | 05:37 PM
  #20  
BlackRainSS's Avatar
Thread Starter
3 Year Member1 Year Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,868
From: Iowa
Default

I'm pretty shocked at some of the numbers myself. I mean to make it clear he is by no means doing over 65 or under 60. His car had NO tune and was a DD with a lot of in town driving. I thought possibly with some mods yes but the way he stomps on it and his in town burn outs combined with his other driving skills I thought it no way possible.
 



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 PM.