RCM only


On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:21:25 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
Ignoramus15242 quickly quoth:

I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old.

I was never able to get more that about 220 miles out of a 22 gallon
tank of gas, sometimes even less.

However, the last three refills, gave me 280, 266, and 283 miles per
refill. (I usually run until my tanks gets fully empty, since I have
an emergency gas canister for the instance when I run out of gas).

This represents approximately 22% increase in MPG that I have hard
times explaining. I see three possible explanations.

1) Just before those refills, I did an oil change and used Mobil 1
synthetic oil. The previous oil changes were at a service station.

2) The engine had a chance to "burn in" and naturally improved its
efficiency

I am told (by friends who buy new vehicles often) that there is no
longer any break-in period necessary. One says that precision CNC
machining precludes that nowadays. Toyota asks that we vary our speed
during the first 1,000 miles, but that's it.


3) something is seriously mistaken in my measurements.

Are you using the same pump at the same station all the time? By law,
all filling station slabs have to be level, but "settling of contents
may occur during shipment."

Are you filling the tank or is a gas jockey doing it? Some allow the
tank to top itself, others pump in as much as they can possibly get.
The extra pumping might be your difference in at least one of those
calculations.

I need to put the fourth tankful in my new Tundra today and am
thinking about having that first oil change with a synthetic oil to
see if it makes any difference for me.


I am at a loss and am very puzzled. Can synthetic oil really account
for that much of an increase? I highly doubt it.

The wrong oil in really cold weather can make a difference, but this
is springtime. I doubt it, too.

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
RCM only


On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:21:25 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
Ignoramus15242 quickly quoth:

I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old.

I was never able to get more that about 220 miles out of a 22 gallon
tank of gas, sometimes even less.

However, the last three refills, gave me 280, 266, and 283 miles per
refill. (I usually run until my tanks gets fully empty, since I have
an emergency gas canister for the instance when I run out of gas).

This represents approximately 22% increase in MPG that I have hard
times explaining. I see three possible explanations.

1) Just before those refills, I did an oil change and used Mobil 1
synthetic oil. The previous oil changes were at a service station.

2) The engine had a chance to "burn in" and naturally improved its
efficiency

I am told (by friends who buy new vehicles often) that there is no
longer any break-in period necessary. One says that precision CNC
machining precludes that nowadays. Toyota asks that we vary our speed
during the first 1,000 miles, but that's it.


There's no break-in necessary to protect bearings, rings, etc. But there
still is a reduction in friction as the engine breaks in.




3) something is seriously mistaken in my measurements.

Are you using the same pump at the same station all the time? By law,
all filling station slabs have to be level, but "settling of contents
may occur during shipment."

Are you filling the tank or is a gas jockey doing it? Some allow the
tank to top itself, others pump in as much as they can possibly get.
The extra pumping might be your difference in at least one of those
calculations.

I need to put the fourth tankful in my new Tundra today and am
thinking about having that first oil change with a synthetic oil to
see if it makes any difference for me.


I am at a loss and am very puzzled. Can synthetic oil really account
for that much of an increase? I highly doubt it.

The wrong oil in really cold weather can make a difference, but this
is springtime. I doubt it, too.

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

RCM only

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:52:27 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"T.Alan Kraus" quickly quoth:

I never think in terms of MPG (miles per gallon), but rather in terms of
GPH (gallons per hour) . At the speeds we are allowed to travel this is
a better gauge of fuel/engine performance.

Man, what are you _flying_? Or are you driving an Abrahms?

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

RCM only

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:04:29 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
Ignoramus15242 quickly quoth:

On 2008-04-18, wrote:

Or maybe they were selling gasohol (10% ethanol) and stopped.

So, is "gasohol" really that much less energy dense???

Yes, it is. I just realized why my mileage went from 14 down to 12.4.
Oregon (Fred Meyer fuel stations in particular) just switched to
gasohol between my first and second tankfuls. I noticed the same
thing with my Ford in CA when filling at various stations, some with
and some without ethanol. It was a 10% or more difference every time.
The Ford pinged less on gasohol but, at these prices, I'd much prefer
the real gas, TYVM.

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

RCM only

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:56:31 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

10% ethanol costs you 5% in power because ethanol has half the
btu/gallon (roughly) of straight gasoline.
If you know one fas is E10, and the other is E0 (straight gasoline)
you are just as far ahead paying $4.20 a gallon of the E) as $4.00 per
gallon for E10.

That 5% power loss results in a 10-11.5% fuel economy decrease in both
trucks I've driven with both fuels. shrug

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

Larry Jaques wrote:


Man, what are you _flying_? Or are you driving an Abrahms?

No just a '64 Spitfire, the one with four wheels. Consumes 1.2 gal/hour
at whatever speed I choose to drive. Obviously the faster I drive the
less time it takes, the less gas I use.

cheers
T.Alan

"T.Alan Kraus" wrote: No just a '64 Spitfire, the one with four wheels.
Consumes 1.2 gal/hour
at whatever speed I choose to drive. Obviously the faster I drive the less
time it takes, the less gas I use.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How stupid of me! I didn't realize you were joking. You ARE joking, right?

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:31:12 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"T.Alan Kraus" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:


Man, what are you _flying_? Or are you driving an Abrahms?

No just a '64 Spitfire, the one with four wheels.

Condolences. I'm sure we'd all prefer the one with three wheels,
though it gets _considerably_ worse gas mileage. I hear it's illegal
to spew lead all over, as they're capable of, too.


Consumes 1.2 gal/hour
at whatever speed I choose to drive. Obviously the faster I drive the
less time it takes, the less gas I use.

So at 90mph, you get 75mpg? Excellent!

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:37:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


You check the odometer when you fill up. On your next fill, no matter
if even a half a tank, you check the miles on the odometer again. This
gives you the number of miles traveled and the amount of gas used to do
so. Then you just divide the miles by how many gallons used.

Do you really think this is a reliable way to establish mileage? Is this
something new? Has this ever been proven? What would happen, say, if one
would do this over ten tankfuls? Do you think this would give an accurate
measurement over a long trip? Do you think anyone under 25 could do the
math?

WHAT AN OUTSTANDING NOVEL IDEA!

Steve g

Not so fast!

I don't see any cites here. Where are the government statistics
showing this to be valid in Illinois?

In article , wrote:

Are you filling the tank or is a gas jockey doing it? Some allow the
tank to top itself, others pump in as much as they can possibly get.
The extra pumping might be your difference in at least one of those
calculations.

Not *that* much. Assuming that his figures are accurate, he only gets about
10mpg. And at 10mpg, to suddenly start getting 280 miles from a tankful, when
he'd previously been getting only 220, means that he's getting _six_gallons_
more gas each time than he used to. Not very likely IMHO.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe

Larry Jaques wrote:

Condolences. I'm sure we'd all prefer the one with three wheels,
though it gets _considerably_ worse gas mileage. I hear it's illegal
to spew lead all over, as they're capable of, too.

that would be a double whammy in California...

Consumes 1.2 gal/hour
at whatever speed I choose to drive. Obviously the faster I drive the
less time it takes, the less gas I use.


So at 90mph, you get 75mpg? Excellent!

I wish I could test that speed, that little engine maxes out at 70 mph.
But at 60-65, 40 MPG seems to be the norm. And that is quite a wind load.

cheers
T.Alan

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:10:24 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"T.Alan Kraus" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Condolences. I'm sure we'd all prefer the one with three wheels,
though it gets _considerably_ worse gas mileage. I hear it's illegal
to spew lead all over, as they're capable of, too.

that would be a double whammy in California...

Consumes 1.2 gal/hour
at whatever speed I choose to drive. Obviously the faster I drive the
less time it takes, the less gas I use.


So at 90mph, you get 75mpg? Excellent!

I wish I could test that speed, that little engine maxes out at 70 mph.
But at 60-65, 40 MPG seems to be the norm. And that is quite a wind load.

That 1.2gph figure at 60 and 65 equates to 50 and 54mpg, Alan, so
you're as accurate as Iggy's "about the same gallons."

Heh heh heh.

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

RCM only


On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:02:24 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
clifto quickly quoth:

jim wrote:
Studies in fleet vehicles have consistently shown that adding 10% alcohol
to gasoline INCREASES mpg by about 3 to 5 percent. It is also well known
that the addition of alcohol to gasoline results in higher octane and in
more complete combustion of the fuel than gasoline alone. Which explains
why energy content calculations mean nothing.

Cite.

Yeah, I'd like to see that, too. In every report I've read, MPG goes
down with ethanol. In every physical test I've done with my own
vehicles, MPG goes down by at least 10%.

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:31:11 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

RCM only

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:56:31 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada quickly quoth:

10% ethanol costs you 5% in power because ethanol has half the
btu/gallon (roughly) of straight gasoline.
If you know one fas is E10, and the other is E0 (straight gasoline)
you are just as far ahead paying $4.20 a gallon of the E) as $4.00 per
gallon for E10.

That 5% power loss results in a 10-11.5% fuel economy decrease in both
trucks I've driven with both fuels. shrug
That will happen with E18.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:57:14 GMT, "RAM³"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote in
:

Subject: Surprising increase in truck MPG
From: Gunner Asch
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.autos.tech

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:32:30 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus11166 wrote:

It is a Silverado 2500HD pickup with a 5.9 liter engine, not sure
about axle ratio.

And it only has a 22-gallon gas tank?????


My '89 Ford F350 1ton has dual tanks.

A 12 gallon and a 10 gallon.

351 fuel injected,
11,000 original miles

55mph = 15mpg
60mpg =13 mpg
65 mph =10.35 mpg

Gunner


Hmmmfff

My Dodge dooley gets better mileage than that and it's got a 36 gallon
tank. (20 mpg @ 60 mph; 17 mpg @ 70 mph)

It's running 4.10:1 gears in both differentials, too.

It's finally getting broken in after 41,000 miles of pulling a 7-ton,
13' high, 8.5' wide fifth-wheel trailer. grin

The "check engine" light flashes on a regular basis, so I assume there
is an issue, probably a bad vacuum line, though it runs and idles
fine. The exhaust smells a bit rich, though it passed California smog
with some of the smallest numbers the smog guy ever saw. Though..come
to think of it..the check engine light wasnt flashing then..it started
later.

I dont have a clue what the rear end ratio is. Its a bit doggy on
accelleration, but I figure thats because its a pretty small engine to
be dragging that extended and pop topped 1 ton van body around


Gunner


"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:31:41 -0700
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Yike, it used to be 70 or maybe 75 in some parts of the UP. But gas was 36
cents/gallon then. d8-)

29 cents/gallon when I was there, Ed. Da signs said 65/55 back then
but they were regarded as suggestions. Might see two other cars on
M-28 in the 60 miles between US-41 and Seney in those days. There
were some notorious speed traps in the L.P. but we never had any
problems in the U.P.


Crom....I remember hitchhiking the Seney Stretch one day in mid
winter......took hours to get a ride.

It was always a toss up. No cars either meant the divers would
take pity and pick you up, or would sail right by you "too".

I remember hitching back from Switzerland, Easter Weekend. Bumper
to bumper traffic, and someone on "autotramp" every twenty meters ...
I got home just in time to shower, change and got to work.
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:58:00 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Don
Foreman quickly quoth:

The Army's arctic test lab was on the Keweenaw back in the '60s,
don't know if that's still true. Oooh, Toivo, dey get a LOT of snow!
I recall mornings in Hancock when the only evidence I could find re
the location of my VW was the radio aerial sticking above the snow.

Was that the international orange foam ball with the smiley face on
your 102" CB radio whip, Don? Waaaay too cold for me.

We had uncharacteristically cold weather yesterday. BB sized hail for
an hour in 40F weather, now 28F with snow predicted. Nothing stuck for
more than an hour yesterday. I much prefer my snow 'n ice like that.


On a recent visit to the U.P. I found that folks there don't
ordinarily speak Yooper as they once did. I asked a friendly young
college-age woman in a coffee shop in Marquette about that. She
laughed and gave me an earfull of Yooper. Made my day!

That's always fun, especially if they're -pretty- young nubiles.

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:16:04 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Well, in the middle of winter, it almost isn't. g At one point, Copper
Harbor had the highest average snowfall in the continental US.

More than Paradise on Mt Ranier? This is a question, not a
challenge, you're the stats man. I recall 300+ inches of snow in
Houghton when I was there and I expect Gopper Harpor got a bit more.

Who gets the most snow now? It surzhell ain't here in MN.

The year my boss bought a piece of land up there, and he had me research
everything he'd need for a bank to finance it (it was for recreation
property), Copper Harbor had 264 inches of snow. That was the highest in the
US at the time.

--
Ed Huntress

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:16:04 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:27:46 -0400
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Haven't tried it too much
faster, there are no roads in Michigan's U.P that are over 55 MPH.
Like you mentioned, aerodynamics of a barn door.

Yike, it used to be 70 or maybe 75 in some parts of the UP. But gas
was 36 cents/gallon then. d8-)

It's 65 here in NJ. Does anyone stick to the 55 mph limit up there?



--
Ed Huntress



Hi Ed.. the only road in da U.P. that's over 55 is 60 miles of I75
from St. Ignace to the Soo. But I never get that far east. If I drive
south I can hit 41 just north of Green Bay, I think that is 65 or 70.

Does anyone stick to 55? Nah.

You know Ed, this is a part of Michigan (the Keweenaw) that most folks
downstate don't realize is here. LOL

Well, in the middle of winter, it almost isn't. g At one point, Copper
Harbor had the highest average snowfall in the continental US.

The Army's arctic test lab was on the Keweenaw back in the '60s,
don't know if that's still true. Oooh, Toivo, dey get a LOT of snow!
I recall mornings in Hancock when the only evidence I could find re
the location of my VW was the radio aerial sticking above the snow.

On a recent visit to the U.P. I found that folks there don't
ordinarily speak Yooper as they once did. I asked a friendly young
college-age woman in a coffee shop in Marquette about that. She
laughed and gave me an earfull of Yooper. Made my day!

Ed, you surely know that the proper pronunciation is "Gop-per
Harpor"...

And that if you ask if there are any snowshoe rabbits this year, the answer
is "a blue million of 'em." g

Yoop...yoop...yooper, eh? I attribute the heart attack I had last year to
eating too many pasties in the '60s and '70s.

Gunner is a Yooper. But I think he's from Escanaba, which is almost part of
the US.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:17:49 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

Easiest thing is to reset the trip odometer every time you fill up.
Fuel consumption is miles driven since the last fillup divided by
gallons added, modulo small differences in "fullness" (or liters
divided by km driven if you want to do the metric reciprocal thing).

Exactly what I do, filled up yesterday, 19th April, unleaded.

Trip 766.7 km
Fuel 61.7 litres
Price $1.333 / litre after 4c discount, normally $1.373
Total $82.24
cost/km 10.73 cents

Fuel consumption 12.426 km / litre, 29.33 miles /us gallon or
35.09 miles per real gallon, slightly better than usual as I am not
using the aircon so much as it is cooler.
Vehicle 1994 Camry, 2.2 litre 4 cylinder. 2 x 50 km each way trips
per week, mostly freeway and about 150 km per week local short trips
of about 10 km each way.
Diesel was $1.709 / litre today at nearest fuel station, ULP $1.399

Previous fill 28th March was

Trip 732.1
Fuel 65.29 litres
Price $1.355 / litre after 4c discount, normally $1.395
Total $88.46
cost/km 12.08 cents
aircon on all time, towing trailer about 200 km, average 300 kg load.
Fuel consumption 11.213 km / litre
aircon + towing = extra fuel used

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:45:38 -0400
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The year my boss bought a piece of land up there, and he had me
research everything he'd need for a bank to finance it (it was for
recreation property), Copper Harbor had 264 inches of snow. That was
the highest in the US at the time.

--
Ed Huntress


2007-2008 Snowfall To Date March 26, 2008 - 258.2"and 34" on the
ground. Melting pretty good now, but we are still ice fishing.

1978 was the worst I remember... 354". Lots of winter kill on the
deer herd, but a lot of the deer moved down to the banana belt, around
Crystal falls and Iron Mountain.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:45:38 -0400
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The year my boss bought a piece of land up there, and he had me
research everything he'd need for a bank to finance it (it was for
recreation property), Copper Harbor had 264 inches of snow. That was
the highest in the US at the time.

--
Ed Huntress


2007-2008 Snowfall To Date March 26, 2008 - 258.2"and 34" on the
ground. Melting pretty good now, but we are still ice fishing.

1978 was the worst I remember... 354". Lots of winter kill on the
deer herd, but a lot of the deer moved down to the banana belt, around
Crystal falls and Iron Mountain.

Ha-ha! I'm trying to picture Iron Mountain as a banana belt. g

Did you ever read _Trout Madness_ by Robert Traver? (That was his pen
name -- he was a lawyer who also wrote _Anatomy of a Murder_.) I read it
when I was around 12, living in Pennsylvania at the time. It was a goal of
mine to try to retrace his fishing haunts some day in the Upper Peninsula.
When I got the chance (I think it was 1971), I spent about six weeks of the
summer trying to do exactly that.

Years later I met a guy online who knew him and generally where he fished.
It turns out he was from Escanaba and fished mostly in the lower part of the
UP. I had chased all around looking for beaver ponds with big brookies, all
the way up to the Keweenaw.

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:

That 1.2gph figure at 60 and 65 equates to 50 and 54mpg, Alan, so
you're as accurate as Iggy's "about the same gallons."

Heh heh heh.

You are right, but I said there was a wind load. Most of my driving is
on backroads between 25 an 50, and at the pump it seems to always work
out to 1.2 GPH. The engine barely produces 55 Hp and the vehicle weighs
in at about 1500 lb with me in it.

cheers
T.Alan

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:00:04 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:45:38 -0400
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The year my boss bought a piece of land up there, and he had me
research everything he'd need for a bank to finance it (it was for
recreation property), Copper Harbor had 264 inches of snow. That was
the highest in the US at the time.

--
Ed Huntress


2007-2008 Snowfall To Date March 26, 2008 - 258.2"and 34" on the
ground. Melting pretty good now, but we are still ice fishing.

1978 was the worst I remember... 354". Lots of winter kill on the
deer herd, but a lot of the deer moved down to the banana belt, around
Crystal falls and Iron Mountain.

Ha-ha! I'm trying to picture Iron Mountain as a banana belt. g

Did you ever read _Trout Madness_ by Robert Traver? (That was his pen
name -- he was a lawyer who also wrote _Anatomy of a Murder_.) I read it
when I was around 12, living in Pennsylvania at the time. It was a goal of
mine to try to retrace his fishing haunts some day in the Upper Peninsula.
When I got the chance (I think it was 1971), I spent about six weeks of the
summer trying to do exactly that.

Years later I met a guy online who knew him and generally where he fished.
It turns out he was from Escanaba and fished mostly in the lower part of the
UP. I had chased all around looking for beaver ponds with big brookies, all
the way up to the Keweenaw.

He wrote others too: "Small Town DA", "Danny and the Boys", etc
Anatomy of a Murder was set around Marquette, and I think Traver
lived, worked and fished in that part of the state as an adult.

Hemmingway wrote of trout fishing in The Big Twohearted River which is
near Newberry.

Since I don't think anyone has mentioned it, while going around the
various esoteric possibilities - perhaps a sticky brake or e-brake has
unstuck?

The comments about not-very-good methodology for measuring consumption
are true.

Another reason for not running the tank all the way down is the good old
condensate in the fuel tank issue - far better to fill the top half of
the tank than to let it run all the way down in around-town short-haul
driving simply for that reason, with or without the fuel pump happiness
as another reason (and the water resulting may be part of fuel-pump
unhappiness).

I've gotten mileage that bad, but with a one-ton crew cab 4wd - and it
would do better than that on the highway.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:25:53 GMT, Ecnerwal
wrote:

Since I don't think anyone has mentioned it, while going around the
various esoteric possibilities - perhaps a sticky brake or e-brake has
unstuck?

The comments about not-very-good methodology for measuring consumption
are true.

Another reason for not running the tank all the way down is the good old
condensate in the fuel tank issue - far better to fill the top half of
the tank than to let it run all the way down in around-town short-haul
driving simply for that reason, with or without the fuel pump happiness
as another reason (and the water resulting may be part of fuel-pump
unhappiness).


Going back some 60+ years, a great uncle used to fill up the Model "A"
(the car I took my test on) every time he went to town because he
liked to use it off the top, OTOH the neighbour's mother would only
give him 25 cents for gas for the '29 Durant, so that he wouldn't get
very far if he got lost or decided to run away on her.

I've gotten mileage that bad, but with a one-ton crew cab 4wd - and it
would do better than that on the highway.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada