Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[James Sweet]

I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years. For instance, my car is
rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about 440
miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading on
the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening. According the average
mileage
display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ)
filling
the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end of
the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half my
driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest). Which means simply
that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than a
gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction that
go
with changes in temperature.

The expansion and contraction based on temperature for a volume as small as
a tank of fuel in a car are so tiny that you'd never be able to measure them
with anything around the house, and certainly not the odometer in your car.
The fuel temperature varies over a range of perhaps 60F max, usually much
less.

 

[John Robertson]

Bob Shuman wrote:

A quick comment on warranty period and the AVERAGE home gas water heater
life.

The AVERAGE is exactly that: an average or mean calculation of the life for
all units shipped/sold. The real life span is affected by many things,
including the water quality/hardness (it consumes the anode quicker), the
temperature setting you select (hotter means it builds more internal
pressure and you get a shorter life) and the amount of hot water that you
use (more cycles of the burner mean a shorter life).

I am on my third gas HWH and purchased the house new in 1991. The first
heater lasted about 7 years and the second 6.5 years. I had a 7-year
warranty on the tank from Sears and they gave me a replacement free of
charge which has been in now for over 5 years. I believe that I will get a
longer life this time around since two of my children are no longer living
at home.

The gas water heater in my house was old when I bought the place in
1998...and it is still running fine. I think it is about twenty years
old - no leaks so far! And I had three teenagers living here for a
number of years...

John :-#)#

The bottom line here is that the warranty period may be important depending
on your circumstances. It is basically a cheap insurance policy that covers
only the cost of a replacement heater. For me, that was important since I
do the installation myself, but for someone hiring a plumber, the material
cost could easily be less than the labor and associated miscellaneous
expenses (permits).

Good luck in whatever you choose.

Bob

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:bIxsj.57494$Pv2.13701@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:20:35 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:
Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.
Sigh. Absolutely true and totally meaningless within the context of this
discussion.
Hint: Direct energy cost is based on _use_ and efficiency, not _capacity_
and
efficiency.
It turns out Rick is right.

The size of the home water heater (e.g., 40 gallons, 50 gallons, etc.) is
nearly meaningless, as is the warranty period.

The only way the tank size plays any role in the selection process for
purely physical reasons. Why? Because both the EF and the FHR already take
into account the size of the holding tank so there is no need to even
bother to look at tank size (other than for purely physical reasons).

Likewise, the warranty is always less than the average lifetime of a home
water heater, which, at 13 years, is vastly greater than the 1-year labor
warrantees all the heaters I looked at (from Sears, Lowes, and Home Depot)
provided. (Note: The 12yr/9yr/6yr/etc. warranty figures often quoted by
Sears/Lowes/HomeDepot are for PARTS! Not labor).

Thanks everyone for enlightening me ... If I didn't know better, I'd buy
by
the size of the tank and the warranty but now I know they are meaningless
figures. The manufacturer WANTS you to look there but in reality, the
truthy lies in the FHV, EF, and cost/therm.

I didn't realize you guys knew so much about home water heaters ... but
I'm
glad you do. In only two days, I was able to take my knowledge level, with
your help, from absolutely nothing to being able make basic lifetime cost
comparisons given any two home heaters.

Thanks!

Donna

--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

 

[N8N]

On Feb 13, 10:21 pm, "James Sweet" <jamessw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years.  For instance, my car is
rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about 440
miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading on
the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening.  According the average
mileage
display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ)
filling
the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end of
the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half my
driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest).  Which means simply
that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than a
gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction that
go
with changes in temperature.

The expansion and contraction based on temperature for a volume as small as
a tank of fuel in a car are so tiny that you'd never be able to measure them
with anything around the house, and certainly not the odometer in your car..
The fuel temperature varies over a range of perhaps 60F max, usually much
less

Just to be devil's advocate, I used to have a Rabbit GTI that I got
with a bad gas cap; the first time I parked it in the sun with a full
tank of gas, the fuel started pouring out around the gas cap and down
the quarter panel

nate

 

[hallerb@aol.com]

the energy guide labels on appliances arent really to determine exact
operating costs/

their real value is in comparing efficenies in a general way.

obviously a home with 8 kids will use a lot more hot water than a
single guy living alone.

with so many variables, incoming water temp, desired water temp,
amount of water used, cost of gas, etc etc,.

everything is a estimate

 

[ian field]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hjMsj.77$Ef1.5@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

"ian field" <dai.ode@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:OnEsj.17002$xm6.10273@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
A little OT as I'm not actually trying to repair this set, rather draw on
the experience of others who've had experience with similar Sharp sets to
identify the SST 37VF010 chip.

The chip had a paper label stuck on it suggesting factory
programming/firmware etc, but it looks suspiciously like a regular flash
eprom, a google turned up a number of potential suppliers but no
definitive description of what it is and no data sheets - can anyone
furnish any info?

TIA.


Ian. Did you see that TeleMag has been relaunched ?

Arfa

Yes - its available through 3 distributors that I don't have an account with
or direct at a price that's taking the piss or emagazine (non-PDF) to stop
pirating that is in a presentation that is such a PITA to read that they
couldn't sell it to me at any price, and cannot be saved to local HD - so
its like beer, you don't buy it you only rent it!

That is unacceptable.

 

One time when I was driving a company van (Pony Express) I stopped at
the end of my route to fill up the gas tank.It was pouring down rain
real hard.I put the gas nozzle in the tank and I jumped back into the
van, waiting for the nozzle to cut off.It didn't automatically cut off,
gas was pouring out and down the side of that van.It was at an Exxon gas
station.
cuhulin

 

[Arfa Daily]

"ian field" <dai.ode@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ISYsj.113$GQ6.45@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hjMsj.77$Ef1.5@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

"ian field" <dai.ode@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:OnEsj.17002$xm6.10273@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
A little OT as I'm not actually trying to repair this set, rather draw on
the experience of others who've had experience with similar Sharp sets to
identify the SST 37VF010 chip.

The chip had a paper label stuck on it suggesting factory
programming/firmware etc, but it looks suspiciously like a regular flash
eprom, a google turned up a number of potential suppliers but no
definitive description of what it is and no data sheets - can anyone
furnish any info?

TIA.


Ian. Did you see that TeleMag has been relaunched ?

Arfa


Yes - its available through 3 distributors that I don't have an account
with or direct at a price that's taking the piss or emagazine (non-PDF) to
stop pirating that is in a presentation that is such a PITA to read that
they couldn't sell it to me at any price, and cannot be saved to local
HD - so its like beer, you don't buy it you only rent it!

That is unacceptable.

They sent me a copy in the 'electronic' format, and I must admit that I
struggled to read the 'grey' print, and didn't really like the "turny page"
format. Mind you, I have never liked on-line books and mags, any more than I
like computerised service manuals ...

They sent me a paper one as well for issue 2, but whether that will carry on
as a 'regular' contributor, I'm not sure. The "Faults" section still seems
to be settling down in format terms, so whether they will find space to
carry copy from me every month, I don't yet know. Still, it's nice to see it
back again, in largely the same format as it was previously, and I hope the
new owner manages to make a commercial success of it. The reason that it is
not in the shops BTW, is that distributors WH Smith want so much money, that
there is no way that a startup or small-circulation mag can afford them.
This was a great deal to do with the demise of T @ H, which failed
financially, despite the sterling efforts of all involved. Shame as I
thought it had great potential.

Arfa

 

[ian field]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9C_sj.259$St5.27@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

"ian field" <dai.ode@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ISYsj.113$GQ6.45@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hjMsj.77$Ef1.5@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

"ian field" <dai.ode@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:OnEsj.17002$xm6.10273@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
A little OT as I'm not actually trying to repair this set, rather draw
on the experience of others who've had experience with similar Sharp
sets to identify the SST 37VF010 chip.

The chip had a paper label stuck on it suggesting factory
programming/firmware etc, but it looks suspiciously like a regular
flash eprom, a google turned up a number of potential suppliers but no
definitive description of what it is and no data sheets - can anyone
furnish any info?

TIA.


Ian. Did you see that TeleMag has been relaunched ?

Arfa


Yes - its available through 3 distributors that I don't have an account
with or direct at a price that's taking the piss or emagazine (non-PDF)
to stop pirating that is in a presentation that is such a PITA to read
that they couldn't sell it to me at any price, and cannot be saved to
local HD - so its like beer, you don't buy it you only rent it!

That is unacceptable.


They sent me a copy in the 'electronic' format, and I must admit that I
struggled to read the 'grey' print, and didn't really like the "turny
page" format. Mind you, I have never liked on-line books and mags, any
more than I like computerised service manuals ...

Personally I find there are times that I want to get away from the PC and
read from real paper, I would have reluctantly put up with the emagazine if
it was in PDF, the format they presented is totally unacceptable because it
is not possible to save and open whenever and wherever I want to put time
aside to read it, my collection of Television goes back to the late 70's and
I can refer to past articles any time - the sample emagazine they sent me
opened only once and was then unavailable, I can't see anyone putting up
with that!

 

[Bob Shuman]

In my case, it was not pro-rated. I was given a new gas HWH by Sears to
replace the one that developed the small leak within the 7-year tank rust
out warranty period. I did need to bring them the old tank though, which
was not an issue.

Bob

<hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8313227-a022-497b-89ef-8cdca898a02e@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

having only 1 heater leak before the warranty ran out, and as far as i
know its still a pro rata warranty....

number of installed months, vs number of warranteed months, gives a
percentage, thats then applied to a brand new similiar heater at full
list price

on that one heater the sale price was less than the pro rata price,
kinda mad i bought my new one somewhere else........

warrantys are sales tools, they rarely help the purchaser much. wheres
your original invoice? company like sears might no longer be in
business in 8 years.........

just look at all the retailers who have goine out of business over the
years.....

a warranty from builders square or hechinger isnt worth the paper its
written on........

the BTU # is from the manufacturer, they vary from under 30,000 BTU to
75,000 BTU on my current tank.

higher btus cost more to build, better stronger burner and heavier
tank to take the added heat.

 

[Lou]

"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OsOsj.375$ph.210@trnddc06...

I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years. For instance, my car
is
rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about
440
miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading
on
the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening. According the average
mileage
display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ)
filling
the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end
of
the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half
my
driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest). Which means
simply
that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than
a
gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction
that
go
with changes in temperature.



The expansion and contraction based on temperature for a volume as small
as
a tank of fuel in a car are so tiny that you'd never be able to measure
them
with anything around the house, and certainly not the odometer in your
car.
The fuel temperature varies over a range of perhaps 60F max, usually much
less.

Well, maybe I'm calculating wrong. There's an approximately 3% difference
between what I calculate as my miles per gallon for last week and what the
car calculated. The coefficient of expansion of gasoline is 0.069% per
Fahrenheit degree. Coincidentally, over a 30 degree temperature difference,
that's between a 2% and a 3% change in volume. For 15 gallons of gas, that
comes somewhere between 3 and 4 ounces of gas.

The meter on the pump reads out several digits to the right of the decimal
point - it appears that this level of accuracy is available at the gas
station. The odometer reads out only to the tenth of a mile, which means
that I don't have the accuracy at my end to calculate this by hand. I don't
know what the internal accuracy is when the car computes average miles per
gallon - I presume the fuel pump knows pretty precisely how much gas it's
pumped, and the odometer measures distance covered by counting revolutions
of something (one of the wheels?), and it seems reasonable that the internal
accuracy of the car's computation is more than adequate to notice a
difference of this magnitude.

I guess the other consideration is that the car is likely computing average
mpg using the gas burned (or at least, pumped to the engine) while any by
hand calculation is basing it on gas bought, and any difference the fill
level will throw the result off. Last week, the attendant took great pains
to fill the tank right up to the brim (he was evidently trying to get the
total to come out to a whole dollar amount), something that usually doesn't
happen. So I have no problem believing that I bought slightly more gas than
I burned.

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

 

[Tony Hwang]

Lou wrote:

"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OsOsj.375$ph.210@trnddc06...

I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years. For instance, my car

is

rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about

440

miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading

on

the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening. According the average
mileage
display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ)
filling
the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end

of

the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half

my

driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest). Which means

simply

that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than

a

gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction

that

go
with changes in temperature.



The expansion and contraction based on temperature for a volume as small

as

a tank of fuel in a car are so tiny that you'd never be able to measure

them

with anything around the house, and certainly not the odometer in your

car.

The fuel temperature varies over a range of perhaps 60F max, usually much
less.


Well, maybe I'm calculating wrong. There's an approximately 3% difference
between what I calculate as my miles per gallon for last week and what the
car calculated. The coefficient of expansion of gasoline is 0.069% per
Fahrenheit degree. Coincidentally, over a 30 degree temperature difference,
that's between a 2% and a 3% change in volume. For 15 gallons of gas, that
comes somewhere between 3 and 4 ounces of gas.

The meter on the pump reads out several digits to the right of the decimal
point - it appears that this level of accuracy is available at the gas
station. The odometer reads out only to the tenth of a mile, which means
that I don't have the accuracy at my end to calculate this by hand. I don't
know what the internal accuracy is when the car computes average miles per
gallon - I presume the fuel pump knows pretty precisely how much gas it's
pumped, and the odometer measures distance covered by counting revolutions
of something (one of the wheels?), and it seems reasonable that the internal
accuracy of the car's computation is more than adequate to notice a
difference of this magnitude.

I guess the other consideration is that the car is likely computing average
mpg using the gas burned (or at least, pumped to the engine) while any by
hand calculation is basing it on gas bought, and any difference the fill
level will throw the result off. Last week, the attendant took great pains
to fill the tank right up to the brim (he was evidently trying to get the
total to come out to a whole dollar amount), something that usually doesn't
happen. So I have no problem believing that I bought slightly more gas than
I burned.

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).


Hi,

EPA figure is based on sea level wht IDEAL driving condition, weather,
road, wind, temp., etc.

 

[hallerb@aol.com]

EPA figure is based on sea level wht IDEAL driving condition, weather,
road, wind, temp., etc.

EPA numbers are bogus the worst were on vehicles like PRIUS.

tests always favor the manufacturer..........

 

[Vic Smith]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:53:12 -0500, "Lou"
<lpogodajr292185@comcast.net> wrote:

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be

something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo. I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles. My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.

--Vic

 

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in message

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to
me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's
seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."

The news 2008 figures take real life into consideration and are much closer
to reality. Previous figures were ideal lab conditions.

 

[Only Just]

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:E7etj.6146$xq2.2565@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in message

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to
me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's
seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."


The news 2008 figures take real life into consideration and are much
closer to reality. Previous figures were ideal lab conditions.

It all points down to the fact that average Joe citizen can't tell the
difference unless he can find out exactly how they take all these
measurements (The method used and exactly what figures) that each company
used and how (If they did) manipulated those figures to get the result as
they publish. The main thing that the Government is interested in is a
standard across the relevant industry so everyone can make a comparison.
Justy.

 

On Feb 15, 6:12 am, "Only Just" <ifixit2@hotmail(dot)com> wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message

news:E7etj.6146$xq2.2565@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...







"Vic Smith" <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote in message

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to
me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's
seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago)..

Might be they don't account for your driving style.  Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."

The news 2008 figures take real life into consideration and are much
closer to reality.  Previous figures were ideal lab conditions.

It all points down to the fact that average Joe citizen can't tell the
difference unless he can find out exactly how they take all these
measurements (The method used and exactly what figures) that each company
used and how (If they did) manipulated those figures to get the result as
they publish. The main thing that the Government is interested in is a
standard across the relevant industry so everyone can make a comparison.
Justy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. Same thing
for the water heaters.

 

[Vic Smith]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:45:10 -0800 (PST), N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Feb 14, 11:16 pm, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:53:12 -0500, "Lou"

lpogodajr292...@comcast.net> wrote:

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style.  Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo.  I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles.  My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.

--Vic

It is HEAVILY dependent on driving style. In daily commuting (DC
traffic, lots of accelerating/slowing down) I get horrible mileage but
I too was getting about 30 MPG over the holidays, driving back and
forth to visit my parents (90% highway) same drivetrain as you, '05
Impala, 3.1/auto.

nate

Think you're the Nate from long ago r.a.d. days. As I recall you were
a Chrysler fan. What caused you to go to the dark side? (-:

--Vic

 

[hallerb@aol.com]

-

The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. ďż˝ It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. ďż˝ Same thing
for the water heaters.- Hide quoted text -

no the manufactuers knowing the test procedures tweak the product to
look as good as possible

 

[N8N]

On Feb 14, 11:16 pm, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net>
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:53:12 -0500, "Lou"

lpogodajr292...@comcast.net> wrote:

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style.  Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo.  I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles.  My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.

--Vic

It is HEAVILY dependent on driving style. In daily commuting (DC
traffic, lots of accelerating/slowing down) I get horrible mileage but
I too was getting about 30 MPG over the holidays, driving back and
forth to visit my parents (90% highway) same drivetrain as you, '05
Impala, 3.1/auto.

nate

 

[N8N]

On Feb 15, 9:02 am, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:45:10 -0800 (PST), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com
wrote:





On Feb 14, 11:16 pm, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:53:12 -0500, "Lou"

lpogodajr292...@comcast.net> wrote:

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style.  Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo.  I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles.  My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.

--Vic

It is HEAVILY dependent on driving style.  In daily commuting (DC
traffic, lots of accelerating/slowing down) I get horrible mileage but
I too was getting about 30 MPG over the holidays, driving back and
forth to visit my parents (90% highway) same drivetrain as you, '05
Impala, 3.1/auto.

nate

Think you're the Nate from long ago r.a.d. days.  As I recall you were
a Chrysler fan.  What caused you to go to the dark side?  (-:

--Vic

I still post there occasionally, but a lot of the intelligent regulars
have left and a lot of idiots and trolls have moved in The Impala
is a company provided vehicle, I don't have any MoPars at the moment
as my old Dart was a complete beater and not worth restoring, and
prices of good ones are rising. I do have a Porsche 944 that I bought
as a daily beater before I got a job with a company car, and my "real"
car is a '55 Studebaker - just as bulletproof as a MoPar, but
apparently not as collectible yet, so prices are still reasonable. Of
course, it's still somewhat apart after I lost my mind after a simple
gasket replacement turned into a drivetrain replacement...

nate