Date:         Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:41:40 -0400
Reply-To:     "T. Thompson" <tonyt_eye@NS.SYMPATICO.CA>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         "T. Thompson" <tonyt_eye@NS.SYMPATICO.CA>
Subject:      Re: average mpg of the 2.1 L w/automatic
Comments: To: Dldemarest@AOL.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I have an 1.9l Automatic which I consistently get 20MP Imperial Gallon which is
about 17Mp US Gallon.What I find interesting is that I get the same milage at
55MPH as 70MPH. I would have thought for a brick shaped vehicle that the slower
I went it would pay off big time in milage. My only theory is that at the
slower speed every hill causes a kickdown into second gear where at 70 the
kickdown is either delayed or doesn't happen. A friend of mine has a Ford
Conversion van which is bigger, way heavier (6000 lbs) and has way more power
(302-V8). He gets 20MPG so I really lost the argument for efficient German
engineering. He can't cook in his though so on long journeys we make a good
team, we cook in mine and watch TV in his.

Tony 85GL "Westfailure"

Douglas Demarest wrote:

> I get about17mpg or so with my 2.1 manual.  I can get 21 or more if I only
> drive 45 mph and don't have any kayaks on top.  I have thought that this is
> pretty poor gas mileage--before I boutht my van I assumed it would get
> upwards of 20.  I'm curious to see what everyone else gets.  It was
> interesting to read posts on the Waterboxer discussion from someone getting
> 25 mph with a faster engine.
>
> Doug Demarest
> Minneapolis, MN