91 Buick Park Ave ultra bad gas mileage

Page 1 of 2  
I recently got a 91 buick Park Ave ultra. Runs great but gets terrible gas mileage. It should be getting around 25 mpg, but its getting 14 mpg. Runs and idles fine, doesnt have alot of power ( but im used to my
old 99 buick Regal GS.
Any suggestions to getting better mileage? The only engine code showing is 58 (anti theft key).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scan it and look at sensor inputs for starters, check fuel pressure also.

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Shep wrote:

I did have it scanned, code 58 came up. Im having that fixed tmw. I dont think that has anything to do with the bad mpg tho. My uncle owns the same car and gets 26 mpg. Im only getting 14 mpg. I changed the filters, and oil so far with no improvements.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not scanned for codes but o2 sensor activity, maf activity, baro sensor readings and so on.

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is it possible that one of the cylinders isn't firing?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Did you get the full scan done????? A misfire would be evident as a rough idle or miss would be felt.

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Shep wrote:

$900 to fix it. Ouch. I hope thats what was causing the bad mpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sounds crazy !! $900 for a cam shaft sensor?? The GM dealer I got mine from lists for around $47.00 and takes around 15 minutes or less to install - at least on my 91 it does.
Or are you refering to the price of tearing the front of the engine off to place the cam interptor magnet? Then that could be a big $$$ job.
good luck
harryface 05 Park Avenue 41,000 91 Bonneville 306,360
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You can use this: http://www.rxp-gas-kicker.com
Even the Florida EPA verifies increased gas mileage using this stuff. 8 to 27% increase depending on the cars they tested.
Shep wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LOL. Radiant containment. LMAO.
On 27 Jun 2006 12:38:14 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Radiant Containment?
All that means is that the additive absorbs a lot of infrared heat, therefore containing more of it within the flame making the flame itself hotter so less heat is radiated out to the metal.
It comes from this product that has been around, tried and tested, proven for decades in the welding industry: http://www.flamex.com/Page2.htm
SgtSilicon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6 Jul 2006 15:36:43 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

Like I said, LOL!! I have somewhat of a scientific background, and that's complete rubbish. But if you wish to believe it isn't (rubbish) then you do. I am not going to expend effort to prove my case. Therefore if you wish to dismiss my skepticism as unfounded.... be my guest. I'll take the dismissal and keep slogging on without the benefits of its use. Poor me. Hehe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
just because it is outside of our claustrophobic comfort zone, don't be offended that it works.
SgtSilicon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ump ok yeah. How much does it improve mileage again?
On 8 Jul 2006 15:23:32 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There are a lot of documented tests but I'll tell about my personal experience and friends that are using it.
My friend with a grand prix (1997??) used to get about 25mpg on the highway now he gets 29-30mpg on the hwy. He tested it on a road trip from North Dakota to Seattle. I'm not sure how many gallons are on his tank but 5 extra miles per gallon X at least 15 gallons is 75 extra miles on a tank. used to get 25mpg so at minimum, that is 3 gallons worth of gas mileage. that is at minimum $3/gallon $9 worth of gas mileage - $2.50 retail per oz about = $6.50 in gas mileage for $2.50. That is almost a 300% return on the investment. You have to admit, it is defintely paying for itself and than some. not only that, it is reducing emissions as well and keeping the engine clean.
my friends rented a new caprice and drove from seattle to houston and back. The first few tanks as a test without it got about 24mpg on the highway. They were getting also about 29-30 by the t time they got back using the additive. It was getting over 100 extra miles on a tank.
my wife's saturn (1994) used to get 32mpg on the highway and she now gets 39mpg on the highway. it went from 26mpg city to 33mpg city with the additive.
I even tried it in my city car a little honda with 10 gallon tank. used to get 270 miles on 10 gallons. I actually used another additive and after about 5 tanks, I got up to 392 on a tank. 121 extra miles. I admit some mileage was simply because of cleaning. should get about 31-32 city with a clean engine so still 7 mpg extra. However, I added RxP in addition to the other addtive and I got 406 miles on 9.5 gallons which came to 42.67mpg in the city. that is more than I'm supposed to get on the highway. I started using RxP alone without the other additive and it keeps me at 380-390 on about 9.5-10 gallons. without, it drops back down to about 320-340.
you can get it at autozone almost anywhere. $6.99 for a 2.5 oz bottle and it treats 25 gallons. 1oz per 10 gallons for the first 2-3 tanks and many are finding they only need about 1/2 oz per 10 gallons after the carbon is all cleaned out. get 2-3 bottles and try it on a few tanks in a row and see what happens. would love to see your results. that is a cheap investment and if it gives you decent results, that is the only way you'll know. "radiant containment" sounds funny I admit but it is valid that it is very conductive to heat making the fuel hotter to burn more of what is there meaning less heat is being absorbed by the metal. therefore the engine does run a little cooler and so nox comes down as well.
SgtSilicon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Higher combustion chamber temps will icrease NOX not decrease it. It is combustion chamber temperature that affects NOX not engine temperature. What you wrote above " making the fuel hotter to burn more of what is there meaning less heat is being absorbed by the metal " would increase combustion temps and increase NOX not decrease it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't even bother with this fake science marketing CRAP. I mean just look at it. It burns HOTTER so that there is LESS HEAT! LMAO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.flamex.com/photos.htm been used for years and this is actually the genesis of rxp.
Here is common sense...
lets say 50% energy burns the fuel and we have 50% wasted heat energy (RADIANT HEAT) being absorbed by the metal around it with using regular fuel that is only so conductive to heat..
WHATEVER HEAT IS RADIATED TO THE METAL IS OBVIOUSLY NOT BEING USED TO BURN THE FUEL.
if you add something to the fuel making it more conductive to infrared heat, the fuel WILL RETAIN more energy of the heat to burn more of it and therefore there is LESS RADIATED HEAT moving out to the metal. It is turning normally wasted heat into actual work by burning more of the fuel.
If in normal fuel is 50/50 just for simplicity sake and then you use fuel which is a little more conductive to heat, lets say 55% of the fuel burns and 45% of wasted energy that the fuel didn't utilize radiated out to the metal meaning the metal would be cooler!
engines run super hot when there is low efficiency burn meaning there is a LOT of RADIATED HEAT meaning the fuel absorbed very little energy of it making a HOT engine and high NOX. All that radiated heat is simply wasted potential not turning into kinetic motion by burning the fuel. more efficient burn means the fuel is utilizing the potential energy better by holding on to more of it so to speak.
If in the normal 50/50 example the temp of the metal is X. IF the fuel was more conductive to heat, more of it would burn and LESS RADIATED heat would make it to the metal meaning the temperature would be LESS THAN X.
used in welding for years. concentraed flame gets hotter and more focused absorbing more heat into itself than normal. cut metal or weld metal and touch the metal around the periphery and it is COOL to the touch because LESS radiated wasted heat since the additive in the welding fuel is more conductive to infrared heat! you then get a more concentraed and focused flame it is more coherant like a laser for example whereas without the additive is is less coherent like a led light that has light that scatters outwards.
you have a background in science and really can't see this VERY SIMPLE ELEMENTARY concept???
the engine would therefore run cooler as it does and NOX emissions are reduced because of this purpose.
SgtSilicon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

http://www.flamex.com/fxdmsds.htm CAS #        Chemical Name    Percent of Mix 67-56-1        METHANOL    92% 1330-20-7    XYLENE BLEND    8%
http://www.rxp.com/msds.htm Chemical Family: Hydrocarbon & Soy Methyl Ester
It sounds like a methanol/fuel oil blend.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
For RxP Gas Kicker or RxP Generation II
"Increase in gas mileage an average of 12.2%" Test For The State of Florida D.O.T. Test Dates: July 2004 - July 2005"Efficiency of diesel fuel when burned with RxP increased 12.5%" Ministry of Health and Social Security, Athens General Hospital, Athens, Greece, February 10, 1992
"Horsepower increase of RxP on a chassis dynamometer machine. This test result was: a 10% improvement in horsepower." University Automotive Technology, Des Moines, Iowa, April 21, 1994
"To determine the reduction in black smoke emissions. The results were: particulate emissions reduction of 29%" Greek Environment Ministry, Athens, Greece, May 9, 1991
"To determine particulate reduction. The results were: particulate emissions reduction from 30-50%" Technical Institute for Urban Transportation,Sofia, Bulgaria, May 18, 1994
"Emissions tests on vehicles. The results were: Hydrocarbon emission reduction 35.4% and carbon monooxide reduction by 36.7%" Charshalton College, Charshalton, Surrey, U.K., January 18, 1991
"These tests were conducted in accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act. Vehicles in the state of Florida must pass a yearly emissions test. The results were: Hydrocarbon reduction by 90% and Carbon Monoxide reduction by 99%." State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, St. Petersburg, Florida (Inspection Station), May 19, 1991
Tests were conducted on a variety of vehicles at the national EPA test center. The results were: Hydrocarbon reduction 31.9%, Carbon Monoxide reduction 78.7%, NoX reduction 27.6, Noise Reduction 5-8 dB." People's Republic of China EPA, May 27, 1994 (Both Gasoline and Diesel engines were used in this test)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.