if so, what kind of economy numbers have been hit with a 2 door 04 Cavvy with an automatic trans? right now it's up to 31mpg, which seems low for such a small car.
i had a 97 Cavvy a couple of years ago- 2.2 pushrod motor backed by a 5 speed- that i coaxed up to just shy of 40mpg before selling it. this was done with some simple and cheap aero mods like removing the passenger side mirror (.5 mpg), blocking the grille (3 mpg), throwing the air intake baffle in the trash and making a ram air setup with a scoop in the spoiler (1.5mpg).

so far on the 04 i've blocked off the grille with some aluminum roofing flashing and extended the front air dam down 3" with some lawn edging (3mpg!!) and removed the intake noise baffle (just did it last night, but it does growl a little bit now..). the grille looks kinda cheesy right now with the shiny aluminum, but some semi gloss black paint will make it look ok on the red car.. might even paint some WW2 fighter shark teeth on it because why not, right?
the passenger side mirror will be coming off- anyone know of a cheap smaller driver's side mirror that i can put on the car?- and i might make the front air dam extend out to the edge of the car with some lawn edging to keep air from getting under the car and kick the air out around the front tires and also make some side and rear skirts for it, too.

if i didn't have a 25 mile one way commute to work, i'd add a lot of lightness by gutting as much of the interior as i could get away with..

Like you said, weight. You don't have to "gut" a car to make it quite a bit lighter.


- Your not-so-local, untrained, uncertified, backyard mechanic. But my @!#$ runs

my build for gas mileage consist of using my right foot better. thats all you need to do.

Ohv swap with a 5 speed and keep your foot out of it.



JBO Stickers! Get yours today!

How about a small turbo to increase your low end torque.


"Oil Leak ? What oil Leak ? Oh, Thats Just The Sweat From All The HorsePower!!"

ok.. so no one's really done this before.. i figured at least someone would try to squeeze more mpgs out of one of these things instead of trying to pretend their 4 cylinder economy car is a race car.
my 97 responded really well to the easy aero stuff and the 04 is essentially the same car with an uglier nose and tail that has a more complicated drivetrain that is supposed to be more advanced and efficient.
just for kicks, i'll try to post up what i do to the car. maybe someone will be interested in the results.

sorry wouldn't removed my outside mirrors for fuel economy.

A good tune on the other hand, and some simple performance mods and that would do the trick.



FU Tuning

novaderrik wrote:trying to pretend their 4 cylinder economy car is a race car.

Friend of mine's 04 runs 10's in the 1/4
Friend of mine's 02 has 500+ hp
Friend of mine's building a 9 second cavalier.
Mine should run 11's next time to the track.

So NO we aren't pretending they are race cars... we are making them race cars.

you want better mpg, keep your foot out of it. i would however like to know how you are measuring that you are gaining .5 mpg. Because going up a hill, down a hill, temp, all play factors of mileage. Thats why from my parents house to my apartment I can get 19mpg in my truck, but the ride home, same road same trip, ill get 17-18. some hills i go down one way, im going up on the way back. so its all different.

Blocking the grill off will help. Lowering the car will aslo help. Skinnier tires, inflated to the max psi. Try some bigger cams and higher cr pistons. Then tune your car and walk.

silly thought, but if you "block" the grill... wouldn't it overheat?

Not necaserily. Look at the grill on the sunfire or most oldsmobiles. Almost non existant.

BuiltNBoosted wrote:

novaderrik wrote:trying to pretend their 4 cylinder economy car is a race car.

Friend of mine's 04 runs 10's in the 1/4
Friend of mine's 02 has 500+ hp
Friend of mine's building a 9 second cavalier.
Mine should run 11's next time to the track.

So NO we aren't pretending they are race cars... we are making them race cars.

you want better mpg, keep your foot out of it. i would however like to know how you are measuring that you are gaining .5 mpg. Because going up a hill, down a hill, temp, all play factors of mileage. Thats why from my parents house to my apartment I can get 19mpg in my truck, but the ride home, same road same trip, ill get 17-18. some hills i go down one way, im going up on the way back. so its all different.

a few of you are making your cars fast- and i respect that- but be honest, for every 10 second Cavalier there are a few thousand of them with wings and body kits for looks and a loud muffler for performance.
whatever people want to do, that's their prerogative- but i have my 84 T Type for when i feel the need for speed and a Cavalier to get me to the job to pay for it..

i measure my fuel economy the same way i've been measuring it in all my cars for the last 20 years- divide the miles driven by how much gas it takes to refill it. i don't really care about instant mileage from things like hills or headwinds or whatever- it's the overall average that really matters when i pull into the gas station..
a half a mile per gallon on any given tank doesn't mean much and is probably within the margin of error from gas pump to gas pump and from cold weather to hot weather- but when i can look at my little notebook where i log mileage and gas usage and see a consistent economy number, then i know i did something right or wrong. i only ever change one thing at a time and run a few tanks of gas thru it to see how it responds.
i got my 97 from just over 30 mpg to just under 40mpg (39.8 on the last 3 tanks) without touching anything on the engine beyond a new set of spark plugs and with the only noticeable alteration to the exterior being the removal of the passenger side mirror- which showed a consistent .5mpg in my long term calculations all by itself.
so, anyways, what kind of real world mpg numbers are people seeing with 2 door '04 Cavaliers with automatic transmissions?

Best i saw in my grand am was about 47. That was on a 110 mile drive at 55 mph. With a built motor bigger pistons and highr lift longer duration cams, balance shaft delete and a tune.

Mobil 1 5w30 oil was worth just under 2mpg compared to regular cheap Valvoline in the 97- and it made the car run smoother overall and start easier in the -30 temps we see in the middle of winter, just like it has done in every other car i've run it in for the last 15 years.
i'm putting that in this car tomorrow- almost got the 0w-30, but decided to play it safe. .and the $12 rebate from Mobil for buying 5 quarts makes it cheaper than the "cheap" oil..
i already took out the intake air baffle inside the fender yesterday- might run a hose to the grille opening tomorrow for a ram air setup (+2mpg on the 97) if i'm feeling ambitious and have the stuff laying around.. i'm sure i'm also losing some aero economy due to the fenderwells being all broke to hell, maybe i'll ziptie something in there to plug the holes for now..

regarding the wisdom of blocking the grille- the car doesn't get over 195 degrees going down the road with the cooling fan fuse pulled out. it only goes up to slightly above the 195 line even when sitting at a stop sign with the fuse pulled, which makes me wonder why it even has a fan at all.. i might try to make the opening at the bottom of the bumper cover smaller to let less air thru the radiator- that's free aero efficiency by directing more air around the car instead of under the hood.

Look for a weapon r dragon cold air intake system. I had it on my car for a long time i was very happy with it. It was a large hose that you can run to the grill of the car.

Keep us posted, I was thinking of doing the same w/ a 2.2 5sp no options.

You could make a under carriage spoiler from fiberglass.

Jason



USACi =>146.9db
14.88 @ 90.73MPH =>GM Charger, Motor Mounts, Catback exhaust

brodycog wrote:Look for a weapon r dragon cold air intake system. I had it on my car for a long time i was very happy with it. It was a large hose that you can run to the grill of the car.

if i have to spend a couple of hundred dollars for something like that, then i'll have to drive a LOT of miles before it pays for itself in fuel savings. but if i can use some ducting and hoses that i've got laying around that only cost me a few bucks at the most at some point in the past, then i'm money ahead with the first tank of gas.
i don't care how it looks as long as it makes the car breathe better- if a cone filter and polished aluminum tubing don't add mileage, then it isn't going on my car even if you gave it to me. i already got rid of the big restriction in the air inlet- the baffle inside the fender- so now it's just a matter of ramming air in thru the air box.. but i might hold off on that until spring since really cold air does a more effective job at killing mileage than almost anything else.. in fact, i might see if there's a way to pick up warm air heated by the exhaust manifold and run it thru the air cleaner for the winter months. this helps maintain summer mpg levels with the winter blend gas. all older vehicles use to have a heat stove on an exhaust manifold to help with cold weather driveability, mileage, and emissions but they stopped doing that when they switched over to multi port efi and now everyone thinks it's normal to lose fuel economy in the winter.

Derrick: You are not alone in your quest... I have had three 4-cyl S-trucks so-far in my lifetime, and I have always tried to do what mods I could to maximize average-mileage without effecting my driving-style, so I have a few wisdom tidbits to pass on:

Spark-plugs: It pays to come to know your engine's spark-plug location & angle (relative to the piston-face & combustion-area) so you can decide what the best plug--based on electrode design--for your app is. In the case with both my '94 LN2 (2.2L OHV) and my '85 "Iron-Duke" (2.5L OHV) E3's & the older-model Splitfires (with the "forked" side-electrode) always got me best over conventional designs.

Parasitic Drag: How fast does your alternator & water-pump really need to spin to keep things in-check? If not that fast, a set of under-drive pulleys would be the way to go here. Also, try synthetics in your trans-axle.

Aerodynamic Mods: You've done good with what little tricks you've employed so-far, but have you considered installing spun-aluminum wheel-covers? They've been in-use for decades by land-speed racers, so they're certainly worth something.

Ignition: I've installed a full MSD system on my '88 Ramcharger, and gain a 20% increase in mileage from that alone... All while maintaining a stock plug-gap! But in your case, just upgrading to MSD coils & wires alone will ber enough to see an appreciable difference.

Header: The whole idea of one is to add in scavenging spent gases, so less fuel is needed to achieve combustion. I'll bet someone, somewhere, has one that will attach to the stock exhaust-system.

Low-end Power: The more low-end torque you have, the sooner your trans can shift into the next gear... Therefore reducing the amount of revs your engine will see! Short-duration cams with high lift numbers, and long-runner intakes go a long-way to make this so.

I'd like to add more, but I fear losing all this do to auto log-off. Be back soon, and thanks for the help proving FAI's (Fresh-Air Intakes (i.e.:Ram-Air!)) works. (Done on my '85!)


Go beyond the "bolt-on".

Nickelin Dimer wrote:Derrick: You are not alone in your quest... I have had three 4-cyl S-trucks so-far in my lifetime, and I have always tried to do what mods I could to maximize average-mileage without effecting my driving-style, so I have a few wisdom tidbits to pass on:

Spark-plugs: It pays to come to know your engine's spark-plug location & angle (relative to the piston-face & combustion-area) so you can decide what the best plug--based on electrode design--for your app is. In the case with both my '94 LN2 (2.2L OHV) and my '85 "Iron-Duke" (2.5L OHV) E3's & the older-model Splitfires (with the "forked" side-electrode) always got me best over conventional designs.

Parasitic Drag: How fast does your alternator & water-pump really need to spin to keep things in-check? If not that fast, a set of under-drive pulleys would be the way to go here. Also, try synthetics in your trans-axle.

Aerodynamic Mods: You've done good with what little tricks you've employed so-far, but have you considered installing spun-aluminum wheel-covers? They've been in-use for decades by land-speed racers, so they're certainly worth something.

Ignition: I've installed a full MSD system on my '88 Ramcharger, and gain a 20% increase in mileage from that alone... All while maintaining a stock plug-gap! But in your case, just upgrading to MSD coils & wires alone will ber enough to see an appreciable difference.

Header: The whole idea of one is to add in scavenging spent gases, so less fuel is needed to achieve combustion. I'll bet someone, somewhere, has one that will attach to the stock exhaust-system.

Low-end Power: The more low-end torque you have, the sooner your trans can shift into the next gear... Therefore reducing the amount of revs your engine will see! Short-duration cams with high lift numbers, and long-runner intakes go a long-way to make this so.

I'd like to add more, but I fear losing all this do to auto log-off. Be back soon, and thanks for the help proving FAI's (Fresh-Air Intakes (i.e.:Ram-Air!)) works. (Done on my '85!)

all good ideas- but the object is to save money-- it would probably take a few months for the $pendy spark plugs to pay for themselves and the other stuff would probably not pay for themselves over the lifetime of the car. the car might be faster and a few idiots might get all googly eyed when they look at the shiny parts, but that's not what i want out of this car...

i gained almost 10mpg in my 97 cavvy by just doing simple and free things to it- the most i spent on any of the modifications i did to it was $3 for the 90 degree 3" furnace duct i used to make the ram air scoop next to the air dam- and it had bad front wheel bearings the whole time i owned it... but this one doesn't seem to respond.. the mpg's are ranging from 31 on one tank to 28 on the next and then 30 on the one after that.. this car does have a LOT of rolling resistance- i'm not exaggerating when i say that it pushes harder in neutral on concrete than my 5300 pound 87 GMC 3/4 ton pickup does. my 97 Cavvy almost pushed easier than my riding lawn mower.. the hubs, rotors, and drums don't get too terribly hot so i know the brakes aren't dragging. i really think i need to figure out why it drags like that- are the auto trannies just that bad in these cars?

i really hate this damn ecotec and the trans that's bolted to it- it's the only auto trans i've ever owned where you can't even check the fluid to catch a problem before it gets too bad..it just has a plastic plug that you take out to add the prescribed amount of fluid after doing the trans fluid change that GM says it never needs.. hell, the 5 speed in my 97 had a little dipstick on it that probably cost GM all of 50 cents to put on the car.

I can't speak about GM's auto-transaxles, but there's one thing I do knoiw about the Ecotecs versus the LN2: Port velocity. Anytime the intake-valve count goes above two, or the valve-area or port cross-section gets so-big (Much the same), port-velocity falls-off & cylinder filling at lower engine speeds aren't the same. This issue has big effect on economy, as covered in the book "Performance With Economy" written by Popular Hot-Rodding Magazine contributor/consultant David Vizard.


Go beyond the "bolt-on".

The ecotec transmission you mention should have a bold some where you take out, add fluid until it starts to run out of that hole, put the bolt back in. Want to know if it's low? Pull the bolt and see if it comes out.


- Your not-so-local, untrained, uncertified, backyard mechanic. But my @!#$ runs

Oedwards wrote:The ecotec transmission you mention should have a bold some where you take out, add fluid until it starts to run out of that hole, put the bolt back in. Want to know if it's low? Pull the bolt and see if it comes out.

pulling a bolt that tells me if it's full does nothing to tell me the condition of the fluid itself. a dipstick allows you to get a good look at the fluid and look for any sparkly stuff and see if the fluid is burnt or something like that..
maybe i'm just old school, but an auto trans should have a dipstick and isn't supposed to be "sealed for life".

Nickelin Dimer wrote:I can't speak about GM's auto-transaxles, but there's one thing I do knoiw about the Ecotecs versus the LN2: Port velocity. Anytime the intake-valve count goes above two, or the valve-area or port cross-section gets so-big (Much the same), port-velocity falls-off & cylinder filling at lower engine speeds aren't the same. This issue has big effect on economy, as covered in the book "Performance With Economy" written by Popular Hot-Rodding Magazine contributor/consultant David Vizard.

if it gets worse gas mileage than the old reliable and dead simple pushrod 2 valve 2.2, how exactly does the Ecotec deserve to start with the letters "E-C-O"?

novaderrik wrote:
if it gets worse gas mileage than the old reliable and dead simple pushrod 2 valve 2.2, how exactly does the Ecotec deserve to start with the letters "E-C-O"?

Because the name has nothing to do with fuel economy. Ecotec stands for Emissions Control Optimization TEChnology.

And not to mention, if there is an ecotec getting consistently less mpg than an ln2, there's a problem. Both my current and previous LN2 and 2200s average about 26-28mpg, while my supercharged ecotec can get 34-35 mpg if I keep my foot out of it. Hell, even when I'm driving with a lead foot I can still get high 20's out of it. Like it's been said, it's all driving habits and how heavy your foot is.

EVILution (KGM Godfather) wrote:

novaderrik wrote:
if it gets worse gas mileage than the old reliable and dead simple pushrod 2 valve 2.2, how exactly does the Ecotec deserve to start with the letters "E-C-O"?

Because the name has nothing to do with fuel economy. Ecotec stands for Emissions Control Optimization TEChnology.

And not to mention, if there is an ecotec getting consistently less mpg than an ln2, there's a problem. Both my current and previous LN2 and 2200s average about 26-28mpg, while my supercharged ecotec can get 34-35 mpg if I keep my foot out of it. Hell, even when I'm driving with a lead foot I can still get high 20's out of it. Like it's been said, it's all driving habits and how heavy your foot is.

the best way to limit emissions is to use less fuel. that's physics.

my foot is light and i'm a very smooth driver- i like to give the oil companies as little of my money as i can when i'm just tooling around and going to work and what not. i've had vacuum gauges in a few cars in the past, and i can guarantee that one of them will make anyone a smoother driver.

my brother bought this car brand new in 04 and it's never gotten much better than 30mpg- which seems criminally low for a modern compact "economy" car to me. maybe it's the auto trans, i don't know.. but i do know that if the bone stock 305 powered 86 Caprice that i had 5 years ago could average (yes, average. it got as high as 33 on the interstate) 29mpg then there is no excuse for a smaller more aerodynamic car that weighs at least 1500 pounds less that has an engine with half the displacement to only get a couple of miles per gallon more.