Okay, I'm baffled. I don't drive the 164 much differently from the
Milano; maybe I get a little self-indulgent (okay, power-mad) with the
loud pedal, but I short-shift a lot more, and spend a good deal less
time in the +4K range than I do with the smaller engine. But while I
can't monitor the Milano's fuel mileage as closely, thanks to the
non-working odometer, its mileage over known distances appears to hover
in the +20 range, and when we were travelling cross-country ten years
ago we were doing as well as or better than my old 2000 Berlina,
touching almost 30 mpg at a steady 70 or so through Texas and Arizona.
But I'm damned if I can get anywhere near that with the 164. I've been
filling up and zeroing the trip meter for the last month or so, and
while most of my time is spent in city traffic I'm doing about the same
mix as I do in the Subaru, which gives me a rather disappointing 17-18
under those circumstances... but it's 4WD. The 164, though, has given me
less than 15 out of the last two fillups. That's just unacceptable for a
modern 3-liter sedan. My '71 International pickup with the 232 Six and
2-speed auto did that well!
Is my experience out of line? I read somewhere recently of someone's
extolling the 164's fuel economy; unfortunately I just nodded and passed
on by instead of clipping or bookmarking it. Comments? Advice?
Will Owen
--
to be removed from alfa, see http://www.digest.net/bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to [email protected]
