[08SGT1977]

Hi all,

I am mulling the idea of picking up a GLHS or maybe an 86 SVO 4 cylinder turbo. How many miles per gallon do you all get in your GLHSs?

Thanks very much!

[agvs24]

08SGT1977, on Jun 2 2008, 04:33 AM, said:

Hi all,

I am mulling the idea of picking up a GLHS or maybe an 86 SVO 4 cylinder turbo. How many miles per gallon do you all get in your GLHSs?

Thanks very much!

Hi, although i havent owned an actual GLHS, i've owned/driven MANY 2.2L turbo cars over the past 10 years and it is not uncommon to get 30 mpg with a properly tuned vehicle. The L body would probably do better than a G (Daytona) or P (CSX) body due to the lighter weight too.

Chris

[shelbymotorsports]

08SGT1977, on Jun 2 2008, 01:33 AM, said:

Hi all,

I am mulling the idea of picking up a GLHS or maybe an 86 SVO 4 cylinder turbo. How many miles per gallon do you all get in your GLHSs?

Thanks very much!

The 1987 Shelby GLHS ( 2dr Charger body) has an EPA rating of 17/21. Keeping your foot out of it I would think you could get high 20's on the highway but city driving or combined city/hwy mileage is going to be close to the EPA rating.

Steve

[08SGT1977]

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I am specifically interested in the "Omni" GLHS rather than the Chargers or Daytonas. If anybody knows what mpgs the Omni's get please post your numbers.

I agree, the trick is to keep your foot out of it.

Thanks again.

[shelbymotorsports]

08SGT1977, on Jun 3 2008, 01:06 AM, said:

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I am specifically interested in the "Omni" GLHS rather than the Chargers or Daytonas. If anybody knows what mpgs the Omni's get please post your numbers.

I agree, the trick is to keep your foot out of it.

Thanks again.

The 1986 Shelby GLHS (4dr Omni) is EPA rated at 19/27.

Hmmm thats quite a bit more than the 1987 GLHS especially the highway mileage which isn't making much sense right now. Sure the 1987 Charger body is a few hundred pounds heavier but it also is more aerodynamic compared to the boxy Omni body.

I'm wondering if there was a change in 1987 on how the EPA rated a cars mileage because a decrease of over 25% in highway mpg just doesn't seem right.

Steve

[agvs24]

shelbymotorsports, on Jun 3 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

The 1986 Shelby GLHS (4dr Omni) is EPA rated at 19/27.

Hmmm thats quite a bit more than the 1987 GLHS especially the highway mileage which isn't making much sense right now. Sure the 1987 Charger body is a few hundred pounds heavier but it also is more aerodynamic compared to the boxy Omni body.

I'm wondering if there was a change in 1987 on how the EPA rated a cars mileage because a decrease of over 25% in highway mpg just doesn't seem right.

Steve

86s had EGR which may have yielded a spark advance advantage making some better torque part throttle. The 87s did not have EGR. I'd have to check to be sure if there were different cals between the 86s and 87s.

[shelbymotorsports]

agvs24, on Jun 3 2008, 07:13 PM, said:

86s had EGR which may have yielded a spark advance advantage making some better torque part throttle. The 87s did not have EGR. I'd have to check to be sure if there were different cals between the 86s and 87s.

Yes different cals between 86 & 87. Probably for the egr solenoid and the egr trouble code.

Steve

[08SGT1977]

Thanks for the information everyone. I would love to pick up an Omni GLHS and fix it up. Interesting, shortly after I posted my question I read an article interviewing Carrol Shelby (sorry I don't have the link - but it was posted on TS) and it stated they were looking at building some greener, smaller performance cars. History is indeed repeating itself.

[shelbymotorsports]

08SGT1977, on Jun 4 2008, 08:05 AM, said:

Thanks for the information everyone. I would love to pick up an Omni GLHS and fix it up. Interesting, shortly after I posted my question I read an article interviewing Carrol Shelby (sorry I don't have the link - but it was posted on TS) and it stated they were looking at building some greener, smaller performance cars. History is indeed repeating itself.

I'm pretty sure that CS quote about some "new" Shelby four cylinder cars is from the current issue of Road & Track magazine.

Here in SoCal Carroll drives his 1989 CSX and his 1986 GLHS the most out of his collection of about two dozen Chrysler cars.

Steve

[owenkelley]

08SGT1977, on Jun 3 2008, 02:06 AM, said:

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I am specifically interested in the "Omni" GLHS rather than the Chargers or Daytonas. If anybody knows what mpgs the Omni's get please post your numbers.

I agree, the trick is to keep your foot out of it.

Thanks again.

Keep your foot out of it? How? I have a harder time keeping my foot out of it in our GLHS than I do either of the GT500's! They are just too much fun to drive. The acceleration reminds me of a motorcycle. Just hold on to the steering wheel 'cause the torque-steer is a pain! We just took a 2700 mile trip in our '07 GT500 and got 22.2 MPG. I honestly don't think I can consistently get that in our '87 GLHS.

[GLHS0136]

owenkelley, on Jun 4 2008, 09:16 PM, said:

Keep your foot out of it? How? I have a harder time keeping my foot out of it in our GLHS than I do either of the GT500's! They are just too much fun to drive. The acceleration reminds me of a motorcycle. Just hold on to the steering wheel 'cause the torque-steer is a pain! We just took a 2700 mile trip in our '07 GT500 and got 22.2 MPG. I honestly don't think I can consistently get that in our '87 GLHS.

Have you put in the Stage II logic module in the GLHS?

[owenkelley]

GLHS0136, on Jun 5 2008, 12:04 PM, said:

Have you put in the Stage II logic module in the GLHS?

I honestly don't know, it has "For off road use only" printed on it, I know that much. I do know that if you are just cruising along in second gear and step on it the front tires break loose. I've owned it for just over ten years. It's been sitting for a while now because it needs a new Rack, the bearing in the A.C. is making a bunch of noise, the rotors are shot, and the tires are getting pretty worn. It looks great though, I repainted it a couple years ago and really haven't driven it since.

[GLHS0136]

owenkelley, on Jun 5 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

I honestly don't know, it has "For off road use only" printed on it, I know that much. I do know that if you are just cruising along in second gear and step on it the front tires break loose. I've owned it for just over ten years. It's been sitting for a while now because it needs a new Rack, the bearing in the A.C. is making a bunch of noise, the rotors are shot, and the tires are getting pretty worn. It looks great though, I repainted it a couple years ago and really haven't driven it since.

Yeah, the off road use only is what was designated with the performance computers. I don't remember seeing that on the computer anywhere though...It's been a while.

[86glhs76]

Well to start the MP stage 2 Shelby computer for the GLHS and the CSX have the CARB # for street use in CA. The MP computers for all others are for off road use only. Then there is having a chip burned by FWDperformance.com in the stock computer case with the stock part number on it.

My 86 GLHS on the origanal setup. mildly ported head, intake and exhaust with 52mm TB, larger upper pipe and cone air filter, then 3" exhaust. The car had too much flow for stock injectors, I added the +20s. hooked up to the computer for computer controled boost it averaged 28 MPG around town. On the highway I drive to fast and the mileage is the same or a hair worse.

My dads Chrysler TC with the 89 Shelby Daytona engine and an auto trans. Bone stock with a FWD stage 3 computer for 15 PSI. Drove to Moses Lake this week in a storm, 60 MPH head wind for 135 miles. Then drove around the lake town and then drove home. 45 miles out started playing with a couple cars blasting to 90 over and over again. 350 miles, crammed in 12.5 gallons. Normally when driven nicely the Masi TC gets 32 MPG.

A local friend has a Shelby Daytona with T tops. 2.5 short block and uses the TBI roller cam. 3" intake and 3" exhaust. 92-93 cummins intercooler. He runs a wideband to run the AF to 16:1+ AF and under a load the turbo kicks in and the computer goes to open loop fueling. He averages 34-37 MPG.

In the end gas mileage with a turbo Dodges is based off of a few things. The sensors need to be working and the air lines hooked up right without leaks. So basically the car must be working right first. The computers add fuel when they think they are under a load, richen the mix. None of the slider cams many Shelbys had will net good mileage. The sliders drop your engine vac down, up to 6 inches less than a roller. The 88 TBI 2.2 roller is about the same size as the turbo sliders but with more engine vac. More vac while running and less fuel use. Then comes the computer, the stock ones eat more fuel because they run you "safe rich". I mean really safe to the point they hurt mileage and power, all the MP computers make power by leaning the engine and raising the boost. Next is boost controllers, they suck fuel. On a boost controller I don't notice a big difference in power yet gas mileage goes from 28 around town in the GLHS to 14-16 MPG. At part throttle you don't need high boost, 7-10 is more than enough. But I was running 16 PSI at part throttle and the computer was dumping in the fuel, and I wasn't really going any faster in traffic.

My wagon I am going smaller in cam to a TBI for more vac. Then I am adding a 3 bar 18 PSI stage 5 computer and running it on the computer, no boost controller. 10 PSI part throttle boost same as the TC, big boost for WOT bursts. Next is the wideband to run the no load AF of 16:1, with restraint I should hit mid 30s for fuel mileage.

[GLHS0136]

[quote name='86glhs76' date='Jun 7 2008, 02:28 PM' post='448951']
Well to start the MP stage 2 Shelby computer for the GLHS and the CSX have the CARB # for street use in CA. The MP computers for all others are for off road use only. Then there is having a chip burned by FWDperformance.com in the stock computer case with the stock part number on it.

I know the paper work with my '86 T1 performance computer said off road only in the paper work. And when I brought it to Ca it failed emmisions with a gross polluter raiting. Put in the stock computer and it passed with flying colors. So, does the Ca purchased GLHS Stage II offer different performance than other state's stage II?

My Shelby Dakota has the performance computer but passes the same here in Ca as with the stock computer.

[sdac guy]

GLHS0136, on Jun 8 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

86glhs76, on Jun 7 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Well to start the MP stage 2 Shelby computer for the GLHS and the CSX have the CARB # for street use in CA. The MP computers for all others are for off road use only.

I know the paper work with my '86 T1 performance computer said off road only in the paper work. And when I brought it to Ca it failed emmisions with a gross polluter raiting. Put in the stock computer and it passed with flying colors. So, does the Ca purchased GLHS Stage II offer different performance than other state's stage II?

My Shelby Dakota has the performance computer but passes the same here in Ca as with the stock computer.

Well there certainly is some confusion here. I think, but not sure, that the original Stage II computers sold by Shelby may have had just the CARB # on them.

But I have a brand new MP 87 CSX Stage II sitting here and it has a label that says,

P5249671

Emission Exempt
CARB EO# D-265-12

39842 06/02


Then on the main MP label, it has the part # again and below that it states:

Remanufactured in USA
FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY

So your guess on what is the true story with these is as good as mine.


Barry

[shelbymotorsports]

The original Stage II computers sold thru the Shelby Performance catalog did not have a CARB exemption number. In fact Shelby Autos got their hand slapped by the EPA for leaving out the words "For Off Road Use Only" in their advertisments. For you dedicated Shelby Dodge guys you can see these ads in AutoWeek and Turbo Magazine from 1987.

Steve

[sdac guy]

shelbymotorsports, on Jun 9 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

The original Stage II computers sold thru the Shelby Performance catalog did not have a CARB exemption number. In fact Shelby Autos got their hand slapped by the EPA for leaving out the words "For Off Road Use Only" in their advertisments. For you dedicated Shelby Dodge guys you can see these ads in AutoWeek and Turbo Magazine from 1987.

Steve

Thanks Steve!

Barry

[08SGT1977]

owenkelley, on Jun 4 2008, 09:16 PM, said:

Keep your foot out of it? How? I have a harder time keeping my foot out of it in our GLHS than I do either of the GT500's! They are just too much fun to drive. The acceleration reminds me of a motorcycle. Just hold on to the steering wheel 'cause the torque-steer is a pain! We just took a 2700 mile trip in our '07 GT500 and got 22.2 MPG. I honestly don't think I can consistently get that in our '87 GLHS.

That speaks volumes, coming from an owner of both a vintage GT 500 and a late model GT 500!

[owenkelley]

08SGT1977, on Jun 9 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

That speaks volumes, coming from an owner of both a vintage GT 500 and a late model GT 500!

I love the Shelby Dodge cars. my wife & I bought our '67 GT500 back in the fall of '82. I was bummed out when Shelby went to Dodge and was building front wheel drive 4-cylinder cars. Then one of my buddys who had a '66 GT350 showed up at our house in 1985 with a brand new Shelby Charger, the first year they were turbo-charged. He took me for a ride in it and I was sold! A few months later my wife and I bought a brand new '85 Shelby Charger, Maroon & Silver. What a fun car! A couple years after that I was selling cars at the local Dodge Chrysler Plymouth Dealership. I've always been an old Ford freak, but I also appreciate Mopars. Until my wife and I bought our '07 GT500 the last new car we bought was an '89 Spirit ES, we loved that car too. ( I've always wished I would come across a nice Spirit RT.) Up until we found our '87 GLHS the only other one I had ever seen was going down the highway the opposite direction I was. I still have never seen another one in this area. The thing I really like is it is way more rare than either one of our GT500's!