I get at least 25mpg in our 1990 auto, with 160k miles on the clock. All I've done to the trans is a band adjustment at 100k miles, and a filter change at 140k (just because I had the engine/trans out for other reasons--the old filter was fine).
There were 2 sets of primary-drive gears fitted to the auto, with US cars getting the lower gearing (for better acceleration--top speed being irrelevant, since these cars were built during the "double-nickel" era:evil: ).
You could certainly play mix-and-match with these gears to produce a taller ratio, but I once calculated that the fuel consumption would only improve by about 1mpg--easily achievable by other means such as keeping tires properly inflated, etc.
BTW, the auto trans fitted to Turbo cars is beefed up--has extra clutch-pack elements, among other things. If my trans ever goes, I'll get a Turbo one from a junkyard as a replacement.
Finally, regarding the "fragility" of manual gearboxes: I recently scrapped my '88 5-speed, due to rust
. It had done 272k miles, and the gearbox still worked perfectly (give or take a little difficulty in shifting into 2nd on a 10 degree F winter morning).
There were 2 sets of primary-drive gears fitted to the auto, with US cars getting the lower gearing (for better acceleration--top speed being irrelevant, since these cars were built during the "double-nickel" era:evil: ).
You could certainly play mix-and-match with these gears to produce a taller ratio, but I once calculated that the fuel consumption would only improve by about 1mpg--easily achievable by other means such as keeping tires properly inflated, etc.
BTW, the auto trans fitted to Turbo cars is beefed up--has extra clutch-pack elements, among other things. If my trans ever goes, I'll get a Turbo one from a junkyard as a replacement.
Finally, regarding the "fragility" of manual gearboxes: I recently scrapped my '88 5-speed, due to rust