fuel efficient old cars?

[burger]

I know this might be anathema to most on this board, but for once in my life I'd like to own a daily driver that gets more than 15 mpg. As fun as big 'ol V8's are and as usefull as my pickup is, the low-teens gas mileage *really* hits the wallet hard. Maybe I don't want a miser as my only car, but it would be nice if it didn't cost $50/week just to get to work.

So what gets good mileage? I've been looking into 6-cylinder Ford Falcons.. what else should I be looking at??? How do 50's 6-cylinder cars do?


Ed

[kustumizer]

Pintos!! LOL http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif My comet is pretty good, but we already talked about that! Nate

[Pigiron]

My 1963 Falcon 260 V-8 gets 26 mph all day, everyday. I think the lighter the car and more stock the good tuned engine the better you'll do. I remember 55 chevies getting 21 mpg with stock V-8s. Start adding weight and hot cams and down goes gas mileage. My own humble opinion. I'm sure a more "Eloquent" responder will follow. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[fargoguy]

I know that Studebakers and ramblers from the early 60's with 3spd std Transmissions and overdrive are notorious for fuel efficiency. Evan

[shoebox72]

My 51 Chevy (235-1carb,3spd,PG rear)gets around 20 mpg. Less if I shift by what the pipes are singin' http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Billy

[C9]

Dad's totally stock, about 2 year old 50 Ford sedan with V8 & overdrive got 19 mpg on trips and got 17 towing a teardrop camp trailer loaded with tent for the 3 kids, luggage and all the other vacation paraphernalia.

[desertratrodder]

I dont even worry about mileage. I like what I drive, and if it costs alot or a little, I'll pay it. My truck costs 75 bucks to fill, I need the truck so thats the deal. My suggestion you dont like would be buy a Geo or Honda, take the bus, or get a closer job. My nice suggestion is find a 6 banger Falcon, Dart, Comet, etc. I had a 61 Falcon that did a lot better between fills. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
It could be worse, I used to pay 300+ a month for gas to make someone else lots of $$$.
Good luck in your search.

[hillbillyhellcat]

I think the more stock a drivetrain is the better the mileage and effiency. My brother's '65 Falcon runs a 250 inline with a C4 and 2.73 gears and gets around 18 mpg or so, it has electronic MSD ignition and a header and duals. My '71 Torino did somewhere similar with a stock 302 2bbl and 3.00 gears, my current '72 F100 has a 400 2bbl with 3.00 gears and it does pretty well also.

[286merc]

I drove a 51 Stude, first year V8 with OD back and forth from Chicago to NYC while in the Navy for 2 years. No problem for 25-27 on the road and 20+ locally. I had the same situation as you, money! And the 51 Buick Roadmaster with Dynaslide I had before that was killing me.

Any flat 6 Mopar is good for the mid low to 20's.

You want ultra cheap? Get a Nash Metropolitan!

A Falcoln/Comet with the 144 or 170 is also a gas sipper as long as it is stick. Even a 6 banger early Mustang.

[young buck]

my 50 stude with the big six and 3 speed with overdrive gets about 20mpg and it is a 4 door,.......its huge

if it got 2 mpg i would still love it though....there is no price for coolness

young buck

[fordiac]

my little MG's get real good mileage. you prolly dont want one of those though.

[old beet]

I can get 21 mpg with my F-1 if I really try on the road. Usually about 11-12 in town the way I like to drive. Mild built FE with tri-power, C-6 and 3.00 gears.........OLDBEET

[disastron13]

62 Falcon Ranchero, totally stock- 28 mpg.
Waiting for 60 mph to come up on the speedo- 144 motor- is like watchin paint dry. It is ssooooo slow!

[burger]

Man I thought I'd catch a whole lot more flack for mentioning something as taboo as fuel economy.


Desertratrodder, I understand what you're saying about the Metro and all, but isn't that kinda like cheating?

Pigiron, I'm really suprised to hear that your 260 Falcon gets 26 mpg. That's amazing. I had a pretty similar setup in my old Fairlane -- 289, stock cam & internals, 390 cfm 4bbl, highway gears, and only 14 mpg. I obsessively tuned it trying to get my mileage and power where I thought it should be. What's the secret?

Billy, what kinda top speed do you get with the PG rear? I ran around in a '53 with the stock 216 and 4.11? rear. The 65 mph (downhill) top speed (at screaming RPMs) was a little disappointing. I switched over to a Clifford 4bbl intake and a 390 cfm Holley and it was a lot peppier. I don't remember my mileage being so hot, but maybe that's the difference in gearing.


Thanks for all the replies
Ed

[flyin'eye]

That Ranchero must have a manual trans? My 62 Ranchero with a 170 and fordomatic only gets about 17, and I keep it well tuned....

[shoebox72]

The Pg rear makes a big difference & the pressure 235 don't hurt either. Top speed I'm not sure of but I motor along all day at 60-65 mph and the engine aint screaming & theres plenty of power for passing. A good roadable combonation.

Billy

[burger]

Looks like I got some more replies while I was replying myself...

Hillbilly, my daily's an '84 F-150, 302/AOD. I was getting around 15 mpg before the temperature dropped, but now I'm lucky to get 10 or 11.

Carl, that's what I hear about those Mopar flat sixes. Bugman tells me he can even hit 70 in his.

Disastron, what's the top speed with a 144? 28 mpg would be *nice*. Falcons are cheap too.


Ed

[disastron13]

Yes it is a stick, I am thinkin of taking a drive to Ariz when the new motor's done, maybe I will put 14 inch wheels on it for the trip.
Do wish for a T5 though, poor little motor.

[Machinos]

I read an article in a book I got...late 50's Ramblers were really light and had fuel economy-oriented flatheads and could get over 30mpg. If I were going for the ultimate fuel efficient (stock) classic, I'd probably get a '64 Barracuda with a slant six and a four speed. My '78 truck with the same setup got 23mpg at 80mph on the freeway, and it weighed 4600 pounds and had the aerodynamics of a brick.
I bet an early 'cuda would get over 30mpg.

It's just so damned sad how little the industry's technology has really changed in the last 50 years or so. The other day I figured something out... my '55 Chrysler gets 18mpg on the highway, even though it has an ANCIENT automatic trans and no overdrive. A brand new Ford Explorer with a SOHC V8, electronic fuel injection, a five speed auto with overdrive, etc. gets 21mpg, and it barely weighs more at all. It also makes LESS power! I just can't figure it out.

[warpigg]

look through the early issues of Hot Rod magazine.
early hot rodders were very big on fuel economy.
it should not be a thought of as a "taboo" subject.


i hear you Machinos; my 97 lincoln gets about 17mpg. (i really doubt is makes less power though http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif )

[Fat Hack]

Hell, my old 1964 Oldsmobile Dynamic 88 with the 394 2v got 18mpg easily...not as good as my fleet of Pintos, but not too shabby for an older heap, either!

[Christian]

obviously small 6 cilinders will guzzle less, I think the most important factor though is rear-end ratio, swap in tall highway gears and you're saving a lot of money. I'm keeping the 6 in my Econoline, gonna run a progressive Weber carb, and eventualy get a gas (propane) installation.

[sawzall]

ed

my father has a late model 250 six cyl in his 40 chevy sedan delivery.. the trans is a aluminum case close ratio muncie and the rear axle is out of an automatic trans chevy nova.. all of this is housed in a 57 chevy chassis.

no engine mods what so ever 14 inch wheels single stock exhaust with one stupid cherry bomb for noise suppression. it will get upwards of 30mpg on the highway in 4th gear

but off the line this thing is a dog!

just a thought... dont overlook the possibility of an overdrive attached to your current black P.O.S pickup.. it may help alot.

later

sawzall

[maud]

My '55 Bel-Air has a 235 and 3-on-th-tree gets 17mpg, but I'd rather drive my '68 Super Bee with 440 4-spd it gets 14mpg and is waaaaay more fun, so I drive it to work everyday.

[Ayers Garage]

My 54 Chevy car...

stock Goodwrench 350 crate engine with 2 bbl intake and carb off of a 77 305 Caprice...

turbo 200 auto tranny out of the same Caprice...

and 2.73 ratio Nova rear end gets 18 mpg on the highway. Lowest ever of about 14 in city.

[Hot Rod To Hell]

One major thing to consider is that EFFICIENCY is what your looking for. ANY motor can be made more efficient... an engine is just a big air pump... the easier you make it for the air to get in or out, the more efficient it will be. Good air filters (forget the stock housings too!), intake manifolds, headers and exhaust will all HELP your fuel economy. Synthetic (please don't tell the TRAD POLICE I said that! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif) fluids in the motor, trans, and rear end will all help milage as well. I have a 3100 lb car with a 406 SBC, big ol carb, intake, heads, cam, headers and exhaust; with a th400, 4000 rpm stall, and a 4.11 geared 9", with 30" tall tires, and I can knock down about 12 MPG if I try (this motor is well over 500 HP [real HP, not bench racing HP]) so I would think any motor built with milage in mind could be made to knock down good milage numbers. I didn't even consider economy as I was bulding, it was just a nice side effect of a well set up combo...
BTW: it gets about 4 when I'm driving "aggressively"! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Gr8ballsofir]

My 56 Desoto with a '55 291 Hemi and a 4 bbl Carter get about 20 mpg on the highway. But that's with the A/C off!! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[atch]

i see that no one has mentioned the early 4 banger chevy II's. anyone know how they did?

[Mike]

My '64 Falcon 4 door, 6cyl, automatic and A/C gets 20 mpg in town and 22 mpg on the highway.

My '62 Comet 2 door, 6cyl and 3 speed manual gets 22 mpg in town and 24 mpg on the highway.

They're certainly not the fastest or coolest cars on the road, but I'd rather bomb around in one of these than in a Honda, Toyota or some other econo-jellybean like that.

[Mojo]

How do you do the math to estimate fuel economy? I have a 67 mustang, 302 with a bit of cam, headers, low-rise 4bbl, running through a c4 into a 8" rear with 4.11 gears. It's ten miles to work, and I use almost 1/8th a tank of gas each way in what I think is a 15 gallon tank.

Any estimates on miles per gallon?

[Machinos]

I also remember reading that you can actually gear it TOO much, so it's not exactly bogging the engine down on the highway, but even though the RPMs might be lower it's not necessarily getting more milage. Awhile ago I saw a Chevelle online that made something like 1200hp (with turbos) but could still get 18mpg on the road. That's my ultimate goal, to get a big 4,200lb car really powerful AND really good on gas. I know it's possible, I just have to figure out how http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[av8]

Mojo -- Looks like 5.33 mpg.

[Fat Hack]

Once again, (as HRTH alluded to)...it's all about efficiency. Some combos got, and some don't...and it can almost ALWAYS be improved if you put forth a little sensible effort.

Hop over to the Tech-O-Matic and check out my 305 Chevy post.

That nasty Malibu got the impressive fuel economy numbers that it did because the engine was so much MORE efficient after I modified it than it was stock! This improved efficiency also lowered it's quarter mile ETs...mileage and performance are NOT mutually exclusive goals, people!

To give you an idea, when I bought that bone stock Malibu, it had a two barrel carb, catalytic converter, EGR, all emissions, single exhaust and about 129,000 miles on it, although internally, the engine was in EXCELLENT shape. In that configuration, the car was a gas-sucking SLUG! You had to damn near floor it to keep up with traffic, and keeping it at freeway speeds required about 1/4 throttle or more!

After dumping all of the emissions crap, adding a mild 350 replacement cam, new timing set, headers, open pipes (for quite a while!), recurved HEI distributor with Accel Supercoil, Edelbrock Performer intake manifold, Holley 600cfm vacuum secondaries electric choke 4v carb, K&N stub-stack, flex fan, and Magnum Roller-Tip rocker arms to the otherwise stock engine, mileage JUMPED way up there, the car became a tire-shredding beast, and the weight of your empty SHOE on the gas pedal would keep it humming along at freeway speeds...barely above an idle!

I kept the stock 2.73 axle and stock torque converter, too. I could have EASILY put that car into the 13s with steeper gears, a looser converter and slicks, but it was my daily driver, and I was more than satisfied with high 14 second ETs and mileage figures in the mid 20s (freeway). Around town, driving mellow, 17-19mpg was commonplace.

How 'bout that? Bolt-on SPEED parts actually made the car faster while getting better mileage to boot! Not so amazing...since all of those parts added up to a well-chosen combination that increased the engine's efficiency by a wide margin over the cranky, gas-guzzling two barrel stock form!

(Just cuz I see a few of you scratching your heads, I'll make a quick note that the Holley 4v, being a vacuum secondaries carb, only runs around on 300cfm or less most of the time...allowing for the 4v carb to easily deliver more impressive mileage figures than the poorly operating two barrel did!)

And...a word on six cylinder engines...

I've owned about a dozen Novas and Camaros with the 250 six popper in them. The only one that delivered good fuel economy numbers was the one with a Holley replacement carb on it and a little distributor work. In stock form, the 250 six isn't going to beat a 305 V8 for gas mileage OR power most times.

The reasons are reduced efficiency with the lousy stock carb, and the handicap of a smaller engine trying to move the same amount of mass. Additionally, most six cylinder cars have steeper rearend gears to compensate for their reduced horsepower and torque figures, so they turn more RPM per measured mile than most (stock) V8 equipped cars do. The result is that say...a 1977 Nova with a six cylinder won't get any better mileage than another 1977 Nova with a 305 V8, assuming that both are in reasonably good condition and state of tune. The six cylinder car may have a 3.31 axle and 250 cubic inches to move it, while the 305 car may have a 3.00 or 2.73 axle and additional torque. Having owned both, I can tell you that the V8 will beat the six cylinder both at the dragstrip, and at the gas pump!

Four bangers can be pretty economical, but even they can surprise you. My everyday car now is a lowly 2000 Chevy Metro. Everyone sees it and exclaims "Oh! I bet you get about 50 miles to the gallon in that thing!"

I wish!

In reality, mine is a four cylinder model (not a three banger!), and it's geared so low (high numerically) that it only delivers halfway decent mileage putting around town. On the freeway, it's screaming to pull the car along at 70mph...earning it the nickname "Buzz Bomb"! The low gearing makes it easy to zip in and out of traffic, but it realistically only delivers 25-30mpg at BEST! Whilr that's not BAD, I know for a fact that I could get those numbers out of a V8 car if mileage were my chief goal!

(And, considering that the old Malibu wasn't all that far behind the Metro in freeway mileage, that shows a fine example of a little surprise in mileage figures! A V8 doesn't HAVE to be lousy on gas, and a little car with a little engine isn't neccessarily that much farther ahead in the race for fuel economy!)

[G V Gordon]

Find an AMC Gremlin with a 258 c.i. six. 25 mpg and runs strong. May be a bit ugly for your tastes though. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Rocknrod]

[ QUOTE ]
i see that no one has mentioned the early 4 banger chevy II's. anyone know how they did?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mid 20's if I remember correctly... http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Gr8ballsofir]

Mojo,
15(gal tank) / 8(1/8 tank) = 1.84 gal. 10(miles) / 1.84(gal) = 5.4 MPG.

The best way to estimate you mileage is to fill up the tank and record your starting mileage (if your odometer is correct). The next time you fill up record how many gallons it took to fill it. subtract your starting mileage from your ending mileage and divide the difference by the number of gallons you used ((starting mileage - ending mileage)/gallons used). If your speedo doesn't work, take a road trip between 2 gas stations. Find the distance between them on www.mapquest.com (http://www.mapquest.com) and divide that by the # of gallons.

[Smokin Joe]

Get a small notebook and write down your mileage when you fill the gas tank. Next time you fill up, fill the tank the same way and again write down your mileage. That gives you total gas used and total miles traveled on that gas reguardless of tank size. if you travelles 100 miles and used 10 gallons, that's 10 miles per gallon. Make a note in your book about the type of driving you did and the price per gallon you paid. Also where you gassed up. Comes in handy on trips a year later when you look back and see which towns had rediculous gas prices. When I travel now I know where to avoid buying gas. If you can save 20 cents a gallon by gassing up in a town 30 miles away from the ripoff assholes it adds up on a long trip. Keep the book in your jockey box.

As an example, I've learned to gas up just before Twin Falls Idaho, then skip the stations till I get to Winnamucca if I'm heading to Nor Cal. Stations in-between are often 20 to 30 cents a gallon higher. Most of the places between Barstow and Vegas are ripoffs too but there are a couple that aren't as high. Even in my town, the gas stations in the main part of town are like $1.49 right now. Those near the freeway are like $1.63. Save 2 bucks on that 20 gallon fillup and you can go farther or eat better on your trip. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Fraz]

#1 reason I'm swapping from dynaflow to a ST400 in my 60 Buick, gas milage. Have heard more than a few stories about increased milage after swapping out a dynaflow. With the original 364/2bbl/flow, I got 6-8mpg, city or hiway didn't matter. Put in a 401/4bbl/flow and now mpg's are up to 12-14, city, hiway, doesn't matter. Locally, gas prices have shot up 20-25 cents per gallon in the past 10 days. My 20 gallon tank takes a good chunk of $$$ to fill anyway, and I have to use the 91-93 octane cuz my car hates anything less. Glad car isn't drivable at the moment, I couldn't afford it!

[disastron13]

Top speed is hard to tell, might be 80 with my tired motor. Due to be replaced soon. The factory PR claimed 100 mph top end for a 2 door sedan.
Nice thing about early Falcons is the Mustang platform- every imaginable handling and performance mod is available through Mustang sites and shops, all bolt up to the little Falcon.
My next ride might be a 60-64 stock lookin 2 door sedan with 289, T5, all Shelby mods.
Good cars, light, handle well, easy and cheap to fix and get parts for.
Re mileage I have to say, I drive this thing like an ol lady, save my bikes for speed and thrills and use El Ranchito for work etc. and drive very conservatively with mileage in mind.

[burger]

Yeagle, my truck already has an AOD. It probably gets OK mileage on the highway, but all my driving is stop and go.

Hack, got any recommendations for my truck? I remember we previously talked about ways to make fast, now let's talk about ways to make it efficient.


Thanks everyone else for your recommendations. So far I think Falcons are at the top of list, as I like the looks and I've heard a lot of accounts on this board and others of those little six bangers getting 25+ mpg. I like the 60-63's best. Anyone know if the 3-spds on those are fully synchronized? I like the stovebolt six and the Mopar flat six too... I just can't imagine they're as economical as the 144-170-200.


Thanks,
Ed

[mr57]

For some reason, Canadian built Pontiacs with the 261 six always got way better fuel mileage than the six banger Chevies. They all had a 3/4 or 1" spacer between the carb and intake that the Chevies didn't I had a mechanic friend go through the carbs on both my 55 & 62 Pontiacs, and they both got a consistent 22-4 MPG on the highway. I put one of those spacers on a 57 Chevy I used to have, with a 235, and it bumped it up 3-4 mpg to around 22 or so. Nothing wrong with that kind of mileage in a bigger car.

[DrJ]

Install an accessory vacuum guage on the dash, right next to your tach.
The kind that has inches of mercury and "Economy/Power" if you drive at a speed that keeps it in the "Power" range slow down to where it's in the Economy range, (or speed up if that does the trick too) then change your final drive ratio for the speeds you usually drive to get the best advantage.

Drive as if you have a raw egg under your accelerator foot... Only when there aren't any other kids or chicks around to impress though http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[mytlo56]

High gearing and a good tune will get you good mileage. I'm not talking fuel injected mileage...but good.

Weight, low gearing, high compression, lumpy cams, and big cubic inches all knock mileage way down.

[Hot Rod To Hell]

actually, high compression will increase your milage

[DrJ]

[ QUOTE ]
actually, high compression will increase your milage

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything that is actually more efficient use of energy will increase mileage.
Increasing operating temperature will do it too. run an 18 pound cap on your cooling system (on systems that can take it) and a 210º thermostat and it'll run way better mileage. Also, the shorter the distance between whatever atomizes the gasoline Carburetor) and the combustion chamber the more efficient. An inline engine with one carb and long relatively cold manifold runners will let gas vapor fall out of atomization and turn back into liquid. Liquid gas doesn't burn/explode easily, (it has to get turned into a gaseous state first) so it's wasted out the tailpipe.
So, a V-6 or 8 with relatively short intake runners stands a better chance of getting good mileage than an inline 6 or 8 with one carb a foot from the end cylinders.

[Fat Hack]

Ed, more than one Ford engineer related to me what I always knew...that the Windsor based V8 engines just can not match the GM V8s in power or mileage from the factory. Although great improvements can be made, the 302 and 351 Windsor engines are lacking in efficiency from the factory.

(In modified form, the Fords and GMs are about equal in potential with today's aftermarket and factory performance parts programs available to the consumer.)

You've started off towards improved mileage figures by using an AOD tranny. Properly adjusted, the overdrive will help boost economy on the open road, but really won't do alot for you around town.

Ironically, when dealing with essentially stock engines, the same steps that up the power often yield better fuel economy as well...a win-win situation for you!

Start with the exhaust. Windsor engines, along with several other older Ford V8 designs, are notoriously exhaust restrictive. The cylinder head design had to be compromised to allow installation of those engines into tight engine compartment designs of the 60s with shock towers cramping the exhaust side of the head for room!

Porting helps out alot on stock Windsor heads, as does head swapping to early 351W castings, or any of the aftermarket offerings. But, lets concentrate on simpler bolt-ons for now.

A set of headers, even budget-priced chassis headers from Cyclone or Hedman will let your Windsor breathe much easier and coupled with a free flowing exhaust system, will help extract more power and mileage from your mill.

Carburetion is next. Ford carbs are usually calibrated over rich in my experience, and feature limited adjustability. I strongly recommend a 600cfm Holley vacuum secondaries carb for your truck! Out of the box it will out=perform the stock 2v, and many factory 4v carbs. The bonus is that the Holley is so easy to tune, that you can dial in optimum fuel flow characteristics until the desired effect is obtained. (See my deeply burried Holley tech post for specifics!)

The Edelbrock Performer and Weiand Action Series dual plane intake manifolds work very well beneath a 600 Holley, but stock 1983-86 Mustang GT intakes, or the budget cast-iron 4v intake available through Speedway make great low-buck alternatives as well!

Next thing you'll want to do is to address the ignition system. Odds are you have a variant of the troublesome Duraspark electronic ignition system on your truck. You know, the typical 70s-80s Ford set-ups with the big, clumsy module in the engine compartment, the dopey slide-on coil connectors and the Ford-specific ignition coils (non threaded terminals) and the really wide caps? They're fine when they work, but I tend to swap in old single point systems, or aftermarket dual point distributors when wrenching on my own Ford projects!

That said, you can wring more out of your stock system by cutting out the coil connector and wiring in a good aftermarket ignition coil. A good set of radio suppression wires and a new cap and rotor are a good idea, as well...and you'll want to re-work the vacuum advance.

Alot of older Fords used ported vacuum for the advance on the distributors, while GM favored manifold vacuum. Manifold vacuum promotes smoother idle, and increases part throttle and cruising driveability, not to mention mileage in most cases. Some Fords use a vacuum retard set-up as well...you don't want that!

Using a hand held vacuum pump, check to be sure the vacuum advance is working in your distributor. (This will also help you identify the advance over the retard nipple on smog-era distributors). Connect the advance nipple to a manifold vacuum source near the base of the carburetor, or on the intake manifold. Put a plug over the retard nipple if so equipped.

To set your timing, disconnect and plug the vacuum line to your distributor (the one you just ran). Set your initial timing to about 4-6 degrees BTDC to start with, then reconnect the vacuum line. Take the truck for a drive, and listen carefully for signs of 'pinging' or detonation...especially under a load or going uphill. If none is detected, you might be able to bump up your initial setting a degree or two to reach the best setting for both mileage and power.

If you have room to install slightly taller tires out back, that will help to lower your revs in every gear per measured mile. With a light throttle foot, that can help you sneak another 1-2 mpg out of your truck, too.

Speaking of tires, you'd be surprised at how much easier a vehicle will roll with properly inflated tires at all four corners! Driving around with 15 psi in your tires will have a negative effect on your fuel mileage! I run 35-40 psi in most of my cars...higher than most people, but every little bit helps!

Read your plugs, and strive to keep them looking light tan to off-white...running leaner (without going TOO lean) will ensure that you're wringing out the best mileage possible from your engine. Getting rid of the assorted dead engines, flat tires, old cylinder heads, bricks and dead animals cluttering up the bed of your truck and weighing it down can't hurt, either!

[dixiedog]

First I would like to say - Excellent Post!!! topic is spot on.

In my 61 chevy truck I had a Chevy 262 V8 out of a Monza with T350 tranny single plane manifold 600cfm Holley, 275 60x15 tires and 3.73 gears, I would run the interstate most of the way to and from work about 25miles one way doing 60-70 mph - It got around 18 mpg.

My old 79 C10 with a mild 350 & T400 2.73 gears & 30" tires got about 14mpg.

65 Rambler - 232 single barrel & automatic - 18 around town (wouldnt trust it on the highway)

[286merc]

Another to consider is a 318 Mopar. The one in my 85 Dodge 3/4 ton van got 15-16 for many years and roughly 300K miles no matter what I did with it. Automatic also. (Getting very tired now at 375K) I would think that in a light Duster or similar size body it would break 20 easily and not be a dog.

A guy here in town has a 69 Dodge 1/2T p/u with a 318 & 4spd and he claims 22 as a commuter on the highway.

[Mojo]

k-rap... I knew it was getting bad milage, but I didn't think that bad! I don' think the 1800-2000 rpm stall convertor isn't helping much. I'll try counting the miles between tanks, but my speedo is off a bit... if it says 80mph, i'm doing 60. This is basically on two barrels too, because my secondaries aren't opening correctly (I think the vacuum diaphram is dry rotted). I do drive hard sometimes, but thing takes off like a rocket even when you are easy on it.

I used to have a 79 Malibu that came with a 200ci V-6. Such a crappy motor that they only made it for 2 years. Anyhow, yanked it and put in a mild 350, and I got better milage too. Unless I put my foot in it, and laid some 300ft one-legged burnouts... Anyhow, it was a 350/350, with a 2.43 rear. Really good combo, it got good milage and good performance.

[disastron13]

Falcons - no, synchro on 2nd and high only. Lots of people have put top loaders or T5s behind the little six bangers.

[burger]

Disastron- Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you need an expensive adapter to put a T5 behind a 144-170, right? With an engine that low on power, do you find the lack of a synchro on first to be a big deal? I know it was a big PITA with my '53.


Ed

[haring]

Ed, my '61 doesn't have synchro first gear. I drive mainly in-town, and yeah, it's not the most convenient thing, but you get used to it quickly. Or you could just slush around town with a 2-sp automatic. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

I will be replacing my original 170 with a 200 (3x1 intake) this year and eventually switching over to a 4-sp toploader (with Hurst comp shifter). I have a couple extra 200 engines if you ever need one in the future.

[burger]

Don Haring Jr, you have a PM.

[dixiedog]

Mojo - take your on the odo and divide by 1.33 to get a more accurate distance.
later DOGG

[disastron13]

www.inlinepages.com (http://www.inlinepages.com) has the small six/ T5 info

[wingnutz]

Messerschmidt 60mpg or a BMW Isseta 40 mpg!!! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

http://www.pcsystems.com/messerschmitt/mess.html

http://davepics.com/Misc/Cars/Messerschmidt/

http://members.lycos.nl/wolfbimmer/newpage17.html

My '59 Abarth Zagato (double bubble) 31 mpg until the camshaft broke!!! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

http://www.race-cars.com/carsold/abarth/rmz851/rmz851ss.htm

For American makes go to a Nash Metropolitan! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Mark

[briggs&strattonChev]

my 46 chev coupe had stock tranny and rear end and a 235 and I got 17 mpg

[cornfieldrodder]

Wingnutz, you had an Abarth Zagato?! I am so jeolous.