My daily driver is a 60 Impala and the rising price of gas has me wondering what meaningful changes, if any, I might make to increase my fuel economy. My gut tells me that my bone stock 283 2bbl can't be changed in any way that would lead to a substantial change in MPG aside from perhaps swapping out the powerglide. I toyed with the idea of going with a HEI instead of points but that too makes me wonder if it would be worth the expense. Normally I'd not care too much about this sort of thing but I feel it's quite likely we'll soon see gas hit $4 a gallon so it's been on my mind. I'm still going to drive it every day just as I always have but simply wonder if I might be able to squeeze out a few more miles per gallon without killing performance. Anything that you guys could recommend or are already doing?
I've always wondered if a small 4bbl & aluminum intake would help MPG over a stock 2bbl. I bet that 2bbl really has to dump to move a '60 Impala. Nothing is going to make as big of a difference than a trans swap will though. (& FWIW... don't blink when gas hits $4/gallon or you'll miss it. We're headed to $5 my friend.) JH
Your 283 2bbl is going to be pretty conservative on gas if you cruse it at low rpm. I'm glad you brought this up cuz I tore apart a 350 last weekend that I plan on putting in my daily GMC and the whole time I'm thinking "how can I get better mpg out of this". With the surge in gas prices, are any manufacturers coming out with cams and other parts to increase mph or is the stock cam about it for now? Good luck.
I would think that taller gears would be the biggest bang for the buck, or an overdrive tranny. I beginning a 49 GMC build, and I'm gunna run a TBI 350, 700R, and 308 rear. I'm shooting for 22mpg, we'll see Rich
Don't forget the basics that will work with any vehicle. Make sure the front alignment is right on, and the same with tire pressures. Get all that "stuff" out of the trunk so you're not hauling around any more weight than neccessary. And I know it's hard to do and goes against what we all drive hot rods for but take it easy and accelerate more slowly and try not to use your brakes hard. I hate that part!
Thanks for the replies guys. I was hesitant to bring up the topic since we're generally the type of people who laugh at fuel consumption when the pedal hits the floor. If it was a weekend driver I'd certainly not be as concerned and while I'm fortunate that my commute is short it just seems silly to not consider changes that might help. Harrison, I'd been wondering if an upgrade to a 4bbl might be beneficial as well. That car is beastly heavy and I agree that gas will likely hit $5 a gal. Aman, I've not heard of any economy minded cams that are not more aggressive that a stock cam. I'm guessing that's due to few people being willing to suppress performance in the name of economy. Maybe that will be changing some time soon or perhaps we're just going to see fewer v8 dailys on the road. the-rodster, I was considering a 350 as well. The conversion parts were less expensive than the 700 the last time I looked. 2002p51, Some solid advice there that we all could benefit from.
You'd be surprised what a kickass hot ignition and the right, properly inflated tires would do, too! ~Jason
At current gas prices anything that will net you a 2MPG increase will save you about $100 in gas in 4,000 miles. If you're planning changes for mileage alone then you have to figure in how long it will take to pay for itself and are you really saving yourself anything in the long run? If it was time for a change anyway that's a different story. Cutting cruise RPM is good up to a point, it's just as easy to go too far and be in the throttle all the time just to keep the car moving on slight grades. There have been cases where lower gears actually helped mileage, usually on heavy brick shaped vehicles with small or low powered engines. I had a '92 S-10 with a 4.3, 700R4 and 3.08 gears. A co-worker had the same identical truck except his had 2.56 gears. He drove his like a Grandpa and I beat mine like I stole it. We both averaged 25-26 MPG. I drove his once, it was a slug compared to mine. I had an '85 Monte Carlo with a 4.3 TBI, TH200 and I believe 2.29 gears. The poor thing couldn't pass it's own shadow and couldn't pull a hill in drive with the AC on but on flat level ground would get 28 MPG Hwy. A set of 3.42 gears and a 200-4R would have made it perform much better and would have probably improved MPG's slightly.
Rochester 2 barrel carbs are notoriously bad on gas...you should see a nice gain in fuel economy if you swap on a four barrel intake with a small, vacuum secondaries 4v carb. I'd recommend a Holley 600, or even a Holley 390 for a 283 motor. You'll do most of your driving on the primary side of either carb...both of which are squarebores, so with the 600 carb you'd be drivng on 300cfm until you step into it hard enough to overcome the secondary spring (which is replaceable to tune the secondary opening rate to come in sooner or later), and with the 390cfm carb, you'd only be using 195cfm for the bulk of your cruising! (Remember, also, thta the cfm ratings are at Wide Open Throttle, you'll actually be using much less most of the time!) If the new carb is installed and tuned right, you'll notice a jump in fuel economy right away! Another thing to look at is the distributor...make double damned sure the vacuum advance is working right, moves freely and is hooked up to the correct source (manifold vacuum, not ported vacuum). Points or Electronic triggering won't make much difference in fuel economy...but your vaccum advance plays an important role, so check it out! The Powerglide will hurt your mileage some...a TH350 swap would be a nice upgrade, but it can wait until you NEED to replace the tranny. For now, get under the hood and get that two barrel OUTTA there! Ha Ha...it's kind of funny that people think of two barrels as "gas mileage carbs", but they were actually worse than many four barrels! GM realized this and started putting Quadrajets on many of it's small V8s sometime in the late 70s/early 80s. The tiny primaries on the Q-jet made for better mileage figures over the same engine equipped with the two barrel carbs for normal, day-to-day driving. (A Quadrajet would be a smart choice for your 283, too. You can find someone to GIVE you a stock spreadbore SBC intake, and a new Q-jet costs about the same as a new Holley 600, or you can normally score a good used or rebuilt one for a song. Just be sure to get a "Pre-Feedback" Quadrajet...one from 1979 or earlier without the added enrichment electronic crap on it.) 20mpg or better is not too difficult to obtain with a small V8, even in a larger, heavier vehicle. Gearing, tire size and inflation, tuning and driving habits will all play a role...but start with a four barrel swap and tweak it from there, and I'm sure you'll see an improvement right away!
I have a 700r4 in an A roadster with a ZZ4350....gets me 15 mpg round town and 25 on the motorway..towing a caravan!!!...and petrol here is $9 a gal!!
First of all - glad to see that you are back, Hack. This is something that I consider all the time, and I can see that if your car is a daily that it would pose a real issue. In an Impala, a smaller engine swap wouldn't be reasonable, but in some cars a V-6 or banger engine, is also an alternative (in addition to all the other helpful hints above). There is an interesting article in Autoweek this issue that talks about the 'greenness' of our cars over their entire life, not just the operational life. If you consider that we have been recycling for years. Though that doesn't help with your current dilemma .
Just so everybody knows, the Holley 4360 Economisers are a terrible idea, DO NOT bid on them or the rebuild kits on Ebay. Right Greg?
last I checked, my 59 Chevy was getting around 15mpg highway with a 350/350 with an Edelbrock intake & 650 carb if that helps you with figures
This has been an interesting read for me so thanks to everyone for taking the time to add their thoughts. I hopped out at lunch and filled up the tank to give me an idea of where the mileage currently sits and it looks like I'm around 14 mpg which is right around where I thought it might be. Sounds like I can do better with just a small investment so I'll have to weigh my options. 73roundlight, your mention of the Autoweek article is interesting. I'm often fielding complaints from some people about why I drive this old car. From "Don't you care about the environment" to "You're the reason the war is still going on". People will always have their own conceptions and odd ideas and I usually just try to not get involved in a conversation because that's not what they want anyway. My one pervasive thought has been that by driving an older car, we're reducing the number of cars that are junked and replaced with vehicles that are more often built from an increasing amount of plastics and foreign labor. I increasingly see people toss aside perfectly functioning items so they can go into debt to buy a newer shinier one. I suppose I was like that in my 20's but as I close in on 40 I'm more and more interested in maintaining what I have and I don't have the skills to do it right I hire the job out to someone who can. Guess I got a little off track there Anyways, thanks again for all of your suggestions.
I've been thinking alot about this lately, too. It may sound a little crazy to be doing this, but here's my plan: My car is a '62 Ford Galaxie. It currently has a 390/FMX auto, Edelbrock Performer intake, Edelbrock 650 carb, mild "torque/RV" cam, Mallory electronic ignition, dual exhaust, 3.00 gears. On the trip from Omaha to Austin, TX, I averaged 14 mpg. I like to drive it as much as possible and the mileage around town is horrible, I'm guessing around 10 mpg. I've been averaging 10,000 miles a year. My plan is to swap in a roller cam 302 with a mild cam, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, Edelbrock 650 carb., headers (not sure on full length or shorty), electronic ignition, T5 5-speed, 3.70 gears, and add an X-pipe to the exhaust system. I think 20 mpg is a realistic estimate for highway mpg with the new combo, might even get a little better than that. I will be selling the 390/auto combo to recoupe some of the costs of the swap. Yes, there is cost involved to do the swap, but, in time, it will pay back. This might not help you any, but it's just something I've been thinking about for a while. I really think a small block, with overdrive and the right rearend gears, can move a large car around just fine and get decent mileage. My $.02 Malcolm
Interesting to hear thoughts about driving older cars from a "green" point of view mentioned! I just completed a pretty long (about 3400 miles) road trip in a 1967 Dart running a bone stock Slant Six. It may not be the "cleanest" car from a tailpipe sniffer standpoint, but it doesn't leak any fluids, doesn't smoke, and it pulls down up to 27mpg on the freeway, with 23-25mpg as a highway average and 19-21mpg average around town. I got lotsa comments from many different people along my journey, but NOBODY said ANYTHING about it being a gross polluter or bad for the environment or anything along those lines. Most of what I heard revolved around things like "Man, I had an old Dart just like that!" to "I bet that's got a Slant Six in it! It HAS to...those motors run FOREVER!" to "You've got to be crazy to drive something like THAT around the country!". Ha Ha...to my way of thinking, it uses much less fuel than the majority of the newer SUVS and pickups and even many cars on the road, so it doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. (Hell, the 2005 Silverado I replaced with this car had an EFI V6, overdrive automatic and all that fancy new engineering and it could NOT get 20mpg highway to save it's ass...and it sucked down 11-13mpg city!!! I'm happy that gas-sucking "green" pickup is gone and this lowly old gas-sipping 60s bomber has taken it's place!!!)
Went through this in the 70s, here we go again. 200R4 with the stock rearend (probably around 3.08s) or slightly lower (3.23). The 200R4 has lower first gear than a turbo 350, fairly even gear spread, and of course overdrive. Maybe converting to a manual overdrive transmission (T-5) would save a little more. Q jet on a stock manifold (as per the Hack). Electronic ignition helps when your tune starts going away. Standard profile radial tires (wider tires have more resistance) with higher than recommended tire pressures (at least 5 pounds, more if you can stand the ride) on narrow (5-6 inch) wheels with smooth wheel covers (Moon discs?) . Drum brakes adjusted for minimal drag. Empty the trunk. Air dam made from conveyor belt type material attached to the front pan and pinch flange under the rocker panels extending almost to the ground (within an inch or so) and braced to keep it vertical. Egg (boiled or raw) duct taped to the accelerator pedal.
God, it's great to have ya back, Fat Hack! My (somewhat daily) '97 Silverado w/ 5.7/auto is getting replaced with a 4 cyl. 5 speed Ford Ranger. I've hit the point where gas mileage is more important than driving a cool, lowered fullsize pickup. Another "thank you" from me, for your input. Malcolm
Hack, that's why my daily is a FEATHER Duster. 31.4 on the highway after I put the clutch in it last summer at 276,000 miles.
Find around a 99 or 2000 Exploder motor (better heads and intake than the standard Mustang 302 H O motor), keep the stock cam, fuel injection (good aftermarket harnesses are out there that make it easy to connect to your car), long tube headers with O2 sensor bungs, keep your 3.00 rearend, and you're looking at high twenties on the highway and low twenties around town in that old Ford if you're not dogging it. Probably find you're not giving up much to that 390 for performance either.
My 2 cents probably wont mean much, but here is how my '65 truck stacks up: 3980 pounds (At the land fill scales). Stock 350 with a 600 cfm Edelbrock, stock HEI. 2 1/2 exhaust with stock ram horns. 350 TH with a GM 12 bolt with 2:73 gears. This is the basic GM drive train from the mid 70's that came in Camaros, Novas, Chevelles, etc. I get 14-15 in town and as much as 19 on the road (at about 72mph average speed). Even with the high gears, I still have plenty of pulling power. Upping the exhaust size was a tremendous boast. might try looking in that area first. Your car probably weighs about the same as my truck. Using basic components, I'm sure you will do no worse than this. With some careful tuning you can bump it up some, but with the weight, it wont be easy. My Dad used to brag about getting 20mpg in town from his '70 LTD with a big block..... He was an excellent mechanic and relentless in solving tune-up problems. I'm not, so I know it can be better than what I have... Good luck.
Ha Ha...I haven't seen one of THOSE in ages!!! Great to know they're still out there...and still being driven!!
I pulled the mechanical fan and added a electric one. Also converted to a serpintene belt. It made a big differance performance and gas milage. Running a 305/ 700r4/ 372 gears
Cheap stuff from stock later Chevys at the junkyard that will help: Thermostatic clutch fan, '75--80 Q jet (get aluminum manifold from Malibu, set adjust on secondary flap a bit tight), look for a good HEI, recurve with $7 kit from Moroso Expensive stuff: What is your rear gear?? Lower will help at low speeds with heavy car, higher at high speeds. Get an OD 4-speed, 200 0r 700 type, optimize rear gears for your normal high cruise in OD
Here's a link to that article: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/FREE/653022149/1636 Thanks, Kurt
my two pennies: for the guy recommending a explorer motor, don't those heads use special headers? not sure if that'd be a problem in finding headers for every application since they are different... and for the guy wanting a T5 w/ 3.70 rear gears, i'd recommend closer to 3.00 gears, 1st is pretty steep in a T5 and I run 3.80 gear and barely use 1st gear as a result... plus i'm still close to 2500 rpms at highway speeds (not sure what speed, speedo gear in trans is stripped out...) and that seems pretty high to me for a higher mpg car.... of course tire size matters too as far as all that goes...
The Jalopy Journal
