Early 60's Mopars,better MPG's than Ford,GM?

I've been looking for a new ride,gonna sell off the projects and settle for one nice driver.Anyway,I was thinking about the 63-64 chrysler 300,they seem pretty cheap,not the best looking car ,but not bad. I read a test of the 63 new yorker and Tom McCahill was saying it was getting 3-6 mpg better than the competition,17-18 on the highway@ 70 mph. What could you attribute that to,gearing,more efficient motor/trans,aerodynamics? I read somehere that the torqueflite was the most efficient trans of the day,so much so that Ford wanted to use the design.Anyone have any insight on this ?

 

Good ol' Uncle Tom...

A lot of what he said was BS however.

But he said it so well!

 

I got 22-24mpg highway in my '62 Nova with a 194 six and powerglide factory 3.08:1 gearing.

My '63 Wagon with a 283 v8, with headers, 4 barrel, th350, and 3.08 got about 17.

Alot of it has to do with how you drive it also. If you can swing it, anything with an overdrive gets better milage. Electric fans help too.

 

I think our 67 plymouth wagon got about 12 with a 383 2bbl

 

I couldn't see how a 63-64 Chrysler could get 17-18 mpg. 4,000+ lbs and at least a 361 big block doesn't add up to good mileage even with 3.23's. I think a great driver would be a '63-'66 Dart/Valiant/Barracuda with a slant 6. Cheap, lightweight, and the indestructable slant. That big Chrysler would probably ride real good though.

 

if it has the 2.76 rearend (or whatever the exact ratio was in them?) then I could see getting 15.

 

If the poster said more details or scanned the article, then there would be no guessing. I do find the statement that FoMoCo wanted to buy Chrysler transmissions rather unbelievable.

 

they didn't need to buy them, the C6 is kind of a copy of the 727 as far as the geartrain.

 

1966 Fury III + 383 Commando + 4 speed + 3.55 gears + Conservative driving= 19 mpg. Those things would get good gas mileage if they were taken care of and drove like little old ladys would drive.

 

Yes, but all roads are not downhill...

Those gears, a big C-body boat it's seems too good to be true. A factory car (4-speed) or something with an overdrive?

 

That's true, you'll have to get into sometime or another.

 

65 Pontiac 2+2 convertible, 421, TriPower, M20 4 speed, 3.42 Safe-T-Track, 4120 lbs with the bottom of the tank just wet and without me in it. Consistent 16-17 MPG on the highway at 70-75 MPH, this was just before you started cracking open the end carburetors. Bring yourself to drive it at a steady 50-55 and it would hit 19. Found out early on if you ran it out of gas, the end carburetors had enough fuel in them to start and accelerate the car enough to usually save me from walking (clutch in and coast after they too ran dry) to the nearest gas station

Had a 61 Chrysler Newport convertible during my last year of high school. 413 four barrel, factory 3 speed (on the floor from the factory because the electroluminescent instrument panel covered up the steering column). Must have had a pretty lazy rear end ratio, because I could get 73 in first and 105 in second. Never did top end it and never really checked the fuel mileage, but I'd hazard a guess it was quite reasonable for it not to be a bother to a not very flush high school student.

 

17 mpg @ highway speeds...






496ci stroker, longram intakes with dual 625cfm Carter carbs, Edelbrock heads, 727 auto, 3.23 gears.

Haven't even tuned the motor properly yet and by the lightly multicolored looks of the rearbumper near the exhaust I think the engine is still pretty rich.
I think any '60s big car can run these numbers if you just have a fresh engine which is build to make most torque in the rpm-range you use it the most.

Or maybe it's the fins that give it a couple of mpg's extra

 

Actually theres a bit of truth to that. The old checker cabs originally had purchased chrysler automatics back in the day because they were so tough and dependable, even with "cab" type service.

A number of years go by and checker was sold to ford. The contract chrysler had was with checker, not ford. So chrysler stopped supplying transmissions to cheker. ford supplied their own trannys for a short period of time with poor results.

In a short amount of time ford tried to sue chrysler for breach of contract...and lost. Thereafter ford/checker had to purchase chrysler transmissions again.

 

My '66 Coronet, when it had the 2-bbl 361-B engine, auto and 2.94 gears, at #3,900, got 21 on the highway routinely. My wife's '78 New Yorker Brougham Salon 4-dr hardtop, 440 auto, and nearly #5,800, gets 20 on the turnpike at 70 mph.

My '66 Pontiac Bonneville convertible, with a 389 Tri-Power, rarely saw double-digit mileage, however!

Why does everyone think a big car has to get shitty mileage?

Checker Cab was ALWAYS an independent automaker. It was never owned by any of the Big Three. They used Chevy engines from the late '60s all the way to the end of production in the early '80s. I could see where Ford would want to use Chrysler transmisions (because the Ford trannies suck!), but Ford never bought transmissions from Chrysler, ever! If they did, you would see references in parts books saying so, now, wouldn't you??? AMC used Chrysler transmissions. Ford did not.

 

I call BS on that, Ford never wanted to use a competitors transmission on there cars, especially with Hank the Deuce running things. Also, Checker was bought by Ford? When was this?

 

my old 64 plymouth fury with a 318 poly would do 22-23 @ 70+ ....man do i miss that car. had a 65 malibu with a 283 2bbl/glide...think the best i got out of it going to bowling green was high teens around 18 or 19.

 

My '66 Newport, 383 2bbl, gets around 17-20 on the highway at 65-70mph. Now, around town-not so much.

 

http://www.63chrysler.com/lit/ChryslerReview.html Here's the link to the road test. Good ol' Tom,

 

Test cars provided to magazines have always been ringers. In the Mobil fuel economy runs, all the manufacturers cheated but Chrysler usually cheated best.

 

except maybe for those 49-54 Lincolns....

 

I had a 69' Sport Fury with a 383 4 brl (converted 2 brl), 727, and 2.94 posi rear and it got about 23mpg on the highway at 65mph - right in its sweet spot. If you went 75 is got about 18mpg. If you went 55 it got about 20.

 

I thought about the ringers ,but wouldn't GM and Ford build ringers for the road test's too?

 

Good trivia point,but was the topic here the Hydramatic Lincolns?

 

I'm a heavy Mopar guy and appreciate the high quality and engineering they did back then. Saying any mfgr had an across the line better MPG is silly.
I'd also like to add that any 1-3 MPG savings over a year could easily be drawn back out in initial cost, maintenance, lower resale or a bunch or other things. Rambler, Falcon, Dart, Nova are about the same MPG-wise. Corvair is probably very close.
I'd guess the full size cars are comparable too.
Here's a chart from a C4C article showing the savings expected over a year at 12k miles a year and gas at 2.70.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/06/cash-for-clunkers-bill-cuts-fuel-consumption.html
12 MPG to 17 MPG saves just under 800 a year (66 a month)
18 MPG to 23 MPG saves 391 a year (32.58 a month)
Changing your insurance should save that much, if you believe those ads...
Maybe you can find an early 60s compact for a grand. Add in another 300 to get it really reliable with fresh tires, etc. Pay state to drive on the roads, pay insurance for a couple years and you might break even when you sell and get that savings. But you have to spend money up front to save over time, and if it gets wrecked or dies in those first couple years, you lose.

 

Id say go with the falcon. 170 inline six! real good milage with the 3 spd tree shift!

 

Checker Cabs had Continental engines in the older models. The Marathon had 6 cyl Chevrolet or V-8. Most had TH-400 transmissions.

Ford was never part of the deal.

Checker kept on stamping body parts until recently. I read somewhere they had all their money invested with Madoff so they went into bankruptcy.

 

I talked my father into getting a 65 Dodge Coronet. It was a Drivers ed car equiped with a three speed and a 2bbl 318. He had always had 6's and was worried that he couldn't afford the gas for the 8. he was driving a /6 60 Dart Seneca at the time and was getting 22/3 mpg. Well he got the Coronet and was very pleased when it got 21 commuting and a bit more on the highway. the big plus was that it didn't use any oil. The early /6 was on its 3rd set of rings and had a thirst for lots of 40 weight oil.

He then bought a 69 Dart with a 318 powerglide that got a bit better. However once he got his first 40 mpg honda civic, he was done with mopars.

 

You forget what your saving by not having car payments. A good friend of mine once said someone that has a really nice car doesnt always mean they have alot of money, it just means they usually have bigger bills.

 

Boy I had to roll my britches legs up readin' this post ... There's some tall tales on here regardin' gas mileage on those old sleds ... Mine = '56 Olds 98 Convertible (19), '65 Pontiac Catalina tri power, 4 speed (15), '70 Ford 390 2bbl auto (17), '56 Ford 272 stick (17), '88 Honda CRX auto (36) .. 2005 PT Cruiser (23) ...