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
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.
I know that Studebakers and ramblers from the early 60's with 3spd std Transmissions and overdrive are notorious for fuel efficiency. Evan
My 51 Chevy (235-1carb,3spd,PG rear)gets around 20 mpg. Less if I shift by what the pipes are singin' Billy
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.
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. It could be worse, I used to pay 300+ a month for gas to make someone else lots of $$$. Good luck in your search.
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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
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....
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
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
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.
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.
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 )
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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! ) 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"!
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!!
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.
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?
The Jalopy Journal
