Hot Rods 32 Ford Pickup With 265 Chevy

Working on my daily driver deuce PU. New plug wires, Dist cap, & Plugs plus a new 500 CFM Edelbrock AVS2 carb, Edelbrock Performer intake. 2600 lb. pickup, 265 SBC, 350 turbo, 3.00 9 inch rear. 29 inch tall tires.Has Pertronix ignition. Runs great. Yesterday was a perfect day, no wind, 70 degrees a rare day in NE. Drove it on a 250 mile road trip averaging about 70. I just managed to squeeze out between 12 & 13 MPG. Am I dreaming or shouldn't this truck be capable of 20+ MPG. Remember I spent the last 40+ years as a chassis builder not an engine man. Everyone on the HAMB has an opinion, please share yours with me. Thanks.

 

have a tach in the truck? or a rough ide of the RPM while doing that 70? Kind of the only thing that would be something I would be looking at first.

 

I would have thought it would be better than that. I was getting 25mpg with a 283, three speed manual with 3.31 gears.
Automatic will rob some, was it hilly? did you do the math right?

 

No tach but this setup is kinda basic, plus I have the receipt for the R&P so I know it's a 3.00. Runs so smooth I find myself speeding easily. Tires are 700/16 Excelsior's 29.10 tall. This trip was in the flatlands. I'm no brain surgeon, for years I've divided miles by gallons?

 

That auto trans is probably robbing a lot of mpg’s. Maybe that 3.00 gear is too high. Not running the engine in its sweet spot. Still I think 15-16 would probably be about max. I put a 350C in mine but it only dropped a couple hundred rpm. Never checked it on a long trip. Probably because I have never taken a long trip in it. Gets about 10 around town with 3x2 carbs. Ugh

 

Not hating on 32s but a 32 Ford pickup is essentially a vertical brick. So at 70 while there may have been no natural wind it was still fighting wind. And a 265 isn't exactly a fire breather. After parasitic drag from drivetrain you might have what maybe 80-90 hp to the ground if it's hopped up a bit? So while it might have been happy that baby mouse was still working

 

Try the same trip at say 55 and see what it does

 

Vacuum advance connected and working?

 

Your engine was turning 2435 rpm at 70, @scrappybunch beat me to it, check your initial timing, total advance and hook up vacuum advance if the engine doesn’t already have it.
My channeled ‘32 5W with a blown 350 with two 600 Holleys does 17 mpg at 70. 2650 lbs, T-10 four speed, 3.36 gear and 31” tires.

 

Just had my local shop do all of the above. Yes I agree, brick, lacks some air dynamics. 56 Chevy 265 should be enough engine for a 2600 lb truck? Donor car was a lot bigger and heavier and they rocked right down the road. Did 55 and it was better, but it's not 1955 as the new cars sped by at 80 with the drivers glued to their text phones I received a few California Howdy's. I assume they were mumbling get the hell off the road you old fart!

 

Around 55 mph is when aerodynamics will really start killing mpg as you increase speed.

my second thought was maybe you got some “winter blend gas” that garbage always crushed my highway mpg even in a late model. Though I’m not at all surprised at 13mpg at 70 mph

 

29 CCPU, 265 4 bbl, 5 speed, quick change with 3:90 ish gears, 29 inch rear tire, Everything perfect, 12 mpg at freeway speeds, 70 ish.

 

badshifter: I may have to face reality? I try to always burn alcohol free premium when I can find it. Amazes me that small displacement engine combined with the small carb can burn that much fuel. Maybe it's time to go backwards to a 2 barrel carb? Wonder what that would do?

 

Not sure it would change much, those carbs have vacuume secondaries so I can’t imagine it’s over carbed. I suppose you could ad an O2 sensor in the exhaust and get it tuned better?

 

If yours is like mine, pay attention to how far your foot is into the gas pedal at freeway speeds. It’s pretty clear aerodynamics are killing the available power. For a few trips, I tried staying in fourth gear, but the higher RPMs used just as much fuel as your foot into the gas more into fifth gear. I think if you switch to a two barrel, your foot will be even more into it and the difference in mileage will probably be the same. A 265 may be a small displacement, but pretty inefficient cylinder head, piston, cam by any modern standards.
Look on the bright side, you have a super rad truck!

 

Gary, I'm not an engine builder but the truck really should get better mileage, my 32 pickup had a 327/350 turbo,a 9" rear axle with a 300 gear and L-78-15 bias ply 29.30 and I consistently averaged between 20 and 23 MPG. HRP

 

The visor is acting like a parachute and slowing you down.

 

Gotta remember while a 55-56 Chevy is also shaped like a brick it's also shaped like a horizontal brick with fewer sharp angles. Depending on cam it does sound like a fairly solid setup on a 265 though

 

probley need to run the sp2p manifold to run that small of carb..i'd trya 600 carb

 

Also is the intake port matched? When I was tinkering with my 57 283 I was told multiple times that there's a decent port mismatch with modern intakes and early sbc heads

 

also...need to see where the vacuum is at...needle springs might be too strong and run wot in the mid range

 

California howdy, lol. I lived there fifty years. The official freeway salute.

 

Actually reminds me. I finally got a copy of the jim varney Beverly hillbillies a week ago lol

 

Alldone beat me. Put a vacumn gauge off manifold vacuum and see what you’re running. Real easy to get in the spot where the vacuum advance in the distributor is retarding (like to none) and the power valve is right on the edge of opening. But I’m thinking 2-4 mpg, not 10.

That Eddy was probably set up for a 305-350 low performance motor. Not many guys out there buying 4 barrels (even 500’s) for small mild engines. And while a lot of guys complain there’re jetted lean, the other side to that is you’re into them too far under a load. And you’ve got more wind resistance than the average customer.

 

Regarding the engine being underpowered, my 86 Caprice has 165 Hp from the factory, but also a 700R4 and it gets 25+ mpg on the highway. Of course like others said it's more aerodynamic and a brick on its side, not on end.

Your should be running about 2,500 rpm at 70, which isn't unreasonable at all. To compare, I get about 15 mpg with a 455 Buick, 650 Demon, 3-speed and a 3.42 rear gear with a 31" tall tire in a 3,300 lb truck.

A SBC should be capable of 15-20 pretty easily. I would check whether your carb and distributor are tuned properly for your little engine with low air requirements.

If 12-13 is the best you can get, at least you look cool.

 

Which 500 CFM AVS2 do you have? There are a number of variations for different applications.

 

Maybe the 265s lack of torque compared to larger V8s make it hard to lug around at low cruise rpm under load. Probably making it thirsty. I agree mpg should be higher..but that's what came to my mind first.

 

Vacuum gauge was brought up, but you need to compare vacuum at say 45-55-65-70. And see where it’s dropping off. The lower the vacuum, the more you have your foot in the throttle to make the truck move at that speed.
Do you recall the old “fuel mileage” gauges? They were a vacuum gauge with nice lettering on the faces.

 

My brother had a 55 chevy 210 with the 265 and 3 speed. I don't remember it getting very good mileage but the driver was aggressive. My old 32 had an off topic 302 ford with factory efi and a 5 speed. It ran 1850 rpm at 70 mph and always made at least 20 or better. I would think your truck should get at least 15 so I would look at the jetting in the carb.

 

I know someone else mentioned this, but a working vacuum advance makes a noticeable difference in fuel economy.