Fill at the same pump and fill to the same amount in the neck every time. Write the miles on the receipt. do the math, keep that receipt til the next fill up. Filling at the same pump takes the difference in whatever angle the tank sits at in different station aprons out of the equation. Around here not many of the stations have level pads, most are tipped one way or another.
True. Many people don't do the math. Look at all the low mile SUV's on the used car lots now for cheap, vehicles the owners were upside down on when they traded them in on "economy" cars. A bargain for the right buyer. The wife and I don't drive enough miles anymore for the cost of fuel to be a significant factor in the overall cost of driving a vehicle. Have had to go over this with my adult children several times. The total cost of driving a vehicle involves way more factors than just the cost of fuel.
i feel your pain...i filled my 3 gallon moon tank and started my car (fresh motor)got the valves run, timing set,fluids checked ran it around the block a few times...... bla bla bla. then it died ..i thought what the hell.....looked around for loose wires and things like that...out of the corner of my eye i notice the fuel filter is dry....damn !!!!
I have an '89 Bronco I paid $600 for. It runs great, is very comfortable, and gets about 15-17 MPG. That $600 is pretty close to what some folks shell out monthly for their super-hybrid SUV's, and they get possibly 5-8 more miles per gallon than I do. Even with $4 a gallon gas, I still have more fun at less cost! Not to mention my insurance is cheaper...
didnt the original model T get like 20- 25 miles to the gallon..way before its time i guess, although it probably never went over 40MPH at least it would be more fun than the **** boxes of today
My '37 Chevy truck get around 16 mpg on the highway at 70+ mph. Slow down to 55 and it jumps up quite a bit. Around town hot rodding and cruising, 13 to 14. Its a 250 Chevy with different cam, T350, 3.08 gear, 28" tall tires. Wind drag is horrible on this this, trucks about blow it off the road. It weighs 3200 with two people, and sets slightly lower then stock. Swoopy is the way to gas mileage! Joe
I think if you ran a late model 2.3 out of an '01 or newer Ranger you'd do fine. All aluminum, DOHC 4 banger. Manual trans. Injected. Chop the roof lower on your A, get the stance respectfully low, other small mods and you should be in the high 20's at least. FARMERGAL - My '50 Plymouth with stock flat 6 got 30mpg on the highway easily. I've heard these engines hit 30 regularly.
I will get booo'd for this but I had a mid 80's Volvo 940 Wagon with the 2.3 or.4 turbo motor for a beater. Yep I know the overhead cam and turbos are not traditional, but that car would get 24 back and forth to work 22 miles each way, and 28+ on longer trips. It had a 4 speed with an electrically operated planetary OD Don't know what the rear end was but it would scoot when the boost was up, and cruise at 72 at about 2600 Rpm with the OD engaged. Small engine pretty light, gotta be thousands in junkyards 200 K is low mileage as far as dependability is concerned. Might be a bit of a problem fitting the intercooler. I ran it with just the cat converter and a straight pipe out the back. without raising any noise problems. Yes you need to get the ecu box and wiring.
Yeah, working in a Chevrolet/Buick dealership, I can confirm that mid to late '90s LeSabres and Park Avenues with the 3800 V6 can pull down 30+mpg with the a/c on. I've always wondered what sort of mileage a rod could do with the same engine, but minus 1000-1500 lbs.
We have a POS goverment surplus 84 ranger with the 2.0 engine. We Paid $150 and its only got 60 ,000 miles. I have removed the smog pump catalityc conveter & disabled the egr. And retuned the carb. I get 30 mpg and about 35 out on the four lane. Im really considering swapping a 4 cyl ranger engine and 5 speed into a 64 fairlane Htp we have.
I got almost 20 mpg on the superslab up to Joplin while running 75-85 mph with my 327<<<<<<<<<< and a 5 speed from a 97 S10 combined with 3.50 gear and 29" tall tires. If I had slowed down, I'm sure I could top 20 mpg. Engine parts math, gearing, tire size all factors in. I'm not saying I did all the right things, I just did them the way I thought would make it have a good sound and be torquey. Hmmmmm, rpm torque range???? Big truck manufacturers gear KWs etc to make better fuel mileage by using the best torque range of the engine, build around to make rpms suit that for the job in hand. It's not math that's much different than car building math.
Somewhere, there is a mathmatical equation you can just plug the numbers into to know how much torque you need to overcome the aerodynamic drag of any given body style. A Model A is not exactly streamlined, but it's narrow and super light. Now when I ran a '60 Pontiac for a daily, with a 2-bbl 389 and the dual-coupling Hydro that locked up when cruising, I could pull around 18 going down the highway at 70 MPH. And it was a blast to drive. I've always wondered what I'd get out of it with that same motor having to push half as much weight - a '60 Pontiac is a little more aerodynamic than a Model A, but it's far from the shape of say a Corvette. It got that milage because it had a 3.08 gear, the trans would lock up at speed, and it also was a 4-speed automatic. Plus that 389 had the torque that I could wind it out in third and let it shift itself at 70 going up the on-ramps without making it breathe hard at all. Another car we had that was surprisingly fun to drive was an '88 Thunderbird with the EFI V6.... 3.8 I think... it would pull high 20s on the highway, the car was light (3400 lbs) and handled and stopped well. That might be my choice for a Model A powerplant, unless I happened on a wrecked Turbo Coupe. Right now the current experiment is my '50 Chevy. I'm using the TBI 350 that got around 15 (best one time of 17) in a 4500-lb Suburban, complete with all the electronics and the 700R4. Only change is going from a 2.73 to a 3.41 rearend, which is just because I happened on a pretty decent Camaro rear with that ratio. Should be interesting to see what I get out of it at 65-70. If it gets 20 I'd be happy, I'd probably drive it more and my beater van less. That is one key, though - when you build the car you need to take into account your driving and plan what speed you would normally cruise at on the highway - then gear the car so that when you're cruising at that speed you're turning an RPM giving you peak or near peak torque. Which, you need the torque curve of the motor to do. Get it in the sweet spot and you should get the best possible milage. One other thing for anyone else planning a swap like this - avoid '95 GM truck TBI systems with the 4L60E transmission. That's a one year only computer and one year only trans (they added a solenoid, but went to OBD-II the next year). Because the Feds tightened up emissions standards for trucks for 1995, and GM already had it on the boards to go to OBD-II control in '96, they just messed with the software to meet the standards and it reduces MPG by 3-5 across the board. With a 4L80E, you can swap to a 94 or older computer, or chip. With the 4L60E, you can't. My '95 is pulling 12, if it was a '94 it would get 15 or better - I've talked to several guys with 90-94 vans, even the one-ton, getting as much as 19 out of them. At 12, I may as well put my '72 Grandville back on the road and get to enjoy a 455 powered car again.
I don't know. But I do know that it really pisses me off that if you drive faster and get somewhere in LESS time, you burn MORE gas, not less. Burns my hide. Oughta be a law against it.
The Jalopy Journal
