PDA

View Full Version : mpg with studes



pete
05-31-2006, 05:46 AM
miles per gallon what do you expect or get out of them my 65 283 cruiser maybe 21 mpg its a auto who gets more than 25 mpg say with a 259 or 289 perhaps with o/d or automatic i dont expect much from my chev 283 simply becourse its a chev - mckinnon motor same thing as chev gm by the way i have fitted a holly four barrel 600 to it

DEEPNHOCK
05-31-2006, 06:45 AM
16 to 19 mpg probably....
(unless you are talking to another Stude guy...Then add 5 mpg[}:)])
Jeff[8D]



quote:Originally posted by pete

miles per gallon what do you expect or get out of them my 65 283 cruiser maybe 21 mpg its a auto who gets more than 25 mpg say with a 259 or 289 perhaps with o/d or automatic i dont expect much from my chev 283 simply becourse its a chev - mckinnon motor same thing as chev gm by the way i have fitted a holly four barrel 600 to it

kmul221
05-31-2006, 10:35 AM
My 63 GT with Pro rebuilt 4 brl carb,auto & 3:31 rear ratio averages
15-18 mpg. city & hyw. & thats not pounding on her; when I'm putting the boots to her lucky to get 12-14mpg.With the price of gas in Canada over $4.00 gallon US, I don't go too far,fast or often.

Scott
05-31-2006, 10:38 AM
I seem to remember the rule of thumb for everyday V8s in the old days was about 18 mpg highway - or maybe a little better if it's all tuned up and you're not carrying a lot of extra weight.

Reminds me of a recent letter to the editor of our local paper regarding a new school bond issue. The fellow arguing for it is in charge of maintenance for all the city schools. He used cars as an anology to mechanical systems in schools, old vs. new - and claiming that among other things new cars get better mileage than old cars. Boy, it hurts to see how ignorant people are about new cars and old cars! I agree with him about the school, though.

It also makes me mad to see how little - REALLY little - gas mileage has improved since about the mid 1930s. The engines seem to be more reliable now, but mileage hasn't improved one iota. A 1960 Lark six is very, very likely to get better mileage than a 2000+ anything with a V6. Even my early 1990s Subaru with a 4 cylinder engine could barely do better than about 23 mpg.

Sorry, you hit one of my buttons.:(

1949commander
05-31-2006, 01:42 PM
It's all about horsepower and RPM. Efficiency of any overhead valve engine hasn't changed much since the 50's. It still takes a 16:1 fuel to air to make a spark ignition engine work. Today's engines create more horsepower due to free breathing. My analogy is this, take two engines, one is a 4.0-liter engine that makes 150 hp at 3600 rpms the other is a 2.0-liter engine that makes 150 hp at 7200 rpms. It takes the same amount of fuel for both of these engines to make 150 hp since the smaller engine turns twice the rpm. It's all about volume of fuel and air per minute. The big difference is in normal driving where the 4.0-liter engine has much more torque at low RPM so it can effectively get equal or better fuel economy. A longer stroke also gives a bit more efficiency since it uses more of the gas expansion to work plus the mechanical advantage of the longer crank lever arm. Farm tractor and semi engines show how to make an engine most efficient; under square, overhead valve and low revving. Many farm tractor engines are more efficient at work than car engines since a tractor engine works at nearly full load for hours on end. If we would take today’s technology and make a car with similar 0-60 as say a 60 Lark V-8 of about 10 sec we could get better fuel economy than the 60 Lark. But since everyone wants kick it down and scream high revving horsepower and 0-60 in 7 seconds or less, we just end up with fast as hell cars that don't deliver the mileage people expect.:(

Restore it, don't replace it.Keep the Studebaker reproduction industry going

Scott
05-31-2006, 02:02 PM
Yep, that's true. I guess I can't argue with that. On the other hand, we don't pay any less at the pump just because our new engines are more efficient.

Mike Van Veghten
05-31-2006, 03:46 PM
It's gonna get what it's gonna get.
If you've got it tuned PROPERLY....and by properly I mean jetting, overall timing, carb. size, wheel vs. gear ratio difference, car weight, etc., etc. ....that's the best it will get at your altitude, with the gas in your area.

All of the items noted above have an effect on both power and milage. A person living in Denver won't get as good a milage as if he (she) moves to a coastal state. Same car different environmental conditions....different milage.

Me...don't worry to much about it, keep it tuned and drive it.

Mike

studegary
05-31-2006, 04:49 PM
quote:Originally posted by pete

miles per gallon what do you expect or get out of them my 65 283 cruiser maybe 21 mpg its a auto who gets more than 25 mpg say with a 259 or 289 perhaps with o/d or automatic i dont expect much from my chev 283 simply becourse its a chev - mckinnon motor same thing as chev gm by the way i have fitted a holly four barrel 600 to it


I believe that carb. that you are using is too big. 400 cfm is the biggest that I would recommend for someone looking for economy.

Gary L.
1954 Commander Starliner (restomod)
1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)

studegary
05-31-2006, 05:04 PM
quote:Originally posted by Scott

I seem to remember the rule of thumb for everyday V8s in the old days was about 18 mpg highway - or maybe a little better if it's all tuned up and you're not carrying a lot of extra weight.

Reminds me of a recent letter to the editor of our local paper regarding a new school bond issue. The fellow arguing for it is in charge of maintenance for all the city schools. He used cars as an anology to mechanical systems in schools, old vs. new - and claiming that among other things new cars get better mileage than old cars. Boy, it hurts to see how ignorant people are about new cars and old cars! I agree with him about the school, though.

It also makes me mad to see how little - REALLY little - gas mileage has improved since about the mid 1930s. The engines seem to be more reliable now, but mileage hasn't improved one iota. A 1960 Lark six is very, very likely to get better mileage than a 2000+ anything with a V6. Even my early 1990s Subaru with a 4 cylinder engine could barely do better than about 23 mpg.

Sorry, you hit one of my buttons.:(


It may have "hit one of your buttons". but I disagree. There has never been a time when my current everyday car (2001 Acura, 225 HP, 3.2 litre V6) and the car that it replaced (1989 Thunderbird, 3.8 litre V6) did not get more than 30 mpg on highway driving (they both dropped off to about 23-24 for local driving). Of the 50 plus Studebakers that I have owned, not one has done this well. I attribute a lot of the difference in newer cars' fuel economy to electronic fuel injection keeping a more efficient mixture than a carb., overdrive transmissions, electronic ignitions and a tall overall drive ratio. Studebakers, particularly V8s, were excellent on mileage for their day (as compared to their competitors) but can't come close to modern cars in this respect. [I did own two Subarus and the gas mileage was about what you indicate for yours, but the latest one was a 1991 - hardly a new/modern car now.]

Gary L.
1954 Commander Starliner (restomod)
1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)

Scott
05-31-2006, 05:35 PM
Gary, you must have the luck of the Irish, then. I have a 2001 Mazda Tribute with a V6 and automatic. If I get more than 21 mpg it's a banner day. A couple years ago I took a look at acquiring a Jeep Liberty with a V6. When I asked the dealer about the fuel economy, he mentioned something about 18-20 mpg - highway. Stunned, and rather p.o'd considering the price of the car, I told him what I thought of this sad piece of information and shook the dirt from my shoes as I left.

Now, my parents own a 2004 Corvette with a V8. It really can get 30 mpg. I sometimes drive an old beat up Cadillac Allante (200,000 + miles) and it can get 25-30+ mpg. Why are *most* V6 engines so poor in economy? Is it the gearing?

mbstude
05-31-2006, 06:31 PM
Our 63 Gt Hawk, 289, Auto (FOM), 3:31 (I think) rear end, with TT. It got 18 mpg with an Edelbrock carb. (not sure what #) We added a lead sinker and it raised it to 21 or 23 mpg. Now, all our Studes have a lead sinker in them. The gas absorbes the lead and improves gas. [8D]

Matthew Burnette, the 16 year old Stude nut.
South Georgia Chapter
63 Daytona HT (project)
51 Stude dump truck (yes, I won the raffle)
52 Commander Starliner (basket case)

MANY more Studes in the family and a few parts cars
http://community.webshots.com/user/mbstude101
And here: http://community.webshots.com/user/mbstudepagetwo
And here too: http://photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos

N8N
05-31-2006, 08:48 PM
I wish I had the luck some of you had with new cars. Both my '88 Porsche 944 and my '05 Impala get about 20 MPG no matter how I drive, as did my '02 GTI 1.8T. EPA estimates on the latter two were much higher of course but I never saw more than 25 MPG out except for one tankful that was all straight through highway driving where I got almost 30 MPG.

Now I wish I could keep a Stude running long enough to check mileage, once I get them running OK I seem to take them apart again :) I doubt the '55 will get great mileage though, I'll be running an R1 and a 600 CFM carb...

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

DEEPNHOCK
05-31-2006, 09:00 PM
C'mon now Matthew... You're having your leg pulled...
The lead sinker myth is just that...
Tetraethyl lead and sinker lead are not the same thing...even after they are burned in the combustion process..
Here's some schooling for you...
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/kettering.html
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/ethylwar/
http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_270900.html
http://heritage.dupont.com/floater/fl_tel/floater.shtml
(Oh, when you pull your sinker out to check it...how much of it has dissolved?)




quote:Originally posted by mbstude

Our 63 Gt Hawk, 289, Auto (FOM), 3:31 (I think) rear end, with TT. It got 18 mpg with an Edelbrock carb. (not sure what #) We added a lead sinker and it raised it to 21 or 23 mpg. Now, all our Studes have a lead sinker in them. The gas absorbes the lead and improves gas. [8D]

JDP
05-31-2006, 09:23 PM
Gary, most of the Edelbrocks have the same primaries, so unless you get in the 4 barrels, it has little effect on mileage. BTW my 99 LHS gets 24 MPG overall, close to 30 MPG at 60 MPH, 27 at 75, much better then a older 289 and short of a R2, faster.

Studebaker On The Net http://stude.com
Studebaker News Group
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.studebaker
64 Daytona HT
64 R2 4 speed Challenger
63 R2 4 speed GT Black
63 R2 4 speed GT White
63 GT Hawk
63 Avanti
62 Daytona HT
53 Coupe

mbstude
05-31-2006, 09:27 PM
Jeff: I'm not 100% sure this really works, but it sure seems to. Everyone that we knew who tried it said that it worked with them also. However, a chemist at a local nuclear plant said that it would probably work. Who knows, maybe it does for some and not for others. :)[?]

Matthew Burnette, the 16 year old Stude nut.
South Georgia Chapter
63 Daytona HT (project)
51 Stude dump truck (yes, I won the raffle)
52 Commander Starliner (basket case)

MANY more Studes in the family and a few parts cars
http://community.webshots.com/user/mbstude101
And here: http://community.webshots.com/user/mbstudepagetwo
And here too: http://photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos

Dick Steinkamp
05-31-2006, 09:58 PM
quote:Originally posted by JDP

BTW my 99 LHS gets 24 MPG overall, close to 30 MPG at 60 MPH, 27 at 75, much better then a older 289 and short of a R2, faster.


My '05 Jetta TDI...High of 52 highway (on B100...100% biodiesel). Heated leather seats, air, moonroof, Porsche 5 speed Tiptronic auto, cruise, power windows, locks, Monsoon stereo, Electronic stability program, 180 ft pounds of torque, will fry the front tires with a full throttle start and beat the standard gas 2.0 liter Jetta 0-60.

My '54 Starliner...High of 17 highway. Uncomfortable 60's GM buckets, no air, noisy, drafty.

I'd rather drive the Starliner [8D]:D



http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

studeclunker
06-01-2006, 01:37 AM
quote:16 to 19 mpg probably....
(unless you are talking to another Stude guy...Then add 5 mpg)
Jeff


I heard that Jeff!

Everyone on this board calls me a liar! The fact still remains that the blue witch (64 Can. Commander wagon) got well over twenty five miles per gallon on the freeway. That was with an overdrive transmission and not going over sixty miles per hour. I avarage fifty five, when I can get away with it. I just potter along with the trucks and wave at everyone when I go by them at the gas station.

A lot of the newer cars get fantastic milage due to the electronics. The computer is constantly working to provide optimum performance. Much of the ignition is electronic. With all of these wizbang gizmos it's no wonder they get the milage that they do! Remember that these plastic wonders also weigh over a thousand pounds, or more, less than the smallest stude. But when one of those Tom Swift electronics go bad...[:o)] Look out![}:)] It's really expensive.;)

Lotsa Larks!
K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Studebaker!
Ron Smith

pete
06-01-2006, 04:38 AM
ok ok guys m p g well here we use the old imperail gallon in nother words 4.56 litres to the gallon

studegary
06-01-2006, 01:54 PM
quote:Originally posted by Scott

Gary, you must have the luck of the Irish, then. I have a 2001 Mazda Tribute with a V6 and automatic. If I get more than 21 mpg it's a banner day. A couple years ago I took a look at acquiring a Jeep Liberty with a V6. When I asked the dealer about the fuel economy, he mentioned something about 18-20 mpg - highway. Stunned, and rather p.o'd considering the price of the car, I told him what I thought of this sad piece of information and shook the dirt from my shoes as I left.



Comparing SUVs and economical cars is like apples and oranges. The SUV has worse aerodynamics, different gearing and all of that drive mechanism to work and cause resistance. A friend of mine has purchased two new Libertys since they came out. After driving the '06, he can keep it. My Acura and Thunderbird were both rated for 29 mpg highway. I am one of those nuts that keeps tank-to-tank and overall trip mileage for each of my cars.

Gary L.
1954 Commander Starliner (restomod)
1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)

studegary
06-01-2006, 02:03 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


quote:Originally posted by JDP

BTW my 99 LHS gets 24 MPG overall, close to 30 MPG at 60 MPH, 27 at 75, much better then a older 289 and short of a R2, faster.


My '05 Jetta TDI...High of 52 highway (on B100...100% biodiesel). Heated leather seats, air, moonroof, Porsche 5 speed Tiptronic auto, cruise, power windows, locks, Monsoon stereo, Electronic stability program, 180 ft pounds of torque, will fry the front tires with a full throttle start and beat the standard gas 2.0 liter Jetta 0-60.



That sounds like a neat car, but they are not allowed to sell new ones (diesel) here (New York State) and probably not in California and maybe other places.

Gary L.
1954 Commander Starliner (restomod)
1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)

studegary
06-01-2006, 02:12 PM
quote:Originally posted by studeclunker
A lot of the newer cars get fantastic milage due to the electronics. The computer is constantly working to provide optimum performance. Much of the ignition is electronic. With all of these wizbang gizmos it's no wonder they get the milage that they do! Remember that these plastic wonders also weigh over a thousand pounds, or more, less than the smallest stude.


My '01 Acura CL coupe weighs 3391 pounds. I've owned a LOT of Lark types and none of them were over, or even close to, 4391 pounds. In fact, many of them weighed less than the Acura. I am not saying that one is better than the other or that I prefer one over the other. I am just trying to keep facts straight and say that in some areas cars have advanced in recent years.

Gary L.
1954 Commander Starliner (restomod)
1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)

JBOYLE
06-01-2006, 02:29 PM
The other day I found the window sticker for my 1979 Ford Mustang with a 2.8 V-6. The EPA reading was 18MPG. In reality it was more like 15.

Yesterday, I refueled my Mercedes CLK 320...a 3.2 V-6. My real world city MPG was 28.

I'd say there has been some real improvement.
While I don't have the weights to compare, the bottom line is the Mercedes is a faster and more comfortable car designed to hold the same number of people as the Mustang....not to mention the improved safety features and better body structure and construction.

63 Avanti R1 2788
1914 Stutz Bearcat
(George Barris replica)

Washington State

Scott
06-01-2006, 02:32 PM
Do things like porting and helping induction just increase power, or do they also help mileage?

Dick Steinkamp
06-01-2006, 02:38 PM
quote:Originally posted by studegary

but they are not allowed to sell new ones (diesel) here (New York State) and probably not in California and maybe other places.



True. The high sulpher content of North America diesel fuel will not allow diesel cars to pass certain state's new car smog requirements. CA and NY are two of them. ULSD (ultra low sulpher diesel) becomes available in North America this year (it is the standard in Europe). My guess is that you will see many more new diesel cars available in North America very soon. Over half the cars in Europe are diesel...some VW diesels getting over 80 MPG (and a lot of them on biodiesel).

The diesel cars of today are nothing like the ones of even 10 years ago. No smell, quiet, powerful. You would not know you are in a diesel unless you were told. The Europeans are the technology leader in this area, but the Japaneese have some pretty neat diesel engines waiting in the wings for the ULSD. As far as I can tell, the American Manufacturers will be missing the boat again as they focus on the overly complex and marginal fuel economy improvement of the hybreds (and they still run on gasoline).

The next step for the North American market is to get biodiesel production up to the quantity and quality levels seen in Europe. Maybe if gasoline demand drops sufficiently due to a major switch to biodiesel fueled vehicles, we can drive our Studebakers even more [8D]

http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

Scott
06-01-2006, 03:52 PM
Bio-fuels are now a big topic in Minnesota. We have some strong state government support for ethanol producing and bio-fuel plants. Many are on-line already. We have a law on the books that fuels in MN will be at least 20% ethanol within a few years. I understand that fuel with lower amounts will also remain available. E85 has a certain following here, too. The bad thing is that it's very, very confusing to make out who's telling the truth about these things. On the one hand you have lots of people saying how good the industry will be for the state and country. On the other hand you have people claiming that the bio fuels and ethanol production costs more to produce than current fuels, take MORE energy to produce (nullifying the idea that we're saving fuel, because that's more electricity needed and more burning of coal to make the electricity and so on and so on). Others claim it's just a way to buy the rural vote at the expense of everybody and the whole thing's pure pork and a sham.

Why is it every time it looks like a way out of our dependence on foreign oil is found, it always turns into a scientific/political/public relations nightmare?

1949commander
06-01-2006, 04:15 PM
From what I have researched BioDiesel is the best bet, you get 3 times the product per acre of farm ground. It's easier to make, takes less energy to produce plus diesel engines are way more efficient. The diesel engine is superior to a spark engine in everyway. The thermal efficiency is one reason, plus there is no parasitic air drag on a diesel since it doesn’t use a throttle valve. The real kicker is that electronics improve diesel fuel injection much more than they have for gas engines. I saw a Cummins diesel dragster at a Mopar show and it kicks any gas engine in the teeth. It reaches top speed just a few yards off the start!!! Torque is the real power. I have thought about making a Lark with a VW TDI engine. Since a Lark weights about the same as a Jetta it should have good power and still get 40MPG!!!:D

Restore it, don't replace it.Keep the Studebaker reproduction industry going

N8N
06-01-2006, 04:36 PM
There's a guy on the Corrado mailing list who dropped a TDI into a Corrado G60. I'm not sure I would have done it exactly like that (sound familiar? <G>) but he claims it's at least as fast as a G60 and gets much better mileage.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Dick Steinkamp
06-01-2006, 05:18 PM
quote:Originally posted by N8N

There's a guy on the Corrado mailing list who dropped a TDI into a Corrado G60. I'm not sure I would have done it exactly like that (sound familiar? <G>) but he claims it's at least as fast as a G60 and gets much better mileage.



How about the VW Touareg V10 TDI...310 HP and<h3>553 pounds of torque</h3> [:p].



http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

Scott
06-01-2006, 05:27 PM
Wow! That VW engine sounds pretty interesting. OK, if you do it, are you going to get valve covers or a plenum cover or whatever those use that says Studebaker?

Dick Steinkamp
06-03-2006, 12:07 AM
Better late than never...

Separately, the trade publication also reported that General Motors is planning a global diesel offensive starting in 2008 that would include launching new diesel engines in the United States, where the technology has found few fans compared to Europe.

"We are developing right now two highly modern diesel motors that won't just fulfil the Euro-5 emission standards, but the more stringent Bin-5 regulations in the USA," GM manager told Automobilwoche.

It plans to introduce a 2.9 liter V6 and a 4.5 liter V8 that will gradually be used in almost all sport utility vehicles, pick-ups and large sedans in all GM brands and all markets.

Should the biggest U.S.-based carmaker roll out models with diesel engines on a large scale in the United States, then German carmakers that have specialized in the more fuel-efficient power train technology may be able to make greater inroads into the local market.



http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

chocolate turkey
06-03-2006, 09:56 AM
I am hoping for the best of both worlds with my latest project. Fuel injected, electronic ignitioned 1966 Daytona 350 crate motor. We'll see how well it does compared to a stock one. The car will have an auto trans and 3:07 diff ratio.
My 1963 GT Hawk 289/3sp/od/4:10, did an average of 23-25 mph highway over a 6 yr. period. It is all a moot point, cause it was a pleasure to drive and who cares if it gets good mileage anyway! I just make an effort to be as fuel efficient as possible, save a tree if possible!
My best gas mileage ever was in my 1953 Champion 4 dr. where I got 33 mph. highway (Imperial gal.)
Tune-up! Drive well! Enjoy the ride!

Brian

Brian K. Curtis

avantilover
06-03-2006, 05:46 PM
[quote]Originally posted by chocolate turkey

I am hoping for the best of both worlds with my latest project. Fuel injected, electronic ignitioned 1966 Daytona 350 crate motor. We'll see how well it does compared to a stock one. The car will have an auto trans and 3:07 diff ratio.

My 1963 GT Hawk 289/3sp/od/4:10, did an average of 23-25 mph highway over a 6 yr. period. It is all a moot point, cause it was a pleasure to drive and who cares if it gets good mileage anyway! I just make an effort to be as fuel efficient as possible, save a tree if possible!
My best gas mileage ever was in my 1953 Champion 4 dr. where I got 33 mph. highway (Imperial gal.)
Tune-up! Drive well! Enjoy the ride!

Brian

Brian K. Curtis
[/quote

Sounds great[8D] Is it difficult to put the fuel injection and electronic ignition onto an old motor?

As you say, the MPG doesn't really matter if the car is properly tuned, unless you wish to use it as the daily driver, it's all about the pleasure of driving an older vehicle that you love.

I'll be getting a Lark of some description, have to wait and see what turns up at the time for a reasonable price, but for a weekend drive the MPG won't be a concern. Anyway, I propose to use a 98 Octane fuel which will keep the engine free of deposits.

John Clements
Avantilover, your South Australian Studebaker lover!!!

52hawk
06-04-2006, 11:13 AM
My Lark only gets about 17 mpg.But I average about 3 to 4 thumbs up,smiles,and waves per mile.

LaSalle,Il
61Hawk
60Lark

bams50
06-04-2006, 11:34 AM
quote:Originally posted by 1949commander

I have thought about making a Lark with a VW TDI engine. Since a Lark weights about the same as a Jetta it should have good power and still get 40MPG!!!:D

Restore it, don't replace it.Keep the Studebaker reproduction industry going


Being a big diesel freak, I'd LOVE to see that; just not up for tackling it myself [B)]

If you ever do, be sure to let us know! I'd get my own and tackle it along with yours... I have a good-running Audi 5 cyl. diesel, plus a 72 Mercedes and an Isuzu P/U- both good runners when parked due to rust... hmm.......

Robert K. Andrews Owner- IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2358680/1

bams50
06-04-2006, 11:46 AM
Back on topic, I was looking at a 60 Lark V8 on ebay... seller said he was getting rid of it because it only got 13 MPG...[:0]

Robert K. Andrews Owner- IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2358680/1

avantilover
06-05-2006, 05:07 AM
quote:Originally posted by bams50

Back on topic, I was looking at a 60 Lark V8 on ebay... seller said he was getting rid of it because it only got 13 MPG...[:0]

Robert K. Andrews Owner- IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2358680/1



13 MPG was probably good in 1960:D

John Clements
Avantilover, your South Australian Studebaker lover!!!

sbca96
06-05-2006, 05:48 AM
For you American car "bashers", mainly GM, they had it right with the
4th Gen Camaro, in 2002 you could get a 330hp Z28 with a 6 spd trans.
It was rated at 18 city/28 highway. My friend has an SS version of
this car, and with 340hp, he got 31 mpg on a trip to San Fran. The Z28
does a 0-60 in 5 seconds, the SS under 5 seconds. My Impala, with over
213,000 miles on it, gets 21 combined mileage averaging 75 mph, with
lead foot driving around town. Its EPA rating is 17/25. 4 comparison
my bosses 2004 Toyota Sienna is rated at 19 to 27, he has never seen
better then 21 on the highway. He is thinking about trading it in on
a new Mustang. His 2000 4 cyl Honda Accord gets 25, which is a big
diff from the rated over 30 mpg. He drives like a grandma, I pass him
on most mornings.

I know there are many on here that hate 'proof', but go here anyway :

http://www.fueleconomy.org/

Most of your hybrids are getting about 60-70% of the mininum rating
that the EPA has them listed at. Its still good gas mileage, but if
you are promised 55 mpg, and you get 30, thats pretty sad. If I was
promised a 0-60 in 5 seconds, and it took 8 seconds .....

Tom


1963 Studebaker Avanti (http://hometown.aol.com/sbca96/images/63avanti.jpg), 102,000, custom made brake brackets to mount 1998 Mustang GT 4 wheel disc brakes (soon to get 13" Cobra front brakes), 2003 Mustang Cobra 17" wheels, GM altenator, will be getting : 97 Camaro Z28 tan leather seats, 97 Camaro Z28 T-56 6-speed trans, Ported 'R3' style Avanti heads with stainless full flow valves, 'R3' 276 duration cam w/chrysler solid lifters, shortened push rods, aluminum cam gear, Edelbrock AFB Carb, GM HEI distributor, 8.8mm plug wires, waiting in the garage.

Dick Steinkamp
06-07-2006, 09:26 PM
Sorta kinda off topic, but interesting reading...

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060605/FREE/60601044/1111



http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

57slvrhwk6
06-07-2006, 10:46 PM
In 1960, a Studebaker Hawk won its class in the Mobilgas Economy Run from Los Angeles to Minneapolis (2,961 miles). The Hawk was equipped with a 289 V8 with automatic transmission and averaged 22.99 miles per gallon.

stude freak
06-08-2006, 01:12 AM
But to get down to the nitty-gritty driving a stude is the 'smiles' per gallon you get while driving it.Driving my 74 SS 350 Nova is more fun than my every day driver pickup. The Nova gets 10 mpg but 100 spg.lol

sbca96
06-08-2006, 03:07 AM
quote:Originally posted by stude freak

But to get down to the nitty-gritty driving a stude is the 'smiles' per gallon you get while driving it.

I agree ... I had someone honking and waving at me frantically, I was
concerned that I had run a stop sign, but then he gave me a thumbs up!

Tom