PDA

View Full Version : Overall Average MPG In A Stude



JoeHall
03-10-2013, 11:31 AM
For the past few weeks and 1459 miles, I have kept a log of fuel & mileage at each fill-up. After odometer correction, it used 75.1 gallons in 1459 miles, for an average of 19.43 MPG. MPG ranged from 18.7 to 22.6, but most fill-ups were 19-20.

Driving was about 50 per cent interstate, 40 per cent "town & country" (country roads & very little time sitting still), and 10 per cent heavy traffic.

The car is: 62GT; 289 motor; T85 tranny; 3.54 rear gears (2.55 final drive in OD), and EFI with ECU controlled electronic ignition.

Gasoline used: locally concocted 87 octane, and at least one pump said, "contains up to 10% ethanol".

I can live with 19.43 average, and credit the EFI with the tighter range of MPG, since it seldom varies much, no matter the driving conditions.

showbizkid
03-10-2013, 11:49 AM
Lucky you. I get 12 MPG with my 259/FOM combo. Haven't been able to figure out why it's so awful.

JoeHall
03-10-2013, 01:14 PM
Lucky you. I get 12 MPG with my 259/FOM combo. Haven't been able to figure out why it's so awful.

Clark,
Its been awhile, but I lived in SD County for six years (off & on, 1983-1996). It has probably only gotten more congested, but your car should get at least 14-16 MPG there. If it has a 2 barrel, WW carb, the large accelerator pump will kill the MPG in heavy traffic, but do pretty good on the open road; ditto for WCFB or AFB. But still I'd think 14-16 MPG.
Considering the price of gas, esp in California, if you drive it very much it may be worth tweaking for more MPG. For best all around drive-ability, IMHO the best carb is a Holley model 4560, 4 barrel, 450 CFM, "baby Holley". It has a small accelerator pump, that pumps even less if the pedal is gently pushed; the small primaries make this possible w/o sacrificing throttle response. It is a spread-bore, and requires an adapter for a Stude 4B manifold thoughl. Also, it would not be "correct", but you'd smile every time you pull up to the gas pump. With the 63GT here, with 289 & FOM, baby Holley, and 3.07 gears, it gets just shy of 19 MPG on the open road. For that carb, I'd recommend a manual choke though.

Another subject is gears; if you are not running a 3.07 rear end you are not getting best MPG available for that car. Assuming motor & state of tune is OK, with that 259, FOM, 3.07 rear end, and baby Holley, I bet you'd increase MPG overall average by 30-50 per cent.

If you are REALLY serious about driving the car, and want best drive-ability, MPG, and NO vapor lock, install EFI from "Hamilton Fuel Injection" as I did :)

No matter the fuel system, I'd highly recommend a 3.07 rear end though.

bob1944
03-10-2013, 01:54 PM
My 1955 with 259 2bb got a best of 14.8 mpg ( rebuilt carb ) Hope the new 4 bb holley will do a little better.

bob1944
03-10-2013, 01:59 PM
My 55 commander coupe with 3.31 auto trans. radial tires, and the engine is tight.( 125 compression across the board) Mostly country roads and 55 mph.

kmul221
03-10-2013, 02:10 PM
My 63 GT auto with 3:54 rear gears, 2 bbl. gets about 16 mpg Hyw. & 14 city,with a rebuilt motor,running about 2600 rpm at 60 mph.I find I get about 10% better

milage if I use the mid-octane gasoline but not saving anything due to increased cost of fuel.

PackardV8
03-10-2013, 02:14 PM
If Joe Hall says it, take it to the bank and they'll cash it. However, most of us aren't. Over the years, Joe has put way more miles on Studes than most ever will, so fuel economy is important to him. He also is a featherfoot pro and will get quite a bit more mileage just on technique than most of us will.

I do a lot of modifications just because they interest me. I know I'll never ever put enough miles on my Studes for them to come close to having a payout. FWIW, do the math first. Figure what the EFI parts are going to cost and then add 50% for the little sensors and stuff you don't even know you'll need. Then figure the fuel economy savings hoped for and cut that by 50% for real world. Multiply it out and decide if it works for the savings or the fun or just the improved driveablilty and cold starts.

jack vines

studerodder
03-10-2013, 02:17 PM
My 61 cruiser 289 /3.31 automatic gets 13.6 mpg with either the 2 or 4 barrel carb. my 64 daytona 259/ 500 cfm 4 barrel 3.07 automatic gets 15 mpg.

aarrggh
03-10-2013, 02:45 PM
I`ve never had a working gas gauge in my Stude . .
Only ran out of gas once . . Yep , Left her on the side of the road and walked a mile to the nearest gas station . . .
Can only assume a 396 be gettin crappy gas mileage .........

Roscomacaw
03-10-2013, 03:36 PM
Last I checked a Stude for mileage was Pete, my Transtar 1/2T W/OD. If I tried, I could get 18MPG on the hiway at 65 or so. When I had a '64 Champ 3/4T with 5th OD, I would eek out 16+MPG in OD on the interstate. Both were/are 289 V8s

62champ
03-10-2013, 05:37 PM
When I bought a '62V-Y6 in 1993 - mileage was one of the first things I checked. After a couple of tanks - it was making 18-19 on the highway.

Carburetor needed a rebuild, and while I was taking it all apart - my Dad showed me a small container full of jets for the Stromberg WW. I went down a couple of steps, and things jumped to 18-19 around town - got a couple tanks on a trip to South Bend in 1996 that were 26-ish.

Drove my '60S-W4 up to PA in 2005 with the trunk and back seat loaded - noticable give in the rear springs. Was disapponted it only made 19 mpg for the whole three day trip.

My Uncle owned a '66 Cruiser that must have had a 4.10 rear in it (no tag on the cover). It would outrun everything for the first 100 yards, but made something like 8 mpg...he used to always laugh about a trip to a football game (back when most people followed the school bus) and he said he was the only one that had to stop for gas - including the 20 year old school bus...

JimC
03-10-2013, 06:39 PM
I get 24mpg when I'm talking to my friends, and 13 mpg when I'm not :D

I had a period where I was getting good mileage, maybe 16-18ish, but I was busy last fall and made the mistake of letting a mechanic who doesn't have a lot of Stude experience do a couple things instead of doing them myself. I think he tweaked my carb, as now it's burning super rich and only getting like 13mpg. This upcoming weekend I will hopefully fix this, and then I'll have a better idea of my true mileage.

PlainBrownR2
03-11-2013, 03:01 AM
Since there has also been a great deal of a hullabaloo made about corn in the gas, if you wanna go for some extra points, and you can find it, see if you can do some comparisons between E10 and non E10 fuel. Up here around Chicago, I've been around E10 for pretty much all my life. I used it in the R2 Lark when I drove it, and I was well up on the bad things with E10. But, there was one thing that really stuck out, and it didn't involve the Lark much, it involved our 89 and up port injected, EDIS ignition Fords. It was fuel mileage, and on the E10 it usually went down a bit. Once we crossed south of I-80, and got away from Chicago's reformulated fuel, the mileage went up a few points if we used a station that hadn't converted over to E10 yet. This became prevalent in the last few years, mostly because I noticed it a little more. Now what does a few points in fuel mileage make on a few variations over the years of the 4.6L, that got anywhere from 21-26 mpg? Well, we could make a trip from Chicago to Springfield and back, and still have some in the tank if we filled up at a station with straight fuel, make the mpg as Ford intended with the car, and have quite a bit left over for the rest of the week, or we could fill up with E10 up here, and find ourselves having to fill up again immediately after we returned.

Oh, and I guess I should toss mine in there too. My Lark was a '64 Commander with the R2/Powershift/3.31 open rear end. On average, and if I kept my foot out of it, it could do 12-13 mpg. It was no commuter car by any means(I found out how bad it really was on a 60 mile roundtrip from Aurora to Franklin Park and back, good Lord!), and I mean making 80-100 mile round trips into the city everyday, so it was used locally. That engine loved its torque. You didn't crack the throttle to get it going like I would do with the Fords. To that end, when it started off in 2nd gear, it also took quite a bit of steam to get it moving, which might explain the lousy gas mileage :rolleyes:.

avantilover
03-11-2013, 04:36 AM
Lucky you. I get 12 MPG with my 259/FOM combo. Haven't been able to figure out why it's so awful.

Have you checked the carburettor Clark? I had that issue and it turned out the choke plate was on permanently, thus causing the issue.

Neil
03-11-2013, 09:41 AM
Back in 1970,I was in the Army stationed at Ft Lee Virginia.I bough ta plain jane 62 GT Hawk from a fellow in my unit.It was289.2brl,power steering,auto,307 twin trk rear end with 102thousand miles on it .When I had a weekend with no duty,I would driveit home the300 plus miles to Penna. I was used to my other GTs 15/17 miles per gal and was somewhat dismayed to see the gas gauge not moving like I was expecting .At 186miles into the trip I stopped at a gas station to fill it up and it only took 9 gal,could no get any more into it. That came out to more than 20 mpg.Other trips got the same milage,20 to bestof 22mpg.

53k
03-11-2013, 10:19 AM
I was (am) a compulsive obsessive record keeper. When I bought my '61 Cruiser new in January '61 I started a log of all gasoline purchased. When I traded it in on the Wagonaire in May, 1964 my log computed to an overall mileage of 18.65 mpg for 65,000 miles. It was a 259 automatic, two-barrel, 3.31 open rear, air conditioned. It had only ever been equipped with 6.50x15 bias ply tires so I don't think the odometer error could have been much. Driving included a 25-mile round trip commute in an urban environment for two years and several long cross-country trips. One shorter cross-country trip (Rhode Island to mid-NY state) computed to 23 mpg.
I have never computed the overall mileage on my '64 Wagonaire (259, two-barrel, overdrive w/3.73 TT rear, air conditioned, 775x15 bias ply tires), but coming home from a South Bend International in the '70s, I got 23.1 mpg for the eastbound trip (uncorrected for odometer error).
I'm a believer in 3.07 rear ends (since I'm not in to drag racing). For our chapter Route 66 trip in 2003 (6,000 miles) I swapped the 3.73 open rear for a 3.07 open on my '64 R-2 Powershift Avanti (engine bored .060). My overall mpg for the trip was ~16mpg and nearly half the trip was run on bad spark plug wires (long story). I was running 225x75x15 radials so my odometer error computed to approximately one percent low (traveled 10.1 miles with the odometer registering 10 miles). When I bought the car and drove it from the Bay Area of California to near Washington, DC (with the 3.73) I got about 12 mpg and the noise level driving at western speeds was painful (the AM-FM radio was a waste because you couldn't hear it). Before the last South Bend International I changed my present R-1 Avanti from a 3.54 TT to a 3.07 TT. I haven't taken time to compute the average, but it sure was quieter at highway speeds.

Chris_Dresbach
03-11-2013, 07:20 PM
Supposedly my '40 gets 27 and 1/4MPG from the factory. The car still has a stock Champion 6 and a three speed with OD. I can believe that it gets over 25mpg. A tank of gas lasts a really long time in that car.

GrumpyOne
03-11-2013, 11:54 PM
Something surely is wrong... I used to get 18-24mpg in a '63 Lark Regal w/ 259/FOM...

GrumpyOne
03-11-2013, 11:59 PM
Back in 1970,I was in the Army stationed at Ft Lee Virginia.I bough ta plain jane 62 GT Hawk from a fellow in my unit.It was289.2brl,power steering,auto,307 twin trk rear end with 102thousand miles on it .When I had a weekend with no duty,I would driveit home the300 plus miles to Penna. I was used to my other GTs 15/17 miles per gal and was somewhat dismayed to see the gas gauge not moving like I was expecting .At 186miles into the trip I stopped at a gas station to fill it up and it only took 9 gal,could no get any more into it. That came out to more than 20 mpg.Other trips got the same milage,20 to bestof 22mpg.


I used to travel from DC to RI regularly in my Power Hawk, (3speed/od), and averaged 25mpg or better. Used less that a tank of gas in each direction. Of course that was back when gas was of a decent formulation but I still got better than 24 mpg in a road trip a couple of years ago.

tbredehoft
03-12-2013, 04:56 PM
I too am obsessive about mileage records. My '55 land cruiser is equipped with an original 4 bbl, single exhaust and 250 M transmission, a 3.31 rear axle and 215.75.R15 tires. When I first put it on the road 3 years ago it averaged 15.11 with a best of 17.58 on regular gas. For the past year I've been using 89 octane gas, averaging 16.01 with a best of 17.65. The 89 oct. gives an improvement of 6%, or 23 cents per gallon. When 89 is $.10 more than regular i'm making $.13 per gallon. Almost all driving is rural Ohio and town.
The best I've gotten on my '53 coupe, 232, OD, Duals, 4.54 RA and same sized tires, regular gas is 26.03. averaging 20.75.

showbizkid
03-12-2013, 05:54 PM
Have you checked the carburettor Clark? I had that issue and it turned out the choke plate was on permanently, thus causing the issue.

I know the choke is working properly, but I suspect the wrong metering rods are installed. I need to open it up and find out.

JimC
03-12-2013, 06:10 PM
Not to totally derail the thread, but what's the ballpark cost for an already rebuilt carb for a '63 259? I'd love to take the time to properly rebuild mine. The problem is that I don't have a lot of time and I actually use my Lark as a daily driver, so I'd need something to put in it's place while I do that.

Corvanti
03-12-2013, 06:20 PM
i got around 22mpg in the '40. no overdrive, and mostly city driving, but the "main drag" to town is 55mph - so she got close to "wound-up" quite a bit.

i reckon the '63 Avanti doesn't count since it had a '89 Corvette engine and 350 trans - but it got around 14mpg - and she saw quite a bit more than 55mph...;)

can't check the '51 until i get the speedometer/odometer working and replace the gasket on the fuel tank sending unit, so i can fill-er up without leaking...:)

karterfred88
03-12-2013, 11:02 PM
Well welcome to gasoline memory lane! To the best of my recollection my 63 Hawk GT 289-2 BL-4 speed, no P/S with Avanti Brakes and Hill holder got about 20-22 in everyday use on Long Island NY in 1966. I know because my dad wanted figures to set my gas allowance for college, since it replaced my mom's beautiful 59 T'Bird convertible (352 4v Auto) that got 8-12 MPG and with which I consistently used up my commutting allowance by Wednesday. I loved that car, and my dad didn't argue too hard when I wanted it as a used car for $1800.00 as it was cheap in comparison to his 64 Avanti R2. Unfortuneately I used it up and by late 66 it was well worn, and replaced by a new left-over 66 Olds 4-4-2 4 speed with a 3:90 rear and at best 14-15MPG( later improved to 19-20)with a 3:08 after blowing the spider gears out of the original rear for the 3rd time! I'm a little disappointed that with FI your's doesn't deliver 22+ all the time. Guess the cost to change over my Avanti to FI wouldn't be worthwhile.