Overall Average MPG In A Stude, Take II

[JoeHall]

In a similar thread a couple of months ago, http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...MPG-In-A-Stude I posted MPG figures for the 62GT Hawk, with 3 speed OD, and EFI.

This time, I kept the same records for the 63GT and they are as follows: drove 1604 miles, and used 96.4 gallons of gas, which calculates to 16.64 MPG overall average; mileage ranged from 15.45 to 18 MPG.
The car has a Flight-O-Matic tranny, with several tricks to help MPG: 3.07 rear end; thermal clutch fan (not viscous); thin head gaskets (.015"), and "baby Holley" 450 CFM, 4 barrel "Economiser" carb.
Same driver, and other misc. other data as for the 62GT: 87 octane gas; about 50 percent of miles were Interstate; 40 per cent town & country, and 10 percent stop & go, heavy traffic.

I think its interesting to see the other car got about 17 percent better MPG, and coincidentally has about 17 percent higher gearing (fewer RPMs) when in high gear OD.

I have two different chips for the EFI in the 62GT, and the other chip would probably yield another 1-2 MPG, but the chip I prefer makes the car run like it has a Holley double-pumper, and is the one used for the earlier MPG records.

I also thought it interesting to compare the above with a gas mileage log I saw included in a 63GT for sale on ebay a couple of years ago, with an automatic tranny and 2 barrel carb. An owner, during the 1960s had kept a meticulous log of fill-ups and odometer readings; doing the math from that log, that car never topped 16.5 MPG in all of the many documented miles & gallons. Average would have been more like 13-14 MPG

[PackardV8]

Hi, Joe,

Thanks for the update and real world MPG data.

FWIW, the C/K/Hawks were among the heavier Studes - 3400# to 3600#. It takes a certain amount of fuel to move a '40s-50s technology, weight and aero down the road. My first Hawk was a '56 Flight Hawk with a well-worn 185" Champion, T96 overdrive and a 4.56 rear axle. Closely monitored, it regularly got 16-17 MPG. The magazine road tests of the day on the '56-64 Hawks reported the same 16-17 MPG as you and I got.

I traded it on a '66 Ford Falcon, 289" 2-bbl, 3-speed syncro, 2.80 gear, 2600#. It got 18-20 MPG in the same driving cycle.

Today, a similar size car with direct injection, computer controls, radial tires, better aero, 6-speed or even 8-speed transmission, would get 30 MPG in the same conditions. Of course it would a be quieter, smoother, better handling, more comfortable, safer jelly bean-looking transportation appliance.

jack vines