Welcome to the forum and congrats on getting one of Studebaker's all-time best driving cars.
Agree, Joe, the 259" is a real good engine. Disagree on the horsepower; despite the published specs, the 289" makes maybe 15-18 more at most. One can feel the 289"s increased torque around town more than the top end horsepower
Agree, high teens double digits are the norm. Only one example, but I put a lot of miles on a stock 2-bbl '56 Power Hawk and it never came close to 23 MPG; 16-18 most of the time.
Problems attributable to ethanol seem to be correlated to the relative humidity in the area. It's relatively dry up here in the frozen ass-end of nowhere; I run 10% ethanol in my '56 Power Hawk and '55 E12 (and a dozen small engine machines) with stock fuel systems and zero problems. An old car friend in Alabama, one of the most humid areas of the US, has continual fuel system problems.
jack vines
Originally posted by JoeHall
View Post
with a T86 OD, if you aren't seeing double digit mpg there is an issue. With tall rear gears you should see mpg in excess of 23 .
Problems attributable to ethanol seem to be correlated to the relative humidity in the area. It's relatively dry up here in the frozen ass-end of nowhere; I run 10% ethanol in my '56 Power Hawk and '55 E12 (and a dozen small engine machines) with stock fuel systems and zero problems. An old car friend in Alabama, one of the most humid areas of the US, has continual fuel system problems.
jack vines
Comment