No announcement yet.

Overall Average MPG In A Stude

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Overall Average MPG In A Stude

    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.

  • #2
    Lucky you. I get 12 MPG with my 259/FOM combo. Haven't been able to figure out why it's so awful.

    Clark in San Diego | '63 Standard (F2) "Barney" |


    • #3
      Originally posted by showbizkid View Post
      Lucky you. I get 12 MPG with my 259/FOM combo. Haven't been able to figure out why it's so awful.
      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.
      Last edited by JoeHall; 03-10-2013, 09:22 AM.


      • #4
        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.


        • #5
          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.


          • #6
            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.


            • #7
              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


              • #8
                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.
                61 lark cruiser
                64 daytona 2dr hardtop


                • #9
                  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 .........


                  • #10
                    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
                    No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.


                    • #11
                      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...


                      • #12
                        I get 24mpg when I'm talking to my friends, and 13 mpg when I'm not

                        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.
                        '63 Lark Custom, 259 v8, auto, child seat

                        "Your friendly neighborhood Studebaker evangelist"


                        • #13
                          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 .
                          1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
                          1963 Studebaker Daytona Hardtop with no engine or transmission
                          1950 Studebaker 2R5 w/170 six cylinder and 3spd OD
                          1955 Studebaker Commander Hardtop w/289 and 3spd OD and Megasquirt port fuel injection(among other things)


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by showbizkid View Post
                            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.
                            Last edited by avantilover; 03-11-2013, 02:43 AM.
                            John Clements
                            Christchurch, New Zealand


                            • #15
                              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.
                              NEIL G.