Announcement

Collapse

Get more Tips, Specs and Technical Data!

Did you know... this Forum is a service of the Studebaker Drivers Club? For more technical tips, specifications, history and tech data, visit the Tech Tips page at the SDC Homepage: www.studebakerdriversclub.com/tips.asp
See more
See less

mpg with studes

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mpg with studes

    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

  • #2
    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
    HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

    Jeff


    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



    Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.
        "Madness...is the exception in individuals, but the rule in groups" - Nietzsche.

        Comment


        • #5

          Comment


          • #6
            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.
            "Madness...is the exception in individuals, but the rule in groups" - Nietzsche.

            Comment


            • #7
              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

              Comment


              • #8
                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)
                Gary L.
                Wappinger, NY

                SDC member since 1968
                Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                Comment


                • #9
                  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)
                  Gary L.
                  Wappinger, NY

                  SDC member since 1968
                  Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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?
                    "Madness...is the exception in individuals, but the rule in groups" - Nietzsche.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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
                        --
                        55 Commander Starlight
                        http://members.cox.net/njnagel

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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/chemicalsamp...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]
                          HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                          Jeff


                          Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                          Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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


                            JDP Maryland

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X