Classic car fuel mileage

[electra225]

I was talking to a gentleman at the car show Saturday. He had an original '64 Impala SS with a 327 and Powerglide, power steering, brakes, windows, positraction, fairly loaded, bright red, white interior and the spinner hubcaps. NICE car. Somebody younger was mentioning how hard on gas "that old boat" is. The guy mentioned he got 14 pretty regularly on his 327. He said he had a '62 BelAir with a six and three-on-the-tree that got about 17 if you drove it reasonably. My Buick gets about 8-10 mpg driving around here. I figure if I get double digit mileage, I'm doing okay. When it was younger, and when we had leaded, higher octane fuel, I could get pretty close to 20 if I kept my foot out of it and ran between 55-60 mph. The big Packard and Buick Straight 8's must have gotten around 10 even with higher octane gas. I guess I never thought about it. Were the older cars really big gas hogs? Nobody ever mentioned it, gas was 30 cents a gallon. Consider the weight they were carrying. My Buick sold for a dollar a pound, $4800. Falcons with the 144 and straight shift probably got over 20. Dad always drove six-cylinder Chevys because he thought they were easier on gas than a V-8. Maybe some, but probably not much. I think it was more of a personal preference type thing. Old cars burned lots of oil. Newer cars don't. "It's got over 100,000 on it and never has had the heads off" was a statement of pride. I sure never considered a 327 as a gas hog. I never considered a 401 Buick a gas hog. I reckon times have changed. If the MIni drops under 38 mpg, I get concerned....

[TC Chris]

The big Packard and Buick Straight 8's must have gotten around 10 even with higher octane gas. I guess I never thought about it. Were the older cars really big gas hogs? Nobody ever mentioned it, gas was 30 cents a gallon.

Yes, they were gas hogs. Remember the "Mobil economy run" that used to figure in ads, but that nobody really paid attention to?

The '37-'38 Buick Club publication had a piece on the phenomenon once. The article explained that the rear axle was geared for low speeds and easy driving. In the '30s, not having to shift was considered beneficial, so they all had high numerical ratios so you could toodle all over town in 3rd and not be bothered by shifting. Plus, highways were such that 45 mph was cruisin'. Back when the junkyards were still full of'50s cars, owners of '37 and '38 Buicks would swap in lower-ratio rear ends from 50s cars to keep engine RPMs and engine wear down at modern highway speeds.

I recall my Dad giving the gas pump the evil eye when prices got into the exorbitant 30-cent range.

My Chevy 283 gets pretty bad gas mileage. I'm roughly calculating around 10-12 mpg.Some of it may be from having <1000 miles on a rebuilt engine and from doing almost all around-town style driving--lots of stop and go. And then there's the transmission, all 2 speeds of it. The '86 Mustang V-8 gives me about 26 mpg in mostly highway driving. But it's fuel injected and inherently less wasteful as long as that right foot does not get too active.

The Chevy is simply a fun car so I don't worry. In its whole life, 62 years, it has gone 40% as far as my sweet red Ranger truck has in 18 years. Most of the Chevy's miles were from when it was literally a daily driver. The few miles it's driven now won't send me to the bankruptcy court.

Chris Campbell

Chris Campbell

[Ken Doyle]

Seems to me that gas mileage was all over the map.

My 1967 Mercury Montclair 390 2-barrel got about 9 MPG around town. The Ford FE block was never known for good gas mileage.

My 1965 Rambler American with it's 195.6 flathead six and 3-speed automatic did 19 around town and 28 highway.

Both my 1971 Ford Galaxie and my 1978 LTD Landau, each equipped with the 351 Windsor V8, always got above 20 MPG on a trip.

My 1979 Checker A-11 Taxi Cab, with it's Chevy 250 inline six and Turbo 400 trans, did about 14 city and low 20s on a trip.

Gas really wasn't all that cheap back then. 30¢ in 1969 is equal to about $2.55 in today's money.

[William]

My winter beater 1994 Ford Ranger gets around 17-18 around town and 22 on the highway. It has the 8 spark plug 4 cylinder and it's a five speed with the 5th speed being an overdrive. It is totally gutless, and for what it is, it should get better milage. But being under powered has a lot to do with it. Ken, do you still have all those cars?

Bill

[Ken Doyle]

Ken, do you still have all those cars?

No, my days of terminal grease under the fingernails are over.

I bought a brand new Kia Soul 10 years ago, and not a thing has gone wrong with it. On a trip from northern New Jersey to Montreal Canada and back it averaged about 35 MPG, which is actually a bit better than it's rated for.

[electra225]

I almost bought a Kia Soul when I bought the Mini. I got a better deal from a guy I used to work with who worked for the Mini dealer. The best mileage I've gotten is 42.

[Motorola minion]

These cars I owned in order of ever-increasing, then decreasing overall gas mileage. We have only the last 3 now, plus the 69 GP since 1986 just for fun, of course.

Peak mileage achieved in the 80s with fuel injection and electronics then automakers couldn't convince enough people to drive mostly underpowered cars. I ruefully concur with the trend. After rear-bending a 95 Blazer's bumper with my 92 Tercel (owned only for mpg) , Blazer had stopped when a car shot into its path, and Tercel would NOT STEER while braking, I swore off light little cars entirely!!!! It still snows once in a while here, and the fwd GTi and the Tercel were horrible on just sleet alone. #14 is being acquired this W/E and is a no-brainer for me, with a daily 100 mile round trip commute

1. 73 Fury II 400-2V A727 - 12 mpg

2. 68 Mustang 289-2V C4 AT - 17 mpg

3. 73 Fury II 440-4V A727 - 8 mpg

4. 72 Grand Prix 455-4V M400 - 12 mpg Note: this drive train lives on in 1969 Grand Prix

5. 78 Celica GT 2.2L 4 cyl 5sp MT - 26 mpg

6. 83 VW Rabbit GTi 1.8L 4cyl 5sp MT - 28 mpg

7. 74 VW super Beetle 1.6L 4cyl 4sp MT - 25 mpg

8. 77 Impala 5.0L V8 TH250 - 14 mpg

9. 93 Ranger 4x4 3.0L V6 5sp MT - 21 mpg

10. 92 Tercel 1.5L 3sp AT - 28 mpg

11. 00 Outback 2.5L 4cyl 4sp AT - 24 mpg

12. 05 Tacoma 4.0L V6 5spd AT - 19 mpg

13. 10 Forester 2.5L 4cyl 4sp AT - 23 mpg

14. 15 Legacy 2.5L 4cyl CVT - 30 mpg hopefully

[Motorola minion]

double post

[Firedome]

"Were the older cars really big gas hogs?" Full size V8s sure were. But as noted gas was cheap.
My experiences:
'68 Caprice 327/4bbl/THM400, 3900lbs: 12 city, 14-15 hwy.
'69 Cutlass 350/2bbl/Jetaway, 3600lbs = 12 city, 14-15 hwy.
'69 MGB 1.8/4spd, 2300lbs = 20 city, 22 hwy.
'58 NYer convert 392 Hemi/4bbl/TF, 4200 lbs = 10 city, 12-13 hwy.
'58 DeSoto 361/4bbl/TF, 4000lbs = 12 city, 13-14 hwy.
'12 Xterra dohc vvt 4.0/FI, 4200lbs = 17 city, 22 hwy.
Not all that much variation really except for MG and the newest suv.
The real cheapskates got 6 cyl strippers or small/compact cars, but most people wanted full size V8s, families averaged 3-5 kids back then!

"The few miles it's driven now won't send me to the bankruptcy court."
Doubt we put 1000 mile each on our 2 "collector" cars, and the boat doesn't use much either.. so no problem.

"Gas really wasn't all that cheap back then. 30¢ in 1969 is equal to about $2.55 in today's money."
Actually I see it the opposite way... imo gas is STILL pretty cheap, considering inflation... check out Canada and Europe!
I don't see people stopping buying stupid Bro-dozer 5000+ lb 4 dr pickups or Suburbans etc. Yes heavier is generally safer up to a point, but there's a balance, and hauling around 5000+ lbs is just too wasteful and inefficient.

" I swore off light little cars entirely!!!" Amen!! To me a few more mpg is not worth your life, and this is why CR recommends not to drive a car < 3300#, but there's a happy medium, 5000#+ is excessive. Maybe in a perfect world
I'd drive a lighter car, but there's just too many jacked-up monsters and semis out there on the road.

No one has yet repealed the laws of Physics:
Describing kinetic energy as a scalar quantity for simplicity (non directional) : T = 1/2mv(v) ie: T = mv2.
ie: Mass matters... but there's a balance, we don't all need to go overboard and drive Peterbilts or Navistars!

[Motorola minion]

I get a kick out of reading the consumer reports tests of cars in the 1950s-1980s.

It seems that most folks got a straight 6 out of habit but economy did figure also. My grandfather had a 60 Falcon 6 cyl wagon and admitted it was underpowered, noisy as a tin can and afraid of passengers if ascending a modest hill, though none existed in Florida It was the last Ford product he bought for 30 years!

Friends of my parents only had a 67 Falcon 289 SW for their 4 kids. The dad always marveled at getting 19 mpg traveling the 19 miles to work at Firestone in Pottstown, likely going a maximum of 50 mph. It looked very cheap, like economy Fords did then.

Volkswagens and most other inline 4 cyl cars got at least 25 mpg. Straight 6 and V6 got 20 mpg and V8s were consistently under 15 mpg. Assuming curb weight increases with cylinder count, this seems the irrefutable law.

[William]

Gee, Dave, your 93 Ford Ranger 4X4 with a V6 gets the same mileage as my 94, 4 banger.

Bill

[Ken Doyle]

Straight 6 and V6 got 20 mpg and V8s were consistently under 15 mpg. Assuming curb weight increases with cylinder count, this seems the irrefutable law.

There are always exceptions. My 1971 Ford Galaxie 351W V8 got better gas mileage than my 1969 Chevy Nova 250 L6. Perhaps much of that was due to the Chevy's inefficient but durable 2-speed Powerglide transmission.

[Motorola minion]

Gee, Dave, your 93 Ford Ranger 4X4 with a V6 gets the same mileage as my 94, 4 banger.

Bill

That 93 was my first new car, a friend had a 94 Ranger with a manual that I drove a few times. I swore it was the same V6 but lifted the hood to see the 2.3L four, duly impressed.

[Motorola minion]

Straight 6 and V6 got 20 mpg and V8s were consistently under 15 mpg. Assuming curb weight increases with cylinder count, this seems the irrefutable law.

There are always exceptions. My 1971 Ford Galaxie 351W V8 got better gas mileage than my 1969 Chevy Nova 250 L6. Perhaps much of that was due to the Chevy's inefficient but durable 2-speed Powerglide transmission.

351W V8 had an FMX trans, between a C4 and C6, that a well-matched drive train for sure. The 250L6 was no slouch in a Nova, which explains lackluster mpg for a 6.
I was very surprised when a 70 LeMans kept up with my Fury II on a back road race (we did it all the time - think Dukes of Hazzard) then he lifted the hood to show a DOHC L6, not a 250 L6.

My only regret is never owing an AMC product, though we made fun of "ramblers" as kids.

[Ken Doyle]

My only regret is never owing an AMC product, though we made fun of "ramblers" as kids.

My first car was a $200 1969 Rambler American (acually called "AMC Rambler in it's final year). I bought the car with 60,000 miles on it and drove it to 220,000 miles. It was such a great car that I bought about 8 more of them over the years.

351W V8 had an FMX trans, between a C4 and C6, that a well-matched drive train for sure. The 250L6 was no slouch in a Nova, which explains lackluster mpg for a 6.

The '69 Nova was a gift from my aunt. It went like the wind, but got about the same MPG as my '79 Checker Cab which had the same Chevy 250 L6, but with the TH 400 trans. Those Checkers would go 500,000 miles if you could do it before the body rusted to pieces. I counted no less than 18 grease fittings on the front end. The idler arm had roller bearings!

I believe the FMX was the last Ford transmission built under license from Borg Warner. Borg Warner automatics were also used by AMC through '71, Checker through about the same time, and Studebaker. Many people think that AMC and Studebaker used Ford transmissions, but that is not the case.

[William]

As I have mentioned before, in my teens I worked at the local Gamble Store here in Hart. The owner of the store, his name was Charlie Brown, was crippled with arthritis but his mind was incredible. Because of his condition his home was built ground level, no stairs anywhere and from the garage to the house was a straight shot, something that is not code today. His one daughter, son-in-law and their two kids lived with him, and they transported him back and forth to work or out for rides. What they transported him, in was a Checker. His was blue and white and was not a cab but one of Checker's vehicles that they sold to the general public so more the norm for family vehicles. It was just high enough off the ground for easy an transfer of him unto the seat, and the door was just the right size for easy access too. It had a Chevy 350 and I'm not sure what the tranny was. Occasionally, I would drive it and make light delivers. The back seat had tons of leg room so that made for a lots of floor space to place what I needed to deliver.

Ken was your Checker an actual cab or the family kind?

Bill

[Ken Doyle]

Ken was your Checker an actual cab or the family kind?

Bill

My Checker was an A11, which is a taxi. I bought it from the cab company I drove for. I could stand a mid-size Magnavox console stereo on the rear floor without moving the front seat up. The civillian model was called the Marathon.

[William]

Thanks, Ken, I forgot what the civilian model was called.

Bill

[TC Chris]

I just went and looked up my gas records for the 1980 Datsun 510 wagon, my only new car ever. It was an all-purpose daily driver for 13 years until an enormous Lincoln committed suicide on it. The overall gas mileage, counting every drop, was 32 mpg. It was a lovely little red 4 cyl, 4-spd manual, RWD car. Its replacement in the daily-driver position was the nice '92 Ranger, 4 cyls, 8 plugs, 5 speeds, another heroic vehicle. Loved it. Like the 2005 Ranger, it was steady at about 26 mpg overall. Trucks tend to be heavy and less aerodynamic. I love the little 4 cyl. engines.

The Mustang V-8 matches the Ranger at about 26 mpg overall.

Chris Campbell

[electra225]

I have always had a Buick since I can remember. I drove Buick Electras for eons and figured they were as economical as anything all costs considered. Insurance for one was cheaper than smaller cars with the same engine. Insurance for a Skylark GS with the big Buick engine was almost twice what it was for an Electra. I never had much mechanical problems to speak of, outside of yearly exhaust system repair. I never wrecked one. Never really tore anything up. I didn't drive hard, and was taught to take care of my car or I'd have to pay to fix it. The tank had to be so empty the gauge was down in the instrument panel in order to put $5 worth of Super Shell in my Buick. I had to shake the back end side to side to get the air out in order to get the last dram of gas in. That $5 represented 25% of my income from working at the gas station. I cleared $21.21 a week. Five bucks for gas, five bucks for school lunch and car repairs, five bucks in savings and five bucks to blow. Grandpa bought four new Goodyer Double Eagle tires for it that were $35 apiece. I could have gotten tires at Western Auto for half that. Grandpa paid for the tires so I wouldn't wrap my Buick around a tree on bald, cheap tires....

So, gas was probably more expensive then, relative to my income, than it is now.