ASTOUNDING mileage ;)

I never bothered to check... I just took a day highway trip in the old beast, cruising 70-75.
It has a 302, Edebrock 600 4V, Performer 289 intake, 14x2" K&N,
Pertronix, windage tray, roller chain, mild hyd. cam, stock heads and manifolds, dual 2" with h-pipe, and 5th-gear final drive ratio 2.58:1. I got 17 whopping MPG, with vacuum gauge showing 13-14" Hg. most of the time, with all windows down. Do you think that's good, bad, otherwise? : ) Just curious; not like I care all that much, but thought I would check it today...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mine had a 289, 750 Holley double pumper, Torker single plane intake, velocity stack, .470/290 cam, slightly worked heads, Hedman Hedders, dual 2 1/2" with h-pipe, and 4th gear final drive ratio of 4.11.
I got 16 mpg around town, including the occasional 8000 rpm blast down the street. Just goes to show you what real gas used to be like.
--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CobraJet wrote:

Well said. As i've mentioned here before, my 1st car was a 68 galaxy /w 2BBL 302 and AT. Got 15 city and 18-19 highway--on REAL gas of the 1970s. My cougar which is lighter, has low mileage engine, electronic ignition, and so on, but w/a 4 bbl, gets 12/14. I really can't see a bunch of difference between the two powerplants. But one car was lighter and more aerodynamic, and has better power, but the other, which was bigger, heavier and less aerodynamic, still got way better mileage! If the difference isn't the california gas of then and now, I don't know why they aren't more comparable.
I will repeat that once I treated the engine with Tribotech, I did get another 1- 1.5 MPG out of the car, from a low point of about 10.5 -11 MPG.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My Crown Vic PI gets about 18 around town, and is almost 3 1/2 seconds slower in the 1/4 than the Mustang.

Is that still holding?
--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CobraJet wrote:

yup. was 13+ the first couple of tankfuls and then leveled off to a solid 12 all summer long. Basically a 10% increase.
(By the way, I emailed the company my praise and they said they had a number of testimonials like mine on file.)
I'm swapping to a new 22 gallon tank when the weather cools down, and i plan on making a close examination of the old tank for any sort of pinhole that may be causing a leak that I can't visually detect. If my mileage doesn't improve under the new tank, that will confirm the difference in mileage is indeed the gas used between then and now.
Take my word for it, the difference ain't cuz I drove more conservatively at age 18...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who makes that?

AHA! A whippersnapper!
--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'll have to check into that...

My first 67 had 100 pinholes in the top of the tank, covered in crud, that allowed evaporation to occur. Glad I didn't smoke, and it answered why my eyes got red in the car!! Got pulled over and was accused of being stoned a couple times. Man, the ways we learn things... it had a 302 with 289 heads, Autolite 2-bbl, 3.00 gears, C4, stock convertor. It "inexplicably" got NINE, 10 at best. New tank brought it to 11. Rebuilt Autolite (leaking down the barrels, slowly "washing out" the rings) made it 13, and Pertronix + first Accel coil + K&N made it 15.

When I was 18, you could buy a new 225-hp Mustang GT for just $14,000 ; )
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When I was 16 (May '72), my parents gave me 1600 dollars to spend either one of two ways. I could go on a 6-week school-sponsored summer tour of Europe, or I could buy a car.
In those days, 16 Benjies could buy a lot of car. I remember sitting at the kitchen table with the Recycler in hand, and finding a low mile Ram Air Cobra Jet '69 Mach I for exactly 1600 bux.
Man, it was a terrible thing to consider. In the end, the idea of being in a foregn land with 80 other kids my age and away from my parents won out. It was a very interesting experience but...
Knowing what I know today, and still being in possession of the Mustang I bought a year later, would I still have strolled through the streets of old, bathing in the ambience of ancient cultures?
Hell no. I would have picked off the Jet and kicked ass from the start, and the well-rounded education be damned.
--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tough decision... I learned to speak, read and write three languages, so naturally I would have considered the trip to Europe carefully

Drool drool... sheet mon

I bet it was... $1600 was a lot more in real dollars ... uh ... six months before I was born than it was when I was 16, in 1988. Don't mean to "date" you, CJ, I just know what you mean

HELL YEAH. I totally agree, with MBA, 192 credit hours, and whatever else I have for my fifty grand in student loans.
When I was 18, I had the choice of doing a lot of things with the $3500 I saved over a year while working at an equipment rental shop, including plunking it down on that black 1990 LX 5.0 I so drooled over.
But I ended up going to Bondurant for five days, and learned some crucial fundamentals about how to -really- drive a car. My great uncle used to race with Bob; he had a '57 Testarossa. They actually raced at LeMans together. Quite some stories Bob could tell. His eyes lit up when I mentioned that. We had a couple nice chats.
He said I had some real talent, flatly as can be... I wanted to be Jerry the Race Car Driver. I cracked off laps in the top three, if not #1, every single hour I was there.
And do I regret working a year to save that, only to spend it in a week? HELL NO. I threw around race-prepped GTs and Formula Fords six hours / day, for that week in Chandler, and loved it more than anything else I could have at that point (save the obvious attractions for an 18-year-old). By the way, I got a 3.4 mark that week, with "OK for Comp. License" on my card. Many got below 2.0.
And I will go back at my first possible opportunity to brush up and refine my car-chucking skills. I'm glad I still have 'em; I autocross here and there to try to stay sharp... and quick '67s with 16:1 manual steering aren't nearly as forgiving as newer ones, even if it's just a bit wet on the roads
I recently tried to show my 23-year-old brother in law how to heel-and-toe shift. He is still trying, usually putting too much revs up before downshift, approaching turns at scary rates in his 97 SS Camaro, and scaring me in the process :). "No, it's not supposed to step sideways like that... and trail-braking does not include locking the rear tires."
SIGH, time flies, and we ramble about old days before we know it.
It's good to shoot the shit here and there. No true car guys in my immediate midst. Glad I came back to RAMFM after 5 years for some of that. No huggy bullshit, just good car fun.
-J
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
67RMod wrote:

lol--thats great! :)
Man, the ways we learn things... it had a

I remember looking at a used 62 t-bird for $750 back then and passing because the guy wouldn't go $500... And I think the basic mustang was like $1999 in that era, wasn't it? (or was that the maverick?)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So does that mean I should run 93 in my car? Do you guys?
I use 89 because that's the cheapest I can without pinging. I imagine the C/R is no more than 8.5:1, but I time @ 12* BTDC with total advance around 2800. It doesn't ping, but would 93 give me better mileage, especially if I keep it 2000-3000 all the time?
Most of the cars 13 I've owned have had EFI, with the exception of a 225-6yl Plymouth Volare, two 67 Mustangs and a few late-70s Celica beaters. I've run whatever didn't ping, and lately with 89 at $2.00 in STL, I run 89 in the Mustang. I grew up on the E. Coast and mom lives in Santa Fe so I can imagine you pay $0.20 - $0.40 more / gal.
Thanks, Whippersnapper ; )
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CobraJet wrote:

americanponyparts.com
I got mine for $60 + shipping but catalogue price is higher
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I never realized it was that drastic. Only in my early 30s... but I now vaguely remember my dad grumbling about having to run "shit gas" in his 327 Biscayne, 350-converted Nova, and two 6-cyl '66 Mustangs, and similar comparisons being made..
Tribotech.. is that a Teflon product? I'll have to look it up..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
67RMod wrote:

it's only sold at NAPA. Reason I know about it is our local auto shop call-in radio show guys were given a demonstration when it first came out, and--if i recall correctly--they took some kinda v8 that had been treated with it, drained the crankcase dry, and drove around for an hour with no problems. (In their web site testimonials a guy from MOTORWEEK reports he likewise drove a 94 Mazda for 40 mins w/an empty crankcase with no engine damage.) That sold our guys on it, and they've used it in their cars and at their shops since then, with no complaints about the product. Other people have likewise called in the show to report good experiences with it. I can only say that's it's helped me get an extra 1 MPG+ from my own car. Pricey, tho: $32
I'm not sure how it works except it's supposed to change metal at a molecular level and cut friction. Not a chlorine-based treatment. Unsure if it's teflon
The company, tho, has ZERO advertising budget and that's why most people don't know about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting... next oil change, I'll have to get some....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
vince garcia wrote:

Snake Oil. Car makers spend millions of dollars to get 1-2 more mpg out of their vehicles. If all they had to do was add a $10 can of oil additive, don't you think they would? Don't go by what the salesman tells you. Find independant confirmation. Find out if that guy who wrote the testimonial actually works for MotorWeek, and what he does. I am a published author, and I say it doesn't work. Of course, I have never published anything related to automotive products. But I guess I should have left that last part out :)
--
.boB
1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
boB wrote:

well, let's see: I've used it and it works. Two top auto mechanics in my area have used it, and it works. Others who've called into their show have used it, and it works for them as well.
But then you're a published author who says it doesn't work.
So let me weigh whether your infallible opinion should hold more weight for me than my own experience...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My thoughts were along the line of, "some of this stuff has to work". I have used Mobil 1 in a vehicle, Slick 50 in another, and while I never expected to get -quite- what was claimed, I did see some modest gains in acceleration and economy. Now, if synthetic oil is legitimately valuable, why can't a synthetic oil additive be as well?
I am simply engaging in the discussion to see what both of your opinions are. When two people disagree strongly about something like this, there is usually truth to be found with each argument...
Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
67RMod wrote:

And also, you're dealing with such crude technology (in the sense of engine tolerence spaces and friction) in a 68 compared to a engine of today, it's not hard to imagine a metal treatment additive greatly improving the basic performance of the beast by 1 or 2 MPG anyway. Now with a modern alloy engine already getting 25+ MPG, I wouldn't expect a whole lot of benefit by using additives because so much of the efficiency potential is already being addressed by the technology of today, so there isn't, i wouldn't think, a whole lot of inefficiency left to overcome that a mere additive could help with. Not so the case with old iron block, carbureted motors. Seems to me those would ripe for seeing the benefits of modern lubricants and additives, and the obvious way they would show it is in increased mileage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your own experience is meaningless. A one mpg gain could be caused by anything; the weather, your driving experience/style, etc.
What boB said is absolutely true, a few mpg for the entire fleet would do wonders for meeting CAFE standards. Check out http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbibles/index.html?menu.html&additives.html Or the Consumer Reports Automobile/Car Maintenance website - www.ConsumerReports.org
Jim S. '82 Mutant

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.