I was wondering what kind of fuel economy/miles per gallon do you guys get in your antique cars?

[Zimm63]

61 TR3 gets 25-26 on highway.  The 63 Riviera, on the other hand, gets about 11.  Hard to keep your foot out of that one.  

 

[TAKerry]

18 hours ago, Mike "Hubbie" Stearns said:

Does it really matter?  We own them to drive and enjoy. Whether we are on a tour, going to a car show, or a quick trip to the store, we just fill it when it needs it. Mike

Yes, the purpose of an antique car is to drive and enjoy, and when I take mine out I could care less about the mpg. But I was simply curious as to what kind of mileage the old cars got. I have very little experience with old stuff. No it doesnt matter, just me being inquisitive. 

[TAKerry]

Thanks for all of the replies. I have to say I am quite surprised that so many cars get what I think of as sub par mileage. I would assume the 50's-60's and muscle car stuff would be low but had no idea that some of the pre war stuff was only in the mid to low teens. 

As for trucks, Dad bought a Dodge truck around 78/79? It was about the time of the second gas crisis. He bought it from a guy that had only had it for a year or so. For the time it was a loaded truck heavy suspension set up for a camper. Had a 440 in. That truck got about 8mpg going downhill with the wind to its back. He sold it after about 2 months!!

[Pfeil]

19 hours ago, pkhammer said:

For those that are concerned about mileage, fuel prices and pollution, there is an answer.................🙄

Wrong!

[pkhammer]

 I slipped that in there to see what reactions it'd get. Surprisingly few. 

[TexRiv_63]

I have never calculated gas mileage on any hobby car I have ever owned because I own them for pleasure, not practicality.

[Owen_Dyneto]

1934 Packard Eight sedan.  I average just about 10 mpg, regardless of around town or on the highway at perhaps 40-45 mph maximum.

[Guest]

22 hours ago, pkhammer said:

For those that are concerned about mileage, fuel prices and pollution, there is an answer.................🙄

Can't wait til the next generation of owners designs an electric kit like this for all those '36, '37 & '38 Buicks that are still out there.

 

 

 

(sarcasm, ...no need to storm my house with pitchforks and torches)

[pkhammer]

 From one Greg to another, I'm glad someone gets my warped sense of humor!

[Mike Dube]

My '32 Auburn 8 would get 16-17 on a road trip.  The '63 F100 with a 223-6 3speed & 3.9:1 rear axle used to get that much around town, but  with today's fuel lucky to see 12.  I am thinking about buying a 72 Buick Skylark which has the base Buick 350 2 barrel & Turbo 350 trans.  I am wondering what to expect with it.  Someone on the Buick postwar forum suggested 12-14 town and maybe as much 20 on the highway.  Anyone here have any experience with a Skylark of this vintage?

[hidden_hunter]

15 hours ago, TAKerry said:

Thanks for all of the replies. I have to say I am quite surprised that so many cars get what I think of as sub par mileage.

Quite a few of the cars on here are premium makes so probably wasn’t the main design consideration, things like T’s and Chevrolet’s seemed to get semi respectable numbers 

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Many "old" cars gas milage can be improved with a gear change at the expense of low speed performance.  

I have done so, with a couple others, and get about three miles per gallon better than before. Not cost effective!!

 

  Ben

[Ron Green]

28 to 32 MPG on the road. 1 to 1-1/2 gallons per hour water.

[Tom99]

My 65 Corvette, 327, Powerglide, gets 11 mpg around town.

My 85 Oldsmobile Calais, 5 speed manual, gets 25 to 27 mpg around town, and mid 30's on the road.

My 01 Mustang Bullitt gets 22 mpg around town.

I check and log the gas mileage at every fill up.

[chattin]

6 mpg for a 1911 Thomas Flyer. 

[TexRiv_63]

On 5/21/2022 at 11:46 AM, TexRiv_63 said:

I have never calculated gas mileage on any hobby car I have ever owned because I own them for pleasure, not practicality.

Actually there was one time I learned the gas mileage of one car by accident. It was a 64 Ford Galaxie 500XL with a built big block, dual quads, 4 speed and 4.11 gears. The gas tank actually FELL OUT of the car due to rust. To get the car home I had to rig a 1 gallon jug full of gas to the fuel line. I drove 4 miles to the house and there was just a trickle left in the jug!

[John_S_in_Penna]

On 5/21/2022 at 10:48 AM, TAKerry said:

No it doesn't matter, just me being inquisitive. 

Certainly it matters, if only for historical context.

Don't be apologetic for asking an insightful question, Kerry!

 

In one other thread, someone from another country

said his gasoline is now $13 per gallon!  It matters to him.

If someone is driving a big early car on a tour, it matters

to him so he doesn't have to watch for a gas station.

I myself would be less inclined to buy an 8 m.p.g. Eldorado

until gas prices return to normal.

 

It would be really interesting to track gasoline prices

every year, through the years.  I understand that in some

early years, gas was expensive.

Edited May 22, 2022 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[Joe in Canada]

A good friend hauled his 33 Ford to the Grand Nationals past week and won a first. He hauled it in an enclosed trailer behind his pusher motor home. At a cost of $1,400 in fuel from home to the show and makes me wonder if the price of fuel is going to affect the hobby. Next week he is headed for the Ford meet in Ten. that will be about a 20 hr drive spending over $3000 in fuel in one month. Getting expensive. Some shots of the cars at the show.  

https://www.facebook.com/john.irish.73

Edited May 25, 2022 by Joe in Canada (see edit history)

[MarkV]

20 in my EFI original 318 in my 82 Imperial. Reattas get about the mid 20s or better. My 62 Imperial 440 just sucks the gas. The older 6cyl in my 41 dodge and 66 mustang get in the high teens. I’m getting 20 combined in my 04 town car. 
 

then there is my Audi A8 with 4.2 that gets about 24 combined. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by MarkV (see edit history)

[Robert Street]

When asked that question on the showfield my reply is neither of mine if driven would get over 10 MPG even if they fell over a cliff

Robert

[Terry Harper]

Well lets see... 0.63 mpg. Or, at current local non ethanol prices, approximately 71 cents per minute.

 

[Dandy Dave]

The Chartreuse Lady gets around 14 MPG.  

[oldcarfudd]

I average about 9 miles to a gallon of kerosene/JetA in my 10-horsepower 1911 Stanley.  But short trips are very wasteful.  I have to heat about 5 gallons of water to over 400 degrees Fahrenheit (500 psi of steam pressure) before I can even steam out of my driveway.  Under way, I have to heat about 0.8 gal of water per mile to this temperature to replace the water I'm using.  Then, at the end of the trip, I blow the residual 5 gallons of expensively-heated water out of my boiler so it doesn't clog with scale.  So the further I drive, the less waste heat per mile I use for steaming up and blowing down.  Meanwhile, I'm continuously burning hexane in my pilot light at about 20 bucks a gallon.  There are reasons they don't make these contraptions anymore!

 

[Modeleh]

22 minutes ago, oldcarfudd said:

I average about 9 miles to a gallon of kerosene/JetA in my 10-horsepower 1911 Stanley.  But short trips are very wasteful.  I have to heat about 5 gallons of water to over 400 degrees Fahrenheit (500 psi of steam pressure) before I can even steam out of my driveway.  Under way, I have to heat about 0.8 gal of water per mile to this temperature to replace the water I'm using.  Then, at the end of the trip, I blow the residual 5 gallons of expensively-heated water out of my boiler so it doesn't clog with scale.  So the further I drive, the less waste heat per mile I use for steaming up and blowing down.  Meanwhile, I'm continuously burning hexane in my pilot light at about 20 bucks a gallon.  There are reasons they don't make these contraptions anymore!

 

Riding in a steam car is worth it at damn near any cost!! 😁.  There’s just nothing else that even comes close to the sounds, smells and smiles it makes 

[oldcarfudd]

Yup.  That's why some of us nuts still do it!

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Kerry I just picked this thread up and my non scientific theory on prewar stuff is engines worked a bit harder to maintain given speeds.

 

Today, we likely drive them a bit faster on average which maybe offset by better road conditions so mpg is probably not that different.

 

Dad bought a new Chevy pick up in '76, short bed, stepside 2wd.  He assumed a 6 would be enough and it was not only underpowered but mpg was no better than an 8 cylinder version of the same truck.  We believe the load on the engine was generally higher and the issue w mpg.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[TexRiv_63]

5 hours ago, Terry Harper said:

Well lets see... 0.63 mpg. Or, at current local non ethanol prices, approximately 71 cents per minute.

 

I think that may be a record holder.

[Bhigdog]

I have no idea what my mileage is but I do know I took my 4 cars out this beautiful afternoon for a little excercise. I put 4 gals of non ethanol in each. My wallet is EIGHTY NINE DOLLARS AND SIXTY CENTS lighter. $89.60 !!!! Good luck driving to shows or trailering. Choking on my tongue here trying to keep it within forum dictats..........Bob

[JACK M]

This thing with a 392 Hemi and a four speed with overdrive got me 10.7 yesterday on a 120 mile freeway trip at 75-80 mph.

I dont recall ever considering fuel milage when I buy a car. But I might start now.

 

[Rusty_OToole]

For all the talking about gas mileage hardly anyone made a buying decision based on economy and the car companies knew this. There were cars like Rambler, Volkswagen and Studebaker Champion for the penny pinchers but they well knew that 90% of car buyers wanted looks, style, room, comfort, and power and to hell with gas mileage.

This all changed with the gas crises of the seventies. For the first time a lot of people took the gas mileage question seriously and the Japanese made big inroads with their 4 cylinder economy cars. Then in the eighties advances in computers, electronic fuel injection, computerised, aerodynamics, tires and engine controls made some serious improvements possible.

There is a big difference in expected gas mileage of cars after, say, 1985 and before 1975. And the older the car the less efficient it is.  Mainly because of the inferior, low octane gas and the level of technology they had to work with.

 

So you have cars like a prewar flathead Ford, considered a hot performer in its day, that is slower than the cheapest econobox and gets 17MPG. There is such a thing as progress and we are reaping the benefit of it whether we think of it or not.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

1975

[John_S_in_Penna]

5 hours ago, Rusty_OToole said:

For all the talking about gas mileage hardly anyone made a buying decision based on economy and the car companies knew this.

...90% of car buyers...hell with gas mileage.

I've heard that statement made before, but Rusty, I beg to differ.

I should ask my 102-year-old friend (whose father was on the 

board of General Motors);  but otherwise, most of us may not

have long enough experience to know what people were thinking then.

 

However, I've done quite a bit of research, and from ads and reviews

I've seen that are older than the 1970's gas shortages, people were

indeed interested in gas mileage.  Ads touted it even in the 1920's;

reviewers made a point of mentioning it in the 1950's.  My father

always bought a medium-sized engine for some economy and

decent power without premium gas.  And so on.

[Rusty_OToole]

Lots of people talked about gas mileage and then went out and bought a car that got poor mileage because it looked good, or some other reason.  I recall a letter to a car magazine from the owner of a new 1960 Mercury with a 430 motor complaining that it only got 8 MPG and wondering if anything could be done to improve it. He admitted to feeling ashamed of himself for buying a car like that then complaining about the gas consumption.

Another example, right through the fifties and early sixties Plymouths with 318 and Torqueflite got better mileage than comparable Fords and Chevrolets, and consistently came 3d in sales. This information came from road tests and comparison tests done at the time when the Plymouth got 19MPG and the Chev 283 and Ford 292 got 16 or 17.

No doubt there were those who bought with an eye to economy and they bought enough Ramblers to keep AMC in business but that only amounted to about 1/10 of Chevrolet's sales. Auto company executives were savvy enough to know that for all the talk, gas mileage was well down the list of reasons people bought cars.

 

This also reminds me of a survey done by an auto company in the early fifties. When they asked people what was important to them in buying a car they got answers like fuel economy, efficiency, safety, simplicity  but when they asked what their neighbors looked for in a car they said styling, prestige, convenience, power. Guess which kind of car most people bought.

 

Ask your friend how important gas mileage was to the executives when they decided to approve a new car or motor etc. for production. My guess is, it was well down the list because they knew it would not sway very many buying decisions especially if it cost money.

 

Fuel economy is like the weather - everyone talks about it but nobody does anything about it. (joke)

Edited May 28, 2022 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[oldcarfudd]

If your car is paid for, runs well, and isn't eating you alive in repairs, you don't NEED a new car.  You may WANT a new car, for reasons that have nothing to do with economy.  Even if the new car used no fuel of any kind, the cost of that new car, minus the trade in, would keep your old one running for a very long time.  If you're splurging that much money, buy what turns you on, even if it slurps more gas.

[Marty Roth]

Our 1915 Hudson averages 14 - 15 mpg,

the 1930 Packard does in the neighborhood of 14 mpg

The 1930 Buick Roadmaster and 1941 Cadillac both are consistently in the 14 - 16 mpg range, but lower if in heavier stop and go traffic on tour.

The 1954 Cadillac manages 16 - 18 mpg on the open road, but only 13 - 14 in town.

The '65 Corvair Monza ,

and the '88 Corvette both consistently return 25 - 28 mpg on the road.

Both the 4.6L OHC 1995 Grand Marquis, and the LT-1 powered 1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham are fuel-injected full-sized rear-wheel drive sedans, consistently achieving the same 25 - 28 mpg as the 'Vette and the 'Vair !

By contrast, our 8.1L '02 Suburban and '06 Avalanche 2500 do between 14 - 17 at best,

and we just returned from a nearly 3,000 mile trip in the '00 Excursion 7.3L Turbo-Diesel, now surpassing 390,200 miles.

According to the on-board computer, we averaged 20.8 mpg, but my calculations at the fill-ups using actual recorded miles and gallons suggest closer to 19.4 mpg

[Marty Roth]

8 hours ago, oldcarfudd said:

If your car is paid for, runs well, and isn't eating you alive in repairs, you don't NEED a new car.  You may WANT a new car, for reasons that have nothing to do with economy.  Even if the new car used no fuel of any kind, the cost of that new car, minus the trade in, would keep your old one running for a very long time.  If you're splurging that much money, buy what turns you on, even if it slurps more gas.

 

Absolutely !

Our "Drivers" are the '02 Suburban, '06 Avalanche, and '00 Excursion - all three being the Big-Block 2500 versions. The cost of replacement, higher insurance costs, and possible interest on purchase would be excessive, plus the potential fuel cost savings would take a lifetime to amortize.

[cudaman]

My 1924 Model T Ford gets around 15 mpg.  It has a Kingston L4 carburetor, which isn't the best for mileage, but requires minimal to no adjustment from one driving condition to the next.

 

I have a fresh Stromberg OF on the shelf, if I ever swap it onto the T I expect the mileage will improve.

 

I haven't driven my 1912 Flanders 20 enough yet to know what kind of mileage it will get.  It runs an original Flanders carburetor.

[BucketofBolts]

My behemoth 1937 Lincoln K at over 6,000 pounds with a V12 got about 6 MPG (assuming no hills). In LA where gasoline is now over $7.30 a gallon that makes a trip to the local "Mart" about $30. These crazy gas prices are not doing the vintage car business any favors.