Gas mileage gains from 1967.
 

I remember seeing this article a few months ago and put a link in the GM gets it right thread. But after reading it again I thought it was too important of a piece not to give it it's own thread.

1967 Oldsmobile Turnpike Cruiser

Wow- 40 years ago and they were researching cam timing, gearing, frictional and pumping losses and warming intake air to 100 degrees F. Lots of the same stuff we discuss!

I found another article where they compare the 442 to the Turnpike cruiser.

The 442 got 13.31 mpg at 70 mph.
The Turnpike Cruiser got 16.38 mpg at 70 mph.
19% better fuel mileage at 70 mph is nothing to sneeze at as they say.

Motor Trend article 442 vs Turnpike Cruiser

My Powerstroke Diesel has 3.73 gears........... This is the tallest gearset Ford offered! Actually, in 2004, nobody offered a diesel with less than 3.73 gears. Idiots.

I had a 63 Valiant that got 28.5, and a Bug Eye Sprite that got 32.

regards
gary

Very interesting read, thanks.

Cool read.

Thanks! That is a very fascinating read.

Seems much like my 1969 Buick- I have a 455, a cam with very low overlap (even less than theirs), a switch-pitch TH400, and 2.56 gears. I'm lucky to have the advantage of a programmable EFI system, which probably would have helped them. I thought I was being original, but I guess I didn't realize I was just copying their work!

(But my car will also do low 13's in the quarter mile, without nitrous...)

I hadn't looked into a hot-air system all that much, but since they report .75 - 1.0 MPG increase, seems like that will be a huge advantage. Gotta think about that one.

-Bob C.

and fuel wasting from the 1960's
 

In the 1960's the automobile manufacturers were astonishingly wasteful of YOUR fuel-- they weren't paying for your gas, you were. While this article suggests they were at least thinking of fuel economy, it's pretty sad what they thought and didn't think. The article only mentions that a 4 speed manual tranny would be "impractical". Big (400 cu in) engines running slow (< 3000 rpms) is best to get the frictional losses down. The trouble with big is that it gives the driver the option to pour in the gas for way more power than can be used, or they wouldn't talk of spinning the wheels. We once had a 1967 Chrysler New Yorker with a 440 cu in V8, and a 4 barrel carb. It got 13 mpg. Mostly it operated on 2 barrels, but if you got enthusiastic with the gas pedal, it would open up the back 2 barrels and then you could see the gas gauge move, it took so much gas.

Disc brakes were beginning to go mainstream in the 60's. They had an appalling feature-- when not being applied, they simply dragged lightly all the time as there was nothing to hold the pads away from the discs. When you arrived, the wheel nuts on wheels with disc brakes would be warm from all this friction. The wheels with drum brakes had cool wheel nuts. When you drove alongside a concrete barrier with the window down, you could hear the disc brakes squeaking away. How could such a feature be acceptable?

Then I have some words from a 60's auto manual. A sign that the engine is running too lean is that in addition to an uneven idle and a tendency to stall while idling, fuel consumption was TOO LOW! Ran just fine when not idling, though might not have quite as much power as it should. Yeah, not burning enough gas was a bad thing! The recommendation was to enrich the fuel mixture.

And finally a nice little quote from Zelazny's Nine Princes in Amber. Why you should use self service at the gas station, not full service.


Strawberry Nose sloshed a little (gasoline) on the ground to make it come out even, hung up the hose, approached, and said, "Eight Drachae Regums."

Isn't that the case with modern vehicles equipped with discs?

Can't say that I've noted any feature that retracts the pads on my car...