Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Quote:

I think I've noted this before, but you can get "clear" non-oxygenated (no ethanol) lead-free gas at some pumps. The nozzles will only fit pre-converter size fill tubes, and they are usually higher octane than even the premium from the regular pumps. Often 100. And, of course, pretty expensive. But if I wanted to really test a high-compression, leaded-gas era vehicle for mileage, I'd give it a fill of that stuff.

Mobil stations usually seem to have a "racing gas" pump of this type of fuel.

Owen,

Only 7% ? During the summer months here in Tucson & I remained convinced that from the moment I fuel up the car, I begin to lose gas immediately and very quickly.

9.86 mpg in the city. Just filled her up today.

TRy setting the carb float level 1/32 inch leaner than spec. Also try a fuel pressure regulator. I have a regulator here but just havn't put it on let. Determine the jets size in the carb and compare to spec for the Packard 400. Go one size smaller (if they're not already). THe size is usualy stamped into the jet. A magnifing glass is usualy needed to read the size. Good luck finding any replacement jets tho.

I must admit to considerable curiosity as to how far we have come. What would be the expected mileage from a current car of similar weight and horsepower?

Quote:

The motorized rickshaw that MB calls the Smartcar is EPA rated @ 37 MPG. I recall the Mobil Economy runs of the 1950's reporting much more for Ramblers, Stude Champs, Ford Falcons etc. My Granddad sold Panhard Dynas in the late 50's and he swore that 50 MPG was not unusual.

A new BMW 7 Series is rated @ 14/20

My Ranger pickup gets about 10 around town but does much better on the road on the occasions it gets there. One nice thing about today's cars is the mostly lack of fumes. There is the occasional converter stink but not like it used to be. I had the misfortune of being stuck in traffic behind an old GM product a few days ago. I could have run my car on the gas fumes his maladjusted heap was putting out. Those days I do not miss at all.

Fuel mileage is not all in engine tuning. A great deal of gas economy depends on the rolling resistence of the car AS PRODUCED to specification by the mfg'er.

One private test was ran back in the 70's where comparable model full size V8 Plymouth and a chevy were tested together. The Plymouth with 318 would routinely run 18-20 mpg while the 327 chevy would only get 15-17 mpg all under controlled test track conditions.

The Chevy engine was removed from the chevy and installed in the plymouth. The plymouth still ran in the 18-20 mpg range. I don't know if the plymouth 318 was ever ran in the chevy car or not.

Bottom line: the plymouth according to other testing procedures had a much less rolling resistence than the chevy.

I believe some kind of high water mark in fuel economyh was reached in the early 80s.

My father had a fully loaded Pontiac Parisienne Brougham diesel, 1980 model, that got 36 MPG on a 250 mile trip. This was a full size rear drive sedan with air, automatic, and all power accessories. I clocked it myself. To put this in perspective, I had a 1961 VW beetle, 40HP engine, top speed 72MPH that also got 36MPG.

I had a Renault 5 (sold by AMC as the Renault LeCar) that got 45MPG and this was not a record. In the late 80s and early 90s GM sold a 3 cylinder car called a Geo Metro that got 65MPG. I believe it was actually made by Suzuki.

These were cars with carburetors and no computers. It is a mystery to me why today's cars can't beat those of 25 years ago. But today's cars are a lot more powerful, lavishly equipped and heavier than the LeCar or Metro.

Flipping through Consumer Reports at the Walmart I was stunned to see how many of the new cars will do 0-60 in way less than 9 seconds. That's where some of the gas goes. I am still wondering why they seem incapable of merging onto the 4-lane or maintaining a steady speed up a hill.