As intially produced, the /6 did get better mileage. The difference was not alot, year dependent, it can be a bit more than just a few mpg's. I'm not a fan of the /6. I will not trash it, but I also wonder out loud about it.
While some /6 production cars did get 24+ mpg's, they also were tested and proven to get this mileage in cars that were light, devoid of some equipment and set up with numericaly low gear ratio's and 1 bbl carbs.
I myself need some power in a car. The /6 has none. I also do not buy into the "You can allways hop it up with Clifford headers, a 4bbl. intake and small carb etc...." Hey! I can do the same with a 360 BUT start off with more power to begin with!
The best I have ever done with a 360 was in a '79 Dodge Magnum. Behind it was a 904 LU and a 2.76 geared rear sporting 235/60/15's. Now the year engine is a dog of an engine.
I treated the stock engine to simple bolt ons. From top to bottom;
A 1973 (I think) OE air cleaner (With a trap door in the base)
Carter 625 cfm carb on top of a OE 4bbl.
Dual exhaust off the exhaust manifolds into twin cats and "H" pipe 2-1/4 exhaust.
(Twin cats needed for the inspection)
Vacuum advance distrbutor triggered by a MSD 6A (Excellent mileage getter!)
This resulted in 20 MPG's in a 4,000 lbs. car that has power. While not atire frier by any means, it at least had enuff to get out of it's own way and GO!
AGAIN, 20 MPG's in a 4,000 lbs. car. Think about it.
No cam change, no headers and twin cats. No milled heads, stock as a rock 360 to start with. Small valve heads, broom stick cam, dead stock all over.
Headers, more compresion and a cam designed for mileage can improve over this and still maintain and get more power than a stock engine while getting more mileage.
/6? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
