mid 80's 318 mpg economy numbers...

-
gliderider06 said:
My 87 Ramcharger rarely hits 12mpg
Click to expand...
1985 Dodge W100/W150 Pickup 4WD 8 cyl, 5.9 L, Manual 4-spd
10
combined
city/highway
MPG
City MPG:8
city
Highway MPG:12
highway


10.0 gals/100 miles

Guys, thats a gallon @ $1.20 every 10 minutes of driving on the freeway! Minimum wage was still $3.35. so for every hour you worked you could drive 30 minutes in this truck, I dont even want to see what a 440 would have got in 85.
 
pishta said:
1985 Dodge W100/W150 Pickup 4WD 8 cyl, 5.9 L, Manual 4-spd
10
combined
city/highway
MPG
City MPG:8
city
Highway MPG:12
highway


10.0 gals/100 miles

Guys, thats a gallon @ $1.20 every 10 minutes of driving on the freeway! Minimum wage was still $3.35. so for every hour you worked you could drive 30 minutes in this truck, I dont even want to see what a 440 would have got in 85.
Click to expand...

ha! back in the days of pulling trailers, 1 t. chevys 454 carbureted, 4:10 rear, sticks,, 9-10 empty, 6 pulling. 440 would do bout the same, no better. horray for the Cummins!!!!!!!!
 
6 pulling at 60? thats a gallon every 6 minutes! You could put a gas pump meter on your fuel line...$ding...$ding...$ding....
 
JACOBI said:
A bit off topic, but I could use some anecdotes, or actual data for that matter. Just acquired and drove 2000 miles in two day a 65 Barracuda, 273 2 bbl. It has the automatic transmission (nifty console shift). The trip was problem-free, but the car only managed 11miles/gallon. The car is a keeper, runs strongly, but I am not sure what to do about its gas guzzling ways (which I think must be abnormal--yes?). Thanks for nay thoughts you might have. jjc
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd say that's abnormal.
But to get to the bottom of it you would need to do a thorough analyses.
You would need a compression test, possibly a leakdown.
And to know things like the cam specs and true Scr as well as the rear gear, tire size and state of tune for the chassis. There are just so many things that can drag your mileage down. I will say tho that I have seen a 100% stock 273 get mid to hi 20USg in a 67 Dart, with the engine being about 10 years old.
But the first thing I would do is pull the plugs and have a look see, for obvious signs of rich-running. Plus I would check all the timing systems especially the Vcan. Start there.
 
I'm old enough to have drove a lot of these vehicles in the 80's. Hell I got my Drivers license in 1971. I don't recall any of the 80's Mopars getting some of the numbers being claimed in this thread. I think it's is the result of fuzzy Math! You need to check your gazinta's !
 
I had a dial your own mpgs combo once, called Double overdrive. She could go down to a final-drive ratio of 1.57. That would make 65=1269rpm. Yeah my stock 1973;freshened only,low-C teener (with a TQ and headers) pulled it lol. But that teener still couldn't match the mpgs my 10.9Scr-360 made with a final drive ratio of 2.02.
Those low compression engines have such a hard time pulling good numbers.You can only lean 'em out so far and then they become hard to drive. Reduced rpm is the way to go. I suppose that's why the 2.45 rears and 2.74 lows were invented. This starter is the same as a 2.76 x 2.45. but the hiway cruise is reduced to 89%. So 65 can be 2100 instead of 2370. It's only 270 rpm, but it seems to really count.
The biggest deal would be to have a 4 speed auto in a 904 sized case. Or really the factory shoulda given the A500 it's own diminished-size OD unit.But I guess the retro guys were on vacation the day it coulda made a difference,lol.
 
Last edited:
Filled up my Dart again today just to find out it managed only 11.8mpg with the last batch of fuel.
Will be putting the car on the dyno pretty soon for a quick rundown through the timing map to find out max. power and also if there are areas (in the timing map) which can be improved.
 
Nobody owns an M-body here as a daily except me? Lol... I have an '88 Chrysler Fifth Avenue which only came with the 318, 904 trans with the 2.74 lower gear set, and horrendous 2.2:1 rear gears from the factory. Curb weight is right around 4000 lbs with me in it. When I first got the car it was all stock with 120k miles and ran well, but not great due to the worn-out stock 2 barrel carburetor... I averaged 15 to 17 MPG. I gutted the stock exhaust system with three cats in it and made my own 2 1/4" duals, bump to mileage up by maybe one MPG. Then I swapped out the rear axle for an 8 1/4" with 3.07 gears, average MPG is now in the 17-19 range. Now I am replacing the factory timing chain and gears with a used double roller set from my broken 360, and also upgrading to a thermoquad on top of a performer intake and old used MSD box with factory style electronic distributor to replace the lean-burn computerized system. I think after all that 18-22 MPG will be attainable.

My 318 has the factory roller cam (still the super tiny 318 2-bbl specs) and 302 heads, factory compression was rated at 9.2:1 so in reality prob closer to 8.5:1? Definitely feels stronger than the stock 318 2-bbl that my '70 Duster came with, that thing was REALLY worn out though.
 
Last edited:
AJ/FormS said:
I had an 84 NewYorker for a while. 318 2bbl-904.
She'll be about 34years old now
Sweet car, she was
Click to expand...

They are great cars for what they are (reliable downsized RWD luxury cruisers), really the only bad aspects are the stupid F/M/J transverse torsion bar front ends and Iso-Clamped rear springs. You just can't expect to build a corner-carving Pro-Touring machine out of one like you can an A-body LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top