Quote:
Originally Posted by Joenavy85
my dad had an old Chrysler 300 (I forget what year, may have been a Hurst 300) with a 392 Hemi that got around 20-22MPG, may not seem good but it was a 4200+ pound car after all, and it had the aerodynamics of a smooth brick. And I'm pretty sure he never tried for mileage in the thing
|
The 392 Hemi was the last of the first series. I know it was in the 1957 300 C and maybe in 1958 but I don't think so. Fuel injected with 392 HP in the last version.
The Hurst 300 came out in the late 60s early 70s, mainly cosmetic stuff like a fiberglass overlay on a otherwise stock hood. The non Hemi 300 K in the early 60s was a 413 wedge with 2X4 barrels with a "cross flow" ram manifolds, where the right cylinder bank was fed by a carburetor that was positioned outside of the left valve cover.
The slant 6 engines in the 60 and later Chrysler products were fairly efficient with the 225 long stroke being capable of mid to high 20 MPG range. I read once about a 55 Chrysler 300, with 4 wheel disc brakes that was hypermiled to 43 MPG.
I owned a 59 Austin Healey Sprite that regularly got 32 MPG when gas was 32cents per gallon, but I drove it like a maniac, and you could smell the rubber going around corners.
The model T was good for 25 MPG but top speeds were very low.
My 37 Ford Flathead was advertised as 20 MPG average. The carburetor was a Stromberg 94 which was supposed to be more efficient than the Stromberg 48 from the prior years. Even though the Flathead was very heavy at something like 525 pounds the coupe weighed just over 2500 pounds, about the same as a Toyota Corolla.
Personally I don't think higher mileage is really a function of engine design, at least as far as valves and breathing improvements. The longer stroke engines running at lower RPM can be fairly efficient especially with the variable venturi carburetors similar to the on on my current Honda Rebel.
It would be neat to see what could be done with modern fuel delivery technology, aerodynamics, and proper gearing, with old engine technology, like the 3.8 liter Buick V6 which was their mainstay for so many years.
Another neat candidate would be the Toyota 1500 CC engine of the mid 70s that was a push rod Hemi. I would bet that they could compete with today's designs if the fuel delivery systems were upgraded. High RPM, high power small displacement engines are good for power when needed but not really the combination necessary for good economy.
regards
Mech