I'd be interested to see the rear axle ratio used in the '32 Ford. I didn't see it listed, and put that together with a lack of information on the circumstances of their mileage "testing" leaves a lot of room for massaging the numbers. If they just drove around the city and the suburbs, then a set of gears like 4:88s would let the car move out and get to speed with very little throttle. Granted it would be limited to "in town" speeds before you had to go from barely taxing the engine to revving the crap out of it to go any faster, and while heavy by todays small car standards, a 32 Ford with a SBC would probably weigh in at what, just over 3000 pounds? Yes it's full frame, but its a small frame, and it's not like the car is full of airbags, ABS equipment, sound deadener, side impact beams etc etc. Being a hot rod, it probably had some sort of lightweight aftermarket wheels, and even narrow "pizza cutter" tires and wheels on the front. That's cutting a lot of rotational mass and rolling resistance. And at low speeds, the aero wouldn't really come into play as much.
If most of the testing was on the highway, then a gearset in the opposite direction, say 2:76s, would have similar results. It would be a gutless dog in town, but it would literally idle down the highway once it got moving. The "Mileage Maker" camshaft would probably just mellow out the engine enough so it could live with not having a lot of throttle. Team that up with a low-rise intake manifold designed for low RPM torque, and a small 4 barrel carb and it might work.
Being a 32 Ford, maybe the rear axle had been replaced with a 2 speed model, ala Bonniville salt flat racer style. Another way to make the test look good. Regardless of all this, I would love to see that original article as well, I hope someone can source it!
