Pre computer era high mpg cars

[slowmover]

The killer on small cars getting better mpg was that most trips were too short for mpg gains to really be seen. Not that folks didn't . . but a well-tuned decent full-size American car was close enough. And generally a lot more reliable (and easier to fix; overall economy being more important than just mpg). This changed by the mid-1980's as so many Americans had volunteered to be the beta testers for the Japs. I wouldn't have considered an econo car until then (and didn't) as they also were lousy on the highway. A 1985 Accord is what I'd consider the first pre-EFI econo car worthy of purchasing new (good enough to be a road car, reliable enough to be a commuter, and well-made so that it wasn't junk in seven years).

I also had an I6-200 Ford. No A/C, auto and black vinyl. In a '71 Maverick. In Texas . Not a day goes by that I miss it.

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Compare Old and New MPG Estimates

regards
Mech

funny you should pull up the 1984 honda crx
that little sucker had a better power ratio to weight than some exotics!
I seem to remember it being compared to a Ferrari in that regard...but dont quote me.

[mcrews]

my post on a ford mustang site asking about possible mpg on a 66:

I had a 66 Mustang w/ 200 ci w/ auto 3speed w/ 2.76 (not use the EXACT ratio but it was the 'highway option') and no A/C.
I was in college driving from Dallas to Texas A&M back in the late 70's.
I did the following and got 27mpg on the road.
(not all these were done at the time to get better mpg, but the result was better mpg)
1. At 100k got the head reworked. what a difference!
2. Installed Clifford header. Mounted the 'T' divider to the headers w/ hex bolts to keep it from rattling.
3, Installed a 2" singe pipe from the headers to a 1 in 2 out muffler with 1 3/4 out pipe into gt tips (and a 1 3/4 dual set up to start...why too much for the small cubic inch displacement)
the leaner you run the engine the better mpg.
4. Ran F70 series 14 radial tires. they were slightly larger than stock.
5. Installed a cruise control. Had to change over to a 67/68 gas pedal setup the had a horizontal pull instaed of the 66 vertical pull.
6. Installed a cool little mpg led device that I found at jc withney. had a magnet on the drive shaft to count revolutions anf a flow meter on the gas line. it was usually accurate to about 95%. I always had to imput the fillup.
7. Rear addco sway bay (best 60 buck I have ever spent on any car.
8. Nylon bushings on all the end links
9 lowered front end 1" and set to shelby specs.
10. installed rear air shocks to level the the ride (NOT TO JACK UP THE CAR!!!!!) also set each shock on it's on air line.
11. moved battery to trunk

THe key to better mileage (given a well running engine) is two things
1. Adjust the nut behind the wheel. (hint....the driver) useing a gauge to constantly measure mpg is like plang a vedio game. Just measuring at fillup is past tense and pasive. You need to stay on it every minute.
2. lower rpms. the lower the rpm at cruise, the better mpg. one poster suggested a tranny w/ o/d. this is an EXCELLENT idea. also go up a size or two on the tire (dont go up on the rim)
3. warmer engines burning warm air get better mpg. change out the thermostat to a hotter one. if you aren't driving very far....your not going to get better mileage regardless what you do!

thoughts on tire sizes.
1. the bigger the rim, the farther out you move the moving mass. Moving mass is at 4 times the static weight. so adding 4lb is like adding 12lbs to the suspension parts. THe spindle on the 4 lug six is soooo small it really has a hard time with the additional weight of a stock steel belt radial tire
2. there is plenty of room for taller tires.
3. taller tires will make it slower of the line. (but who cares if you are really wanting better mpg??) this is where an o/d tranny is a plus!

[roflwaffle]

Back in the day I combined and sorted all of the EPA pre-adjustment fuel economy data for ****s and giggles. All of this is on the exact same test or almost the exact same test w/o adjusting for anything. As it turns out, the most fuel efficient no FI car was an 86 carb'ed Chevy Sprint ER, which was a suzuki (just like the metro/firefly).

[War_Wagon]

I think my best non-FI car for mileage was my 1986 Accord. Automatic, but at least it had an overdrive. The mid '80s were a mish-mash for car makers, some went to FI, some stayed with carbs, some had overdrives/5 speeds sooner than others etc. Even in the performance world (for domestics anyway) it was all over the map. My '86 Corvette is the first year for aluminum cylinder heads, first year for tuned port injection, and a bunch of other stuff that was cutting edge for the day, but it only made 230 hp lol! The only really impressive domestic performance car was the Grand National - gotta love turbo power. And yes Fox body Mustangs were coming into their own, with 1986 being the first year for speed density FI, a big rear diff, proper 5 speed etc, but it all just goes to show that mid '80s were all over the place when it came to automotive designs. I make no claim to know what the most fuel efficient non-FI/computerized car is, but if I was going to start looking for it I would think it's going to be mid to late '80s somewhere. And it probably came from Japan. My buddy had a '70s "Hang Ten" Duster back in the '90s, and yeah, that sure wouldn't be the direction I would be looking in!

[Arragonis]

(Austin) Metro HLE 1.0 claimed 82 MPG (imp) in 1982.

It was only a 4 speed too, and had OHV and a carb.

Gearing was ~19 MPH / 1000 in top, top wack was 82 if you were lucky, 0-60 in 18 seconds - you were more likely to run out of road than speed.

[drainoil]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

(Austin) Metro HLE 1.0 claimed 82 MPG (imp) in 1982.

It was only a 4 speed too, and had OHV and a carb.

Gearing was ~19 MPH / 1000 in top, top wack was 82 if you were lucky, 0-60 in 18 seconds - you were more likely to run out of road than speed.

Do you know if the British Ford Escorts back in the day got good fuel mileage? Aside from the economy aspects, I really like the looks of them.

[Arragonis]

Do you mean the FWD or RWD Scrotes ?

[drainoil]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Do you mean the FWD or RWD Scrotes ?

This rwd version is what I'm curious about:

File:Ford Escort Mk I 4 door ca 1970.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Arragonis]

There is a road test of the Mk2 1.1 Popular (same mechanicals as the one in your pic but more square body) here :

Ford Escort 1100 Popular Mk2 & Toyota 1000 Twin Road Test 1975 (1) | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

And a test featuring a Mk1 1.3 Estate (aka Wagon) against 2 other cars here.

Citroen Ami Super - Ford Escort 1300 Estate & Renault 6 TL Group Road Test 1974 (1) | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

They don't seem to give much away but in the test it claims 28 MPG (imp.) for the 1.3 and about 29 for the 1.1. Fords of this era had auto-chokes which were notoriously unreliable which would affect MPG and engine life.

Ford went on to make these RWD live axle ancient things well after the VW Golf, Renault 5 and FIAT 127/128 had come along.

There are loads of other tests there too.