 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Antique and Collectibles / Studebaker / September 2005GASOLINE $3.50 a GALLON
monday night--$2.50 a gall tuesday night--$2.75 a gall Wed,11 AM----$3.50 a gall forget the kiss,i am going to need surgery its broke off so deep! Profiteering Rat Bastards,think Shrub is going to do something to regulate it? Right after Studebaker resumes vehicle production on Sample street!!!! (there,mandatory content included!) I hate to be such a cynical PIA,but DAMN people,the world is more screwed up than ever. I filled the tanks on the F250 and PARKED IT... I am driving the 65 194 cubc inch gas miser Commander...FKUC EM! Were paying 5.00/gallon with no end in sight. I feel sorry for anyone tying to stay warm with oil this winter. > monday night--$2.50 a gall > tuesday night--$2.75 a gall [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > am driving the 65 194 cubc inch gas miser > Commander...FKUC EM! (That $5.00 is $4.00 a US gallon, or about $3.25 US/US gallon. Lord, we got California prices in a Maine climate) and it will rise further, of course. I keep track of oil heat costs. I got one of those "40% more efficient" new fangled oil-fired boilers a few years back. Of course, back when I bought it, fuel was 27.3 cents a litre, tomorrow its going to 70.2 cents. Still a yikes! if not a YIKES! Jim Bartley on PEI > Were paying 5.00/gallon with no end in sight. > I feel sorry for anyone tying to stay warm with oil this winter. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > am driving the 65 194 cubc inch gas miser > > Commander...FKUC EM! If your 65 194 is anything like mine, it ain't much of a miser. Best I can do is 16 mpg. Mark Mark,on a good day ,with tailgate down,and a tail wind,my pickup only gets 11 mpg on the highway LESS in town. I am real happy with whatever I get out of the 65.See my post to JT below. That does suck. I drive my 65 pretty conservatively, but it is a daily driver. It's has a 3.73 TT rear end with the Flightomatic. Generally, I cruise it at 60 mph or so to work on the interstate (17 miles one way) per day. It gets at best, about 16.5 mpg. No doubt it would do better with a 3.31, but I really don't want to sacrifice it's scoot value--it really has some get up and go for a 6 banger. Mark > Mark,on a good day ,with tailgate down,and a tail wind,my pickup only > gets 11 mpg on the highway LESS in town. > I am real happy with whatever I get out of the 65.See my post to JT > below. A 3.73 will never yield optimum fuel economy. The difference with even a 3.52 rear will be noticeable. Personally, I would probably opt for a 3.07 and go for the economy... JT > That does suck. I drive my 65 pretty conservatively, but it is a daily > driver. It's has a 3.73 TT rear end with the Flightomatic. Generally, I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I am real happy with whatever I get out of the 65.See my post to JT > > below. My cars hate the 3.07 rears.... My ragtop is pretty content with a 3.31. The 3.73 was better than the 3.07 for fuel economy on this particular car (259/auto). I am thinking with a 289 under the hood you coudl probably benefit more from the shallower gears. >A 3.73 will never yield optimum fuel economy. The difference with even >a 3.52 rear will be noticeable. Personally, I would probably opt for a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > I am real happy with whatever I get out of the 65.See my post to JT >> > below. Lee DeLaBarre Daytona62 What speed do you usually cruise at? The FOM/3.31 in the 55 still seems to be revving too high for a comfortable cruise but maybe my ears are just attuned to little four-poppers (the six in the Impala is barely ticking over on the freeway, it has airplane gears) BTW the difference between the Impala and the Stude is like night and day. I FAR, FAR prefer the FOM to whatever GM is putting in cars these days... the Chevy trans feels like it's freewheeling when I lift off the gas, and it drops two gears if you shift around in your seat. nate > My cars hate the 3.07 rears.... My ragtop is pretty content with a > 3.31. The 3.73 was better than the 3.07 for fuel economy on this [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Lee DeLaBarre > Daytona62  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel With the 3.73, 259 and auto I was turning 3750 at 75 MPH. The car LOVED it and got right at 21-22 MPG on the highway. With the 3.07's it was in the 16 range and with the 3.31 I am getting right at 19. The speed gear was correct each time and the speedo and odometer were within 2% (just in case you were wondering). >What speed do you usually cruise at? The FOM/3.31 in the 55 still seems >to be revving too high for a comfortable cruise but maybe my ears are [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> Lee DeLaBarre >> Daytona62 Lee DeLaBarre Daytona62 3750......?!?!?!?!? ISTR somewhere being warned that continuous running over 3500 could invite oil pumping up into the heads in a "well broken in" V8, I'm guessing you didn't have that problem, as evidenced by the fact that it's still running... I don't think I've ever cruised in one of my Studes much over 3200... not sure about JP's cars as I don't remember driving any recently that had functional tachs... maybe I just need to stick my foot in it and stop worrying :) nate > With the 3.73, 259 and auto I was turning 3750 at 75 MPH. The car > LOVED it and got right at 21-22 MPG on the highway. With the 3.07's [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Lee DeLaBarre > Daytona62 My Champ(8E12) runs all day at 3400rpm (70-75mph). 4.11 rear axle T-98A truck 4 spd. > 3750......?!?!?!?!? > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >>Lee DeLaBarre >>Daytona62 You drove that nice Gold Avanti with Powershift and 4:11, but the egine was pretty nice in it. > 3750......?!?!?!?!? > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >>Lee DeLaBarre >>Daytona62 SignatureJP/Maryland Studebaker On the Net http://stude.com My Ebay items:http://www.stude.com/EBAY/ 64 R2 4 speed Challenger (Plain Wrapper) 63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk 62 Lark 2 door 61 Hawk 60? Hawk 53 Starlight That old ragtop now has 135K miles on it and made several 500+ mile a day trips at 3500+ RPM. Never had a problem and seemed to LOVE those RPM's. >3750......?!?!?!?!? > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >> Lee DeLaBarre >> Daytona62 Lee DeLaBarre Daytona62 When I first drove the new 62 convertible I was sure I'd have to rebuild the motor - it crept off the line, just seemed to have no power even though it didn't smoke. Then I put a 4bbl Edelbrock on it to replace the Stromberg, better but not much. Rejetted the Edelbrock using the new F/A ratio meter and found it lean, which surprised me. Went to a .098 main and .101 secondary and drove it again, much better. Then I took it on the freeway and glanced at the tach I had put in and saw it wasw turning under 3K. Must be a 3.07..... and the motor is just fine. > With the 3.73, 259 and auto I was turning 3750 at 75 MPH. The car > LOVED it and got right at 21-22 MPG on the highway. With the 3.07's > it was in the 16 range and with the 3.31 I am getting right at 19. > The speed gear was correct each time and the speedo and odometer were > within 2% (just in case you were wondering). SignatureRemove all the x's to email. The only label that fits: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6966.shtml "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ---Teddy Roosevelt, 1918 1953 Starlight Coupe 1954 Starlight Coupe R1/4-speed 1958 Silver Hawk 1960 Frua Italia Larks (2 - they're here!) 1962 Lark VI 1962 Lark Convertible 1963 Avanti R2 R4324 1963 Lark Cruiser (R2 3/4 clone in progress) 1963 GT Hawk 1963 Daytona Wagonaire 1964 Cruiser (Survivor) 1956 2E7 2004 Porsche Carrera 4S 2000 Ducati 748 2002 Jeep Overland 2004 Ducati Monster 1000 http://homepage.mac.com/pdrnec/PhotoAlbum81.html I'll have to do some checking (like getting the car out of the garage and driving it <G>) but I think that with the 3.31's in it I am now turning right at 3k+/- at 70 now. The car seems quite comfortable doing it but not as happy as it was with the 3.73 rear. It does sound about right that you are tuning 2800-2900 with the 3.07. >When I first drove the new 62 convertible I was sure I'd have to rebuild >the motor - it crept off the line, just seemed to have no power even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> The speed gear was correct each time and the speedo and odometer were >> within 2% (just in case you were wondering). Lee DeLaBarre Daytona62 Man that really sucks! What'd you do to it to make it dislike you so? B <G> > Mark,on a good day ,with tailgate down,and a tail wind,my pickup only > gets 11 mpg on the highway LESS in town. > I am real happy with whatever I get out of the 65.See my post to JT > below. > monday night--$2.50 a gall > tuesday night--$2.75 a gall [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > am driving the 65 194 cubc inch gas miser > Commander...FKUC EM! Whatdoyouget for gas mileage on that six? JT JT, I cant really answer you on that difinitively because: I changed the rear ratio from a 373 to a 331 to lower RPMs,and the speedo wasnt recalibrated. Also the @#&$*ing gas gauge is totally wacko.The tank is so full it is seeping past the sending unit screws,but it shows 1/2 a tank. I have allready changed the dash gauge,so I guess a sending unit replacement is in order.The car came with a underdash SW gas gauge,that seemed to work,but I wanted it off the bottom of the dash. I can say for certain it gets about double the milage my F250 351CI 355 geared Longbed Xtended cab pckup gets! (NO overdrive,trailer towing package) I can haul anything in it effortlessly,but it wont pass a gas station! I have trie all kinds of thngs; duals out of the converter,no muffler,"erformance" muffler,K&N air filter, a snorkle feeding air ram air style into the filter box,max inflation on tire press ,all to no avail. The 65,with a fresh 1 BBL,3 speed with out overdrive wins! > JT, I cant really answer you on that difinitively because: I changed the > rear ratio from a 373 to a 331 to lower RPMs,and the speedo wasnt [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > avail. > The 65,with a fresh 1 BBL,3 speed with out overdrive wins! I have heard that the Chebby six cylinder ('65-66) powered Studes typically get up to 30 mpg with 3 speed/OD. I would think that this is realistic since I can squeeze 25 mpg out of my Power Hawk with OD. I have a 230 McKinnon/auto in the shed that eventually will be used in some sort of project. I would think that this would be another miser if used wisely. It's amazing that new cars/trucks get the lousy mileage that they do. All the hype about hybrid vehicles getting 60 mpg is great for snowing the sheeple masses but the fact remains that high mileage vehicles built 20-25 years ago got mileage in that range but would be illegal to be built today. There is way too much guv'ment interference in the auto industry. So much so that real innovation is being squelched. I have a 1983 Honda Civic FE (honest mileage was 40 mpg city and 55 highway) project that is now on the front burner. Hopefully, this thing will be running by the holidays... I need to park the T-Cab gas guzzler! JT >>JT, I cant really answer you on that difinitively because: I changed the >>rear ratio from a 373 to a 331 to lower RPMs,and the speedo wasnt [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > JT Remember the CRX HF? probably the neatest little economy car ever made... right about now is when I regret selling my '84 Scirocco with the Jetta (higher 5th gear ratio) tranny in it... sigh... back when gas was cheaper I could drive all week on $10... nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel snip > > I have heard that the Chebby six cylinder ('65-66) powered Studes > > typically get up to 30 mpg with 3 speed/OD. I would think that this is [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > nate Yep, but the FE (Fuel Efficient) was the forerunner of the CRX which was a 3rd generation Civic. Certainly is a lot of incentive to get it running... JT I regret re-selling it, even if it killed my kidneys with those springs and struts you had in it! >>>JT, I cant really answer you on that difinitively because: I changed the >>>rear ratio from a 373 to a 331 to lower RPMs,and the speedo wasnt [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >nate Ron/Champ 6 1963 8E5 Champ (Champ 6) 1962 Lark Daytona Convertible On eBay now...(Boomerang) 1995 VW Passat (Vanilla..yuk) 1994 Volvo 850 (Tilley) 1973 Volvo 1800 ES (Hyacinth Bucket) LOL you do realize that the struts were set on full soft right? :) that mother would HANDLE! Loved listening to that Techtonics exhaust too... I hope you at least kept the sexy Euro headlights... nate (still have the leather seats for it... any VeeDubbers interested?) > I regret re-selling it, even if it killed my kidneys with those > springs and struts you had in it! [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > 1994 Volvo 850 (Tilley) > 1973 Volvo 1800 ES (Hyacinth Bucket) Yeah, it stuck like glue to asphalt! It was a fun ride, no doubt, but wasn't too good on gravel and it hurt like a mutha on any road not smooth. And l gotta drive on rutted gravle roads a lot more than I'd like. >LOL you do realize that the struts were set on full soft right? :) >that mother would HANDLE! Loved listening to that Techtonics exhaust [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >> 1994 Volvo 850 (Tilley) >> 1973 Volvo 1800 ES (Hyacinth Bucket) I find that hard to believe Grump. McKinnons sixes I have driven were always hard on gas, they seem to be a collabrative effort between GM and big oil. >>JT, I cant really answer you on that difinitively because: I changed the >>rear ratio from a 373 to a 331 to lower RPMs,and the speedo wasnt [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > JT The reason that the Chevy six doesn't sip gas like the 170 OHV Stude is basic, more cubes, plus that fact that GM sided with big bore short stroke which results in less efficiency since it has less expansion length to extract torque from the combustion. If you look at the RPM most new vehicles turn at 60 MPH you will find that if you geared the Stude 289 to turn at 1600 RPM at 60 the mileage would be better than a new car of the same cubes with short stroke. It's horsepower that uses fuel, the more HP you create when you cruise the more gas you use. If you calculate the horsepower created at 1600 RPM between a 64 289 and a 4.7 Dodge V-8 of today, today's engine is putting out more horsepower at that RPM thus it will use more gas. The reason that new engines put out more horsepower is due to higher flow heads. These DO NOT increase efficiency of combustion but they do allow more air/fuel mixture per stroke. There have not been any significant improvements in combustion efficiency since the advent of the overhead valve head. SO more HP means less fuel efficiency. Of course if you compare torque at the same RPM the old 289 most likely is producing more torque at the same RPM. That is due to mechanical advantage, which means longer stroke with longer rods means more lever arm to turn the crank. Everyone knows that you can winch a heavier item if you put a longer crank on the winch. You may not do it faster but you can do more work with the same input. That is how Studebaker always won the Mobil Gas Economy runs, longer stroke plus overdrive means extracting a bit more output from the smaller input. Gee how smart those Studebaker engineers were. Hat's off South Bend you were right after all, look at most of the high efficiency import engines, they are more square just like the Studebaker V-8, a GM or Ford engine which have big bore short stroke.... On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:01:31 -0400, you wrote: >monday night--$2.50 a gall >tuesday night--$2.75 a gall [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >am driving the 65 194 cubc inch gas miser >Commander...FKUC EM! SW Missouri.. Springfield.. 3 a gallon and UP.. WAS 2.38 here sunday.. I might now go to $60 an hour for mobile work.. or more-depends.. with everything priced accordingly. --Shiva-- Were fortunate that Studebaker didn;t,or couldn't afford to build a bigger engine. Imagine feeding a 440 wedge. Was looking through a Classic car trader last night,lots of big 70's Marquis,Town cars,big Mopars. This has really got to kick the value of these beasts in the dump. > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:01:31 -0400, you wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > --Shiva-- > I hate to be such a cynical PIA,but DAMN people,the world is more > screwed up than ever. You ain't seen nothin' yet, and I'm not just talking about fuel prices. I think in many ways, for some time to come, "life as we know it," is over. I can't predict exactly how, but I think we should all be bracing ourselves for some unpredicted, unprecedented life changes. SignatureDave Lester www.davesplaceinc.com The Studebaker Hang Out Casbah of 'Sheba the Tramp, and Goliath the Hateful Truck >> I hate to be such a cynical PIA,but DAMN people,the world is more >> screwed up than ever. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can't predict exactly how, but I think we should all be bracing > ourselves for some unpredicted, unprecedented life changes. I couldn't agree more and it's scary. In addition to seeing how easy it is for a situation to result in anarchy, other troublesome signs: Americans now have a zero savings rate, throwaway society (just look and the stuff left for trash pickup), endless (mindless) consumption, soaring taxes based on soaring real estate values, etc., etc. Paul Johnson I am saving $60.00 to $100.00 weekly by not commuting to a job <grin> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:46:04 -0500, you wrote: >You ain't seen nothin' yet, and I'm not just talking about fuel prices. > >I think in many ways, for some time to come, "life as we know it," is over. > >I can't predict exactly how, but I think we should all be bracing ourselves >for some unpredicted, unprecedented life changes. NPR this morning was saying IF the refineries get back on line in a 'few' weeks, it will come back down.. (ROFLMFAO).. BUT if they are out for months, we will have a full blown recession.. --Shiva-- > I can't predict exactly how, but I think we should all be bracing > ourselves for some unpredicted, unprecedented life changes. This just in from Arkansas Emergency Management: "Arkansas has declared a state disaster due to the influx of evacuees from Louisiana and Mississippi. We have urgent need of 4000 cots and blankets. Please send availability to reply email listed below." This is Oklahoma's neighbor to the east. Indications are the flood of people will continue to spread. I was considering a request to deploy to Texas yesterday, probably just stay home to see what develops here. You don't always have to go to folks in need, they often come to you, eh? SignatureDave Lester www.davesplaceinc.com The Studebaker Hang Out Casbah of 'Sheba the Tramp, and Goliath the Hateful Truck When the refugees from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alamaba move to other states for "temporary housing" those states will have to furnish basic assistance because those temporary residents will become permanent if they are there long enough. If fact the governor of Texas today said that school aged children that are coming into Texas will be taken into the local school systems. Where is that money going to come from? Maybe if we cancel No Child Left Behind states could afford to educate the new kids on the block. Joe Roberts > > I can't predict exactly how, but I think we should all be bracing > > ourselves for some unpredicted, unprecedented life changes. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The Studebaker Hang Out > Casbah of 'Sheba the Tramp, and Goliath the Hateful Truck What is happening is an excellent illustration of woefully and inadequately we are prepared for overwhelming events. And this one had a couple days warning. It's time for the federal government to return to its roots and conduct itself with regard to the population as a whole. States need to assume their role and local governments as well. If this ain't a wake up call, I don't know WTF is... JT (Looking at the positive signal that should be heeded.) On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:34:59 GMT, you wrote: >It's time for the federal government to return to its roots and conduct >itself with regard to the population as a whole. States need to assume [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >JT discussion on an email list states that FEMA was rolled over INTo Homeland security thing.,. and then demoted to 'sorta not important' status.. so FEMA as such is just a small part of the war on terror-GOTTA keep those terrorists OUT of our country, forget the disasters, they dont matter --Shiva-- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.