I used to have a 1966 GTO with a 6.5 liter (389 CID) V8 and a carburetor, and it got this kind of mileage or better. What gives?
“I used to have a 1966 GTO with a 6.5 liter (389 CID) V8 and a carburetor, and it got this kind of mileage or better.”
Remembers friend who bought a new 66 with the 3x2 carb setup. Gave me keys for test ride. Went through the gears from a standstill and returned the keys with trembling knees. What a beast.
“I used to have a 1966 GTO with a 6.5 liter (389 CID) V8 and a carburetor, and it got this kind of mileage or better. What gives?”
Several things:
1) We put more accessories on our cars now than we did back then. Power steering, power brakes, automatic transmissions, bigger alternators to power more electrical stuff.. all use energy.
2) Many people don’t know it, (I didn’t until I worked with some performance engineers that educated me) but pollution reduction strategies often compromise mileage.
I had a car with a small V8 (220 CI) that routinely got 26 mpg on the highway. This car was made in 1961. Manual transmission, no power steering or power brakes, but it sipped gas.
Those are the new, improved EPA fuel economy numbers. They are unrealistically low.
Around 350 to 375 horses, (just going on memory here), compared to 425 horses. Ratings were different back then than they are now which make the gap even larger. Efficiency is some better but not that much and more horsepower = more fuel, (generally speaking).
The new Hemi Challenger is also ridiculously heavy, over 4200 pounds, I hear. My old 440 Sixpack Challenger weighs around 3750, probably close to what your GTO weighed. Too fancy, too much safety junk on the new Challenger I reckon.