Hi hugh, I get almost exactly the figures posted in your PM article with my
1958. Maybe a little better (13.4) at a sustained 70mph. Perhaps my
electronic ignotion helped a bit!
>From: "hugh hemphill" <hugtrees@xxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: IML: 18 MPG in an Imperial?
>Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:34:09 -0600
>
>
>Subject: Re: IML: 8 mpg
>
>
>Roy Braatz: I get 18mpg on the road in my 57 imperial.
>
> Hi,
>
>I am confident I am getting similarly excellent milage in my '58 Imperial.
>These cars won best in class economy trial run by Mobil gas for three years
>in a row, 56, 57 & 58. I have not heard how well they did after this. The
>introduction of the lighter, simpler 413 should not have been a serious
>blow
>to MPG but I don't really know.
>
>Following some of the many posts in this thread, particularly from our
>whizz
>engineer, Dimitrios, who really knows about this stuff, it seems these cars
>were more economical at high speed and high revs than at lower speeds. I
>have had this hunch for some time. To be frank, in the urban cycle, my car
>is appalling. In stop, start, crush hour traffic the gas just seems to
>disappear. However, on the highway, at around 75 MPH, the needle hardly
>seems to move, hour after hour.
>
>It had been my contention, disputed by an owner of a '56 in '56, that these
>cars were primarily designed as highway cruisers. His contention is the
>opposite and he cites the fact that the interstate system hardly existed in
>even the late fifties. As someone who has chosen to drive many of the old
>blue highways of Texas, finding them a lot more interesting and satisfying
>for non-essential driving, as you get to be so much closer to the farms and
>small towns dotted all around, I maintain that these cars are at their best
>on such roads. Of course, these roads are infinitely less congested than
>they were when they were principal routes.
>
>In contrast to what I have found, Popular Mechanics, July 1958, gives the
>following data:
>
>Urban crawl : 8.3 MPG
>30 MPH : 16.3 MPG
>50 MPH : 14.7 MPG
>70 MPH : 12.9 MPG
>
>So, it may be a case of mistaken assumptions on my part. It may be that I
>so enjoy driving the car on the open road that I simply multiply the actual
>MPG by factoring in the fun effect. It works for me.
>
>Hugh
>
>
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network