Does it defeat the purpose of the good gas mileage when you spend 100k in parts to get there?

If your concerned about saving that much fuel but willing to spend how ever much to accomplish it, seems kinda counterproductive.

love that Green Bean build

I love the idea of these alternative engines, unfortunatly the guys paying the bills usually just dont want to take any risk away from the LS norm. If I had my choice though......

Great point, You can buy a lot of gas for 50k :D

Since when do muscle cars and counterproductive not go hand-in-hand? :lol:

I had a customer mention to me earlier today that he should have bought a Rolls Royce for the amount of money he was dumping into his Mustang. But anyone with the right wallet can go out and buy a Rolls Royce, I said, and his Mustang will be completely unique.

I would start with a smaller lighter car.
1962-65 Nova is about 2500 lbs with the straight 6.

put the turbo charged ecotec engine in it from a Pontiac solstice. 28mpg

Well if you're thinking about Alternative fuels.... Blake at 417 Motorsports (green bean) also did a TT dura max in a 66-7 Nova wagon. He could tell you the mileage on that one as well I'm sure. :thumbsup:
http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/...station-wagon/

Did the customer change his mind now that gas is $2 a gallon... LOL


I agree with Rodger.... WTF does a guy care about MPG if he's spending 150K to build a car. To the folks that say strip everything out to save weight... who'd want to drive that every day?


MPG has been figured out by every OEM... small lightweight cars with tiny engines... or you buy a New Corvette and keep your foot out of it... but then why would you want a Corvette? LOL I don't get it.

I get 17 MPG out of a 61 Buick, driven daily (ave over 100 miles a day mostly Hwy driven) with a poorly tuned carbed 350 SBC,

It's heavy, not aero, and very poorly tuned.

30 MPG is very doable.

X2. I'm curious.

The appeal for me is just to be different more than the mpg. But if the real reason is saving gas then yeah, that doesnt make much sense!

He does not want to drop a zillion on this car, he just does not like new economy cars and wants to see if something old could do the trick. I think using as many OE parts as possible from donor cars would help keep the costs down. The Duramax idea is killer, but just too much work for this project.

Kevin,

I totally get the appeal. There is nothing cool about driving any econobox made today.

I think you first need to nail him down to a specific car. I would go with something that isn't super popular, readily available, under 3500 pounds, and cool (whatever that means...you'll know it when you see it...Cougar?). Then go with your idea of using as many OEM parts as possible.

I think this whole project can be done for under $10K (plus your labor).

Andrew

BTW

@ 30MPG x 60 miles travelled daily @ $2.50 per gallon for gas = annual fuel bill = $1,750 (50 weeks a year where all 7 days in the week travel 60 miles. Assumes some weeks will be less).

@ 15MPG it's double that

so the difference between 15 MPG and 30 MPG is an annual expense of $1750

^^^ Agreed!

Any mid-60s big 3 economy cars with a modern economy powerplant would do the trick:

SRT-4 = 285hp/265tq... Dart/Valiant/Barracuda

EcoTec = 260-290hp/260tq... Tempest/Rambler/Nova/Corvair/AMX

EcoBoost = 310hp/320tq... Falon/Mustang/Comet

I'd DD any of the above! Just need to nail down the car!

I'd keep it V-8 for simplicity sake and cost. All the above engine options are good, but direct injection and forced induction integration really start to add to the cost. A stock 5.3L will make more power than all of the above and the rest of the driveline can be easily sourced. It may not get 30mpg, but it'll be close. The trick will be to gear it so that at highway speed the RPM is 1600-1700.

Andrew

The customer wants a '70 Nova. Not the best aero, but kinda light.

And if we go V8, it would probably be a 4.8. Our mechanic Trevor has a 4.8 / 4L65 with a 3.73:1 gear in a '68 Chevy truck that gets upper teens for economy, and will burn the tires for blocks.

I sold my 65 Rambler American station wagon about a year ago. It got 24 MPG, 3 on the tree and Auto OD. Not a 70 Nova, but it had a lot more trunk space.

Just my opinion, but I think you would be money (or fuel mileage) ahead doing a 5.3 over a 4.8. I know my foot stays further on the floor to get and keep the 4.8 in my work truck moving more so then my wife's Tahoe or my old personal truck with 5.3's in them.

Also the tune can play a lot into MPG depending on how he drives. You can always be more lean on a daily driver than you can on a car that you are going to beat the snot out of, so keep that in mind as well. Just be sure to let him know this in advance :)

Agreed. We purchased a couple of 4.8 work vans in 2005 for the fuel economy. The advertised mpg was higher with the 4.8 option, so instead of going with the 6.0 liter vans, which were the same price by the way at the time, we opted for fuel economy. BIG mistake. I have to keep my foot in the gas way more to keep the van up to speed, which kills my mileage. Flat ground is ok, but not a lot of that in North Georgia. Lesson learned.