Re: 199 MPG average?

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: Jock J Jocewicz <namdra@xxxxxxxx>
" 
" I can't remember what all this thread is about but noticed speedyjeeper
" said - "whats your average miles per gallon achieved with your 199 or 232
" I6?" - Back in November of 1969 I bought a new 70 Hornet SST with the 232
" and reports around then that I had heard and read said the 232 was more
" economical for the Hornet mainly because the 199 was under powered for
" the weight of the vehicle and had to work harder to keep it propelled,
" thus better mileage.

another data point: jeeps with the 2.5 and 4.0 get almost equal
mileage.

i remember a car mag back in the '60s commenting that big pontiacs got
the same mileage with both big and small v8s.  they ascribed that to
gearing but said that was in turn because the smaller engine had to
work harder.

and when my folks ordered a '66 chevy bel air wagon, i argued for the
283 instead of the 230 because it got 23 mpg vs. 20, but my dad got
the six anyway.  i was surprised at first that the smallest engine
didn't get the best mileage, but on reflection decided it was better
carburetion and manifolding on the v8.  and after a test ride i also
argued for the stiffest optional springs which dad also didn't go for,
but when we got our car he conceded i'd been right.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen

adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought