Non computer controlled RWD with best gas mileage ? Car and truck

[mgoblue9798]

With how ALL modern vehicles just are not worth buying anymore, (engine, transmission, electronics issues etc). What old tech non conputer controlled RWD vechicle would you think would be worth owning that got good MPG (for it's day). Ease to work on. I would even say with " Lean Burn" because that can be replaced simply.
The more I hear about modern car engine problem, electronic problems etc, I would give up fuel mileage , for something that was dependable. But then again I drive less that 12,000 miles a year....Lets hear you thoughts

If you are driving less than 12k miles per year then drive a hot rod and dont worry about fuel mileage.

There is a long thread on moparts or forabodies posted by a guy who built a 68 barracuda with a 318 he built that would get 29 mpg on the highway.

 

[rustytoolss]

If you are driving less than 12k miles per year then drive a hot rod and dont worry about fuel mileage.

There is a long thread on moparts or forabodies posted by a guy who built a 68 barracuda with a 318 he built that would get 29 mpg on the highway.

Well life is not like that for me ( might be for you). Living on a fixed income, and everyday cost ( including to price of gas are important factors) also driving a 60's-70's car is a great thing to do...but Having a car that is quiet, drives nice , and well manored is more enjoyable on a daily bases, for my wife and I ( somehow I don't think she would be into driving a vintage car to her doctors apointments . And Living in NE Ohio that might not be the best option, with winter being unpredictable. Also my wife has mobility issuess. So anything I would likely buy would need to fit more requirements than just MPG. I do like the idea of an 81-83 Imperial 318 AC etc.

 

[YY1]

Plenty of F/M/J body cars out there CHEAP right now.

That fits with easy to work on and perhaps acceptable MPG.
Should be able to get high teens/low 20's average.

Just missed a 79 Diplomat 318 for $2400 on local CL.
Last year was a 79 LeBaron T top 318 for $2700.

If you stay on top of the cooling system, meaning seasonal flushes (which you are probably already doing being in OH), and are prepared to eventually replace the heater core (which require pulling the dash), I'd suggest a club or quad cab Dakota.

We've had half a dozen Dakotas in out extended family.
They feel like driving and working on a A body.
The 5.2 versions tend to get around 16 MPG while the 3.9 versions get around 18/19 (although they have MUCH less power).

 

[rustytoolss]

Plenty of F/M/J body cars out there CHEAP right now.

That fits with easy to work on and perhaps acceptable MPG.
Should be able to get high teens/low 20's average.

Just missed a 79 Diplomat 318 for $2400 on local CL.
Last year was a 79 LeBaron T top 318 for $2700.

If you stay on top of the cooling system, meaning seasonal flushes (which you are probably already doing being in OH), and are prepared to eventually replace the heater core (which require pulling the dash), I'd suggest a club or quad cab Dakota.

We've had half a dozen Dakotas in out extended family.
They feel like driving and working on a A body.
The 5.2 versions tend to get around 16 MPG while the 3.9 versions get around 18/19 (although they have MUCH less power).

Those all sound like they will work. I'm not sure when 318 got roller cam, or FI even. But at least the driveline would be sound, don't know much about the 3.9 also,

 

[YY1]

Roller cam started in 83-85-ish.
Really just a wear/longevity upgrade as it had the same or very similar specs as the HFT cam it replaced.
Still cool for small upgrade potential.
TBI EFI around 88/89.

3.9 is a 318 missing two cylinders.
Same water pump, timing cover, accessories, etc.
Perf is hit or miss.
We've had them that performed as well as a 5.2 and others that were just dogs.

 

[Don Frelier]

Roller cam started in 83-85-ish.
Really just a wear/longevity upgrade as it had the same or very similar specs as the HFT cam it replaced.
Still cool for small upgrade potential.
TBI EFI around 88/89.

3.9 is a 318 missing two cylinders.
Same water pump, timing cover, accessories, etc.
Perf is hit or miss.
We've had them that performed as well as a 5.2 and others that were just dogs.

The 3.9 is an imbalanced engine it will always have a shake to it.

Early 3.9 engines had no tensioner and the chains would stretch, hence poor performance.
Otherwise they were just as durable as a 318, I've had 3 of them.
We had one in a 2003 Dakota with 225k on it and it still had great power.

You really don't want a TBI EFI they were a transitional thing.
But those would have a hydraulic roller cam.

A real fuel injected Magnum 5.2 (ODBI or ODBII) is a superior setup to an LA.
I would never have a carb vehicle as a daily driver again.
Especially where we live with lots of days in the mid 30's with rain, drizzle and fog...
As a classic cruiser yes but daily = no.

 

[Unkle Krusty]

Not anything good said about car built in the last 10 years. All of thier major systems are just poorly made. Most times when you are going to buy a used car. The natual idea is to purchase something newer, better. But in this day and age , that is no longer true. IMO.

Guy let his daughter chose her own ride. She picked a used Range Rover. Daves fixit shop posted a video of the thing smoking, and oil everywhere. The turbo was toast plus other stuff. I advised Shirley to stick with Honda for her new car purchase. So far it is fine.

 

[rustytoolss]

The 3.9 is an imbalanced engine it will always have a shake to it.

Early 3.9 engines had no tensioner and the chains would stretch, hence poor performance.
Otherwise they were just as durable as a 318, I've had 3 of them.
We had one in a 2003 Dakota with 225k on it and it still had great power.

You really don't want a TBI EFI they were a transitional thing.
But those would have a hydraulic roller cam.

A real fuel injected Magnum 5.2 (ODBI or ODBII) is a superior setup to an LA.
I would never have a carb vehicle as a daily driver again.
Especially where we live with lots of days in the mid 30's with rain, drizzle and fog...
As a classic cruiser yes but daily = no.

What years of 5.2 do you consider " real fuel injected magnum" ?

 

[YY1]

"Magnum" 5.2, 5.9, and 3.9 started in 92.

Easy 100 HP over the 318, and 360. Even more over the 225.

92 has slightly larger exhaust manifolds and the 5.2 is rated only 10 HP lower than the 5.9 that year.

IIRC it's a "real" 230/235 NET HP for the 5.2 and a real, net 245 for the 5.9.

 

[rustytoolss]

The 3.9 is an imbalanced engine it will always have a shake to it.

Early 3.9 engines had no tensioner and the chains would stretch, hence poor performance.
Otherwise they were just as durable as a 318, I've had 3 of them.
We had one in a 2003 Dakota with 225k on it and it still had great power.

You really don't want a TBI EFI they were a transitional thing.
But those would have a hydraulic roller cam.

A real fuel injected Magnum 5.2 (ODBI or ODBII) is a superior setup to an LA.
I would never have a carb vehicle as a daily driver again.
Especially where we live with lots of days in the mid 30's with rain, drizzle and fog...
As a classic cruiser yes but daily = no.

You said " don't want TBI EFI...what years are those ? maybe you mean the early 81-83 Imperial efi system ????......and " a real fuel injected 5.2 (ODB1 or ODB2 what years ?

 

[YY1]

TBI would be right before the revised Magnum design in 92.

Was different for trucks, but 88/89/90/91 would be my guess for general application.

I have an '87 5th Ave and it was still lean burn electronic BBD carb.

 

[rustytoolss]

TBI would be right before the revised Magnum design in 92.

Was different for trucks, but 88/89/90/91 would be my guess for general application.

I have an '87 5th Ave and it was still lean burn electronic BBD carb.

Just watched youtube video about the pre magnum EFI...I'm not sure I've ever seen that type.... The one I've seen is the barrel type intake. guessing this type is far better.

 

[YY1]

Those "keg" manifolds have their own issues.

1- they eventually leak, and build up a large amount of carbon.

2- they are basically flat on the bottom, which kind of negates the "tunnel" effect that the upper portion of the runners have.

A company used to sell a "turtle", that could be bolted to the bottom (it' two pieces) that worked with the upper plenum to increase velocity and help direct flow to the head ports.

 

[Rug_Trucker]

Best fuel mileage I personally experienced was my 68 Formula S, 4 speed with a 71 340, TQ and headers. That one got 25MPH (imperial gallons so figure 20MPG US) at 75-80MPH. I didn't even mess with it. I probably could have tuned it even better but I was happy with it the way it was. I know lots of guys have pulled 30MPG with their 440's but this little A-body was the best one I had. The 30 for a 440 was obviously sarcasm directed at BSers on the internet for those of you that didnt get it.

My 511" BB in my '67 Formula S did great. 11:31 compression .540 lift Crane cam. 2bbl's get better mileage so it had 3 of them.

Got 14mpg combined. 7 in the city, 7 on the highway. My '93 D350 DRW should get 23-28mpg when I add the low stall converter and drop in my Dynomite Diesel Stage III injectors. Have a HX35 6 blade billet turbonator. In the beginnings of by passing the factory ECM. Eventually going to a big HHO generator to get a really clean burn of the deezel fuel. I would be nice if Gearvendors had an interest in selling their carrier bearing replacement for the 2 piece drive shaft on this like they used too.

 

[cudamark]

My old daily driver was a '63 MG Midget which got 45MPG @ 4000RPM all day long. The old Hillman and Datsun PU's with a small 4cyl got over 40MPG too. Just as long as you were in no big hurry!

 

[58belvedere]

1960 slant six: 24.83 mpg

 

[Krooser]

With how ALL modern vehicles just are not worth buying anymore, (engine, transmission, electronics issues etc). What old tech non conputer controlled RWD vechicle would you think would be worth owning that got good MPG (for it's day). Ease to work on. I would even say with " Lean Burn" because that can be replaced simply.
The more I hear about modern car engine problem, electronic problems etc, I would give up fuel mileage , for something that was dependable. But then again I drive less that 12,000 miles a year....Lets hear you thoughts

My 80's /6 D100 would push 23-25 mpg on the highway even with an automatic

 

[Detective D]

Dakota. 318, the mpg are good enough, the electronics don't fail, and the stuff to repair the mechanicals is dirt cheap and easy.
My 98 5.2 5 speed manual easily averaged 19mpg combined on my 50/50 highway/small town commute. I would expect a sharp drop off in MPG for an auto.... in town. Probably not as much on the open road, but in town the 5.2 has more than enough grunt to go up a gear and idle through town.
Note: ethanol gas will hurt the MPG of any 90's vehicle. The best mpg I got was running non-corn premium with a bottle of seafoam dumped in the tank too. Don;t know why, but the seafoam made that thing purr and the cost of the bottle was always offset by the mpg I got from adding it. I suspect modern gas simply detonates easier than old 90's era gas did.

On top of the good driving manners and low cost of ownership, the 5.2 dakota will be a pleasure to drive around because the power to weight ratio is very good. It may be a truck but they weigh less than my 2013 Charger does by a few hundred pounds.
I can;t speak to the 4.7 powered trucks, never had one. 5.2 and 5.9 are about indestructable if you open the hood once a year lol.

If you are willing to own a Jeep, the regular old 4.0 Cherokee is also a great vehicle. You have to pay a little jeep tax for some parts though, but they are comfy and reliable. Not as "zippy" as a v8 powered truck, but for a daily they are quite nice. You could also find an early 90's grand cherokee with the inline 6, but they are a little more crowded to work on under the hood for whatever reason.

If you are not worried about driving in deep snow, any older RWD car from the 90's or earlier will be so economical to purchase and repair you won;t need to worry about MPG. Except maybe 80's GM G-body cars. They seem to be collectible despite having millions of them built and you can find them under every rock.

 

[Unkle Krusty]

When I hear about the cost of motel rooms, I do not worry about 14 mpg of the Tukvan. Too, we split the costs, so Shirley pays half of the costs. Which means the Tukvan does 28mpg, which is about 25 to a US gallon. We donnot have tne 85 octane here, and the Tukvan does not like it. So 87 is the usual. The Mercedes diesels are doing about 17 18 on a US gallon. The older 5 cylinder engines were a bit better. But the cost of those things when something goes wrong, scares me a bit. And we have some gear, that is more reliable than what they have.