The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop 1950 1/2 ton - 216 w/ Rochester. Gas mileage?

Searched but couldn't find anything on gas mileage expectations for our trucks, so could someone give me an idea what I can expect with my truck? I have a 1950 half ton with a 216 cid engine running a Rochester carb. Stock three-on-the-tree tranny with what I assume are 411:1 gears.

Thanks much.

In my experience most of them do about 12-16 MPG. Not really as good as you'd expect but the way they are driven is a BIG part of the mileage. I've seen claims as high as 24 but no one believes that.

On the other hand I have a new International TerraStar with the V8 diesel and Allison AT and it only gets 5.5-6 MPG @ 65 MPH. Just awful mileage. I hate this thing. So it all depends on your perspective and expectations I guess as to what is good and what isn't good mileage.

I've been driving my 52-3100 for two years now and the frist year I had the 216 and now I've got a 235 both have been getting like Dave said 12 to 16 MPG it's same as your 50 three on the tree with 4-11 rear gear.


Pete

I have a '50 3100 with a '62 261, with correct 261 Rochester B. I get about 10 to 12.

I have a 54/3100/235 with 2 rochesters and dual exhaust and a nova 2.73 rear end also a t-5 tranny.. i was getting 12-13 around town until put in E-3 plugs and it jumped 25%. as far as 53moneypits comment. i have gotten as high as 24mpg and i have the records to prove it. no it is not usual but i have averaged over 20mpg on my trips to Kansas City. i also had a witness, JDL. that said with a original set up i would say 12-15.

Well, thanks everyone who gave me their opinions about what gas mileage to expect with my setup. It's disappointing, but guess it's what it is and I'll just have to accept it. I realize these old trucks were never meant to be driven on improved roads, much less highways or interstates, but you would have thought that farmers would have complained about the low mileage even way back then and improvements would be made. Gas was cheap compared to today's prices, but pretty pricy way back then. Seems like the gears could have been improved so as to give a higher mpg. We B Old talks about improved performance with those new "E" plugs I've heard about. I'm going to buy a set and give 'em a try if they make 'em to fit my truck. If they increased his mpg by 25% it will be worth the money!!

Thanks again everyone.

Late 40s and early 50s?

Adjusted for inflation, gas was about 30% cheaper back then compared to now.

Also, farmers most likely did not drive trucks very far or for very long times.

They needed low-speed rear ends (and, 4-speeds with sub-low first gears) and relatively high torque (for carrying/pulling heavy loads and for pulling stumps/dead-animals/etc). The stovebolt engines and 4.11 rear ends were just what the farmer needed to order.

At the speeds the trucks were intended to run (and at the speeds that farmers ran them), there was no need to consider streamlining (although, the Advance-Design body was streamlined in comparison to prior bodies).

I've managed to average about 15/mpg with my 230 and the 3 on the ree. But...there is always a but, I did recent;y find a complete OD tranny from a 61 Bel-Air that I've been looking at, and with that hope to improve the MPG up to around 19 steadily. Now if I can remember where I put that sack of "extra" money I had, I'll be in business.
Tramp

Tramp, I think we ALL have problems remembering where our stash of cash is. Somehow I always forget where I put mine!!!

I know where mine is too see it all have to is look at my truck and there it is.

Just measured mine, roughly 50-50% city-freeway. Averaged 13mpg.

250/TH350, Holly 2bbl, 2.38 rear end.

Thanks Farmer, at least I know I'm in the ball park with my 12 mpg. Hope to put a kit in this Rochester I'm running to see if it not only makes it run better, but to help with the mileage too.

Thanks.

Stick a wood block under your pedal, so you can't get to more than 1/4 throttle. That'll help. You might want to leave 10 minutes earlier too.....

I read the varying Forum posts about gas mileage with interest. I would like to suggest that all Stovebolters who post gas mileage numbers also indicate they have checked the odometer reading against highway mile markers and have used the adjusted mileage in calculating miles per gallon of gas. Then we will know that incorrect mileage is not one of the variables in mpg. My 1954 3100 odometer turns over 1/20th of a mile short when compared to the highway mile marker so I add the 1/20th when calculating my mpg. I imagine some odometers have even more significant variations with the actual miles. Thanks.

The best I ever got with my 47 coupe 216 and 4:11 gears was around 16 mpg. If this is a major issue you can get "highway gears" from Patricks in Casa Grande, AZ and taller tires, modern carb, electronic ignition etc etc.
Best of luck

I second TruckCamper's point. When we took Rosie the '41 ton-and-a-half fire truck to Indianapolis and back, found that the speedo averaged 5 - 10 mph less than the chase car indicated. Though I haven't tested it against mile markers - don't go on the high-way much - I suspect the mileage reading is also incorrect, as I can't see how one could differ from the other. At least the error is a favorable one, ie: getting MORE miles than indicated per fill-up.

Of course, that also means more miles on the truck than indicated . . . Shoot.

-Michael