Anyone with experience driving a 1966 Satellite with a 361ci motor know what the original estimated mpg's was in this car? What mileage did you get with a stock motor?

What would be an average/round about price to pay for valve hardening so I can burn straight unleaded gas and get rid of having to add lead substitute?

Thank you

Edit:
Crap! Probably posted this in wrong section of forum
Could a mod move it to correct section, if necessary, please.

 

I would imagine these car would get ~12-15 mpg, maybe more or less depending on how you drove it.

As far as valve hardening goes, I'm unsure about that. I would call around to local machine shops in your are to find out the average price as it will change depending on regions.

 

I would think one that was in "as new" that is back in the day condition should get better than that. Friend of mine had a 361 or 383 2bbl 65, and my Dad had a 60 Poncho Bonneville. Both of those cars got 17 something mpg.

This might be down some with today's typical fuel, and ethanol does not help mileage.

 

sounds right at least you'll get as good of gas mileage as any modern v 8
ETHANOL ARRRG
check out my post "more fuel issues"

 

We get 10% ethanol and get to pay more for it. We also getting 10% less gas mileage Big block 14-15 mpg Don't forget there was no overdrive back then. Probably drops to 10 around town

 

I guess I'm calculating it correctly then. Iknew I was as far as the math, but guy I got car from said he was getting 18-20.

The 2 tankfuls I've burned since posting this, I got 15.07 mpg on first tank and 18.5 mpg's. I know that second number isn't deadly accurate as I didn't get tank TOTALLY full. Junk nozzle on the pump I used. I figure I got more like 17 mpg's on that one.

Yeah,
I hadn't really taken into account that there's no over drive!! I guess I'm close enough to what car got originally then. Just had my brother adjust carb yesterday and can DEFINITELY notice the difference. Should be able to 1 more mpg just from that.

Thanks for the replies peoples!!

 

As far as the hardened valves/seats "needed" for 'unleaded fuel only' it will take many miles to do harm. How many miles are on the car now? And has it ever been rebuilt in the past? If so the heads might have already had the hardened seats installed. If it is running well, I wouldnt fret to much over it, unless you know for sure it has been ran its whole life with leaded fuel or with the lead additive/substitute. Its been running on 'non-avail' leaded sense '96. As that is the year it was "banned". (for on-road automobile use) Leaded fuels ARE still avail, but thats a whole other bag of worms to open. (ie:some race fuels, AV-Gas etc)

JMO...

 

There is 94,400 miles on original motor that has never been rebuilt. Runs absolutely fantastic and has had the lead substitute added to it it's whole life.

I've heard that it takes quite a few miles to do harm, but with my luck, it would probably do harm the very first time I tried that stunt!!

Thanks for that reply

 

It's gonna depend on what rear is in the car as to gas mileage. If you have something like a 2.76, 18-20 on the highway isn't gonna be unreasonable. If it has a 4.10 or higher, you'll be pretty lucky to get 8-10

 

I think the hardened valve seat issue has been completely overblown. For one thing, that old girl does not have the smog controls that the mid 70's cars had, and can be operated at slightly lower engine temps. As long as you don't run it too lean, or get into "knock" (pinging) I'm sure you'll be OK.

 

Didn't these cars come with a 3.23 rear end in them stock? I think I either read that some where or a buddy of mine said that. Had that buddy looking underneath for the tag that is usually on tranny, but mine is gone.


Let me ask you this then. Do you have an old rod that doesn't have hardened valve seats? Do you run straight unleaded in your rod? Maybe I should create a poll here, if that is possible, and ask that question?

Thanks again

 

I frankly don't know if the present heads on my ?? year 360 that just came out of the 67 Dart were hardened, or not. For YEARS I ran my 71 340 heads in my old Landcruiser, I still HAVE those heads, and would even consider slapping them back on an engine as they sit!!

Of course I run unleaded fuel. Where would I get otherwise? But I have asked several mechanics about this, "back when" unleaded began to be "the issue" and these were guys who worked on far more engines than I've ever been into. They pretty much agree that unleaded fuel is not a big problem.

As much as I hate "gasahol" this may be ONE area where it helps. The alky lowers combustion temps slightly compared to straight gasoline.

 

I add a quart of 2-stroke oil to every tank to help with upper cylinder lubrication and lube the valve seats. It also lowers vapor pressure a bit to help with the vapor lock issues in hot weather amplified by the ethanol in the gas.

 

and lowers the octane

 

Add a whole quart of 2 cycle oil?!

That would totally defeat the reasoning/purpose of adding the lead substitute. At almost $4.00 a shot for the lead susbstitute and I'm sure 2 cycle oil isn't much cheaper, I'm trying to get out of that cost.

I think you might almost have me convinced 440roadrunner. First time I talked to my mechanic in town about unleaded gas, he said he's been running straight unleaded since it came out in his old Mustang, and he rods the heck out of the car. In the mean time, I have 4 bottles of lead substitute I have to use first, so you all have that long to convince me 100% I can run straight unleaded.

 

It runs around $4/qt. So yeah, .05 off the RON and a better running longer lasting engine. Seems like a pretty good trade off to me.

The only decent lead substitutes ever available was the real tetraethyl lead stuff that was super expensive. The rest of them , CD2, Gunk, whatever are just snake oils - diesel fuel with insignificant amounts of some other junk thrown in.

 

"The rest of them , CD2, Gunk, whatever are just snake oils - diesel fuel with insignificant amounts of some other junk thrown in.

Anybody agree or disagree with this, or have any other comments on it?

 

Adding oil to fuel is a negative impact on the problem. Oil CAUSES detonation and HIGHER combustion pressures.

 

Can you describe this "negative impact" you say? You do realize 2-stroke oil is designed to burn in internal combustion engines providing all their lubrication, right? And that ethanol and the removal of lead have had some shall we say "negative impacts?" What are you doing to compensate for that?

My cars have no detonation issues and the 340 in the Duster is fresh and strong. At about a 90-1 treat rate, they love the stuff. I think the 440hp in my Chrysler likes it the best. Been running them like that for years.

Not saying it's for everyone, but I've never had a lube or fuel-related problem of any kind other than the odd small leak here and there in any of my engines.

YMMV.

 

if you l.ike plug fouling and reduced hp

 

Not happening. Like I said, they run great. The TnT in my old Chrysler still chirps 2nd at WOT with almost 80k on the clock now.

 

The plug fouling is the first thing that popped into my mind.

 

then use it but its not helping with anything since is been long gone before the exhaust valve opens

 

Then use what? The oil or Gunk lead additive?

I will stick with the Gunk until I'm FULLY convinced otherwise, or have gotten the valve seats hardened.

 

Factory gears were anywhere from 2.76 to 3.23, and you could order the higher gears. If the rear hasn't been messed with, the tag should be on the pumpkin, not the tranny. If it's not there, and you have limited slip, just raise the rear end and do the rotation trick. If you're getting 15-18, you're somewhere in the stock gear range, 2.76-3.23

BTW, if you're anywhere near Southern OH, a buddy has an original 361 block that was just taken down to a short block if you'd like a spare just in case. Not sure what he'd take for it but I'd guess $150-200 range.

 

I have since my post above found out I have 3.23 gears.