What Fuel Mileage did the 41' Chevy get?

[Atterbury Dodd]

Hi all,

A while back I found a fourdoor, four side window 41' Chevy fleetline special that I am thinking of buying sometime. I'm just curious to know what gas mileage a 41' Chevy would get? I would imagine somewhere between 15-18, per gallon, but I guess it could be worse. Anyway, it would be a sweet restoration project.

 

[Story]

I would imagine somewhere between 15-18, per gallon, .

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.... try 8 to 12.5 mpg

The 1941 had the 1937 216 CuI 6 cyl and was @3100 lbs, Fleetline had the same specs a decade later
http://www.ehow.com/list_7618872_1951-chevrolet-specs.html

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I would recommend to you, to actually replace that old inline six with a small block Chevy V8 and a 700 R4 trans with Overdrive. You could get close to 20mpg if tuned properly. I would recommend a Rochester Quadrajet Carb, too. They aren't performance, but very reliable with little tuning and economical to boot.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I'm skeptical of that 8-12.5 MPG estimate for the 216s. Those inline sixes certainly don't get anything as good as 20 MPG, but the 235 on my '54 got something around 12 MPG, on average and that was with a Powerglide and vintage performance carburetor. I'd expect a 216 with three-speed transmission to get slightly better than that, although, I've never owned a car with a 216, so I can't say for sure.

AtomicEraTom has a good point about replacing the 216, the non-pressurized "spray 'n' pray" oil circulation system can be very problematic. However, swapping a for V8 with new transmission is actually a rather extensive retrofit. A good compromise, which is popular with a lot of non-hot roders, is to swap 216s for later inline six, many of which require very little modification to mount and mate to an existing transmission.

 

[John in Covina]

I had a friend that was looking into making an up grade kit for the 216 engine to be more like the 235 when it came to oil delivery. I am not sure of the details, other than he said that the design of the two engines were very similar and that is might be possible to get some of the parts for the 216 to be designed like the 235 to pick up and deliver the oil better...

I dislike when people swap out and go straight to the Chevy V8 and AT tranny. It is not what vintage is all about. We put in the Mustang 2 front end to have disc brakes and don't forget the video system and the modern AC. You know they just don't make'em like they used to...

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I feel the SBC/A/T and Disc Brakes are important if you're going to use the vehicle as a daily driver. For safety's sake, you may be a good driver, but you never know when someone's gonna slam their brakes in front of you and you gotta stop on a dime. Manual brakes with drums can't make it happen. The Chevy V8 is also nice with a daily driver for reliability and parts availability and I suggest the Auto Tranny for resale value. Everyone can drive auto, not everyone can drive stick. If it's a Sunday cruiser, I'd say leave it all stock, by all means. It's just important to consider mechanical upgrades if this is the car you're counting on day in and day out. I always had a classic on the side and a newer car for a daily driver, except for when I was a teenager and my 60 Bel-Air was both.

I had a 58 Chevy with the 235 and a 3 on the Tree with a Rochester 1 barrel. That got right around 20-21, but I shifted at low RPM's and was always skimpy with the accelerator.

I had a friend that was looking into making an up grade kit for the 216 engine to be more like the 235 when it came to oil delivery. I am not sure of the details, other than he said that the design of the two engines were very similar and that is might be possible to get some of the parts for the 216 to be designed like the 235 to pick up and deliver the oil better...

I dislike when people swap out and go straight to the Chevy V8 and AT tranny. It is not what vintage is all about. We put in the Mustang 2 front end to have disc brakes and don't forget the video system and the modern AC. You know they just don't make'em like they used to...

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Over the 235, you may want to go with the later 292 which is a great, torquey little motor.

I'm skeptical of that 8-12.5 MPG estimate for the 216s. Those inline sixes certainly don't get anything as good as 20 MPG, but the 235 on my '54 got something around 12 MPG, on average and that was with a Powerglide and vintage performance carburetor. I'd expect a 216 with three-speed transmission to get slightly better than that, although, I've never owned a car with a 216, so I can't say for sure.

AtomicEraTom has a good point about replacing the 216, the non-pressurized "spray 'n' pray" oil circulation system can be very problematic. However, swapping a for V8 with new transmission is actually a rather extensive retrofit. A good compromise, which is popular with a lot of non-hot roders, is to swap 216s for later inline six, many of which require very little modification to mount and mate to an existing transmission.

 

[Atterbury Dodd]

Automatic transmission, who do you think I am AtomicEraTom!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh::laugh::laugh: No but seriously, any car that belongs to me has got to be standard, especially if that is what was correct originally. Sad that autos are so popular these days.

I might consider more up to date brakes, but I thought by the early 40's cars had pretty good brakes?

 

[kpreed]

My '41 coupe had a low ratio rear end in it, I am not sure why, maybe for pulling stumps? (4.56?) It got really bad MPG, around 12 MPG, and it was always in the rear spot driving with other vintage autos. I found a latter year "parts car" that had a higher ratio rear (3.73?) end and that really.really helped up my MPG (18-20) a bunch, but it lost low end torque with the switch. (could not climb walls or trees anymore, but gained (yes!) 20 MPH on the freeway). Brake upgrades are always good!

 

[ron521]

It's hard to imagine, but most of those cars built before the age of Freeways and Interstates were actually intended to spend their lives running between 35 and 50 mph, and so were geared to be comfortable in that range, in high gear. Running on the freeway they are actually outside their designed "performance envelope".
The Plymouth 6 was considered "thrifty" at around 19 mpg, Ford V8 (flatheads) would have been more like 12-14. My old Willys wagon (flathead "Super Hurricane 6") gave about 14 mpg also. The Nash 600 (ohv inline six) could approach 30 mpg, and easily averaged in the 20's. I would expect the ohv Chevy 6 to be closer to the Nash in terms of performance and mpg, given suitable gearing.

 

[Atterbury Dodd]

Getting a higher ratio might be an idea.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I second (or is it third?) the idea of brake upgrades; those old non-power drum brakes just don't cut it on modern roads. If you're planning on actually driving the car, I'd suggest seat belts too. I know it's not "cool" or original, but I can't count on fingers and toes that number of people I know who've walked away from accidents that would've be fatal without restraints . . .

The whole V8 vs. a later straight 6 is a little subjective in that it's a matter of personal taste. I regret letting myself being talked into swapping my 235/Powerglide for a SBC350/TH350 auto; when I bought my car it had a rebuilt, supped-up 235 and I got a lot of vintage aftermarket performance parts for it too (multi-carb manifold, Rochester carbs, NOS exhaust manifold, etc.), which was unique. Now my car is just like every other modern hot rod. Definitely don't under estimate the enhanced mileage/performance that can be gained with a differently geared rear end. A popular hot rod mod back in the day was to mate a rear end from a V8 equipped '57 Chevy, which were designed for higher cruising speeds, to older Chevys.

 

[kpreed]

My 1948 Plymouth had a 1955 Plymouth overdrive in it, got 25MPG and did freeway speeds, with the stock 6. My best was my 1947 Studebaker Champion, it got 32 MPG. Just My 2 ¢

 

[kpreed]

Not enough can be said on brake upgrades. When you go faster, you need to stop faster. I think I put front disks from a early 1970's truck on my '41 and they worked great (I went by spindle length and wheel bearing size). Also a dual Master Cyl. upgrade is a must, think I used one from a mid-'60s Mustang. On seat belts, all my cars have them. Those all metal dashes can be hard!

 

[John in Covina]

That's the first question- if you had a vintage car do you change it all around so that it is a modern car underneath the body? While it is true as as kpreed writes: When you go faster, you need to stop faster. The question is DO you need to go faster?

 

[kpreed]

That's the first question- if you had a vintage car do you change it all around so that it is a modern car underneath the body? While it is true as as kpreed writes: When you go faster, you need to stop faster. The question is DO you need to go faster?

Well,I would love it if everyone did 55 or less, but in the real world, many go real fast. I was hit in the rear doing 50 in a Model A by someone going (in my thinking) too fast. they told the police, my car should have one of those "slow moving vehicle" signs on it. By the way the way the posted speed limit was 55. Just my 2¢

 

[John in Covina]

I might consider more up to date brakes, but I thought by the early 40's cars had pretty good brakes?

Driving with drums all around takes an adjustment to your driving style it does take longer to stop both in time and distance. Power brakes added a hydraulic boost assist to the brake pressure and made it less hard to brake but I'm not sure what year that became available. It may have been an option on some cars and not standard for a long time. While there are cars and trucks that stll come with drums in the rear I can't say how long it has been but I don't recall seeing a vehicle produced with drums in the front for many years.

Disc brakes changed the way we drive. Braking technology is always under development for racing because the faster you can stop the faster you can come into a turn which lowers your lap times and makes for faster racing.

Also driving with drums all around in wet weather offered a challenge if you went through a deep puddle the water would pool in the drum and the brakes were pretty much useless until they dried out. There were techniques to driving with drum brakes that are somewhat forgotten since disc brakes became common. I learned to drive on a Chevy Bel Air and a Plymouth Valiant both had drums in the front and the rear. Going through a puddle and literally having no brakes was a frightening experience.

SO putting in discs in the front has great advantages but has costs and is time consuming. Learning to drive with out them can be scarey and takes a reset on your driving style but is more vintage and true to life to the era.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Nothing is scarier than bad brakes. My 60 Bel-Air had 4 wheel drum and a manual single master. That car did not like to stop. I had a few close calls and the car ended up getting t-boned and totalled.

 

[Guttersnipe]

While it is true as as kpreed writes: When you go faster, you need to stop faster. The question is DO you need to go faster?

It's not an issue off whether you need to go faster, it's an issue of road conditions. People raised on modern four-wheel ABS anti-lock brakes have no conception about maintaining stopping cushions; it's basically impossible to maintain safe intervals on congested modern roads. And it's not just an issue of "people" driving faster, either. Speed limits today are generally much higher than they were when old cars were new. For example, the Bay Bridge speed limit today is 50 MPH (with an average speed of 55-60 MPH). In the 50's the limit of the bridge was 35 MPH.

In the early post-war hot rod scene if a guy's car could do 100 MPH it was something to brag about. Today cars are much faster. Even my Mom's hybrid can do 100 MPH . . . (don't ask).

. . . all that said, properly maintained drum brakes are not that bad

 

[John in Covina]

It is the lack of consideration today that makes it so one cannot maintain a proper distance between cars. Tailgating is the national past time.

The rule is one car length for every 10 miles an hour.
Most people today observe one car length for every 30 miles an hour.
It is for both" reaction time and stopping distance.

The best remark I have heard on this is: "Why are tailgators always so surprised?"