72' Nova mpg?

[spharlow]

Does anyone know the mpg for a stock 72' nova?

[MrPbody]

Stock '72? Anywhere from about 24 with the 250 to about 9 with the SS option. Give us a hint as to what engine/trans/rear combination...

Jim

[spharlow]

its got a 350 ci V8, Turbo 350 automatic transmission, and a 12 bolt rear end

[phantomcobra]

Probably 12 mpg with a 4 barrel and 14 with a 2.

[superbirdxxx]

Its not really a muscle car and they do not get good gas mileage at all.

[spharlow]

not a muscle car?

[adamth3aw3som3]

Originally Posted by phantomcobra

Probably 12 mpg with a 4 barrel and 14 with a 2.

i sure hope you mean 12 with a 2 bbl, and 14 with a 4 bbl...

[phantomcobra]

No. You get less mileage with a 4 barrel than a 2. Just like you get even less mileage with dual quads or a 6-pack than with a 2 barrel.

[MrPbody]

No, NOT a "muscle car". Two reasons: Not an intermediate body ("compact"); Small block. NO true "muscle car" was ever sold with a small block in it. Don't confuse a car with "muscle" and "muscle car". Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds, Challengers, 'Cudas? ALL "Pony" cars, NOT muscle cars, though a Boss 429 or Hemi car CERTAINLY has true muscle. Falcons (except '70), Nova/Chevy II, Dart/Valiant, Rambler American, ALL "compact" cars. There's a lot of turmoil, controversy and debate aboutthis subject, but John Z. DeLorean and Jim Wangers "invented" the (factory) muscle car and classified it as "intermediate body with full-sized car engine" (read: '64 GTO). Chevelle SS ('66-on), Road Runner/GTX, Charger R/T, Torino Cobra, Cyclone GT, all good examples of true muscle cars. There are others.

If self-control is practiced (with the right foot), a 4-bbl. will provide better economy than a 2-bbl. This is especially true when the car is equipped with Q-Jet or other "spread bore" carb. Same is true of the Pontiac/Chevy version of 3 2-bbls. using Rochester carbs, as only the center carb does anything until the secondaries are opened. Not true with the Corvette (Holleys) or MOPAR versions, as all three carbs have all the curcuits (the end carbs have no choke).

FWIW

Jim

[phantomcobra]

For carbs we are talking GENERALLY, not about specific models with specific arrangements. If you take a 72 Nova with a 350 4 barrel and a 72 Nova with a 350 2 barrel, the two barrel will get better mileage. I agree there are some setups where the 4 will do better than a 2 but this is not the case for 90% of the cars still carrying carburetors.

Please note my signature line. I still own FOUR cars with carbs. The one with a 4 never comes close to the ones with a 2 and the ones with the 2 are much larger and heavier cars (by 1,000 lbs!) to boot. One would think the 4 barrel being much lighter (and also a slightly larger engine) would not work as hard and get as close to or better mileage than the 2 barrels but that is a fantasy written in many auto books by people who have never owned these cars.

[MrPbody]

While it's true I don't own any of the cars on your list, I have repaired/rebuilt, tuned, modified and/or raced MANY cars (including the first four on your list). I AM talking about specific combinations, which is the entire "secret" to building good performance cars.

Not to invalidate your limited experience with certain cars, if a 4-bbl. carb is properly tuned, and the driver keeps his/her foot OUT of the secondary, it will nearly ALWAYS be more efficient. The reasons are fairly simple. One can lean out the primary side to the furthest point. With a 2-bbl., compromises must be made to assure the engine will perform well under WOT (Wide Open Throttle). These compromises will adversely affect efficiency at lower speeds and throttle settings. This is not just an opinion.

Jim

[phantomcobra]

Thank you for correcting my 40+ years of limited driving experience (everything from single cylinder 2 wheelers to multi speed 10 wheelers across multiple continents). I'm sure you know everything there is to know.

I stand by my statement that if you took two 72 Novas off the floor of a dealership, one with a 4 and one with a 2, the 2 would get better mileage. Again, you are talking about fine tuning each individual car. How many people really do that? The original post was for GENERAL INFORMATION not "CAN I get better mileage with a 4 than a 2".

[MrPbody]

Phantomcobra,

I'll "see" your 40-plus years with 37 of my own, and raise you 30 years as an ASE Master tech...

My statements are based on automotive facts, not impressions or personal experience with a handful of cars. In the '70s and '80s, tuning carbed cars to maximum fuel economy was BIG business. It isn't as much today, as the majority of cars are modern, with computers running all the important functions. In 1979, I was one of the lucky ones to be trained on the (then) brand new Sun 1215 computerized "scope". It was a modern marvel, and we improved the fuel-related lives of MANY a carbed guzzler.

To understand fully, carburetor design and function must be familiar to you. A 4-bbl. 350 in a '72 Nova would have had a Q-Jet. Consider that a 2GC Rochester (what would have been on a 2-bbl. version) had #74 or 76 jets installed. The Q-Jet would have 68s, AND metering rods to control the fuel more accurately. Between the smaller primary bores offering much more velocity to the mixture, and the smaller jets, and mixing the air/fuel more efficiently due to a more modern venturi design, IF one stays OUT of the secondary, the 4-bbl. MUST use less fuel to accomplish the same amount of power output. This is particularly effective at lower engine speeds. It's a matter of physics, not opinions.

So what engine is in the Charger? A '66 is a pretty rare car these days. I always liked the first gen Chargers. Good looking cars... With the right engine, a pretty fast car, too. I DID see one at Indy (U.S. Nationals) running AS/A (A Stock, automatic) with the Hemi. Baddass car! Went low 10s! He lost in the second round, but it was pretty cool to see the old car running. Most had 318s or 383s. I saw one a few years ago, with 361. A good friend has a '66 Coronet 500 with the 361. Interesting combination. GORGEOUS car ("triple black" with the original red interior).

PAX

Jim

[t/a 6.6]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

No, NOT a "muscle car". Two reasons: Not an intermediate body ("compact"); Small block. NO true "muscle car" was ever sold with a small block in it. Don't confuse a car with "muscle" and "muscle car". Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds, Challengers, 'Cudas? ALL "Pony" cars, NOT muscle cars, though a Boss 429 or Hemi car CERTAINLY has true muscle. Falcons (except '70), Nova/Chevy II, Dart/Valiant, Rambler American, ALL "compact" cars. There's a lot of turmoil, controversy and debate aboutthis subject, but John Z. DeLorean and Jim Wangers "invented" the (factory) muscle car and classified it as "intermediate body with full-sized car engine" (read: '64 GTO). Chevelle SS ('66-on), Road Runner/GTX, Charger R/T, Torino Cobra, Cyclone GT, all good examples of true muscle cars. There are others.

If self-control is practiced (with the right foot), a 4-bbl. will provide better economy than a 2-bbl. This is especially true when the car is equipped with Q-Jet or other "spread bore" carb. Same is true of the Pontiac/Chevy version of 3 2-bbls. using Rochester carbs, as only the center carb does anything until the secondaries are opened. Not true with the Corvette (Holleys) or MOPAR versions, as all three carbs have all the curcuits (the end carbs have no choke).

FWIW

Jim

Hey um buddy i try to hold my tounge but i can't, novas are full size cars and some had big blocks and have you ever heard about ummm... hold on a yenko 427 BIG BLOCK v8

[jveik]

lol i trump you all with my 3 years of kicking my truck's fenders and cussing as i try to make that old 350 run better while miserably failing lol...