Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.
|
1973 Ambassador Fuel efficiency issue |
Post Reply | Page 123 4> |
Author | |
TheAmbassador73
AMC Fan Joined: May/09/2017 Location: North Jersey Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: May/09/2017 at 7:20pm |
Hello all this is my first post to the forums, however not my first encounter with an American Motors car. About a year and a half ago I sold off my old 76 Gremlin, was my favorite car that I've had by far, but she who shall not be questioned saw it as an eyesore and a horrible waste of my time, so it had to go. Ever since that encounter with the Gremlin I've been itching for a Javelin or a Marlin or something of the likes to pop up for a steal and a half on craigslist, and one did! a 1973 AMC Ambassador with the 360 V8, bought for the price of $850. however, again, she who shall not be questioned is complaining, about all the gas that this fine machine eats up, I really don't have an issue with it, but my mother does, shes giving me two months to find a way to make this car more fuel efficient than it is or it has to go, as of right now I only do average of 35miles a day and I have to refill her tank every three days. I have no issue with that, but then again I'm not the one paying for gas at the end of the day. I've asked many people how to get this car running more fuel efficiently, one said "buy a new engine and transmission", others said "extend the gas tank" or "turbo it! the more air you get in the cylinder the less fuel you'll burn" I think the more air you have in the cylinder, a matching amount of fuel comes in as well. I've also considered buying a 232 straight six and swapping it in there, my favorite little peppy engine from the Gremlin. But any advise that anyone here can give me is greatly appreciated, this may be the deciding factor between finding the solution or settling for what she who shall not be questioned wants and getting a civic, uh, just typing the name gives me the heebie jeebies.
|
|
Buzzman72
AMC Addicted Joined: Sep/15/2009 Location: Southern IN Status: Offline Points: 2726 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You're right. More air in requires more fuel in. That takes the turbo out of the equation. It also limits your options to changing to an overdrive transmission, or changing the differential gears.
|
|
Buzzman72...void where prohibited, your mileage may vary, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.
|
|
TheAmbassador73
AMC Fan Joined: May/09/2017 Location: North Jersey Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
aww shoot, well, I can swap an engine no problem but I don't know the least bit about transmissions, those aren't exactly my forte, but I'll have to look into that, I don't know how it'd mate in where the automatic transmission was, but I guess I can only find out from here on in, eh?
|
|
Buzzman72
AMC Addicted Joined: Sep/15/2009 Location: Southern IN Status: Offline Points: 2726 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Never said it would be easy. But it would be worth it.
|
|
Buzzman72...void where prohibited, your mileage may vary, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.
|
|
WARBED
Supporter of TheAMCForum Joined: Feb/12/2011 Location: Edinburg TX Status: Offline Points: 1688 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
So by my calculations 35 miles a day for three days and most likely a 19 gallon tank, That comes out to 5.5 miles per gallon. The best I ever got with a 360 in a 72 Matador was 22 Highway and that was amazing. You need a good tune up. Start with a compression and leak down check. If those numbers are good perform a tune up and carb rebuild + all filters. It has to be running very rich with those numbers.
|
|
59 American 2dr S/W. 70 390 AMX. 70 232 javelin. Kelvinator fridge ice cold beer storage.
|
|
ccowx
AMC Addicted Joined: Nov/03/2010 Location: Yukon Status: Offline Points: 3510 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You need a new "she who must not be questioned" is what you really need. Mine insisted that the Javelin(all 6-8 mpg of her!) needed to be painted and made driveable. Now THAT is the woman you need!
Chris
|
|
amcenthusiast
AMC Addicted Joined: Jul/02/2012 Location: SW Atlanta GA Status: Offline Points: 1778 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The female? -read book named "The Five Love Languages".
The car? -get one of Dave Emmanuel's books on carburetors; any one of these will have enough info to absorb to form a better understanding of carburetors. IMO, he tends to promote whatever carb he's explaining which is positive but leaves the context of comparison for the individual (you absorb the info on carb circuitry, then you decide what carb you want from there) Yes there are more fuel efficient carburetors, than the ones many early seventies US cars came with. Truth is, US automakers were more concerned about staying legal with the emission control laws than they were about gas mileage. And as fleet gas mileage laws came into play, AMC began moving into hot selling Jeep Division which had less restrictive laws. (IMO, crude/oversimplified explanation) Study Holley Economaster line of carbs. Study Rochester Vari-Jet carbs. You may be able to find a used one in fair condition, rebuild it and do better than stock. Either of these will need mods to make the trans link work right. Edited by amcenthusiast - May/09/2017 at 11:10pm |
|
443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc
XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/ |
|
SensibleSpectaculars
AMC Nut Joined: Jul/25/2010 Location: New Jersey Status: Offline Points: 472 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Really the terms "1973 Ambassador" and "fuel efficiency" do not belong in the same sentence. :) Normal for these cars would be about 12-13 mpg overall. That's about what I get with my '71. From road tests I've read from back in the day there was not a whole lot of difference in mpg between the available engines.
This was the worst time period for gas mileage. We had a new '73 Hornet back then (258 six with automatic) and even that would only get about 15 mpg. |
|
FSJunkie
AMC Addicted Joined: Jan/09/2011 Location: Flagstaff, AZ Status: Offline Points: 4742 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It pretty much doesn't matter what engine powers the car, because if the car requires 50 horsepower to push down the road at a certain speed, then that is the horsepower that the engine produces. It doesn't matter what engine. What DOES matter is the efficiency of that engine. A 232 and a 360 will use the same amount of fuel to produce the same horsepower if they both have the same efficiency, and they actually do have about the same efficiency.
That's at steady cruising speeds. The story is different while accelerating: Larger engines are capable of accelerating the car faster, and drivers usually take advantage of that by having a heavy right foot. That sucks more gas than a smaller engine that is incapable of accelerating as fast and using as much fuel, no matter how heavy the driver's foot is. Smaller engines also usually have more efficient drivetrains that waste less energy. These are the main reasons that smaller engines get better fuel economy, even if just slightly. A 232 and a 360 will get basically the same fuel economy if you discipline yourself to keep your foot out of the 360. Increasing fuel economy beyond that would require extensive modifications to the engine to improve efficiency. Even then, truly impressive fuel economy cannot be realized without addressing the inertial and friction losses in the drivetrain and the body of the car. A different transmission and rear axle ratio would be required, along with different tires, vehicle weight reduction, and aerodynamics improvements. The reason that modern cars get such good fuel economy is due to more efficient drivetrains and aerodynamics than it is to the engine, and those things are not easily changed on a 1973 car.
|
|
1955 Packard
1966 Marlin 1972 Wagoneer 1973 Ambassador 1977 Hornet 1982 Concord D/L 1984 Eagle Limited |
|
mixed up
AMC Addicted Joined: Jun/16/2015 Location: Monroe mich Status: Offline Points: 2178 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
lets start with spark plugs. wires . cap and rotor new air filter then go with the carb rebuild it sounds a little rich on fuel but that about all you can do like some said the car will only get about 12 to 15 mpg that doing good in city driving you might want to try a methanol injection system that will squeeze a little more out of her there real ez to install put a vacume guage on it to monitor your go fast peddle keep it i the green my dad was a master of fuel milage he installed vacume guages on all is amcs good luck on the quest fo mpg
|
|
69 amx 290 auto
65 220 290 4spd 80 ford fairmont |
|
Post Reply | Page 123 4> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |