A classic as a daily driver project?

[Jesse]

Has anyone ever tried this before? If so how did it work out?

I’m looking at a 1967 283 4 door impala as a daily driver. I checked out the car and it had minimal rust spots, just some rust behind the wheel well, and on one fender. The rest of the car was relatively rust free, including the floor pan. Interior was completely redone recently, and the car is running, though the transmission is not in good shape (I was going to ditch the transmission anyways).

My first concern here is improving gas mileage. My goal is 25 on the highway, if I can get that I will be a happy camper. What would you guys recommend for gas mileage? The first thing I was thinking of is trying to get a hold of a more modern transmission with better gear ratio’s and overdrive to mate to the 283. The two speed powerglide is a no go.

The second thing I was thinking of is ditching the Holley that the owner put on the Impala and going with a Q-Jet carburetor, and possibly switching the car over to electronic ignition. What kind of mpg would you guys expect from a 283 with a tuned Q-Jet carb, and a more modern tranny with overdrive?

Topic

[Gary]

Ahem, resident classic daily driver here. Of course it’s feasible. Sepaking from personal experience, I think you should see decent mileage with a similar setup as my own. My truck is a 74′ C30(very heavy) with a Q-Jet and HEI distributor on a 454 with a manual tranny(SM465) and 4.10 rear gearing. I get around 12-14mpg unloaded which is very impressive for an old HD truck with a big block. With the 283, you can expect even better results. I would recommend a manual transmission. You will get better mileage.

[Jesse]

[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126655]Ahem, resident classic daily driver here. Of course it’s feasible. Sepaking from personal experience, I think you should see decent mileage with a similar setup as my own. My truck is a 74′ C30(very heavy) with a Q-Jet and HEI distributor on a 454 with a manual tranny(SM465) and 4.10 rear gearing. I get around 12-14mpg unloaded which is very impressive for an old HD truck with a big block. With the 283, you can expect even better results. I would recommend a manual transmission. You will get better mileage.[/quote]
Yeah, there is a big discrepancy in the old automatic transmissions in efficiency vs. the manuals. I just don’t know which transmission to go with yet. I also am still deciding which gear ratio’s I want, don’t want a slug around town.

12-14 mpg is pretty good for a 40 year old chevy, my 2001 GMC Sierra only got me around 17.

[Gary]

[quote=”Pithy Radish” post=126657][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126655]Ahem, resident classic daily driver here. Of course it’s feasible. Sepaking from personal experience, I think you should see decent mileage with a similar setup as my own. My truck is a 74′ C30(very heavy) with a Q-Jet and HEI distributor on a 454 with a manual tranny(SM465) and 4.10 rear gearing. I get around 12-14mpg unloaded which is very impressive for an old HD truck with a big block. With the 283, you can expect even better results. I would recommend a manual transmission. You will get better mileage.[/quote]
Yeah, there is a big discrepancy in the old automatic transmissions in efficiency vs. the manuals. I just don’t know which transmission to go with yet. I also am still deciding which gear ratio’s I want, don’t want a slug around town.

12-14 mpg is pretty good for a 40 year old chevy, my 2001 GMC Sierra only got me around 17.[/quote] Exactly. If you could get your hands on a Muncie rockcrusher that would be the perfect tranny for that car. They are much rarer nowdays though. Here is a list of GM transmissions that may help you in your decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_transmissions
Ya, the trick to good fuel mileage is a good tune and good driving habits. I attribute most mileage losses to emissions controls and extra weight they add on to modern cars through features, safety etc. The truth is relatively speaking, most older cars(90s and before) got better fuel mileage in relation to their modern counterparts.

[Jesse]

[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126659][quote=”Pithy Radish” post=126657][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126655]Ahem, resident classic daily driver here. Of course it’s feasible. Sepaking from personal experience, I think you should see decent mileage with a similar setup as my own. My truck is a 74′ C30(very heavy) with a Q-Jet and HEI distributor on a 454 with a manual tranny(SM465) and 4.10 rear gearing. I get around 12-14mpg unloaded which is very impressive for an old HD truck with a big block. With the 283, you can expect even better results. I would recommend a manual transmission. You will get better mileage.[/quote]
Yeah, there is a big discrepancy in the old automatic transmissions in efficiency vs. the manuals. I just don’t know which transmission to go with yet. I also am still deciding which gear ratio’s I want, don’t want a slug around town.

12-14 mpg is pretty good for a 40 year old chevy, my 2001 GMC Sierra only got me around 17.[/quote] Exactly. If you could get your hands on a Muncie rockcrusher that would be the perfect tranny for that car. They are much rarer nowdays though. Here is a list of GM transmissions that may help you in your decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_transmissions
Ya, the trick to good fuel mileage is a good tune and good driving habits. I attribute most mileage losses to emissions controls and extra weight they add on to modern cars. The truth is, most older cars(90s and before) got better fuel mileage in relation to their modern counterparts.[/quote]
The key is learning how to tune that Q-Jet lol. That is an art that has been lost by most of my generation, I think my uncle knows a little something about them though. He was able to do amazing things with old carburetors. Not a whole lot of info on those amazing carburetors available now a days.

I think the main thing with old classics as far as mileage goes was the gearing. There is no way you’re going to get good mileage from an old two speed power-glide no matter which way you slice it. I’ve seen people get very impressive results from 289 Mustangs just from putting a T-5 onto the car, and changing the gear ratio’s up.

[Gary]

[quote=”Pithy Radish” post=126664][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126659][quote=”Pithy Radish” post=126657][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126655]Ahem, resident classic daily driver here. Of course it’s feasible. Sepaking from personal experience, I think you should see decent mileage with a similar setup as my own. My truck is a 74′ C30(very heavy) with a Q-Jet and HEI distributor on a 454 with a manual tranny(SM465) and 4.10 rear gearing. I get around 12-14mpg unloaded which is very impressive for an old HD truck with a big block. With the 283, you can expect even better results. I would recommend a manual transmission. You will get better mileage.[/quote]
Yeah, there is a big discrepancy in the old automatic transmissions in efficiency vs. the manuals. I just don’t know which transmission to go with yet. I also am still deciding which gear ratio’s I want, don’t want a slug around town.

12-14 mpg is pretty good for a 40 year old chevy, my 2001 GMC Sierra only got me around 17.[/quote] Exactly. If you could get your hands on a Muncie rockcrusher that would be the perfect tranny for that car. They are much rarer nowdays though. Here is a list of GM transmissions that may help you in your decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_transmissions
Ya, the trick to good fuel mileage is a good tune and good driving habits. I attribute most mileage losses to emissions controls and extra weight they add on to modern cars. The truth is, most older cars(90s and before) got better fuel mileage in relation to their modern counterparts.[/quote]
The key is learning how to tune that Q-Jet lol. That is an art that has been lost by most of my generation, I think my uncle knows a little something about them though. He was able to do amazing things with old carburetors. Not a whole lot of info on those amazing carburetors available now a days.[/quote] I learned to tune the Q-Jet for the most part on my own. Of course there are plenty of tuning guides out there to give you a foundation of how to do it, but until you start tinkering and actually open the carb up, you will never fully understand it. Also something some people don’t realize is the ignition needs to be in tune and in good shape for proper carb tuning. The Q-Jet scares many people..it is the most feared carb for some reason I will never understand. Trust me, the art of the Q-Jet is not the only thing that’s lost…some people don’t know how to tune a basic 1 barrel carb or a distributor. It’s actually quite sad.

[Jesse]

[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126665][quote=”Pithy Radish” post=126664][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126659][quote=”Pithy Radish” post=126657][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126655]Ahem, resident classic daily driver here. Of course it’s feasible. Sepaking from personal experience, I think you should see decent mileage with a similar setup as my own. My truck is a 74′ C30(very heavy) with a Q-Jet and HEI distributor on a 454 with a manual tranny(SM465) and 4.10 rear gearing. I get around 12-14mpg unloaded which is very impressive for an old HD truck with a big block. With the 283, you can expect even better results. I would recommend a manual transmission. You will get better mileage.[/quote]
Yeah, there is a big discrepancy in the old automatic transmissions in efficiency vs. the manuals. I just don’t know which transmission to go with yet. I also am still deciding which gear ratio’s I want, don’t want a slug around town.

12-14 mpg is pretty good for a 40 year old chevy, my 2001 GMC Sierra only got me around 17.[/quote] Exactly. If you could get your hands on a Muncie rockcrusher that would be the perfect tranny for that car. They are much rarer nowdays though. Here is a list of GM transmissions that may help you in your decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_transmissions
Ya, the trick to good fuel mileage is a good tune and good driving habits. I attribute most mileage losses to emissions controls and extra weight they add on to modern cars. The truth is, most older cars(90s and before) got better fuel mileage in relation to their modern counterparts.[/quote]
The key is learning how to tune that Q-Jet lol. That is an art that has been lost by most of my generation, I think my uncle knows a little something about them though. He was able to do amazing things with old carburetors. Not a whole lot of info on those amazing carburetors available now a days.[/quote] I learned to tune the Q-Jet for the most part on my own. Of course there are plenty of tuning guides out there to give you a foundation of how to do it, but until you start tinkering and actually open the carb up, you will never fully understand it. Also something some people don’t realize is the ignition needs to be in tune and in good shape for proper carb tuning. The Q-Jet scares many people..it is the most feared carb for some reason I will never understand. Trust me, the art of the Q-Jet is not the only thing that’s lost…some people don’t know how to tune a basic 1 barrel carb or a distributor. It’s actually quite sad.[/quote]
Which year Q-Jet would you recommend? Or rather which Q-Jet carb?

[Gary]

[quote=”Pithy Radish” post=126674][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126665][quote=”Pithy Radish” post=126664][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126659][quote=”Pithy Radish” post=126657][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=126655]Ahem, resident classic daily driver here. Of course it’s feasible. Sepaking from personal experience, I think you should see decent mileage with a similar setup as my own. My truck is a 74′ C30(very heavy) with a Q-Jet and HEI distributor on a 454 with a manual tranny(SM465) and 4.10 rear gearing. I get around 12-14mpg unloaded which is very impressive for an old HD truck with a big block. With the 283, you can expect even better results. I would recommend a manual transmission. You will get better mileage.[/quote]
Yeah, there is a big discrepancy in the old automatic transmissions in efficiency vs. the manuals. I just don’t know which transmission to go with yet. I also am still deciding which gear ratio’s I want, don’t want a slug around town.

12-14 mpg is pretty good for a 40 year old chevy, my 2001 GMC Sierra only got me around 17.[/quote] Exactly. If you could get your hands on a Muncie rockcrusher that would be the perfect tranny for that car. They are much rarer nowdays though. Here is a list of GM transmissions that may help you in your decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_transmissions
Ya, the trick to good fuel mileage is a good tune and good driving habits. I attribute most mileage losses to emissions controls and extra weight they add on to modern cars. The truth is, most older cars(90s and before) got better fuel mileage in relation to their modern counterparts.[/quote]
The key is learning how to tune that Q-Jet lol. That is an art that has been lost by most of my generation, I think my uncle knows a little something about them though. He was able to do amazing things with old carburetors. Not a whole lot of info on those amazing carburetors available now a days.[/quote] I learned to tune the Q-Jet for the most part on my own. Of course there are plenty of tuning guides out there to give you a foundation of how to do it, but until you start tinkering and actually open the carb up, you will never fully understand it. Also something some people don’t realize is the ignition needs to be in tune and in good shape for proper carb tuning. The Q-Jet scares many people..it is the most feared carb for some reason I will never understand. Trust me, the art of the Q-Jet is not the only thing that’s lost…some people don’t know how to tune a basic 1 barrel carb or a distributor. It’s actually quite sad.[/quote]
Which year Q-Jet would you recommend? Or rather which Q-Jet carb?[/quote] Any pre smog Q-Jet. Preferably one made before 1975 as well. The 4MC or 4MV models are the originals and the best. The difference is the choke setup. The 4MV has a divorced choke setup and the 4MC has one that is attached to the casting. Both are auto chokes. Also, oldsmobile, pontiac and buick has a straight fuel inlet, chevy has one at a 90 degree angle. Decide which is best for your application.

[Andrew Button]

These cars when new got reasonable gas mileage with really high gears in the back. The problem with a powerglide they had zero off the line performance with 1.78 first gear, yuck. And overdrive auto is definatly the way to go, because if you put that 2.73 gearset with an overdrive say a 700r4 is .67, then you are in gas sipping territory. Manual transmission with overdrives for that application, plus the conversion would not be worth your time and money. I am not sure how comfortable you are with re-engineering things, but if you can yank a motor out of a 80s or early 90s truck with a throttle body smallblock, you will in business. a 350 with a TBI will have much more performance and mileage than a 283. You may even get lucky and find one attached to working 700r4, as most all of them had them. Great transmission, had a bunch of them, and they downright work. That 283 motor has no advantages over later smallblocks and powerglides are a good thing to dump as a turbo 350 is a direct swap, where as the 700r4 is longer. If you can find a 200r4 with a chevy pattern it will be a direct replacement for a powerglide and it has a better ratio than a 700r4 but much less common and generally not as rugged and more expensive then 700r4s which are the favorite. Quadrajets are great, but they are not something that you want to just throw to the local guy to fix as you will be dissapointed unless you have somebody who knows them and that means being able to modify it. Quajrajets also don’t play nice with high gears and heavy cars out of the box. An 76ish vintage quadrajet with an electric chock is what you want, and it would be from a later model chevy truck. You don’t want to put a BOP carburetor on there, as they are different.. Early ones have some special issues and wont find a good one anyway. Almost all quadrajets have side inlets, but a few of a certain vintage had a straight inlet, This was more year specific but chevys always had side inlets but you wont run into a front inlet carb easily, and if you did, you wouldn’t want to use it anyway. M22 Rockcrushers have no advantages unless in a vehicle is being restored. They are not stronger by any means, just louder.

[Gary]

I defer to Andrew, he was around alot longer than me. Andrew I use a 1970 straight inlet what’s wrong with that?

[Jesse]

[quote=”andrewbutton442″ post=126685]These cars when new got reasonable gas mileage with really high gears in the back. The problem with a powerglide they had zero off the line performance with 1.78 first gear, yuck. And overdrive auto is definatly the way to go, because if you put that 2.73 gearset with an overdrive say a 700r4 is .67, then you are in gas sipping territory. Manual transmission with overdrives for that application, plus the conversion would not be worth your time and money. I am not sure how comfortable you are with re-engineering things, but if you can yank a motor out of a 80s or early 90s truck with a throttle body smallblock, you will in business. a 350 with a TBI will have much more performance and mileage than a 283. You may even get lucky and find one attached to working 700r4, as most all of them had them. Great transmission, had a bunch of them, and they downright work. That 283 motor has no advantages over later smallblocks and powerglides are a good thing to dump as a turbo 350 is a direct swap, where as the 700r4 is longer. If you can find a 200r4 with a chevy pattern it will be a direct replacement for a powerglide and it has a better ratio than a 700r4 but much less common and generally not as rugged and more expensive then 700r4s which are the favorite. Quadrajets are great, but they are not something that you want to just throw to the local guy to fix as you will be dissapointed unless you have somebody who knows them and that means being able to modify it. Quajrajets also don’t play nice with high gears and heavy cars out of the box. An 76ish vintage quadrajet with an electric chock is what you want, and it would be from a later model chevy truck. You don’t want to put a BOP carburetor on there, as they are different.. Early ones have some special issues and wont find a good one anyway. Almost all quadrajets have side inlets, but a few of a certain vintage had a straight inlet, This was more year specific but chevys always had side inlets but you wont run into a front inlet carb easily, and if you did, you wouldn’t want to use it anyway. M22 Rockcrushers have no advantages unless in a vehicle is being restored. They are not stronger by any means, just louder.[/quote]
I was thinking about switching to a 350, but I’m undecided. All of the ones that I’ve been around have been thirsty beast. I’ve never seen one get over 20 MPG, but of course most of my experience with them is in my dads old work trucks, and work vans. I know you can get brand new crate ones for reasonable prices. Basically I want a nice cruiser that will net me at least 25, because it will be my daily driver, and I drive a lot.

[Andrew Button]

Most of the front inlet carbs I have seen are very, very worn. Seems to me that i have pick from usuable cores and pieces, and I end up with side inlets mostly, just due to condition vs availability. Maybe is the fact there were like a million chevy trucks around with them,, and those are what survived this long, and people were more likely to junk, say a Delta 88 or a Bonneville with a front inlet, and you know how carbs get ruined in junkyards quickly.

[Gary]

[quote=”andrewbutton442″ post=126689]Most of the front inlet carbs I have seen are very, very worn. Seems to me that i have pick from usuable cores and pieces, and I end up with side inlets mostly, just due to condition vs availability. Maybe is the fact there were like a million chevy trucks around with them,, and those are what survived this long, and people were more likely to junk, say a Delta 88 or a Bonneville with a front inlet, and you know how carbs get ruined in junkyards quickly.[/quote] Mine is from a 1970 oldsmobile V8, good condition too. Just had to rebuild it back when I got it and it runs like a top. So your saying the carb I have is relatively rare?

[Gary]

[quote=”Pithy Radish” post=126688][quote=”andrewbutton442″ post=126685]These cars when new got reasonable gas mileage with really high gears in the back. The problem with a powerglide they had zero off the line performance with 1.78 first gear, yuck. And overdrive auto is definatly the way to go, because if you put that 2.73 gearset with an overdrive say a 700r4 is .67, then you are in gas sipping territory. Manual transmission with overdrives for that application, plus the conversion would not be worth your time and money. I am not sure how comfortable you are with re-engineering things, but if you can yank a motor out of a 80s or early 90s truck with a throttle body smallblock, you will in business. a 350 with a TBI will have much more performance and mileage than a 283. You may even get lucky and find one attached to working 700r4, as most all of them had them. Great transmission, had a bunch of them, and they downright work. That 283 motor has no advantages over later smallblocks and powerglides are a good thing to dump as a turbo 350 is a direct swap, where as the 700r4 is longer. If you can find a 200r4 with a chevy pattern it will be a direct replacement for a powerglide and it has a better ratio than a 700r4 but much less common and generally not as rugged and more expensive then 700r4s which are the favorite. Quadrajets are great, but they are not something that you want to just throw to the local guy to fix as you will be dissapointed unless you have somebody who knows them and that means being able to modify it. Quajrajets also don’t play nice with high gears and heavy cars out of the box. An 76ish vintage quadrajet with an electric chock is what you want, and it would be from a later model chevy truck. You don’t want to put a BOP carburetor on there, as they are different.. Early ones have some special issues and wont find a good one anyway. Almost all quadrajets have side inlets, but a few of a certain vintage had a straight inlet, This was more year specific but chevys always had side inlets but you wont run into a front inlet carb easily, and if you did, you wouldn’t want to use it anyway. M22 Rockcrushers have no advantages unless in a vehicle is being restored. They are not stronger by any means, just louder.[/quote]
I was thinking about switching to a 350, but I’m undecided. All of the ones that I’ve been around have been thirsty beast. I’ve never seen one get over 20 MPG, but of course most of my experience with them is in my dads old work trucks, and work vans. I know you can get brand new crate ones for reasonable prices. Basically I want a nice cruiser that will net me at least 25, because it will be my daily driver, and I drive a lot.[/quote] With the right gearing and setup, a 350 or your 283 will do just fine. It’s realyl all in the gearing. Trucks usually have much lower gearing such as my 4.10s so that puts a damper on fuel mileage.

[Andrew Button]

I agree, comparing a heavy work truck with low gears is a different animal than a ligher car with higher gearing. Overdrive would be a must-have when seeking MPG. A carburetor and distributor have to be tuned to the a nats rear end to match what any fuel injected engine already does. A TBI setup is cheap and easy, and many small blocks had them. No jets, no vacuum advance, no choke, nothing to completely screw up gas mileage.

[Gary]

[quote=”andrewbutton442″ post=126693]I agree, comparing a heavy work truck with low gears is a different animal than a ligher car with higher gearing. Overdrive would be a must-have when seeking MPG. A carburetor and distributor have to be tuned to the a nats rear end to match what any fuel injected engine already does. A TBI setup is cheap and easy, and many small blocks had them. No jets, no vacuum advance, no choke, nothing to completely screw up gas mileage.[/quote] My dad had a late 60s impala…personally I wouldn’t feel right doing such a modification myself. The 700R4 didn’t exist back then nor did TBI. My dad’s had a 350 small block. Sorry just reminiscing.

[Author]

Replies