Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My old 69 Catalina with a 400 would consistently get 18 if I drove it normally. My 69 Ford truck with 302 and 3 on the tree would get 12 if you kept it around 50, but normal was 10 or so.
Upstate John: was your Catalina with a 400 pretty darn close to the GTO "trim". Sounds awesome.
My mom had a '74 Thunderbird Elan w/460 engine. I had to take if for a 500 mile trip and busted my 18 year old budget. If I recall, got about 12 MPG for back highway driving.
That beast was a boat, or
That boat was a beast.
Were 74 t-birds front-wheel-drivers at that point, Sockeye? or am I just thinking of the Olds Toronado ?
I had a 1972 For Courier Pickup which despite having a small 4 cylinder only got 15-18, but I could fill it up for $4 until 1973 when prices shot up to $0.55/gallon but even then it was $7 to fill. The 1972 El Camino with 330 hp that I had about 2003-08 got 11 mpg but I once got 22 on a long trip.
At $4 gallon when I sold it, that tank cost $88 to fill.
I remember the Courier! was it based on a British Ford or European Ford pickup chassis. seemed like the first 'smaller' pickup truck
Most of those big giant boats with huge V8s got crappy mpg. The fuel delivery was pretty rudimentary and it just wasn’t efficient.
How did fuel infection and engine management computers make even today's V8's more efficient? definitely they did but I don't understand how. I still don't get how fuel injection vs. carbueration made a huge difference. but it definitely did.
that same year a test of an Olds Omega with a 350 4 bbl got 11 mpg on a 300 mile trip
the Omega was a heavy compact but 11 mpg on a trip is what a 4800 lb full sized Impala wagon or Marquis would get. mileage that bad would make me wonder about the car in general. even the Malibu(@ 600 lbs heavier) with a 350 managed to get 13 mpg on a trip
were the Omega and the Nova similar --same chassis? The old legend is, the Nova didn't sell south of the border because Nova in Mexican or Spanish mean "doesn't go" aka No Va.
In 1976 CR tested the best fuel mileage domestic compacts. The 4dr Maverick was the winner with 26.5mpg at 60 mph on bias ply tires. That was with the 200/3-speed manual. The Plymouth Valiant with the 225 six and Overdrive tranny got 25.5 in overdrive and 23 out of overdrive. The Hornet with the 232 and overdrive got 26 in overdrive and 22.5 out of overdrive. The heavy Nova with 250/3-speed manual got 23.5. All test cars were on base size bias ply tires. I'm sure with modern radials the figures would be .5 to 1 mpg better. At 40 mph Maverick: 32...Valiant: 32 overdrive/26.5 out...Nova: 29...Hornet: 31 overdrive/27 out.
those old straight six's could make some Torque too .
The Olds. I don't think the Thunderbird ever came in FWD, even the retro looking ones from around 2000 or so.
Correct the T bird never came in a FWD, the retro 2 seat T Bird was made at Fords Lincoln assembly plant in Wixom Michigan. The olds tornado, and the and the Cadillac Eldorado were all big FWD luxury vehicles that came out in 1967, the Buick Rivera came out in 1963. The engine was a longitudinal design back then not a transverse like today’s FWD vehicles.
My Dad had a 1974 Buick Lesabre with a 455/4 barrel. The car had a 26 gallon gas tank making it a great highway car. On the highway it used to get 18 mpg at 70. Around town it got about 12 mpg. My mom had 1973 Buick Estate Wagon with a 455/ 4 barrel (23 gal tank). That thing would get 15 at best on the highway. My dad and my mom both liked big engines.
I learned to drive on these cars in the late 1970s. They were boats but they could move pretty well off the line and when passing other cars. I had a lot of fun in these cars.
How did fuel infection and engine management computers make even today's V8's more efficient? definitely they did but I don't understand how. I still don't get how fuel injection vs. carbueration made a huge difference. but it definitely did.
Carburetors, even at best, are a compromise, with respect to their fuel mixture. They're usually a little of the "rich" side, so as to not cause any damage to the engine, which an overly "lean" condition can cause. The car's computer, by way of the O2 sensor, can keep the fuel mixture ALWAYS at the perfect spot (late 80s, computer controlled carbs helped, but were not as adept as FI).
The real "step up" as far as fuel mileage goes, was the overdrive transmission. In an earlier post I mentioned that I have a late model Corvette, which will give me 31 MPG. At 65 MPH, in 6th gear, the engine is only turning around 1650-1700 RPM. Prior to this Corvette, I owned a late 70s Pontiac Trans Am. The car had a 4 speed manual transmission with no overdrive, and at the same speed, the engine in the T/A was spinning almost 1000 RPM more, and using that much more fuel to do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
