Fast Wagons! Circle your wagons here

looks great Glenn. I"m obviously biased though because i have two nova wagons

 

'73 Buick Estate wagon here, turbocharged and fuel injected. Weighs 5315 with me in it. Just got back from the GS nats where it ran an 11.76. No intercooler yet. Still has stock block, crank, and rods.

 

Got any pictures of your Buick Wagon?

 

Here's a link to a thread with some pictures.

http://www.stationwagonforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11516

 

that's bada$$! 11s at 5300lbs!

 

really ???? 34 mpg , really ????????????? thats more than some of the 2013 models are getting !!!!!!!!! ya gotta admit , it does sound a bit , well you know

 

It may sound it, but it is true, and not just on my 89. My brother had an 86 Colony Park with a factory 351 and Trailer Tow III package. His wagon got the same mileage as my 89 sedan. He also had a 79 Thunderbird with an 86 351/AOD/Edelbrock intake/carb and custom dual exhaust. On the 80 litre tank he regularly did 1,100 kms. which translates into a solid 40 miles per gallon. Gearing and torque are the secrets. The Grand Marquis with the 351/Trailer package ran a 2.73:1 rear end, and the AOD was a .6:1. Revs of about 1,700 with no strain equals fuel economy. The T-Bird had the factory 2.49:1, so the revs were even lower on the highway. Add good, low rolling resistance tires, and those are the numbers. My brother is an engineer, and he is the one did all the calculations. Oh, and the wagon was still turning in those numbers when it had 640,000 kms on the engine and transmission. The Thunderbird was still doing those numbers at over 800,000 on both.

 

sorry , still not buyin it. If you and your engineer brother were achieving those kind of results, you'd have people beating your door down.As of yet I haven't heard of it .

 

I got a 390 with an Edelbrock 650 4bbl. Very strong and good compression. Nice pickup on the on-ramp... but no way I am going to risk breaking the 9" rear end or twisting the driveshaft racing my baby.

 

You can doubt all you like, but that 89 was completely stock, as delivered from the factory. It was one of about 60 1989 Grand Marquis that were built with both the 351W and the Trailer Tow III package. The first time I had it on the highway for a good run, I thought the gas gauge was broken until I filled it up. I spoke to the dealership service adviser, and he said that was about what he expected, since the carbureted 351 had a higher compression ratio than the fuel injected 351 in the F150/250. Unless you have driven one of those cars, it is difficult to believe. Once you have, it is a different thing altogether. Good luck finding one, though.

 

83 olds wagon

i have a 83 olds wagon here, with a fuel injected 5,7=700r4 fom a roadmaster,,2,73 gears in the chunk,,,fun ride,,,currently for sale in the sale forum here,,,

 

I have driven one of these cars and it is still difficult to believe. I don't know what the stock compression ratio on the fuel injected 351 in the F150/F250 is, but it must be gawd awful if it is lower than the carbureted engine since the carbureted 351's have a 8.3:1 compression ratio. Are you sure you aren't calculating kilometers per gallon (Imperial gallon at that). That might start to make sense.

 

Using the trip odometer, which was verified by a GPS, I was doing just on 900 kms on a tank. Since a fill, since I don't run them empty, is about 60 litres, that works out to 7L/100 kms. and that is 40 miles to the Imperial gallon. The Canadian version of the 351 was the equivalent of the American HO 351. It was a very well performing engine. Considering the 6,000 pound factory tow rating, it needed to be strong

 

Mike, I man hug luv ya....from arms length...... but....but.... sorry dude, .....................

 

sorry but have to agree