Engines

Yeah Ford Motor Company!!!
That gives me enough incentive to go buy their new products. Then heavily boycott the rest of these so called American companies in all manufacturing areas across the board who do not follow suite. There is more of us than them. We have the power of the wallet to change back this 80's greed is good crap from the traitorous stockholders and corporate wallstreet taxpayer funded welfare kings. It's obvious to everyone that they don't seem to care about selling out their own country or even their own mother for a buck! WE can change this back!

 

Motorcraft 2150 carb, since it is the best carburetor EVER made.

I agree that a carburetor is not a perfect device for mixing fuel and air. But whatever type was in my 1987 Ford Escort with throttle body, their early attempt, that was the best carb and best for fuel economy I ever got. A consistant 50MPG on the road and in town averages. Better than any VW or other compact car I've owned. 1957 Beetle averaged 30MPG. These were the only cars I really kept track of because they did so well. Sadly gas was under 39.9 cents and lower back then.
And driving them was more like riding in an old phone booth than a car!
I've mentioned this before. That carburetor was NOT supposed to be on the Escort I bought. The dealership threatened to remove it so I never returned. Other than that I know nothing. Nothing I tell you!:confused:
I've had old Chevy sixes and Ford flatheads that got nearly 20 MPG. It amazes me that with all this high tech electronic crap cars designed for better wind flow barely get that.
I've never driven in Canada so am not familiar with the roads or how the weather affects mileage. Perhaps it's 800 miles down hill to work---and back. I smile when my Hemi Dodge gets 15.1 now and then compared to 14.9 most of the time.

 

Cat, a gas pig is a gas pig..... don't matter what side of the border your on. I've owned all of these smog 70's and 80's ford engines and they were all gas pigs perioud. But as you mention, it was back when fuil was cheaper and a dollar went further. Never owned a Ford Escargoport but did have a 67 VW Baja bug with a stock 1600 single port engine. That VW although I never kept track of millage was the freeken cheapest thing to fuil I have ever owned......how ever the gas tank rite infront of me under the bonet with no more than fiber glass body panels covering it did scare the **** out of me on single lane windy highways

 

I drove Model A's and Model T's with the gas tank sitting on my lap so the VW's never bothered me.
I remember living in central Illinois and filling up at our local shell station before heading to Chicago. Ole Frate Atterberry said you better not buy gas anyplace else. Was over 175 miles one way. We got back sucking fumes and Frate filled it up. Didn't those things only have an 11 gallon tank?
The Escort always amazed me. Even the electric fan rarely came on.
Traded it for a Chevy van to move to Floriduuuh.

 

My Torino has a gas tank in the rear pass. compartment. I remember modifying 60s' trucks with this feature by putting in saddle tanks.

 

On that thought I've always wondered if I could find a small wheel well-shaped saddle tank and add it to the left side of my trunk to gravity feed into the regular tank (which is right under the trunk floor).

Kind of like the pickup truck drivers to, they get a tool box that has some tool space and then it's like a 50 gallon tank under that, and it either gravity feeds into the regular tanks or it has a pump on it to transfer. Of course those tanks are SUPPOSED to be used to refill tractors and equipment but when you run out of gas and you have 50 gallons right there...you're gonna use it...

But I have a 27 gallon tank as is, and I like to stop every few hours to stretch my legs and pee and get a fresh drink and all that. Even at 75mph and 10mpg, my tank is big enough for 3.5 hours of driving.

 

I had a 77 T-Bird that I bought new. Box stock, fully optioned.
351W, 2 bbl. no OD When on a trip, I could set the cruise control and it always got 26 mpg. At 70 mph, the tach read 1500 rpm. I only used Shell premium in it because I owned 2 Shell stations at the time.

You guys can argue all you want about these cars, but they did get the mileage and if you don't believe it, you can pound sand. And yes, some of them were fairly aerodynamic for the time.

 

Thanks, OldFox. The dual exhaust, by the way, would add another 4 to 5 mpg to that mileage you were getting. Most people had no idea how to tune those carburetors properly. I have even seen people on other sites suggesting that the air/fuel mixture be used to adjust the idle speed. Wonder how bad the gas mileage would be then! The other half of the air flow question, that these Thunderbirds do get right is how the air flow leaves the car. It flows off smoothly and that really helps.

 

I'll pound sand then!


I'm no rocket scientist but have owned exacty what you pictured along with other fords of the era with all these OMG gas figures. That was when back in my youth I could buy and flip a car before the week was over. GAS PIGS, ran great but GAS PIGS any way you look at it! If I'm to pound sand calling this OMG, WTF, Yes Virginia There is a Santa Clause gas millage claim BS with no proof what so ever, well then ..... You can have my sand after I'm done and ...well, ya know....

 

Well...26 MPG is a long way from 40 MPG.

 

I'm screwed.

 

Mine too!!


1978 Ford Thunderbird Fuel Economy

11978 Ford Thunderbird, 4.9 Liters, 8 Cylinders, 2 Venturis Carburetor MPG

Window Sticker Miles Per Gallon:City:15 MPG (U.S.)18 MPG (Imperial)16 L/100km6 km/literHighway:22 MPG (U.S.)26 MPG (Imperial)11 L/100km9 km/literCombine:17 MPG (U.S.)20 MPG (Imperial)14 L/100km7 km/literEPA Revised Miles Per Gallon:City:14 MPG (U.S.)17 MPG (Imperial)17 L/100km6 km/literHighway:20 MPG (U.S.)24 MPG (Imperial)12 L/100km9 km/literCombine:17 MPG (U.S.)20 MPG (Imperial)14 L/100km7 km/literVehicle Size ClassMidsize CarsManufacturerFordEngine Size4.9 LitersFuel System2 Venturis CarburetorNumber Of Engine Cylinders8Fuel TypeUnleaded GasolineOverdrive Typen/aTransmissionn/aNumber of Forward Speeds: n/aEnginen/aCatalyst ApplicationYes

21978 Ford Thunderbird, 5.8 Liters, 8 Cylinders, 2 Venturis Carburetor MPG

Window Sticker Miles Per Gallon:City:14 MPG (U.S.)17 MPG (Imperial)17 L/100km6 km/literHighway:20 MPG (U.S.)24 MPG (Imperial)12 L/100km9 km/literCombine:16 MPG (U.S.)19 MPG (Imperial)15 L/100km7 km/literEPA Revised Miles Per Gallon:City:13 MPG (U.S.)16 MPG (Imperial)18 L/100km6 km/literHighway:19 MPG (U.S.)23 MPG (Imperial)12 L/100km8 km/literCombine:16 MPG (U.S.)19 MPG (Imperial)15 L/100km7 km/literVehicle Size ClassMidsize CarsManufacturerFordEngine Size5.8 LitersFuel System2 Venturis CarburetorNumber Of Engine Cylinders8Fuel TypeUnleaded GasolineOverdrive Typen/aTransmissionn/aNumber of Forward Speeds: n/aEnginen/aCatalyst ApplicationYes

From the horse's mouth

Highway mileage ratings at the time was also in consideration the national 55mph speed limit

 

Change to the dual exhaust, and there' the 5 mpg that brings you up to the 30 mpg range I am talking about, especially if you add a touch more timing to the engine as well. Even with the factory manifolds, the dual 2 1/4 frees up that much in the way of fuel economy. Why the factory did not offer a dual system 5 have no idea. I never did figure that out. Being behind the cats, it did not affect emissions, and with good mufflers, it was no louder than the stock single, either.