Help me wrap my head around something guys. I recently saw an ad for a '63 falcon and on a whim i looked up its mileage spec. The interwebs tells me that an inline six falcon can see 30mpg on the hiway. My modern hyundai with its fuel injected computer controlled 4 banger only gets around 20mpg. Should i be driving a 60 year old falcon as my commuter car?
I once had a '62 Falcon wagon with the 170 engine and automatic transmission. That gas mileage figure doesn't seem realistic to me. It's been a long time ago so I don't remember how thrifty it was but it sure wasn't 30 mpg.
"can get" and "does get" are two different things. Your mileage may vary. My wife's full size truck with a V8 gets 21 mpg most of the time. I've never done that well with any of the old, smaller cars with smaller engines that I've had. I expect we'll get a few reports of phenomenal mileage from Falcons, but I would be surprised if you could get more than 20 in one, in normal driving.
Those 6 cylinder cars were very light I had a 1960 with the 144 high way milage at 60-70 was 27 even after a V8 swap it was 25 on the highway.
I had a 56 9 passenger Chevy wagon with a 265 and a cast iron power glide. The best it ever got was 21 mpg, which I thought was pretty impressive. It weighed as much as the new cars (3600 lbs) and was as aerodynamic as a brick. It hosted a whopping 170 hp.
My experience with 6 cylinder Falcons (many years ago) was that I got bad mileage because I had to drive with my foot to the floor to keep up with traffic!
Remember too, those numbers assume a fully-tuned up not plumb wore out engine. Not many old cars fit that description.
I have seen plenty of older cars with 6 cylinder engines get very good mileage. I believe the main issue was "emissions". Today its not so much about using less fuel as its about producing less emissions.
My carbed 352 got the save as an injected 4.6. Both full size rides. The 352 had a lot more torque or at heat fejt that way. I can see a 144 or 170 getting in the mid 20s.
What rear gear did those little 6 Falcons have? I think you would need at least 3.40-3.50 for starters to make it up any steeper grades.
I've had a couple of old cars that got very good mileage; my '56 Ranch Wagon with a 6/stick w/OD never got less than 21, even in town. It could approach 30 on the highway if the terrain wasn't too hilly. And a '68 F100, 360/stick that would do 20+ highway. The seller told me that, I figured he was lying to make the sale but it was true. Look up the old Mobilgas Economy Run if you want to see just what they were capable of if you were all-in on mileage... You couldn't duplicate those numbers today.
That is sad for an OT late model! My subie gets 30. My old 54 got 20 mpg with the small block and road gears. I would think the Falcon could get close to 30 with all the right elements. Ford Falcon (North America) - Wikipedia
I think my nephew told me his 63 Falcon Sprint convertible gets 25mpg but it does have a Thunderbird Turbo Coupe 4 cyl turbo charged engine. Does give a non ho-hum ride.
There's no way a carbureted 170 gets 30 mpg unless you're going downhill the entire way. I'd assume milage somewhere around 18-20, which is respectable for the time. The other thing to consider which is perhaps the most important thing, is your gearing. An underpowered engine that is both small and has low compression is going to need a higher rear end gear to make up for the lack of power. But that's also going to limit highway cruising speed. So if you want to go 80 mph in the left lane, you can forget it, since you'll be footing the car constantly to keep that pace. This is where modern gearing shines.
If you want to get better fuel mileage than your buddy, let him tell you what he gets first. When I worked at dealerships we would get mileage complaints from time to time. We had a mileage checker that pumped fuel from the fuel pump to a graduated cylinder or the carburetor. You would fill the cylinder with the engine running and switch the carb to the cylinder. Run until you used 1/10 of a gallon while recording the odometer mileage. Switch the carb back to the fuel pump. Multiply the odometer reading by 10 and you got the mpg. What I found out is that most people, especially those with mileage complaints, don't know how to calculate mpg. Many would use the fuel gauge as a measure. This was especially true of a Dodge truck owner who claimed he got over 30 mpg one time and wanted the truck to always get 30 mpg. His basis is that going home he normally used 1/4 tank of gas (he lived a long way from work). One time he only used 1/8 tank of gas and that's when he got 30 mpg. Bottom line is that his truck got better than advertised in town and highway mpg.
I found this Ford ad, the Mobil Economy run. Standard shift 61 Falcon got 32 mpg....The cars in the Mobil run were highly prepped with loose engine clearances ,special tuning, coasting down hills and so on... I would think a Falcon 144/170 stick car driven very smoothly and in good tune could get near 23- 25 mpg at 60 mpg
The Mobil Economy run was done yearly from 1936 to 1966 except during World War II, it seems that Automakers tried to "prepare" their cars to achieve better results. An example was to use lightweight motor oil during the allowable 1,500-mile "break in " period "to promote faster wear and loosen the engines up quickly.", the factory-supplied drivers were highly trained and experienced to drive in a manner that conserved fuel. An average driver in the same car and over the same course would be extremely lucky to achieve the Run's results. The tests only show the "ultimate" economy potential of the cars tested and their relative efficiency of fuel use. HRP
When fuel economy became a big deal and the imports started showing up in real numbers the joke was 30 MPG in the locker room and 20 on the road.... There's lots of factors that determine mileage. Gearing, state of tune, power accessories or not, road conditions and driving habits to name just a few. I had a '69 Torino FB with a 351W/FMX that would only deliver 12 MPG no matter how/where I drove it. Yet I had a '67 Cougar with a 455" FE and a 4-speed that could reach the mid-teens on the highway if I kept my foot out of it. Get enthusiastic with the go pedal and it would sink into single digits with ease...
It will be important again, very soon. I have always wondered if you would be better off with a bigger cubic inch engine with more torque in a lighter car with OD, rather than a small CID engine.
I had a Pontiac Lemans 350/4speed that would pull 25 on the highway. It did several times in the four years I owned it.
Had a stripper 67 Stang, no power anything, 200 I6 with a worn out C4 transmission, it got around 17-18 mpg, maybe 19 with a tail wind. Old man had a 67 Custom 500 4 door stripper, 289 C4, he bought new, it got between 16 and 18. But he had a lighter right foot than I did, so that was part of the difference...
Early Falcons only weighed 2300 lbs. and were built for economy. Can easily get over 20 mpg (avg.) if driven gingerly. In contrast, my 2017 2.0T Lincoln only gets 17 mpg in town (where I drive it the most). Joe
I have never worried about fuel economy but I might have to get one of those small gas engines that fit on a bicycle, wonder if I would get funny looks with my big old Neanderthal self ridding my daughter's pink Stingray bicycle? HRP
I learned to drive in my dad's '64 Falcon with 170 six and three on the tree. It got such good mileage I had to pull over ever so often and take off the gas cap so the excess gas could escape. It actually got about 20 mpg and about same number of miles per quart of oil too!
Had a girlfriend who had an early falcon. 6cyl 3 spd. Don't know the mileage it got but was about double of my 57 Tripower Pontiac
Yes, but not because of good gas mileage but because it's cool! If you put in an overdrive transmission and kept your speed under 50 MPH and never drove up hill you might see 30 MPG.
My wife and I have had a lot of cars over the years, out of probably 100 cars & trucks, we only ever had one that would consistently get 28-30 mpg on the highway driving 60-65 mph, and that was a 95 Dodge Intrepid with the 3.3 V6. We put over 100K miles on that one ourselves. Other then the Intrepid, between 20 and 25 was about the highest consistent mileage we got, but several vehicles were capable of deliver that mileage. Carb or efi didn't seem to make much difference as far as mileage was concerned. For us, it does seem to me that motors in the V shape (6 or 8) got better mileage then inline motors. A well tuned motor always got better mileage then one that needed a tune up. I kept our rides tuned up. Our problem is we both tend to have a heavy foot, for anything to consistently deliver 20 -25 mpg was something very capable of getting good gas mileage. 48 Plymouth efi V6 5 speed, 17 in town, 21-23 highway (doesn't like 75 mph +). 49 Dodge pickup efi V8, auto 4x4, 10 intown winter, 13 intown summer, 15-17 highway (mileage drops after 75mph). 04 PT efi turbo 4 cylinder, auto, 16 in town, 20-22 highway (speed doesn't seem to matter). Gene
Light body, somewhere approaching aerodynamics on the body and moderate gearing seem to add up well. I had a 215 v8 in a mid-60's design body (think shrunk '65 Impala, about 2700 lbs) with a 3-spd Borg-Warner and no lockup, on a 4.2 rear. At 60 it was turning 3200 rpm and would return 28-30 mpg on a run. Round town about 15 but I never had a particularly light foot driving it. Those figures were about the same for the 85ci four-banger with 3 on the tree that it was fitted with new. Phil
The Jalopy Journal
