My '60 Fury with 318 2bbl and 3 speed Torqflite got a best of 24 once on a long and lazy road trip. Low 20's were common though. Far better than any other old car I've ever driven. I think bias ply tires help, they have less rolling resistance than some of the fat radials I see getting swapped onto old cars.
I had a brand new '65 Comet, 202 with 6cyl three speed, rear gear was 3.2. Highway was about 22 mpg. Around town was maybe 17, I tended to not lug the engine. The car weighing about 2340# according to google search, I think I had it weighed once and was more like 2750#, maybe not.
I had 3 Ford products with 390's. My folks 63 Mercury, my 65 Galaxie and a 65 T-Bird I bought. I used to run a 170 mile trip between Springfield and Carbondale, IL. It's about 50 miles of Interstate and the rest 2 lane through small farm towns. The Mercury would get about 15-16 mpg on the trip. The Galaxie would run between 13-14 mpg, but that T-Bird would consistently get above 17 mpg. All were geared the same, 3.00:1 and all were automatics. The Mercury had a 2 bbl carb. The T-Bird was probably lighter, but not by much.
Motorlife tested a Falcon in 1960 with the 144 and a 3-speed it got 24.6 avg MPG. So Fords claim of 30 MPG might actully be doable with careful highway driving.
Milage depends a lot on the driver and speed. Back when I was in school, I put a rebuilt 289 two barrel in my sisters automatic pony car. She could get 20+ mph, going to school. Me , if I drove it it closer to 15! But a 170/144 Falcon with high gears and 55 mph could probably approach 30mpg, but who drives that way, anymore. I have a mpg story that will blow anybody’s mind, but can’t post here. Bones
I'll apologize in advance for the length of this post but it's true and has to be told like this. Around 1974, I was working in Wisconsin and the guy across the street from where I lived had a rusty '62 Falcon 4 door sitting next to his house. I needed some cheap transportation so we struck a deal one night while sitting in a local bar. For the price of $50, I bought the Falcon, two spare 3 speed transmissions, two starters and seven good tires. I took off for home, 405 miles away, the next weekend and had to gas up once. Stock gas tank held 12 gallons and with the stock 6.50-13 tires the thundering 144 cubic inch 6 cylinder got 23 mpg or, 276 miles per tank. I got tired of having to stick the shift lever back into the column after three or four times of going for another gear so as soon as I got home, I hacked a hole in the very rusty floor pan and stuck in an " el cheapo " floor shifter. As I was running 810 miles every weekend going back and forth, I found some 14" 4 hole Pinto rims and stuffed some 8.00-14's in the rear wheel wells by taking a 4 pound hammer to the front of the opening. Once they were in there, they had a lot of room. After calculating what the change had done to the gear ratio, I could get 312 miles per tank. One weekend while I was home, I heard about a local guy I knew who had wrapped his '66 Mustang around a light pole so I drove over to see how bad the damage was. The trunk lid had popped open and the gas tank was exposed. When I measured the tank and bolt pattern, I found it was a drop in for the Falcon. I bought it and now had 16 gallons to play with. I could make the whole trip but I was running on fumes at the end. The job ended and the next was in Brookings, SD so the Falcon and I went to Brookings. There I found a salvage yard where I bought a pair of 4-hole 15-inch rims. The guy running the yard had no idea what they were for but I bought them and a couple of pretty good 9.00-15's. More massaging of the rear wheel wells and they fit without rubbing on anything. I was never out of 1st gear driving around town and there were some really long wind outs in 2nd to get to cruising speed but I wound up with 33 mpg or 528 miles per tank. With the 13's in the front and the 15's in the back, I was driving leaning over the steering wheel and had to raise the front of the seat about 4 inches to make it comfortable.
Never owned a Falcon. Other H.A.M.B. cars I owned that were just used cars at the time (highway mileage): 1956 Ford 292 A/T - 14 1959 Chevy 235 S/T - 12.3 1959 Ford 332 Fairlane A/T with Holley 4150 - 17 Same car with Carter AFB - 22 1961 Ford Galaxie 352 A/T - 17 1963 Ford Galaxie 289 A/T - 19 1963 Chevy Corvette 327/340 S/T - 17 hwy, but only 4 in town. Mileage on lots of Fords can be helped by changing the accessory on top of the engine With experience on non-H.A.M.B.-friendly vehicles, radial tires would have significantly helped those numbers. Drum brakes didn't help mileage either. And we found that removing the bug screen from the front of a 1960 F100 improved mileage by 2 MPG. Jon
I'd have to say that if you got anything above an honest 20 mpg average with a six cylinder Falcon you were doing pretty good. I remember a buddy had one in high school and the guys he ran around with used to chip in a buck a piece for gas and run around all night most Friday nights. That Mobile economy run was a bit of a joke in a lot of respects as the drivers basically cheated every way they could as HRP said. Anything you can think of to cut down on how much gas you used they did. Very slow acceleration away from stops, shut the engine off and coast, Not let the car idle. Plus the cars were tuned to the max and had the tires over inflated and a lot of other tricks.
I think the main factor you're leaving out there is the compression ratio. So it's not a simple comparison of large cubes and torque to small cubes and RPM. I even recall stories of GM experiments with the Olds 303, the experimental engines, that had like 12.5:1 compression in fuel economy tests. The high compression engines were vastly more efficient. We're seeing the same theory in practice now with small displacement 4 cylinders in late models with turbos to increase efficiency, as well as boost power without sacrificing economy. So a small inch, high compression engine is going to likely have the best economy. But again, I think most of the issue comes down to the car's gearing, and the ability to exploit that mechanical advantage. And I agree wholeheartedly that this is a relevant topic that is HAMB appropriate. While this is a hot rod forum, and obviously there is a focus on performance gains, that's not the sole purpose of everyone here. Many builds are not performance related at all. And the over-arching priority should be to keep our cars on the road, which is going to be very expensive when gas continues to rise in price and these things are sucking down nearly 10 mpg worth of fuel.
I had a 61 Falcon, 144, 3 speed. driving it like young men do, I don't think I ever got 20 mpg. My folks bought a 59 Ford new, 292, 3 speed overdrive, that was a 20 mpg on the highway car. The 144 was weak on it's best day. This was a fresh engine, not one that was wore out. 85 hp. isn't much.
I get 6-7 mpg in my very unaerodynamic bus. 7k pounds. 500 inches turning around 2700 doing 75-80. But dang it’s fun
Look at those performance figures though. 0-60 in 17.2 seconds?! And the article even says it feels slower than that. How is that workable as a daily driver in modern traffic?
Easy. Just don’t pull out in front of someone. That probably as fast as our 61 flat bed if it could do 60. That don’t stop us from cruising it
I disagree. I absolutely believe that Falcon could get that mileage in certain circumstances. I routinely got 30 or just shy of it with my 56 Chevy. From 75-79 After the Oil Embargo when the speed limit was 55, I actually drove the speed limit between Denver and Omaha regularly. 235, 3 speed OD, 55 mph and a well tuned car and it only took 20 gallons. If I really watched it and was lucky with no winds the car would get in the high 20s.
No wonder you got good mileage, you were always driving down hill. A friend had a 1960 Falcon with the 144 and two speed Fordomatic. That slug got well under 20 miles per imperial gallon, and was horribly slow up the steep hills around here. So we swapped in a 260 with a C4 from a 1964 Falcon. The mileage was the same or slightly higher, and the power was actually pretty good.
I have owned a lot of cars, big engine little engine big car small car and I think the absolute best overall mileage and overall best performing car for it's size and performance was my 65 plymouth belvedere with a 318 poly . No kidding. It ran great and was a real fuel miser. Lippy
Remember the gas was different then too. No ethanol, lead as an octane booster, and lower speed limits. I've got over 40mpg in OT gas VWs. Routinely get 35+ in them. Small cube, gutless gearing bangers.
According to this they can be 3.10, 3.20, 3.50, 3.56, 3.89 or 4.00. http://falconfaq.dyndns.org/Rear_Axles/RearAxles01.html The website has repair manuals, too: http://falconfaq.dyndns.org/
My 1947 Crosley stone stock at 1263# was factory rated at 35 to 50 mpg . Most figured out that the car could get 35 mpg at 50 mph and 50 mpg at 35 mph. I assume that would be on some pretty flat roads. Best I could do was 30.2 mpg around my state of CT with the dog. I found that if you could take a turn from one street onto another at 15 mph I didn't have to down shift to second, just on gas and get back to speed [not fast for sure]. So with me and the dog total weight was 1553#, took a friend 270# and no dog total weight became 1743#, didn't notice too bad of a performance difference but I was probably expecting it. Rear gear 5.17 with 12-4.80 tires, about 4200rpm at 50 mph, max safe speed. A fun little car.
I believe that if you drive 55 mph. The problem is that nobody drives that slow on the highway now. You'd be a stationary object. Personally, I have shit to do, and for my commute, driving 55 mph would mean an extra 50 mins in the car every day in my commute to and from work. When we drove out to Indy from NJ for the CCR, my buddy with a 312/AOD combo got around 25 mpg with a 500 Edelbrock carb in 56 Crown Vic, while rolling at 75 mph. I got barely 15 with a 324/Jetaway with a 600 Holley in a 56 Holiday 98.
You didnt say today at 85 mph. I was just clarifying that it is/was possible to get that kind of mileage. Not in todays world but back then, hell yeah. My 56 had no air, no PS and we dont drive them like that anymore either.
My father and I knew quite a few who got 25+ in town and 30+ on the road with 144” 3 speeds. They were either Rancheros or a 2 dr cheapie. Older guys who drove 55 on the highway and no jack rabbit starts. A guy I knew pretty well had a 62 4-speed 170 that got close to it. 65 Mustangs with 170’s were also very good on the highway with a light foot. Teenagers never got good milage with them…
Bear in mind, my example was in 1974. That particular Falcon was on it's second engine which had about 45,000 miles on it. The car was used only as transportation back and forth from home to work every weekend, 810 miles and the very short drive from the place I stayed to the jobsite and back. That added another 45 miles a week. My whole focus with that Falcon was to get the best fuel mileage I could. Almost all of the trip from home to work was interstate. Stopping for fuel was more time I couldn't spend at home so; I did what I could to eliminate the fuel stops and it worked. When I put the 15" wheels and tires on it in South Dakota, I knew I had gone as far as I could go for increasing the mileage.
Thanks for the thoughts guys. I think i need to maintain 85mph up hills so maybe the falcon isn't the one. I do have a fresh-twenty-years-ago Windsor sitting in the barn gathering dust but i suspect the extra inches and heavy foot will affect my mileage dreams.
I have to wonder how the quality of the crap they call gas these days compared with the quality of gas in 1962. I suspect todays gas is much worse, but maybe it isn't. I suspect the highest quality of gas was probably in the late 60s or early 70s. I know that when they started adding the corn squeezing's to the gas, my mileage dropped 2-3 mpg almost instantly.
How do you drive? We have a 2015 Hyundai Accent, we get 38 miles per gallon around town, and 44 miles per gallon on a trip. And, my wife has a lead foot on the highway.
The Jalopy Journal
