stock, refreshed Y Block...8MPG?

This won't help you any, but my first car back in the 80's was a '74 TA with a stock 455 under the hood and it ran pretty well. If I kept my foot out of it and off the brakes, it would do 10-11mpg on the highway, maybe crack 12 with a decent tailwind. Probably more like 8-9 around town. Cruising down the highway, when really bored on a long stretch of nothing, you could almost literally watch the gas needle slowly heading over to the left. So yeah, pointless but I do feel for you. Hope you get it worked out somehow. Sucks sitting at long stop lights visualizing your last few bucks getting sucked into the carb. w/ gas flowing like a garden hose.

 

Wow, lots of great comments. Thanks so much for taking the time to help me out.

A few details:

First and foremost, all of my mileage calc's are based off of hiway driving at 60 to 65 mph. I dont track in town driving.

I dont drive like a madman, I keep the rpms down as much as possible.

I dont expect to get 20 mpg. If I get 13, I will be happy.

The motor is a 292, not a 312. Sorry. I left that out.

I had GMC Bubba completely go through the distributor, he ran it on the machine and gave it his blessing.

The distibutor may be clocked off a tooth. I will pull it and re install.

I had the carburetor rebuilt 4 month ago by a group that does this every day. I'll take it back to them and have them check to make sure the power valve is working.

I have a 4 barrel intake for this motor in my garage. I guess I could pick up a 500cfm edelbrock and an adapter to see if that helps.

If the ideas above dont help, I will move on to having the heads rebuilt. I dont want to change too many things at once. I'm going to do this one step at a time, trying to not waste money.

After the tuning issues are resolved, I intend on finding either the period correct Borg Warner T-10 4 speed, or a mustang T-5 and run that with the Mummert adapter. Havent made up my mind yet. I can only guess that either of these changes would drastically help my mileage.

I dont expect this to run like a new motor, just hoping to find a few obvious things that I can do to improve my mileage situation.

And finally, yes, I am bad at math.

Thanks again guys. If anyone else has any thoughts, it would be greatly appreciated. I'll post up what I find as I make these adjustments.

 

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top height=2000><TBODY><TR><TD width="50%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=5 width="100%" frame=void align=top height="100%"><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD height="60%" background=tlo_komorki_spec.gif width="100%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top>FORD RANCH WAGON Station Wagon Thunderbird 292 V-8
as offered for 1962 in North America U.S.
<TBODY><TR><TD>Production/sales period:
</TD><TD>1961 - 1962
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Modelyears:
</TD><TD>1962
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Country of origin:
</TD><TD>USA
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Make:
</TD><TD>Ford
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Model:
</TD><TD>Full-Size 6th generation
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>1960-1964
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Type:
</TD><TD>Station Wagon Ranch Wagon
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>1960-1962
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Optional equipment:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>EEC segmentation:
</TD><TD>F (luxury cars)
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Class:
</TD><TD>full-size / executive car
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Body style:
</TD><TD>station wagon
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Doors:
</TD><TD>5
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Traction:
</TD><TD>RWD (rear-wheel drive)
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Curb weight (without a driver):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Dry weight:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Shipping weight:
</TD><TD>1822 kg / 4016 lbs
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Curb weight estimated:
</TD><TD>1900 kg / 4190 lbs
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Engine type:
</TD><TD>spark-ignition 4-stroke
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Fuel type:
</TD><TD>petrol (gasoline)
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Cylinders alignment:
</TD><TD>V 8
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Displacement:
</TD><TD>4778 cm3 / 291.6 cui
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Power net:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Power gross:
</TD><TD>126.5 kW / 172 PS / 170 hp (SAE gross)
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>/ 4200
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Redline rpm:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Transmission type:
</TD><TD>manual
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Number of gears:
</TD><TD>3
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Speed range
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>(max speed on gears,
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>top gear value theor.):
</TD><TD>(km/h/mph)
</TD></TR><TR><TD>I:
</TD><TD>57 / 35
</TD></TR><TR><TD>II:
</TD><TD>99 / 62
</TD></TR><TR><TD>III:
</TD><TD>159 / 99
</TD></TR><TR><TD>IV:
</TD><TD>/
</TD></TR><TR><TD>V:
</TD><TD>/
</TD></TR><TR><TD>VI:
</TD><TD>/
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Final drive ratio std:
</TD><TD>3.89
</TD></TR>

</TABLE>
</TD></TR><TR><TD height="40%" background=tlo_komorki_perfo.gif width="100%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" background=tlo_naglowka_perfo.gif frame=void align=top height=20><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD height=20 width="100%">Factory claim
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>Top speed:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-60 mph (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-100 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-1/4 mile (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-1 km (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>Fuel consumption:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>ECE 90/120/city (comb.):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>EU urban/extra-urban/comb.:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>ADR82 urban/extra-urban/comb.:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>EPA city/highway (combined):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>EPA 2008 city/highway:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>(combined)
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>AS2877 city/highway:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>CND FTP city/highway:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>NBR7024 city/highway/comb.:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>60-mode:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>10-15 mode:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>JC08 mode:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD height="100%" width="50%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=5 width="100%" frame=void align=top height="100%"><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD height="100%" background=tlo_komorki_perfo.gif width="100%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" background=tlo_naglowka_perfo.gif frame=void align=top height=20><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=left><TD height=20 width="100%">www.automobile-catalog.com ProfessCars&#8482; estimation ©
(for the car with basic curb weight, full fuel tank and 90 kg (200 lbs) load)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>Top speed:
</TD><TD>151 km/h / 94 mph
</TD></TR><TR><TD>(theor. without speed governor)
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>Acceleration:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>0-30 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>2.6
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-40 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>3.4
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-50 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>4.3
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-60 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>5.9
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-70 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>7.2
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-80 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>8.8
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-90 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>10.9
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-100 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>14.3
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-110 km/h (s)
</TD><TD>17.2
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-120 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>20.8
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-130 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>25.6
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-140 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>33.4
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-160 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-180 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-200 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-220 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-240 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-270 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>0-20 mph (s):
</TD><TD>2.8
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-30 mph (s):
</TD><TD>4.1
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-40 mph (s):
</TD><TD>6.5
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-50 mph (s):
</TD><TD>8.9
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-60 mph (s):
</TD><TD>13
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-70 mph (s):
</TD><TD>18.1
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-80 mph (s):
</TD><TD>24.9
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-90 mph (s):
</TD><TD>40.8
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-100 mph (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-110 mph (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-120 mph (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-130 mph (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-140 mph (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-150 mph (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0-160 mph (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>0- 1/4mile (s):
</TD><TD>19.1
</TD></TR><TR><TD>speed at 1/4mile:
</TD><TD>116 km/h / 72 mph
</TD></TR><TR><TD>0- 1km (s):
</TD><TD>35.4
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


FAQ:
Where are all these precise accelerations data coming from ?


<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top>
<TBODY><TR><TD>Acceleration in gears:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>60-100 km/h IVth or top gear (s):
</TD><TD>9.7
</TD></TR><TR><TD>80-120 km/h Vth or top gear (s):
</TD><TD>11.5
</TD></TR><TR><TD>80-120 km/h VIth gear (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>40-60 mph IVth or top gear (s):
</TD><TD>7.7
</TD></TR><TR><TD>50-70 mph Vth or top gear (s):
</TD><TD>8.8
</TD></TR><TR><TD>50-70 mph VIth gear (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>Overtaking factors:
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>60-100 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>8.4
</TD></TR><TR><TD>80-120 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>12
</TD></TR><TR><TD>100-180 km/h (s):
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>40-70 mph (s):
</TD><TD>11.7
</TD></TR><TR><TD>50-90 mph (s):
</TD><TD>31.9
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" frame=void align=top><TBODY><TR><TD>Fuel consumption
</TD><TD>extra-urban / city / highway / average combined:
</TD></TR><TR><TD>(city cycle is based on typical European traffic)
</TD><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>l/100km:
</TD><TD>16-20 / 26-32 / 23-28 / 22.3
</TD></TR><TR><TD>mpg (imp.):
</TD><TD>14-17 / 9-11 / 10-13 / 12.7
</TD></TR><TR><TD>mpg (U.S.):
</TD><TD>11-15 / 7-9 / 8-10 / 10.6
</TD></TR><TR><TD>km/l:
</TD><TD>5-6 / 3.1-3.9 / 4-4 / 4.5
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Holy Crap!

According to this, I'm right where I should be on MPG.......UGGGGG

Thanks for the info. I am going to see if I can improve things with some minor tweaks.

 

Interesting statistics,acceleration slower than a Prius,fuel mileage of a heavy truck

 

That mileage is absurdly bad. I would be looking into stuck brakes and leaky fuel lines at that point.

Here is a very interesting Popular Mechanics write-up about a similar Ford from the same time period. Many owners were complaining about the mileage back then ... but they were getting better mileage than you are!!!

http://books.google.com/books?id=j98DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA92&ots=LkvYQvZ-7U&dq=ford%20292&pg=PA92#v=onepage&q=ford%20292&f=false

Incidentally, how awesome is that review format? I would love to see reviews that included ownership experiences from many people in them ... not just the experience of the magazine staff.

 

My buddy in HS had a 54 Ford 2 dr with a 2 speed auto and a small Y block, we used to not want to go anywhere with him because he was always whining about getting us to pony up for gas, back when 3 dollars worth was 10 gallons. He would go though 10 gallons every other day it seemed like.

 

I get about 10, maybe 12 highway depending. Thats with a t-5 and 3.31 gear. It sucks. You might as well go FE, seeing as you'll get more power and better MPG.

 

I wonder where exactly they came up with 2008 mileage figures for a 1962 car?

 

you need a 223.

 

you have got to realise that in 1962 that was probably about average a6cyl falcon probably at best was 18 mpg with 371 rears you are probablly close to the top tom

 

Don't worry about difficulty with the math. I hear 5 out of every 4 people have difficulty with fractions.

 

How about trading the 292 for a 302? My dad's old '70 Econoline with a 302 and the aerodynamics of a large brick got 18 mpg (imperial gallons) so maybe 15 per US gallon. It had a 3.70 rear axle and (I think) 15 inch wheels.

 

with all said, I still think you will do better. Again make sure that dizzy is right AND check your milage against a gps if you can speedos and odometers don't have to be off much to throw off your mileage alot.

 

Maybe this would be a different approach.

How about a higher rear axle ratio? 3.08... 3.23... something like that? Course that's going to make it little more sluggish starting off in low gear. But you could maybe fix that with a 4 spd. trans as long as first gear is lower than first gear in the 3 spd.

Or maybe even simpler... a 4 spd. overdrive manual transmission.

 

Something is amiss, I got 14mpg on the highway in my '66 390 FE Fairlane with 3.25:1 R/E. Threw the Autolite carb away and replaced with a 600 Holley

 

To be honest, I was surprised when I started looking on the internet that they still had a Y block in a car in 62. I knew the trucks ran until 64, but I thought in 62 the FE motors were used in all the big cars. But I guess there really were some with 292 and 312 motors.

Years ago I had a 56 Ford with a 312 in it and the gas milage wasn't all that swift, but gas was 20-25 cents a gallon so we reallly didn't think about it much. I don't think the Y blocks were the most efficient desgn Ford ever came out with in that regard.

Don

 

Horrible mileage like that is uncharacteristic from a Y Block. I used to routinely get 19-21 highway with a stock 272, motorcraft 2100 2 bbl, stock 3 speed, and a 3.55 rear. To be frank, I don't get that poor of mileage out of my big block now. There has to be something seriously wrong.

 

With that big/heavy a car do NOT put lower number gears in the rear . Lower RPM will need bigger throttle opening to make the needed power =less milage. I would think at 60-65 with everything right 14-15 no sweat. There is something wrong ,is the speedo correct as to miles and speed?

 

The speedo is correct.

I have taken 2 roadtrips with multiple other cars along. Mph checked, odo verified.

 

When you started it did you have the timing right or did it pop back through the carb? Early autolites and holleys it was pretty easy to take out the power valves.