Cory Dunkle wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >, Cory Dunkle wrote:
>>
>>>Driving at 85 MPH vs 70 MPH only reduced my mileage by .3 MPG. So take
>
> that
>
>>>you speed kills freaks and tree huggers. Anyhow...
>>>
>>>This is in my '68 Galaxie 500 with a 302, FMX, and 2.80:1 gears.
>>
>>2.80 is good milage axle. Anyways.... if you're going to be going over 70
>>regularly and it's not on an empty interstate I suggest you upgrade the
>>braking system on that car.
>
>
> I'm thinking I may do just as well with a 3.25 or 3.50 as it would get my
> RPM where the motor is more efficient but at a lower speed that I normally
> travel on local trips. Anyhow, the transmission slips on the 2-3 shift until
> warmed up when the weather is below freezing. So when it goes I'm gonna
> upgrade to an AOD for mileage and put something in the neighborhood of
> 3.50:1 - 4.11:1 gears out back. Should give me a slightly better final drive
> for lower RPM and give much better acceleration with that little 302. I may
> even see an increase in around town mileage. Anyhow, for the time being I
> just shift manually for the first 2-3 minutes and when I go to 3rd I let go
> of the gas while it shifts so it doesn't slip. Seems to be a problem FMX
> transmission gets after a while. My '67 had the same problem though it
> developed it around 200,000 miles, the '68 has about 113,000 miles, but then
> again when my uncle drove it he never put fluids in it or anything.
Unless you really feel the need for the OD, I'd keep the FMX. AFAIK
it's closely related to the old Ford-O-Matic and therefore the
Borg-Warner automatic that Studebaker used from 56-64, and that tranny
is one of the most underrated units out there - very durable, reliable,
and basically abusable. I know a guy that was pumping over 600 RWHP
through a Powershift (basically a fancied up HD Flightomatic) and
ditched it for a THM400 because everyone told him it would be
stronger... and promptly blew the THM400... I'm really not sure what
the reliability of a good AOD is, but I seriously doubt it's as
cast-iron, dead-nuts reliable as the FMX/Ford-O-Matic/Flightomatic.
Of course, if you have a 9" rear, it's trivially easy to play with the
rear gear ratio, and I can see the appeal of having a tranny with a
wider gear spread. So if that's what you really want, and this car you
think is a keeper, by all means go for it. I guess I just felt
compelled to stand up and defend the honor of the FMX there for a second
>
> As for the brakes, I generally don't drive faster than 80-85 as that's about
> the upper limit of what my car can do in a full-out emergency stop and not
> have the brakes overheat as I approach a stop. These old Gals have big
> 2.5"x11" drums all around which stop pretty well compared to other drum
> brake cars, like Mustangs which have tiny drums. I'm keeping my eyes open
> for a good disc brake donor though. It's not on the top of my list of things
> to do but should I come across the parts I'll probably snag them when I have
> the chance. Would be a nice thing to have since I do a fairly large amount
> of highway miles and most of the econo-boxes on the roads can stop pretty
> darned quickly.
>
> Cory
>
You may want to consider an aftermarket disc brake conversion; a lot of
late '60s cars used 4-pot fixed calipers which work, but are expensive,
finicky, and don't really work any *better* than a cheaper, simpler
single or dual piston caliper (which is usually what the aftermarket
kits have)
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel