Drving faster, in my experience does not make a significant change in mileage...

Cory Dunkle wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...

> > 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.
>
> The FMX can definitely take more abuse than the AOD (and yes, it is
very
> similar to the old Borg-Warner, was based on that design). Also not
fancy TV
> linkage to worry about getting out of adjustement and burning up the
> overdrive band. The FMX is a heavy trans that robs a lot of power
though.
> I've got a heavy car with a small engine, so a lighter more efficient
> transmission may do me better. I think the old FMX still has a good
50k-100k
> left in her though. Shifts very nicely when it above freezing or it
gets
> warmed up. I just figgure if I'm gonna be shelling out for a new
tranny I
> may as well get one that will help with mileage since this car is
gonna be
> my daily driver for a long, long time.

Time for a little history lesson... the history of that unit is more
the other way around. Borg-Warner developed the "Detroit Gear" series
of automatics in conjuction with Studebaker in the late 40s/early 50s.
That was an excellent but now rare transmission that was only used for
a couple of years. Ford, not wanting to develop their own automatic in
house (look what it did to Packard!) but seeing the need to offer an
automatic, approached Borg-Warner and Studebaker about the possibility
of using the DG trannys in Fords, through some sort of licensing
agreement. Studebaker apparently refused (stupidly) and Borg-Warner
subsequently developed the Ford-O-Matic, loosely based on but not
copying the DG. The irony of the whole situation is that economically
Borg-Warner could not produce both the DG series transmissions and the
FOM so production of the DG series was stopped and the FOM was adapted
for the Stude engines and renamed "Flightomatic." Eventually the
rights to the DG were sold to Jaguar and was used on the E-type and
possibly other vehicles, I'm not sure.

The stupid thing about the whole situation is that Studebaker ended up
using the inferior FOM transmission because they didn't want Ford to
have the DG-250. Hindsight, etc. The DG transmissions were a little
more complicated than the FOM (later FMX) but had features that nobody
else had for years (except for Packard) like a lockup torque converter.

Incidentally, the Flightomatic after '56 had a second gear start which
is acceptable behind a torquey Stude V-8 but doesn't provide for
sparkling acceleration. (It's possible to get first gear, but only
under full throttle.) Apparently, if someone knows what they're doing,
they can mix and match Studebaker and Ford parts and build a
Flightomatic with first gear start, and a couple of those conversions
have been done. I don't know what the reasoning was behind that, if
they were worried about the NVH of the low speed shift or if they
considered the durability of those components marginal. Certainly Ford
doesn't seem to have had any issues.

>
> > 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
>
>
> Unfortunately I don't ahve a 9" out back... Many small block cars
came with
> a smaller rear which got the job done fine. As I understand it there
aren't
> really any option for gearing for this rear end. I know of a couple
'67 and
> '68 Gals in a pick'n'pull yard not far from here. At least two have
390s so
> I figgure I have a good chance of finding a 9" that'll just bolt
right in.
> Maybe I'll get lucky and find one with a decent gear ratio. Then I
can just
> clean it up, put new bearings in, and be all set to go. I actually
pulled a
> gas tank a year or two ago from a '67 with a 390... Didn't pay much
> attention to the rear end but IIRC it was a 9". Anyhow, the FMX
certainly is
> a good reliable transmission. The one in my '67 went to 200k before
it
> started slipping on the 2-3 shift when cold out.

If you get a 9" rear try to get one out of a car that has the same
transmission as yours, and grab the driveshaft as well. Generally on a
heavier rear end, the pinion yoke is farther forward than on the
lighter ones. But you probably don't *need* a 9" - I was just thinking
out loud that it's fairly easy to change the center section in one of
those. If you're worried about fuel economy to the point that you'd
consider changing the transmission, a 9" rear is probably a step in the
wrong direction.

Personally, I'd probably just have the FMX rebuilt and keep on
rolling... You may want to simply do a filter and fluid change (maybe
a couple fluid changes, if it's been neglected) with a band adjustment
and see if that helps your situation any before you commit to a
rebuild.

(wow, for a guy who doesn't even like automatics, I sure have a lot to
say about them don't I?)

nate

"magnulus" > wrote in message
.. .
> Sorry, I wasn't alive back then but the car does seem like a muscle car
> to me. I saw two doors on the car when I did a websearch. A coupe
tends
> to be more sporty looking.

I suppose it is a little sporty looking. I suppose the thing that would amke
it a muscle car is the engine. If it was a 427 car and nothing else changed
it would be a muscle car. Kinda like the 63-64 Gals. Those with 289s or 352s
are considered nice cruisers, whereas those with 427s are considered ground
poundingly thunderous muscle cars. So yeah I suppose you do have a point
about the muscle car thing. What used to be a family car is often times
these days considered a muscle car.

If you're interested here is a picture of my two Galaxies together, when I
had both. I've since sold the '67 (white) and only ahve the '68 (blue).
http://www.geocities.com/corydunkle/...riverFront.JPG

> If you don't want to call it an American sportscar/musclecar, you can't
> deny it's a big, heavy car with a typical American build for the time
> period - heavy, big inefficient engine, sucks lots of gas. Of course
> driving it fast won't make that much difference in mileage.

You may be surprised to know that a modern Crown Vic weighs a little more
than a small block Galaxie. The engines in these old cars aren't actually
all that inefficient. The big reason why mileage is so bad on these cars is
that they have no overdrive gear and no lockup torque converter. A lockup
torque converter makes an auto trans act like a manual once in top gear and
cruising. The engine is linked solidly to the wheels so there is no slip and
engine RPM is reduced. Overdrive obviously lowers the engine RPM further by
giving another gear with an overdrive ratio. Those two thing bring a classic
car up to nearly the same highway mileage as a modern car.

The reason for lesser around town mileage is usually a combination of two
things. The average classic car came with a rear end ratio around 2.80:1 or
3.00:1 unless when ordering the car a different ratio was opted for. This is
becuase the overdrive transmissions of the era were typically only offered
behind the small engines and wer fairly expensive. People still wanted
decent mileage though, so the cars came from the factory with a tall gear
for better mileage (keeping engine RPM down). What this means is better
highway MPG but around town to get moving quickly one has to get intt the
gas a good bit, especially with a small engine like a 289 or 302. The other
thing would be carburetors. Though they can be made very efficient, fuel
injection will always be more efficient as the computer can control the
injection of fuel and on most cars the timing as well to give the most
efficiency. There is no accelerator pump on fuel injected cars, so when such
a big shot from the accelerator pump may not be needed that extra fuel isn't
wasted. The computer will inject fuel as needed for the conditions, throttle
position and rate of throttle application.

I've seen as high as 17 MPG and some change on the highway with my '68 in
stock form. If I had an overdrive gear it could be in the low 20s with the
engine in good tune. A modern Crown Vic is rated at 17/25 MPG. In my '67
Galaxie I got about 13-14 MPG around town and 16-17 on the highway. The
Crown Vic has a better rear end gear ratio for around town driving which
helps it get better mileage there, and it has the overdrive gear which even
when put with the deeper rear gears still gives it a lower cruise RPM on the
highway. A properly tuned carbureted V8 can get nearly the same mileage as a
fuel injected V8. Compared to the modern Crown Vic I don't think these old
Galaxies get all that bad of mileage (without going too far from stock at
least). You also gotta figgure the Crown Vic has a smaller engine than these
cars. A 4.6l engine whereas the old Galaxies have a 4.7l or 5l. I've heard
people with 390s in their Galaxies claiming to get similar mileage figures
as I mentioned for my '67 and '68 with the stock small blocks. The reason
why that is believable is the FEs (352, 390, 427, 428), at least the 352 and
390, had fairly small intake ports. This kept air velocity high to make for
a torquey and efficient engine, especially at lower RPM.

> Now lets compare a modern car. Speed will make a difference in mileage
> there.

I had actually thought if anything it would be the otehr way around, since
modern cars are all bubly and aerodynamic. I would thought my old Gal would
drop off more in mileage at higher speeds due to the brick-like
aerodynamics. But I suppose you're right about these old engine having
enough power that it affects the mileage less. I suppose a big factor is
torque, which the modern engines don't have so much of. Overhead cam engines
just don't make the same torque figures as a comparable pushrod engine. This
was actually tested (by GM IIRC) by having people drive two identical cars.
The cars had 'comparable' engines, but the pushrod V* won by a majority of
test drivers who said that car felt like it was faster, like it pulled
harder off the line and had better acceleration. This makes sense as the
whole reason to build an overhead cam engine to so it can rev out the wazoo.
That is of course not to belittle thoe 10,000 RPM 289s!

Interestingly enough, there is a guy on the Ford Muscle forums who has a '76
F-150 with a 302 a SROD tranny (basically a 4 speed toploader, but 4th is
overdrive). The guy gets about 20-21 MPG on the highway with that truck. The
cam he's got is larger than is ideal for that engine and his gearing, so he
could be getting better mileage with a smaller cam. He's either gonan swap a
more mild cam into it or go with some Rhodes lifters so it'll act like a
smaller cam at lower RPM and still pull hard up top. Anyhow, that mileage is
better than a new F-150 gets. It's amazing what kind of mileage these old
cars can get when given a good tune and set up for good fuel economy.

I hope I don't sound like a know-it all or an ass... I just got going with
this stuff. It's all very interesting to me.

Cory

Enjoyed the pics. Brings back fond youthful memories.

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
> If you're interested here is a picture of my two Galaxies together, when I
> had both. I've since sold the '67 (white) and only ahve the '68 (blue).
> http://www.geocities.com/corydunkle/...riverFront.JPG

The first car is definitely a muscle car.

Check out the Wikipedia article on muscle cars. The idea was to make an
affordable "sports car", without having to do the weight reduction,
suspension, or brakes of a real performance car. Slap a big engine on a
family car, and you get a muscle car. At least that's the definition. I
guess its analogous to the modern trend for makers to push SUV's based on
the horsepower of the engines, even if most of the drivers will never need
it.

I spent a few years in Europe, so to me a Ford Focus is not all that
small. There are some European cars that are much smaller, after all
(Morris Mini, breathing room only). I guess my idea of what is a "nice car"
is permanently skewed. So to me muscle cars are like SUV's, they are
something either one regards with a bit of nostalgia as something that is
uniquely American, or you chalk it up as just another bone-headed way that
your country isn't running on all fours. Depending on the mood, of course.

> Compared to the modern Crown Vic I don't think these old
> Galaxies get all that bad of mileage (without going too far from stock at
> least). You also gotta figgure the Crown Vic has a smaller engine than
these
> cars. A 4.6l engine whereas the old Galaxies have a 4.7l or 5l.

I have driven an 80's Crown Victoria and the car gets mileage in the mid
teens, so the Crown Victoria hasn't changed alot.

"magnulus" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you're interested here is a picture of my two Galaxies together, when
I
> > had both. I've since sold the '67 (white) and only ahve the '68 (blue).
> > http://www.geocities.com/corydunkle/...riverFront.JPG
>
> The first car is definitely a muscle car.
>
> Check out the Wikipedia article on muscle cars. The idea was to make an
> affordable "sports car", without having to do the weight reduction,
> suspension, or brakes of a real performance car. Slap a big engine on a
> family car, and you get a muscle car. At least that's the definition. I
> guess its analogous to the modern trend for makers to push SUV's based on
> the horsepower of the engines, even if most of the drivers will never need
> it.

Interesting... That seems to just about sum up what a muscle car is.

> I spent a few years in Europe, so to me a Ford Focus is not all that
> small. There are some European cars that are much smaller, after all
> (Morris Mini, breathing room only). I guess my idea of what is a "nice
car"
> is permanently skewed. So to me muscle cars are like SUV's, they are
> something either one regards with a bit of nostalgia as something that is
> uniquely American, or you chalk it up as just another bone-headed way that
> your country isn't running on all fours. Depending on the mood, of
course.

Wow, a Focus, in my mind, is somewhere between compact and sub-compact. When
I drove a Prelude for a few months I considered it a sub-subcompact. I'm
6'3" so I don't fit well in most small cars. They get very uncomfortable
after about 20-30 minutes.

> > Compared to the modern Crown Vic I don't think these old
> > Galaxies get all that bad of mileage (without going too far from stock
at
> > least). You also gotta figgure the Crown Vic has a smaller engine than
> these
> > cars. A 4.6l engine whereas the old Galaxies have a 4.7l or 5l.
>
> I have driven an 80's Crown Victoria and the car gets mileage in the
mid
> teens, so the Crown Victoria hasn't changed alot.

There is only so much mileage that can be squeezed out of a certain weight
of vehicle. Furthermore, you get less mileage when you have to meet
emissions requirements too. That is why the station wagon was killed in
favor of SUVs which get far worse mileage and aren't as practical. The
tree-huggers set CAFE standards too high for station wagons. Auto
manufacturers were faced with a choice. Either continue to amke station
wagons and pay hefty environmental fines and have to raise prices
significantly on the cars to compensate, or find a way to work around it. So
they took the SUVs they already had and made them into family cars and took
the trucks they had, made a built-in cab and furnished them nicely. There
you have it: Less room, worse mileage, worse handling, and no more station
wagons thanks to the tree huggers.

Anyhow, I believe we've just about got to the maximum mileage/efficiency
that can be had from gasoline engines. That is why you see hybrids and
various 'gimmicks' like cutting the fuel to some cylinders. Everyone wants
more mileage, but these days all the easy ways to get mroe mileage have
already been taken as far as they can go and still meet emissions
requirements.

Cory

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
> There is only so much mileage that can be squeezed out of a certain weight
> of vehicle.

Why does Toyota get 27 MPG from the 4 cylinder Highlander while others are
lucky to get 21 MPG from SUVs with similar weight and horsepower?

>Furthermore, you get less mileage when you have to meet
> emissions requirements too. That is why the station wagon was killed in
> favor of SUVs which get far worse mileage and aren't as practical. The
> tree-huggers set CAFE standards too high for station wagons.

In the carb era of 20-30 years ago.

>Auto
> manufacturers were faced with a choice. Either continue to amke station
> wagons and pay hefty environmental fines and have to raise prices
> significantly on the cars to compensate, or find a way to work around it.

No, station wagons had the Soccer Mom persona and were entirely uncool.

>So
> they took the SUVs they already had and made them into family cars and
took
> the trucks they had, made a built-in cab and furnished them nicely.

You are forgetting the 1980s. Chrysler created the wildly successful and
practical mini van to replace the station wagon. It grew to have the Soccer
Mom persona and became uncool.

>There
> you have it: Less room, worse mileage, worse handling, and no more station
> wagons thanks to the tree huggers.

No, SUVs grew in popularity because they were close to a mini van but more
cool and had off road functionality. At this point they've shifted back
toward tall station wagons--a large body on a basic sedan--because the SUV
shape offers more space and better visibility. They weigh about the same as
a station wagon and get just slightly lower MPG than a sedan with a similar
engine. Wind resistance affects MPG as much as weight.

> Anyhow, I believe we've just about got to the maximum mileage/efficiency
> that can be had from gasoline engines. That is why you see hybrids and
> various 'gimmicks' like cutting the fuel to some cylinders. Everyone wants
> more mileage, but these days all the easy ways to get mroe mileage have
> already been taken as far as they can go and still meet emissions
> requirements.

It's a period of flux. Many ideas will be tried and some will fail. Some
are interesting and some will be an improvement.

-John

"Generic" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > There is only so much mileage that can be squeezed out of a certain
weight
> > of vehicle.
>
> Why does Toyota get 27 MPG from the 4 cylinder Highlander while others are
> lucky to get 21 MPG from SUVs with similar weight and horsepower?

Horsepower figures don't mean a whole lot... A 4 banger can make the same
horsepower as my 302, but you have to rev it to the sky and it doesn't have
anywhere near the torque. Torque is what moves things. It the other SUVs you
mention with similar horsepower have 4 bangers with a similar bore and
stroke, and similar gearing, then perhaps more can be squeezed out of that
particular engine design. Perhaps the engines in the cars you are thinking
of are bigger, or make more torque. The result is often reduced fuel
economy. Personally I wouldn't ever have a 4 banger in a big car or SUV.
It's ridiculous, you'd have to gear it out the wazoo for it to be able to
come close to getting out of it's own way.

> >Furthermore, you get less mileage when you have to meet
> > emissions requirements too. That is why the station wagon was killed in
> > favor of SUVs which get far worse mileage and aren't as practical. The
> > tree-huggers set CAFE standards too high for station wagons.
>
> In the carb era of 20-30 years ago.

A full-size station wagon with a small V8 will not not realistically get
more than 20-22 MPG and still meet emissions requirements. Fuel injection
will not make huge improvements over the same vehicle and engine with a
properly tune carb. A couple MPG difference, most of that being in around
town driving. 20-30 years ago overdrive transmissions were not the norm,
that accounts for the greatest difference you see in mileage of comparable
cars from 20-30 years ago and those of today.

> >Auto
> > manufacturers were faced with a choice. Either continue to amke station
> > wagons and pay hefty environmental fines and have to raise prices
> > significantly on the cars to compensate, or find a way to work around
it.
>
> No, station wagons had the Soccer Mom persona and were entirely uncool.

SUVs and minivans have that same personal and are entirely uncool, except
the real SUVs... That is the Samurai's, Bronco's, etc. that are not plush
mom-mobiles.

> >So
> > they took the SUVs they already had and made them into family cars and
> took
> > the trucks they had, made a built-in cab and furnished them nicely.
>
> You are forgetting the 1980s. Chrysler created the wildly successful and
> practical mini van to replace the station wagon. It grew to have the
Soccer
> Mom persona and became uncool.

Minivans do not have the towing capabilities of a full-size, full-frame car
with a V8. Other than that they are fairly practical, but station wagons are
definitely 'cooler'.

> >There
> > you have it: Less room, worse mileage, worse handling, and no more
station
> > wagons thanks to the tree huggers.
>
> No, SUVs grew in popularity because they were close to a mini van but more
> cool and had off road functionality.

The "off road functionality" of most SUVs is laughable. Hell, my car can do
just as well off road or in the snow.

> At this point they've shifted back
> toward tall station wagons--a large body on a basic sedan--because the SUV
> shape offers more space and better visibility. They weigh about the same
as
> a station wagon and get just slightly lower MPG than a sedan with a
similar
> engine. Wind resistance affects MPG as much as weight.

Most of such vehicles are classified as trucks or light trucks and exempt
from passenger car mileage standards.

> > Anyhow, I believe we've just about got to the maximum mileage/efficiency
> > that can be had from gasoline engines. That is why you see hybrids and
> > various 'gimmicks' like cutting the fuel to some cylinders. Everyone
wants
> > more mileage, but these days all the easy ways to get mroe mileage have
> > already been taken as far as they can go and still meet emissions
> > requirements.
>
> It's a period of flux. Many ideas will be tried and some will fail. Some
> are interesting and some will be an improvement.

There is only so much energy in each gallon of gasoline. That energy can
only be stretched so far in an internal combustion engine. Most of it is
wasted as heat. Hotter running lean-burn engines can only squeeze so much
out of each gallon. I don't imagine there will be any more significant
improvements on the internal combustion engine as we know it. Better fuel
metering has already been done with electronic multi-port fuel injection.
Computer controlled timing with knock sensors is already in use to get the
most from each power stroke. Those two things have probably been the
greatest increase in efficiency to the gasoline internal combustion engine
in the past 30 years.

There is one technology which holds great promise, in my eyes at least. That
is electronic valve control. No more cams, it'll all be electronic (with the
switch to 32 volt electrical systems). Instead of selecting a camshaft for a
compromise of best power and efficiency for the vehicle and intended use the
valve actions can be infinitely changed on the fly. The 'cam' can be set for
most efficiency/mileage unless the pedal is mashed or RPM rise above a
certain point. Or it can slowly make the cam 'bigger' as the RPM rises to
keep it at peak efficiency and/or power at a given RPM. I see this
technology as a great potential to achieve more MPG and also greater power
numbers.

Cory

"Generic" > wrote in message
m...
>
> No, station wagons had the Soccer Mom persona and were entirely uncool.
>

Ah, you didn't live in the day of the 1957 Chevy Nomad!

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
> > Why does Toyota get 27 MPG from the 4 cylinder Highlander while others
are
> > lucky to get 21 MPG from SUVs with similar weight and horsepower?
>
> Horsepower figures don't mean a whole lot... A 4 banger can make the same
> horsepower as my 302, but you have to rev it to the sky and it doesn't
have
> anywhere near the torque. Torque is what moves things. It the other SUVs
you

I once did a comparison in more detail. Some engines get far better MPG
than others with the same torque and a similar powerband. Some engines are
30-50 year old designs and their makers are too lazy/poor to update them.

> > > emissions requirements too. That is why the station wagon was killed
in
> > > favor of SUVs which get far worse mileage and aren't as practical. The
> > > tree-huggers set CAFE standards too high for station wagons.
> >
> > In the carb era of 20-30 years ago.
>
> A full-size station wagon with a small V8 will not not realistically get
> more than 20-22 MPG and still meet emissions requirements.

Who said they need a V8 any more? We've moved past the 1950s where V8s were
necessary. A decent 6 cylinder has more than enough torque, and surpasses
the power of many old V8s. They can get 250HP/250 Ft. Lb. without trouble.
They use variable valve timing, fuel injection, overhead cams, etc.

> > No, station wagons had the Soccer Mom persona and were entirely uncool.
> SUVs and minivans have that same personal and are entirely uncool, except
> the real SUVs... That is the Samurai's, Bronco's, etc. that are not plush
> mom-mobiles.

The overwhelming majority of the buying public does not agree. You've got
to either know the model or look underneath at the suspension to see if it's
truly offroad capable. There are gradations for sure, and some like the
Honda CR-V are minivans with a thin disguise.

> > You are forgetting the 1980s. Chrysler created the wildly successful
and
> > practical mini van to replace the station wagon. It grew to have the
> Soccer
> > Mom persona and became uncool.
> Minivans do not have the towing capabilities of a full-size, full-frame
car
> with a V8. Other than that they are fairly practical, but station wagons
are
> definitely 'cooler'.

Not any cooler in my mind. Wagons are snoozers, except for a handful of
models. They are virtually the *same* as a city SUV except for the ride
height. The Ford Escape is built on the Mazda 626 sedan, the Highlander is
built on a Camry sedan.

> > No, SUVs grew in popularity because they were close to a mini van but
more
> > cool and had off road functionality.
> The "off road functionality" of most SUVs is laughable. Hell, my car can
do
> just as well off road or in the snow.

Some SUVs. The *style* of the SUV was so popular that they *turned* them
into a city cars following the success of the borderline Ford Explorer and
Jeep Cherokee in the late 1980s. There are no black and whites any more.
The Porsche Cayenne is a good example. It's not meant for offroad use but
the mix of ride height, capacity and performance has turned it into their
most popular model. Call it a 'crossover' if you will.

-John

"James C. Reeves" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Generic" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > No, station wagons had the Soccer Mom persona and were entirely uncool.
> >
> Ah, you didn't live in the day of the 1957 Chevy Nomad!

I have seen plenty of these:

http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/...ry_Squire.html

and these in orange and white:

http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/...ord_Pinto.html


The Dodge Magnum is tolerable too.

-John