You are here: Forums Classic Cars 1960's Ford Falcons

1960's Ford Falcons

133 messages,  Last post on Feb 05, 2008 at 7:50 AM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright

What is this discussion about? Ford, Wagon

Messages Page 8 of 14 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#64 of 133 by speedshift Sep 09, 2002 (7:44 pm)
I wonder why my Falcon wagon with the 144/85 felt so much more gutless than the car I owned before it, a '60 Corvair with the 80-hp 140.   The numbers seem to favor the Falcon. It had stick with 3.89 gears while the Corvair had Powerglide and 3.27s.   My Falcon's engine was in good shape while the Corvair had mostly STP in the crankcase the night I totaled it.   Even the weights were roughly comparable, 2305 pounds for the Corvair 500 sedan (but add a few for Powerglide) and 2558 for the Falcon wagon.   Of course the Corvair's flat six was inherently balanced while the Falcon six was a thrashy four bearing thinwall wonder. You heard, felt and sincerely believed it was working hard.   It also could be that (gasp!) the Falcon six wasn't putting out near its rated horsepower.   And it's long been my contention that in normal driving an underpowered car feels less underpowered with automatic. I know this flies in the face of accepted wisdom, but I think with automatic you're not always fighting to get the car rolling so you're less aware of the lack of power. You had to work with the Falcon to get it from Point A to Point B.   But most likely it's because the 'Vair was faster than the wheels I had before it, a Raleigh ten speed.
#65 of 133 HP ratings ..... by prophet2 Sep 10, 2002 (4:34 am)
I remember an article in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics way back when that indicated that the true horse power figures for cars those days was highly exaggerated. Like the acclaimed 271 hp for the "hot" 289 V-8 in the Mustang only delivering 115 when measured in what the article claimed to be a "truer" test. So, the mighty 85 from the 144 I-6 was reduced to a mere 33!   Makes me wonder about the 140 hp rating for my one-time 1979 Mustang 302 V-8.
#66 of 133 Shifty - regarding post 56 by bhill2 Sep 10, 2002 (11:55 am)
You've got to be kidding. Any Schwinn with two functional wheels could hole shot the Falcon and be half a block away before any torque got through the torque converter and to the rear wheels. In all fairness, I distinctly remember the Falcon hitting 60 on special occasions, so it would probably eventually catch and pass the Schwinn. Might come down to which one ran out of gas first, though.
#67 of 133 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Sep 10, 2002 (6:38 pm)
I have an electric bike and I'm sure I could dust a 144 from 0-25.
#68 of 133 by speedshift Sep 10, 2002 (7:32 pm)
Sure, very few engines in the '60s put out near their advertised horsepower. The Hi-Po 289 was putting out about 220 hp according to Roger Huntington, about 50 less than its hp rating. That's at the clutch--breathing underhood air, all accessories hooked up, stock exhaust manifolds and mufflers. By the time you figured in friction in the transmission, U-joints and rear end maybe you were down to 115 hp.   But with some engines their net was closer to their advertised gross than others. Pontiacs were usually under-rated to make them more competitive in class drag racing, while Fords were often over-rated for better ad copy.   I have a feeling the 144's 85 horses were malnourished. I've driven many a gutless dog--'50 Plymouth and '54 Chevy pickup come to mind--and nothing was quite as slow as my Falcon.
#69 of 133 Well, when I was driving a 62 Station Wagon by carnut4 Sep 10, 2002 (8:33 pm)
with the 170 automatic, delivering mail back in 1967, I was happy that I was in a Falcon, instead of one of those Cushman mailsters the PO used then [what a POS!] 0r even those little Willys vans, that some guys got on the mounted routes. They were always having trouble with the Cushmans and the Willys-but not with the Falcons. Heck-there was nothing there to go wrong! Actually, I'd never driven one of those Falcons before that, and using them to get around town as a mail carrier, I came to like them for what they were-a simple, economical,easy to handle small car to get around town with-and with pretty decent room too! But, of course, ANYTHING was better than driving one of those dang Cushmans!
#70 of 133 Just to show how much... by andre1969 Sep 11, 2002 (4:05 am)
...they still play around with hp numbers, I read that the 2.7 that Chrysler uses in the Intrepid, Concorde, etc, and is rated at 200 hp net, only puts out something like 150 hp at the wheels!   I always got confused, I guess, because I thought net hp WAS at the wheels. Anyway, here's my take on it, so correct me if I'm wrong...   Gross hp: engine only: no exhhaust, alternator, water pump, intake restriction, transmission, etc.   Net hp: engine with alternator, water pump, stock intake/exhaust, etc, but not accounting for transmission, driveshaft, and the rest of the driveline   Wheel hp: whatever's left over by the time the power gets to the wheels.   So if something like a Falcon 144 is rated at 85 hp gross, I guess it's down to 60-65 net, and maybe only 30-40 or so at the drive wheels.   As for gutless wonders, I think the worst I've ever driven was my college buddy's 1980 Accord. We timed it from 0-60 once with a stopwatch. It took something like 30 seconds to hit 60, but that was with 3 people on board.   Falcons must have been pretty durable cars. I remember seeing them on the streets all the time when I was a kid. The herd seemed to thin out in the late '70's/early '80's, but I guess that says something for a car that ended production in "1970 1/2"!
#71 of 133 Horsepower by carnut4 Sep 11, 2002 (11:10 am)
I was watching "Horsepower TV" the other day [Saturdays on TNN] and they had a 5 liter Mustang from the early 90s they were tweaking. The car was stock, and had some miles on it. It was rated at 225HP net. They tested the rearwheel HP before they tweaked it, and it came out 134. I was surprised-thought it would be more than that. So, if the Intrepid is 200 net, and gets 150 at the wheels, it's better than the Mustang anyway. After they made these modifications to the Mustang [I forget what they were, but they mentioned it cost $1000] the rearwheel horsepower had gone up to 188, I believe. Anyway, it would be interesting to see a table with all the HP ratings for cars-net and at the wheels.
#72 of 133 USPS and Falcons by prophet2 Sep 11, 2002 (11:11 am)
In the mid-60s, my boss at the gas station also was a part-time contract mail carrier for USPS on a rural route. He used his '64 Sprint, which was certainly a lot faster than the 170 Falcon S/Ws, Cushmans, and Willys. He got a per-diem car allowance in addition to his regular pay.
#73 of 133 Yeah I did the perdiem too by carnut4 Sep 11, 2002 (11:14 am)
My own car at the time was a 65 Plymouth Belvedere, with the 383/330 horse 4speed. Sometimes I would drive that car, under contract, on my route. The mail got done faster, and I sure had more fun!

Messages Page 8 of 14 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Classic Cars 1960's Ford Falcons