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

#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!
#74 of 133 by jrosasmc Sep 11, 2002 (11:24 am)
With all this talk on horsepower, I should note that the old Volvo B18 engine from the '60s was rated at 115 hp. The 5-cylinder in my '93 850 is rated at 168 hp. I know nothing about gross or net ratings. How many hp would those engines put out at the wheels?
#75 of 133 Does anybody remember... by lemko Sep 11, 2002 (11:26 am)
...the midsize Falcon? Ford produced a car called the Falcon on the midsize Torino chassis in 1970. It was pretty much a Plain Jane.
#76 of 133 That's the one... by andre1969 Sep 11, 2002 (12:16 pm)
...that was commonly referred to as the "1970 1/2" Falcon. I think the car was fielded mainly to use up extra Falcon trim, badges, etc.   The Falcon actually shared quite a bit with the intermediate Fords starting around 1966 or so. Whereas a Dart and a Coronet were on completely different platforms, same with, say, a Chevy II and a Chevelle, the Falcon became a truncated Fairlane. The similarity was especially striking with the Falcon wagons, which were on the same wheelbase as the Fairlanes, but with the Falcon fenders, hood, and grille.
#77 of 133 Saw a couple old Falcons the other day by carnut4 Oct 07, 2002 (12:55 pm)
one was a white 64 4dr sedan-the low level trim line-for sale. Not a real desirable car, but I thought "now there's a simple ride, that could be fairly reliable, cheap transportations for someone." Later that day, a guy passed me going the other way in a red 63 2dr-again, the cheaper looking one. I could see and hear him shifting the 3spd on the column [winding out first gear to about 7mph!] and I remembered what it was like to drive those [or any 60s Ford] with the 3speed column shift. They were particularly clunky to drive just because of the shifting and clutch action. That's why floor shift conversions caught on so fast in the 60s. But that clutch linkage was also so cumbersome, and the clutch action itself hard to get used to. I think Ford could have made a lot better car to drive if they'd worked on the ergonomic things like that. Not to mention the slow steering. Anyway, we've done a lot of bashing here of those early 60s Falcons. But, I was thinking-back in 1960, in the $2000 price range-if you wanted a car that would hold 4-6 people, room for luggage, get good gas mileage, [high 20s] and be fairly dependable and cheap to repair, what were your choices? Just look at the imports available at the time-in that price range [$2000-plus or minus a little]. Would it be a Simca, a Panhard, Opel, or maybe a Vauxhall? A Renault, or a Hillman? The Peugeout and Volvo cost a bit more. The Japanese cars weren't even around yet. How 'bout a Fiat 1100, or a Skoda? When you think back to the 1960 context, and what else was available at the time, the Falcon looks pretty good. Never mind it was gutless and not fun to drive. Some of those imports weren't much either. People didn't buy Falcons for that. For just reliable, basic transportation, with the support of a huge dealer network/service/parts, hey, it was OK. I think I might have bought a Valiant, though. Just think, though-the Falcon was the basis for the Mustang, and with some upgrading/tweaking, the Mustang was fun. Look at the Shelby GT 350. I wonder who will buy that forlorn little white 4dr I saw for sale.

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