Ask the Car People.SM


67 Ford Galaxy 500 GT ????

32 messages,  Last post on Jul 29, 2009 at 7:52 AM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford GT, Ford, Classic Cars

Messages Page 4 of 4

#23 of 32 Re: I own a 1969 Ford Xl Convertible. [fintail] by euphonium

Jul 28, 2009 (9:12 am)

Replying to: fintail (Jul 27, 2009 9:37 am)
You are right Fintail. The base engine for the big Fords in 67-69 was the 240 c.i. Six cylinder = 147 h.p. '69.
 
Two other options were ('69) 390 c.i. & 429 c.i. V8's each with 2 bbl carbs.
 
Additional options included:302 c.i., 2 bbl, 220 h.p.
                                        428 c.i., 4 bbl, 360 h.p.
                                        429 c.i., 4 bbl, 360 h.p.
 
Our 67 Country Sedan came with a 390 2 bbl & when the warranty expired I converted it to a 4 bbl. A lot more poop to pass trucks on the hill, but when just cruising, the mileage was better than the former 2 bbl by 3.5 mpg! It was a great family fun wagon, 2 way tailgate was very handy.
 
In those days the only "GT" I recall was on the Fairlane 500 XL.

#24 of 32 Re: I own a 1969 Ford Xl Convertible. [euphonium] by fintail

Jul 28, 2009 (10:14 am)

Replying to: euphonium (Jul 28, 2009 9:12 am)
I can't imagine having one of those big boats with a 6, especially if it had faux sport trim, which just added more weight.
 
Those old wagons are pretty cool cars, their image has turned full circle. In the early 90s my dad had a 1960 Country Sedan, it had a 352, I can't remember if 2bbl or 4bbl. But, it actually got respectable mileage on the highway, and it ran very well. He rescued that car from languishing beside a house, sold it on a whim and regretted it from almost the day after. My first car was a 66 Galaxie with a 390-4bbl. I've never driven a car that burned so much gas. Luckily, it could also burn rubber, so all was not lost ...but as a car for a 16 year old, it probably wasn't the best choice, it ensured I was pretty broke.

#25 of 32 Re: I own a 1969 Ford Xl Convertible. [euphonium] by bhill2

Jul 28, 2009 (12:22 pm)

Replying to: euphonium (Jul 28, 2009 9:12 am)
I almost replied that the XL wasn't offered with a six, and before '68 it wasn't. However, starting in '68 it came standard with the six and a 3 on the tree. What a pathetic beast that would be.

#26 of 32 Re: I own a 1969 Ford Xl Convertible. [bhill2] by euphonium

Jul 28, 2009 (2:13 pm)

Replying to: bhill2 (Jul 28, 2009 12:22 pm)
3,769 lbs for the 240 Six to lug around is really a drag.

#27 of 32 Re: I own a 1969 Ford Xl Convertible. [euphonium] by andre1969

Jul 28, 2009 (2:35 pm)

Replying to: euphonium (Jul 28, 2009 2:13 pm)
Would they at least have been using a 3-speed automatic with the 240 by that time? It could be worse...I think GM was still putting 2-speed Powerglides behind its 250 6-cyl and even the 307-V-8...possibly even the 350!

#28 of 32 Re: I own a 1969 Ford Xl Convertible. [andre1969] by fintail

Jul 28, 2009 (2:39 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 28, 2009 2:35 pm)
A high school friend of mine had a 69 Nova with a 307 and a 2-speed powerglide. It must have been an antiquated unit even then. I remember when you'd accelerate hard from a stop, it would stay in first until something like 50mph.

#29 of 32 Re: I own a 1969 Ford Xl Convertible. [fintail] by andre1969

Jul 28, 2009 (2:52 pm)

Replying to: fintail (Jul 28, 2009 2:39 pm)
Those 2-speed automatics used to kill Chevy's performance figures, when CR would do their big car comparison tests. I remember they tested a 1968 Impala 4-door with a 307 and 2-speed, and got 0-60 in something like 14.5 seconds! In comparison, I think the Ford with the 289 or 302 or whatever, and the Mopar with the 318 were more like 11-12 seconds, and the Catalina with its 400 a relative barn-burner at around 9.5-10. I always wondered how the Chevy would've stacked up performance-wise if they'd offered a 3-speed with the 283 and 307?
 
My '67 Catalina used to hold first up to about 50-55 under hard acceleration, and would chirp the tires when shifting to second. I don't think it was supposed to do that though, because ever since my mechanic went through the car and did all that work to it, it won't do it anymore.
 
I can get my NYer to hold first up to around 50-55 as well under hard acceleration, and then if I totally get off the gas, it seems like it almost skips 2nd gear altogether.

#30 of 32 Re: I own a 1969 Ford Xl Convertible. [andre1969] by fintail

Jul 28, 2009 (6:43 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 28, 2009 2:52 pm)
I remember on my friend's Nova, the torque converter failed once, and right before this, it wouldn't shift out of 1st at all. As he had a few miles of a 55mph road to travel before getting into town, this made driving interesting. It was quite a car. The steering wheel fell off when the car was sitting in a parking lot (luckily), the headlights worked intermittently, and the horn would only work when the car was off.
 
He replaced this in 1997, with a 1990 Caravan, one of those odd sport models with the body cladding and wheels, etc. The tranny failed on this car 48 hours after he bought it, literally. The dealer fixed it.
 
I don't remember if my Galaxie had a C4 or a C6...but I guess both were solid enough units. I did little more than 0-30 sprints

#31 of 32 Re: 67 Ford Galaxy 500 GT ???? [fintail] by papasam1

Jul 29, 2009 (12:48 am)

Replying to: fintail (Jul 26, 2009 6:01 pm)
Yup the you are right the 428 started in 66, Alone with the 410.

#32 of 32 Re: 67 Ford Galaxy 500 GT ???? [papasam1] by fintail

Jul 29, 2009 (7:52 am)

Replying to: papasam1 (Jul 29, 2009 12:48 am)
The 410...I forgot about that one. Was it used a lot in Mercurys?

Messages Page 4 of 4

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement