1971 Ford Torino GT - fuel economy mpg test - 351c - Classic muscle car cruise
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 10. 2022
- Real world fuel economy test of a 1971 Ford Torino. Car is powered by a 351c big port, 3-speed automatic transmission(Ford C4) thru a Ford 9 inch rear w/3.50 rear gears.
Motor is a fairly fresh rebuild - mild cam(Lunati's version of the Ford "505") w/ crane variable duration lifters(Crane's version of the popular Rhodes lifters), Holley 3310(750 cfm) carburetor, Sanderson short tube header style exhaust.
Drive loop was a 36.8 mile suburban driving scenario, ~70% country highway, ~30% in town driving.
I did perform the test a second time on the same loop and the result was within 1/10th of a gallon consumed.
A neighbor of mine bought brand new a '71 Torino GT in red, with that distinctive multitone decal on the sides, and the backlight louvers. Awesome car. I always loved it. 15 miles/gal ain't that bad. Great video.
Very cool, the backlight louvers look great on the Torino. Thank you for watching!
My parents had a 1971 Torino. On a trip to CA, four people and a trunk full of luggage, 302 V8 automatic transmission, the car got 20 mpg.
Great looking 70's mobile...lol, would daily that with a huge smile!
PS...NO amount of new car money will buy you that view over the hood.
I couldn’t agree more. That view over the hood is one of the coolest things about driving a car like this around- there just isn’t anything quite like it. Thanks for watching the vid!
Definitely a little better than I expected...
It could definitely be worse!
With my 1970 Torino GT 351C, after adding a Holly 4BLB carb, I was getting 20 mpg, on freeway (not in town) drives. But the kicker then was, the speed limit was 55mph! At 70mph, I was lucky to get 16 to 17mpg! Not that I cared, I loved that car. I bought it 7 days before meeting my wife! :)
Wow! That's pretty good for an old hauler!!
Well, I'm 58 years old so gas in 1971 was around .55 cents, so that's about $1.10 for 36 miles. Not bad. My parents bought a new 72 gran torino sport and got 300 miles on the first tank of gas. That was 15 mpg for a 20 gallon tank. That was 11.00 dollars for 300 miles. Amen. Russell John 5:24.
The gas milage 15.1 mpg is excellent. If you had a 3.25 ratio you might get 18 mpg. Thank you for the gear vendors install video's and this here mpg video, very well done and informative.
Thank you for watching, i really appreciate that! With the gear vendors, the car can now push 20mpg on a highway drive- might have to do a test sometime and see exactly what its getting
Love finding more torino stuff on here
Same here! I just saw you’ve got a lot of torino videos. I subscribed to and will be checking those out later!
@@mattsboatyard6891 appreciate it. I'm building this thing for the power tour in June so a lot of rust repairs and such
I had a neighbor who worked at Ford,every year a new car.l want the Squire Wagon!
You can still get one! They’re out there
I like the way of filming, you captured some nice shots!
Thank you, I appreciate that!
I had a 1970 torino GT with a 429 thunder jet (Passenger car engine) with a 4 speed top loader trans with 3.91 gear. 12 mpg tops. Bought it in 1979 when I was 19 years old for $2500. Sold it in 1985 to fund a race car project. Biggest mistake of my life. Not a day goes by regretting not have it yet
Growing up, my dad had quite a few torinos/fairlanes which is how I got into those cars in the first place. One of em was a 70 fastback w/429 TJ that he had done a mild build up on. The car really flew and with highway gears wasn’t too bad on fuel if you stayed out of the accelerator pedal ;).
Given it is a big port Cleveland knowing what that can bring to the table, the milage is quite good. Great camera work and editing!
Thanks, i thought it was decent too!
My Cougar '71 4V Cleveland, got 11-14mpg. FMX auto.
Back in the 60's and 70's My uncle worked for TWA. He had 2 Cadillac so his biggest complaint was buying gas all the time. The Torino was a much better time saver. LOL!
I had a 70 torino Fairlane 500 with the 351 C engine and I loved that car.
When I drove responsible gas mileage not bad
Yeah, if you stay out of the accelerator pedal, they're not so bad on fuel.
It was rally good considering the 3.55 gears. Nice car.
I thought it was a decent result too
That is a sweet 71. You know I love my Torinos. Gonna try and get a few together next year in Bowling Green for Ford fest.
Hell yeah! They are cool looking machines. You could tow em to the show with your Torino wagon!!
@@mattsboatyard6891 I am planning on towing my fastback and maybe my 72’s as well.
Awesome!!! When is Ford fest? I've never heard of it, Im up in mid-Michigan. Would be fun to go!
@@mattsboatyard6891 September 28th through October 1st in Bowling Green Ky.
Sounds right on for what my dad's 71 351c 4v (c6 & Shaker) car did with 3.50s....its got 3.89s now and it like 1/2 that since we have to go on the highway to get to the track. Would love to put a modern 6/10speed auto or a nice tkx in it to make a highway car again while keeping the 3.89 gearing.
I bet the 3.89's are pretty quick!!
Big valve small cam philosophy. Ford did major dyno testing on this engine to get it perform for the street.
Puts the truth about this engine. That this engine makes good drivable low speed torque.
In the 80's I had a near identical car. Same results. 15 miles per gallon.
The stock cam does exactly what it was designed.
The engineering of the 351c is fascinating- it is an extremely well thought out engine. The whole thing about it lacking low end torque is total myth- especially with the closed chambered heads and proper cam timing. I plan to put some more videos up regarding this car when spring arrives!
@@mattsboatyard6891 Im a retired engine builder/ machinist. Did at least 70 or more Cleveland's over the years.
Totally true. A 4 v makes excellent torque and off idle drivability.
People that say otherwise, don't know very much about this engine, like they think they do.
At altitude 5500 feet or so these engine's had a mushy low end. I've had many of these engine's. But at sea level, nobody had any complaint about low end torq. In 74 Ford sent all the clever stuff to Australia. They have developed great heads for these motors,all with smaller intake runners in aluminum. Love these motors.
Nice
Had a Torino (70/71 )GT 351C mildly worked back in ‘84. My home town to Wpg Manitoba almost 120 miles ( 200 Kim’s) @ just under 120 mph ( so I could see Speedo not buried I held about 118 mph) my fuel economy , metric converted to USA gallons was about 6 or 7 mpg.
Thats some high road speed to maintain right there!
@@mattsboatyard6891 Had a Hot GF in the City, I’m in Ontario. Back in the day no pts on licence out of province, and no law to “ automatic tow after speeding 50% or more over. Manitoba is flat like Nebraska, and so was She.
Yeah I had a 71 351c auto here in Winnipeg too . When I booted it around the mileage was abysmal . When I nursed it , it was still worse than this car . My car was totaled at a light by a woman running the light .
I had one in a 4 speed 351c 4V lunati cam, 4.56 trac loc 4 speed, I bet I got 4mpg. I was 16 when I got the car in 1979, sure miss it
Sounds like a lot of car for a 16 year old
Bet it was pretty quick
About what I would expect. the 3.50:1 axle ratio is an economy killer but like you said it's not a freeway cruiser. It the car was modified with an overdrive transmission you might see 20 mpg on that same cruise... but for most older cars the cost to do that isn't worth the investment unless the vehicle needs to be a daily driver for long term.
Yeah, the 3.5's are great for driving around town and getting away from a stop light but not so great for the highway.
My 71 had more like highway gears , I don't recall the ratio . Anyway that car sucked gas , worse than yours . I thought that you did for that car .
Having the engine recently rebuilt helped. Before that, my mpg’s were pretty inconsistent- sometimes it’d do alright(maybe 13-14) and sometimes it would pig out (9-10). I made this video before I installed the gear vendors overdrive- maybe I’ll do another test run now that the GV unit is installed!
I have had a 1970 351 c 4v and a 1972 351c 4v both averaged about 9mpg in the city and 20mpg highway. So you are in the ball park. The fuel economy is not bad as long as you lay off the heavy foot. LOL!!!! :)
Yeah, all hopes of decent fuel mileage are gone when that accelerator foot gets heavy ha!
Back in highschool a buddy bought a 1971 TORINO GT with a 429 motor with a 4 speed!!! Orange with the stripes on the sides!!!! He drove it slow around town but fast on the highway!!! Gas mileage was. Not GOOD!!!! Cool car!!! Like to have one now!!!!
I can picture what that car probably looked like- sounds like a hot set up. I’m sure it was a fun car to drive. When I was a kid, my dad had built himself a 70 torino w/429 that was dark dark green. Extremely cool car! He sold it in 2002, I hope to come across it someday.
WHAT A BEAUTY!
The 70-71 fastbacks have a great look
@@mattsboatyard6891 YAH THEY DO! DO MORE VIDEOS ABOUT THIS CAR AND YOUR CHANNEL WILL GROW ! AS YOU CAN SEE BY YOUR ANALYTICS THIS ONE VIDEO ENDED UP IN MY FEED! CONGRATS AND NEVER QUIT YOU TUBE! 99.7 % QUIT...GOOD LUCK!
@@bbgcars There are more videos in the works! Stay tuned
@@mattsboatyard6891 Great! SUBBED! Go check out my ANGLER 600 in the Philippines!..she is a blast to drive! LOVE THE MICHIGAN ACCENT! lolz
czcams.com/video/Xunon_JNSH8/video.html
Sounds like a push rod tapping. Those multi groove keepers like to drop valves.
Great video and interesting video.
Better than most.
The cylinder heads on this were refurbed recently and the multi-groove keepers were done away with for the reasons you mention. The motor has the crane variable duration lifters(similar to the Rhodes style lifters) and they are a noisier lifter than your average hydraulic flat tapper lifter. Thank you for checking the video out, glad you found it interesting!
@@mattsboatyard6891 did you change out the rockers ? Crane makes that quick and dirty bolt on adjustable conversion.
I've used it many times successfully.
But never on a hot 600 lift race engine.
@@cammontreuil7509 The rockers are new replacements but they are an OE style non-adjustable style rocker.
@@mattsboatyard6891 someone must have done the valve job right.
Variable lifters are sensitive to pre load.
I had one in 1980, husband rebuilt the engine cos it wouldn't start, complete rebuild. The problem was a $1.99 condenser (a whole rebuild because the condenser came loose, OY!) But when he got it running, it was unbeatable. I loved that car. Came home from work one day, and the SOB had SOLD IT! DId I tear him a new ass? I did! Had to drive that Chevy Caprice instead, an okay car, but I missed my Torino! Still get pissed when I think about it even now.
Oh dang, I would be mad too! Why did he sell it?
That's a Lot better than i thought it would get! You should sell me the car
Beautiful Car Beef it Up.
15.175 mpg isn't bad for low tech. It puts most newer trucks to shame.
Yeah, i thought it was a pretty good result for an old school hauler!
I had a 71 Torino , same engine combo . Way back in the late 70s . You are getting better mileage than I got . I believe that I averaged 13 mpg . One question is why did you not like the power steering ? I don’t recall any issues with mine .
I prefer manual steering on older vehicles because the road feel is a bit better and there are less mechanical things to have to service. Specifically on the pre-72 ford unit, it was more of an add on system and the ones I’ve driven were always a bit numb and didn’t work well in low speed situations which is precisely when you’d want power steering to work well.
@@mattsboatyard6891 Thanks for the reply , I had a AMC The Machine 390 auto after the Torino got smoked , that car had balky power steering and wipers . And a pos Borg and Warner automatic . Starting around 72 AMC started using the torque flight 727 from Mopar . Much more durable . The Torino drive train seemed pretty stout .
71-73 Cougar/Mustang with PS and 4V Cleveland, use Saginaw variable ratio & Quick steering box. Almost identical to GM A body fast ratio. (442,GTO, Chevelle, Skylark GS. So No ram booster situation like 65-70 Mustang. Thats the setup ticket!!
I like it. I’ve never been a big fan of the power steering set ups on 71 and earlier mid-sized fords.
I think you should hold it to the board's more , spin the tires more , go faster more and if that doesn't give you better mileage , at least you would have fun doing it 😉
3.50 rear gear with a 27 inch tire (G70-14, stock size for 1971 GT) gets you 2600 RPM at 60 mph.
Currently, the car has 225/75/14's on it which are about 24-24.5" tall.
As expected .
the 3.5 rear end is fine for a manual six but not for a v8 searching for economy.Thats about as good as its ever going to get . i wish i had it.
Yeah with the 3.5’s and no overdrive, 15 mpg is pretty good for this set up.
That 4v 351c should be a CJ engine with 4 bolt mains….I had a 1970 Torino GT with the same engine..bought it with a rod knock.
During tear down it had 4 bolt mains along with 4v heads…research showed it to be called a Cobra jet..
15 mpg isn’t bad at for a bigger car and a healthy engine!
Shoot….my modern day super duties only get 11 mpg ….but with todays fuel it’s about 1.5 mpg less with 10% ethanol
You’re correct, the motor in my car started life as a 351CJ- it came out of a 72 Ranchero. Freshened it up a few years back and replaced the open chambered cylinder heads with some closed chambered heads. Interesting stuff about your car. My understanding on 70-71 model year Cleveland’s is that they typically were 2-bolt main but that Ford indiscriminately cast some for 4-bolt mains(both 2v and 4v motors) and this is according to the ford parts interchange book written by George Reid. The 351cj debuted in late 1971 and was an option thru 74 and ALL CJ blocks(as well as 351BOSS and 351H.O) have 4 bolt mains.
@@mattsboatyard6891 that is an interesting scenario , when I pulled the engine from my 70 Torino it looked like it was in there a long time! I suppose it could have had a replacement engine at some point and maybe got a 4 bolt block for some reason …the engine was all stock with no mods and full of grease and grime! (Standard bearings and standard stock bore …so it wasn’t rebuilt either.) Probably ran low on oil and why it spun a rod bearing. It’s also possible it was a mid year build and was closer to being a 71 model year and the CJ 4 bolt block was used?
I know manufactures did a lot of weird things back then …a buddy of mine bought a brand new 67 fairlane GT. He told me stories of how his wife drove the car all the time and could put keep back tires on it…was badged as a 390 but eventually he had to do some engine work on it. It has some out of the ordinary parts on the car that typically 390s didn’t have (he never said what they were) after more inspection he discovered it was a 410 FE engine! He never ordered it that way and was the original owner! Weird
@@markcole6475 Wow, Figuring out that the 390 was actually a 410 must have been a pleasant surprise!!
@@mattsboatyard6891 yes, he was pleasantly surprised! It would have been a super rare car if it was an actual documented special ordered 410.
But being it appeared to be a mistake during assembly it would be hard to prove being rare and worth more money
@@markcole6475 Yeah, it must have been a mistake! very interesting!
Better tha I thought.
Yeah, its decent on gas if you aren't flogging it
Not bad. My 71 Torino 500 351C 2v has been getting about 12-13mpg. That is driving on the freeway most of the tank about 70-75 mph. Not sure what gears I have. Also have C4 trans. I do have Holley Sniper TBI, headers, dual exhaust, Edelbrock intake,
That sounds like a nice build. How do you like the Sniper EFI set up on your Cleveland?
@@mattsboatyard6891 it runs great. I had some minor issues early on, but with a bit of reading and moving some wires around it has run very well. I also have a Hyperspark distributor so I can change timing on the fly. I have a cam I’m waiting to install. Can wait to wake this car up even more.
If you were to put it back to stock, mileage will go up.
On the front of the rear end is a tag attached to one of the 3rd member bolts. Use a small wire brush. You will see the ratio on the tag.
It beats the crap out of my 1970 Charger R/T that in a couple of tries 9.37 was the best it could do .
If i had been mashing the throttle more, i'd be dropping down into the single digits too ;-)
Do you have any plans for other upgrades, like an overdrive or fuel injection?
I’ll probably stick with the carburetor because I like the stock appearance of the engine but I did order a Gear Vendors overdrive unit. I’m hoping that I will receive it soon and install it over the winter.
@@mattsboatyard6891 Sounds good. What about ignition? Are you still running points or did you upgrade to electronic ignition?
@@RodBeauvex it has electronic ignition, been running a ford duraspark in it for the last few years
@@mattsboatyard6891 Ooh, nice. Not a lot of people actively seek out the Duraspark system. Good job for keeping it Ford. Did you notice any improvement over points vs Duraspark?
@@RodBeauvex yeah it runs smoother and the manners are better. Durasparks aren’t performance oriented per se, but I’ve had good experiences with them and i think for a mild performance application like this, it is a good match.
It got better than I thought it would? I can bearlry get a fi 302 to get 13 & that was interstate driving.
Yeah but to be fair, if I took my torino on the interstate and did anything close to interstates speeds, I’d be lucky to get 13 mpg.
What are the headers from? I can't find shorties for my 4v 71 Torino GT
These are sanderson short tube headers for 351c w/4v cylinder heads. i do see them available on ebay sometimes and i believe you can also buy them directly from sanderson's website.
@@mattsboatyard6891 thank you. Are they any good/pain to keep from leaking?
@@nathanieljones7981 They are a good quality header. I have not had any issues with exhaust leaks since installing them!
@@mattsboatyard6891 Thank you, I will be looking at buying a set soon then
@@mattsboatyard6891 Did you use a gasket? I saw they say don't use one but that sounds like rusting to head issue in future
This is like an ASMR video, haha
Hahaha
not bad but highly innacurate an estimate given the small amount of fuel consumed. You'd have to run a whole tank through to really know.
You’re not wrong- the methodology isn’t perfect. I did run the test a second time because of that and came up with a nearly identical result. Over the winter I installed a gear vendors overdrive unit and if I do a second test, maybe I’ll do a longer test run.
@@mattsboatyard6891 that's not bad an online resource I use shows city 7-8mpg freeway 12-14 mpg highway below 65mph 13-16mpg.
Its not meant for MPG.
Boy does that ever sound beautiful. Who gives a darn about Fuel Mileage though. Only losers care about that, it has no place in the Classic Car world. Its like with old Cadillacs; bring a 100 dollars with you whenever you cruise--its worth it!
Haha you make a good point- I wouldn’t buy a classic car for fuel economy reasons. That said, I’ve been asked about the fuel mileage so many times with this car. It’s definitely a curiosity for a lot of people.
You have had this vehicle for 12 years now, and you are just now wondering about the gas mileage?
??????????
lmao well i've had a good idea of it's fuel economy, i just hadn't run a precise test of it. Surprisingly, it's one of the most common questions about the car i have received so i did the test and made a video of it.
@@mattsboatyard6891 I understand. But I do envy anyone who has such a vehicle.
My Uncle sold these vehicles and he sold me on them, also
351 M boat motor for sure
Ha.. ok
Clueless for sure.
Why even care?
, there are actually a lot of good reasons to have a clue of what kind of fuel economy your vehicle is getting- especially an older one. Unless you just don't drive it ever, then sure yeah- it doesn't matter much.
Get in touch with thunderhead289 you can get 40 miles to a gallon !!!