Interesting. A 1960 Ford Falcon gets....

[funboy6942]

up to 30 mile per gallon and is heavy as all hell, carb'd, and not one computer anything on it. And yet we went to computer controlled cars because they are supposed to get us better fuel economy and other bull crap I dont belive except to raise the price of the car and to have it serviced.

But video is still cool and somewhat funny to watch

EDIT May have to click link a few times for it to play video for some reason

 

[thedarkwolf]

Cool commercial. The falcon is a compact or was then anyway and isn't that heavy. Probably around 2700lbs give or take depending on the model. All the pesky safty equipment and electronic do dads add a lot of weight on new cars.

 

[BobDaMenkey]

And that's probably on the freeway down a hill going with the wind. Auto makers have a tendancy to over estimate on gas milage.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Originally posted by: BobDaMenkey
And that's probably on the freeway down a hill going with the wind. Auto makers have a tendancy to over estimate on gas milage.

Its pretty believable. I overestimated the weight a bit they actually weighed 2300-2600lbs depending on the model. They had a puny little straight 6 of 140 cubic inches that made 90hp.
1960 sales brochure

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf

Originally posted by: BobDaMenkey
And that's probably on the freeway down a hill going with the wind. Auto makers have a tendancy to over estimate on gas milage.

Its pretty believable. I overestimated the weight a bit they actually weighed 2300-2600lbs depending on the model. They had a puny little straight 6 of 140 cubic inches that made 90hp.
1960 sales brochure

wow, my 82 accord has a smaller engine, weighs less, is smaller in size, and gets less mpg. *goes and cries in corner*

 

[nakedfrog]

Emission controls, my friend...

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Emission controls, my friend...

Yep.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Emission controls, my friend...

That's it. EFI cars put out much less pollution than carb cars, in general.

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Emission controls, my friend...

Yep.

Ok if it is so we sacrafice MPG for less emmisions would they equal out then?
Meaning car x is carbed and gets 30 MPG but has Y ammout of gasses.
Car B is computer controlled gets 12 mpg but not as much emmisions.

So if you took the ammout of gasses each one spent and drove the same miles with each car wouldnt the computer controlled car have to use more fuel and spit out the same or more emmisions then in the same mileage trip?

If you got less MPG you would have to burn more fuel to make the same trip as the older car that got 30 mile to the gallon. Buring more fuel actually means more emmisions exhausted out of the car to do the same trip. Therefore making the computer controlled car no better then a carbed (maybe even worse) other then it will cost you more to purchace and maintain which only puts even more money in the manufactures pocket. And on top of that more in fuel as well.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: funboy42

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Emission controls, my friend...

Yep.

Ok if it is so we sacrafice MPG for less emmisions would they equal out then?
Meaning car x is carbed and gets 30 MPG but has Y ammout of gasses.
Car B is computer controlled gets 12 mpg but not as much emmisions.

So if you took the ammout of gasses each one spent and drove the same miles with each car wouldnt the computer controlled car have to use more fuel and spit out the same or more emmisions then in the same mileage trip?

If you got less MPG you would have to burn more fuel to make the same trip as the older car that got 30 mile to the gallon. Buring more fuel actually means more emmisions exhausted out of the car to do the same trip. Therefore making the computer controlled car no better then a carbed (maybe even worse) other then it will cost you more to purchace and maintain which only puts even more money in the manufactures pocket. And on top of that more in fuel as well.

QFT

 

[funboy6942]

Bite me

 

[Rastus]

My brother's first car was a '60 Falcon.

They were extremely easy to work on and reliable. He broke a piston rod one day, drove it home with no oil, went to a junk yard for a piston and oil pan, and was able to put the new piston in without removing the engine and was back on the road that night. All for about $15.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: funboy42

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Emission controls, my friend...

Yep.

Ok if it is so we sacrafice MPG for less emmisions would they equal out then?
Meaning car x is carbed and gets 30 MPG but has Y ammout of gasses.
Car B is computer controlled gets 12 mpg but not as much emmisions.

So if you took the ammout of gasses each one spent and drove the same miles with each car wouldnt the computer controlled car have to use more fuel and spit out the same or more emmisions then in the same mileage trip?

If you got less MPG you would have to burn more fuel to make the same trip as the older car that got 30 mile to the gallon. Buring more fuel actually means more emmisions exhausted out of the car to do the same trip. Therefore making the computer controlled car no better then a carbed (maybe even worse) other then it will cost you more to purchace and maintain which only puts even more money in the manufactures pocket. And on top of that more in fuel as well.

Not a valid comparison. The difference won't be as much as going from 30 to 12 mpg.
Maybe 30 to 25 mpg at most.
Usually, it goes the other way. EFI is more efficient, and therefore gets better gas mileage as a result....basically, it does more with less.
But you can't just look at highway mileage for emissions output. You also have to look at how much it puts out when started cold, at idle, during hard acceleration, coasting.....it all adds up.
So if you could get a carbureted car supertuned well enough to get similar gas mileage just driving down the highway as an EFI car, the EFI car would still put out less pollution, because it's more efficient than a carb could ever be all-around.
Plus, the carb is much more susceptible to getting fouled, and will get out of tune much easier.
Put 50k miles on the same two cars with normal maintenance, and the emissions output will favor the EFI car even more.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Rastus
My brother's first car was a '60 Falcon.

They were extremely easy to work on and reliable. He broke a piston rod one day, drove it home with no oil, went to a junk yard for a piston and oil pan, and was able to put the new piston in without removing the engine and was back on the road that night. All for about $15.

I almost bought one a few years ago... I was pleasantly surprised when the guy popped the hood and I saw how much room there was in the engine compartment. It was only $200, but was pretty much what you'd expect at that price. Shot interior, rusty body... it did start and drive, but not in a confidence-inspiring fashion.

 

[Ornery]

That thing did NOT get 30MPG by any stretch of the imagination. It also required an annual tune-up, as did all cars of that period. On the plus side, it was a framed RWD, which was easy to work on. Put a modern, FI engine on that chassis and you'd have a rugged little economical beastie.

 

[thedarkwolf]

It was a unibody not a body on frame. Replace the points in the distributor with a petronix electronic unit and all you would need to do is change the plugs every year or two.

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
It was a unibody not a body on frame. Replace the points in the distributor with a petronix electronic unit and all you would need to do is change the plugs every year or two.

But people especially the younger crowd have been brain washed into thinking that a computer controled car with all its gadgets is sooo much better. I can bet anything that with the technology we have today we can do away with all the un-needed crap and build a carb that can stand up to anything we use today (the chinese are doing it). But alot of people have been brain washed and the auto makers did it and love it because it is all about the bottom end and how they can squeese every dime out of our pockets and make it look as though we needed it.

The government does it to us everyday and we take it or alot of people dont see it and so do the car makers. If EFI was soooo good and sooooo perfect whay dont they use it on stock cars and dragsters?

Sure the new cars you dont have to tune as often but look at the cost to tune it when it does.
Platinum plugs at atlest $10 each vs 99 cents.
Points $5 vs individual coil packs at $50+ each
If you dont mess with a carbs setting it generraly will not go out.
Well thats is for a car from the 1960's so lets look at more for the car of today
Injectors
O2 sensors
MAF sensors
MAP sensors
Computers
Throttle bodies
Knock Sensors
Sensors to look at sensors and over compensate when a sensor goes out.

Lets talk repairs
1960s if a part goes bad you know and hear it and its mechanical only. To repair almost any jo blow could do it.

Todays car part goes bad pay up the butt for another computer to talk to your computer to find what sensor(s) go bad and still have to pay for a broken mechanical part so you get it twice up your rump. Computer crap and mechanical and the auto makers laugh all the way to the bank. To repair you can forget it there is no room to get in there. Most work requires a lift, in some cases you need to take the engine cage out of the car (ford winstars and Chevy cameros just to name a few). Need special tools, computers, training to work on it if you have the money which most do not so they have to pay someone $50+ an hour just to work on it and then they mark up the price of the parts 35% or more. Then you have hazardous waste charges, shop supply charges, charges for more charges

I can keep going on how were brain washed into thinking how much better computer cars are so much better but there you have it in a nut shell that its all done as a bunch of bs making you think its all needed but really its all about money and nothing more.

 

[thedarkwolf]

EFI is a lot better then carbs but that doesn't make carbs bad. It was the late 70s and early 80s feedback/electronic carbs that are a over complicated pains in the butt. Put MPFI on a falcon and controll it with megasquirt along with the petronix dohicky and you could squeeze a couple more MPG out of it and improve drivability a bit.

The reason you don't have EFI in stock cars is because its not allowed.

 

[Ornery]

More frame than not:[/list]This should leave two large holes where the obnoxious towers were. And bare frame rails to work with...

With the shock towers, A-arm mounts and motor mounts removed we can clean up the frame rails prior to installation of the new IFS kit.

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
The reason you don't have EFI in stock cars is because its not allowed.

qft

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf

Originally posted by: BobDaMenkey
And that's probably on the freeway down a hill going with the wind. Auto makers have a tendancy to over estimate on gas milage.

Its pretty believable. I overestimated the weight a bit they actually weighed 2300-2600lbs depending on the model. They had a puny little straight 6 of 140 cubic inches that made 90hp.
1960 sales brochure

wow, my 82 accord has a smaller engine, weighs less, is smaller in size, and gets less mpg. *goes and cries in corner*

Probably has a few more horses though.

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf

Originally posted by: BobDaMenkey
And that's probably on the freeway down a hill going with the wind. Auto makers have a tendancy to over estimate on gas milage.

Its pretty believable. I overestimated the weight a bit they actually weighed 2300-2600lbs depending on the model. They had a puny little straight 6 of 140 cubic inches that made 90hp.
1960 sales brochure

wow, my 82 accord has a smaller engine, weighs less, is smaller in size, and gets less mpg. *goes and cries in corner*

Probably has a few more horses though.

ah, a whopping 85hp and 95ftlb torque, at the crank

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: funboy42

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Emission controls, my friend...

Yep.

Ok if it is so we sacrafice MPG for less emmisions would they equal out then?
Meaning car x is carbed and gets 30 MPG but has Y ammout of gasses.
Car B is computer controlled gets 12 mpg but not as much emmisions.

So if you took the ammout of gasses each one spent and drove the same miles with each car wouldnt the computer controlled car have to use more fuel and spit out the same or more emmisions then in the same mileage trip?

If you got less MPG you would have to burn more fuel to make the same trip as the older car that got 30 mile to the gallon. Buring more fuel actually means more emmisions exhausted out of the car to do the same trip. Therefore making the computer controlled car no better then a carbed (maybe even worse) other then it will cost you more to purchace and maintain which only puts even more money in the manufactures pocket. And on top of that more in fuel as well.

The emissions isnt measured per gallon. Are you on crack?

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: funboy42

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
It was a unibody not a body on frame. Replace the points in the distributor with a petronix electronic unit and all you would need to do is change the plugs every year or two.

Sure the new cars you dont have to tune as often but look at the cost to tune it when it does.
Platinum plugs at atlest $10 each vs 99 cents.

http://www.autobarn.net/bosplat4spar.html

10 bucks each huh? I got mine for 4 bucks a piece and here they are for 5.99.

Of course my vehicle gets 33 mpg as well sooo..

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: funboy42

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Emission controls, my friend...

Yep.

Ok if it is so we sacrafice MPG for less emmisions would they equal out then?
Meaning car x is carbed and gets 30 MPG but has Y ammout of gasses.
Car B is computer controlled gets 12 mpg but not as much emmisions.

So if you took the ammout of gasses each one spent and drove the same miles with each car wouldnt the computer controlled car have to use more fuel and spit out the same or more emmisions then in the same mileage trip?

If you got less MPG you would have to burn more fuel to make the same trip as the older car that got 30 mile to the gallon. Buring more fuel actually means more emmisions exhausted out of the car to do the same trip. Therefore making the computer controlled car no better then a carbed (maybe even worse) other then it will cost you more to purchace and maintain which only puts even more money in the manufactures pocket. And on top of that more in fuel as well.

The emissions isnt measured per gallon. Are you on crack?

The more gas you burn, the more emissions you put out, regardless of how clean you're burning.