1971 Ford Torino GT - fuel economy mpg test - 351c - Classic muscle car cruise 

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!

Very cool, the backlight louvers look great on the Torino. Thank you for watching!

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

Wow! That's pretty good for an old hauler!!

Thanks, i thought it was decent too!

Thank you, I appreciate that!

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.

You can still get one! They’re out there

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 .

I bet the 3.89's are pretty quick!!

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.

Sounds like a lot of car for a 16 year old

Bet it was pretty quick

Yeah, I can imagine! Probably geared up a bit being a wagon

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!

It could definitely be worse!

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 .

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

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.

Yeah, i thought it was a pretty good result for an old school hauler!

Yeah, all hopes of decent fuel mileage are gone when that accelerator foot gets heavy ha!

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.

Yeah, if you stay out of the accelerator pedal, they're not so bad on fuel.

I thought it was a decent result too

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.

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 ;).

Oh dang, I would be mad too! Why did he sell it?

I like it. I’ve never been a big fan of the power steering set ups on 71 and earlier mid-sized fords.

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!

Currently, the car has 225/75/14's on it which are about 24-24.5" tall.

Yeah with the 3.5’s and no overdrive, 15 mpg is pretty good for this set up.

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

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.

Hahaha

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.

Yeah, its decent on gas if you aren't flogging it

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 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xunon_JNSH8.html

, 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.

If i had been mashing the throttle more, i'd be dropping down into the single digits too ;-)

Ha.. ok

Clueless for sure.

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.

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.

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