@@ljmorris6496 If you know how to use a manual choke, it will not flood, the carb will not leak unless you damage it, and Ford engines of that era were easily able to last way longer than 50,000 miles. All you had to do is CHANGE THE DAMN OIL AND FILTER every 3,000 miles.
@@JohnBickner NO. Many who did not know how to do their own work CHOSE to bring it to a SERVICE STATION instead of the dealer for routine maintenance, as they were more likely to actually do the work, instead of just putting a greasy finger print on the car to make you THINK they did the work.
That 35 cents, is worth $4.02 today. So use that for comparison. In Arizona, at least, we can get premium for $3.89 a gallon. So it's basically a wash.
These days we make better, more durable engines with sintered tool-steel valve seat inserts and arc-welded steel cylinder liners on aluminum blocks, but I can't for one minute imagine trying to advertise that to today's clueless customer.
Good point. I find old print and videos interesting, how in years past people actually knew something about how automobiles worked. Not now. I worked with an 18 y.o. who bought an old Camaro, and he told me he wanted to put a 6 -speed engine in it. 😂😂😂
@@elektro3000 Yes, we do make those, but it is easy, in fact necessary, to have seat inserts installed in older engines, as we don't have leaded gas anymore, so the valve problem is easily fixed while rebuilding the engine. But you are right about today's clueless customers. They wouldn't understand.
@@Sheisthedevilyouknowwho-ft9we If you think that's bad, they don't even know how to change a tire or tighten a fan belt nowadays. I told one youngster who didn't know anything at all about anything that he should think about what would happen if he had a break-down, (he had an old pre-computer car, I don't know how to work on today's rolling computers), with his hot date with him, and he didn't know what to do, then I show up and have it running good enough for them to get home. I would then be able to steal his hot date, as ladies like smart guys.
The heater, and the radio, were always options until the 70s, even on most luxury cars. Almost every single one on dealer lots were so equipped, but they dinged you extra money for them.
@@jamesbosworth4191 I had a '68 F100 stepside; it literally had zero optional equipment - 240 straight-six, 3-speed manual, no ps, no pb, no radio, no heater, gas tank behind the seat, absolute base trim. Originally delivered in TN. No heater... I cannot imagine someone actually ordering a vehicle with no heater. It was, of course, one of the first issues I corrected. I had to actually DRIVE that thing, after all....
@@xaenon I can do without power steering, power brakes, power windows, power seat, but I have to have a radio, heater, clock, cigarette lighter, and last but not least, complete instrumentation. Idiot lights just don't cut it for me.
@@jamesbosworth4191 I can handle full-manual everything, and radio just annoys me. But there has to be heat. I did put temp and oil gauges in mine, Oh, and I converted it to a manual choke. Cigarette lighters and clocks... didn't need 'em, because back then I wore a wristwatch, and smoking in the cab with the gas tank only a handful of inches behind me just seemed like a really bad idea.
@@xaenon I never liked the gas tank in that location either. If I bought a truck with the gas tank there, I would get an aftermarket under-bed tank and remove the one in back of the seat. Just seems scary to me.
1:49 To me, It's very interesting and somewhat disappointing in a way that after almost 8 1/2 decades of progress in technology, including the entire atomic and space age so far, we are still seeing so many passenger vehicles getting about 23.76 mpg of gasoline.
That is very good for a full-size car with a V8 engine. Most V8 and Straight 8 cars got only about 14 MPG. In the 70s, most got about 11 - 13 MPG. 6 cyl would get about 16 MPG.
I don't know - I have a 2.7 F150 that makes torque and HP like a '69 396 Chevy and have seen 27mpg highway - From a Pickup truck. We have done some good things, and they last about 3 times as long as my old stuff from previous decades. It's not all bad.
@@dfabeagle718 A tiny engine like that is not capable of making torque RIGHT OFF IDLE, and a turbo-charged engine isn't either, as you have to wait for the turbo to spool up. A SUPERCHARGED engine that small might be able to, but it is unlikely that a blown engine, if used in a truck that is used as a truck, not as a luxury car, will last very long. And a Chevy 396 run on today's synthetic oil will last a LONG time, providing you CHANGE THE OIL AND THE FILTER more than once every 10,000 miles.
@@jamesbosworth4191 How long do you spend at idle? The 2.7 made more torque than the 5.0 by 2750 up to around 4000 if I remember right, 400 foot pounds, but you can check the numbers. Also, spec'd 3.73's for the rear. The 10 speed doesn't hurt either. These things are incredible compared to whatever old school 231 buick you're probably thinking of. Go drive one and you'll figure out why thy use a 3.5 twin turbo for the Raptor instead of the 6.2 v8 they used to use. My 2000 Lightning had a 5.4 with an Eaton blower, and got used like a truck pulling loaded car trailers, 15-17 mpg pulling a loaded trailer. A 5.4 with a blower only made 40ft lb of torque more than my current 2.7 with twin turbos. I love old stuff, but to compare it to modern engines is not fair to it. I've pulled down several 302's from the late 90's, early 2000's that had factory looking cross hatch and in spec ring gap at over 100k. NONE, not one of the old school SBC's I've ever pulled down could say that. Maybe by the last of them, the Vortecs, could. I don't mess with them or LS's , but the LS is also extremely well documented to be an engine capable of both HP and MPG in the same sentence. We're making better engines than we used to.
@@dfabeagle718 You can prattle all you want, but 2750 RPM is not "Off Idle", and no, I wasn't thinking of the 231 Buick V6 either, I was thinking of the Chrysler 331/354/392 HEMI, the Buick 322/364/401 Nail Head. It is simply not possible for a tiny foreign-sized engine to generate the same torque at the same RPM as a large engine, and nothing you say is going to make me like turbos on gasoline engines. Also, nothing and nobody is going to make me buy a car that has to be brought to a shop.
Sure did, the 34 Ford V8 was the first V8 engine to be so equipped. Many 33s were retrofitted with it, as the 33 and 34 Fords were almost identical. Ford claimed 85 horsepower for the 34, up from 75 for the 33 with a 1 barrel carb and a single-plane intake. In reality, the 34 made over 90 on a dyno.
Shame that Mercury is no more. Part of it is Ford's own fault. In 1998, they gave the Ford the same roof line as the Mercury, but at a substantially lower price. That killed demand for the Merc.
What 1998 model are you talking about ? Other than headlight / grille differences, they are the same, they use the same molds for stamping doors, and roofline and floorpan structures, the hood and deck are _slightly different_ to accommodate the different grille / tail panel.
@@jamesgeorge4874From 1992 - 96, the Ford and the Mercury used different roofs. The Merc outsold the Ford for the first time. For 1997, they dropped the Ford body and shared the Mercury body with the Ford. The Ford was now the same car at a lower price. Mercury sales fell sharply and Ford sales rose smartly.
Where's the comments from the kiddies with their Hondas and Toyotas, saying "only 95 horsepower ? My 1.8 liter with a Fast & Furious douchebag edition turbo makes 250 HP at 9,500 rpm" 😂 (the kiddies can stay off the classic car part of youtube and go back to playing video games. I'm tired of them always jumping in to post an ignorant comment about a late model turbo 4 banger compared to something 50+ years old) [there, got that off my chest]
It has worse . Your truck stock claims 14 highway and 12 city although i could only get 12 highway stock. Gen 11 f150s weigh 7200lbs Now after all my mods im getting 26hwy
Your F150 is a truck, the Mercury was a passenger car. Today's trucks are HUGE, and with engines now being nearly race-tuned, they aren't going to get good mileage. Radical engines just don't. MILD engines can get good mileage.
Your F150 weighs at least half again as much (perhaps closer to double!) what that Mercury did, and is geared to haul 1000# loads and pull trailers. And if it's a 4x4, you have all the additional weight and drag of the 4WD apparatus, even if it's not being used. In addition, much larger engine tuned to power, not economy. You have to be realistic in your expectations. You don't buy F150s for fuel economy.
@@drewjames9167 Exactly, that is the max gross weight, I would guess the empty weight in somewhere in the 4k- 5k range, in the past the max GVW for a 1/2 ton was always 7K and you had to put that on a sticker in some states even for just non commercial passenger use. 9K was on the 3/4 tons. I think my 1 ton diesel is in the 7 range, hardly comparable to a 1/2 ton gasser.
Now Mercury has nothing because Mercury is dead because Ford and Mercury have decided that they make crappy cars. No, they just don’t have any good car designers employed there that’s the problem. Oh yeah, and they have a bunch of crappy engines.
That V8 engine was actually quite small - 221 cubic inches, or 3.6 liters in metricspeak. I've owned sixes that were bigger. It could be optimized for comparatively low rpms, since there was no real need at the time to whiz the engine up past four grand or so. The car wasn't very heavy, ieither - I think I saw estimates in the 3200 lb range? A fairly conservative axle ratio, small displacement, low-revving engine, and light car. I could reaistically see 15-17. EVERY automaker exaggerates it mileage figures in its sales pitch, and conducts tests under very controlled conditions.. You could take that mileage competition figure to the bank, though. Those competitions are rigorously administered, and the drivers are very aggressive with fuel-saving techniques. You'd be surprised at many of those techniques would still apply today if people would just use them. But nobody has the patience. They drive without a single thought of economy, then whine and cry when they're only getting 60-80 percent of advertised mileage, and about the price of gas.
@@xaenon Actually 239 cubes in the Merc, but you are correct, the automakers always, even today, exaggerate potential MPG, and the motorists, both then and now, drive with only speed in mind, and then bitch and whine about their MPG.
![งมหอย จับปลา มือเปล่า หาอยู่หากินแบบวีถีอีสานกับแก๊งเซียนหรั่ง ม่วนคัก! [ขอนแก่น] @Sianstudio](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JEJZg6N-AbU/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Sub Thai] APT. - ROSÉ & Bruno Mars](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bYjhzP8x_uc/mqdefault.jpg)
Its best feature is there is no lousy computer that costs a fortune to fix.
And no f-----g sensors and no f-----g catalytic converter to get stolen either!
But flooding engine issues, carburetor leaks, engine rebuild every 50k miles....
@@ljmorris6496 If you know how to use a manual choke, it will not flood, the carb will not leak unless you damage it, and Ford engines of that era were easily able to last way longer than 50,000 miles. All you had to do is CHANGE THE DAMN OIL AND FILTER every 3,000 miles.
@@jamesbosworth4191At the time every gas station was also a repair shop End of discussion, yes?
@@JohnBickner NO. Many who did not know how to do their own work CHOSE to bring it to a SERVICE STATION instead of the dealer for routine maintenance, as they were more likely to actually do the work, instead of just putting a greasy finger print on the car to make you THINK they did the work.
Love the vintage graphics! Especially the happy pistons!
your never late with a mercury 8
Very cool 🤙 I just picked up a basket case 39 merc.
I really love this stuff very, very much!😊
Loved my 1958 Mercury, it sucked gas with the 430 Lincoln engine but it was $0.35 cents a gal at the pump then in the 1960s.❤
That 35 cents, is worth $4.02 today. So use that for comparison. In Arizona, at least, we can get premium for $3.89 a gallon. So it's basically a wash.
And it was probably rocket-fast as well!
It's Amazing how the engineering of these cars was the selling point to a very educated public
As where today it's where the WiFi button is located 🙄
These days we make better, more durable engines with sintered tool-steel valve seat inserts and arc-welded steel cylinder liners on aluminum blocks, but I can't for one minute imagine trying to advertise that to today's clueless customer.
Good point. I find old print and videos interesting, how in years past people actually knew something about how automobiles worked. Not now. I worked with an 18 y.o. who bought an old Camaro, and he told me he wanted to put a 6 -speed engine in it. 😂😂😂
@@elektro3000 Yes, we do make those, but it is easy, in fact necessary, to have seat inserts installed in older engines, as we don't have leaded gas anymore, so the valve problem is easily fixed while rebuilding the engine. But you are right about today's clueless customers. They wouldn't understand.
@@Sheisthedevilyouknowwho-ft9we If you think that's bad, they don't even know how to change a tire or tighten a fan belt nowadays. I told one youngster who didn't know anything at all about anything that he should think about what would happen if he had a break-down, (he had an old pre-computer car, I don't know how to work on today's rolling computers), with his hot date with him, and he didn't know what to do, then I show up and have it running good enough for them to get home. I would then be able to steal his hot date, as ladies like smart guys.
Damn, I'm going out to buy a mercury.
Here's a hint. Combine left and right audio channels to mono to cancel much of the surface noise.
Just reading up on 40 mercury I inherited grandads 40 mercury convertible
40 ford coupe and 50 mercury all flat motor no LS bullshit engine conversion
Most recognize his tune "Powerhouse", but Raymond Scott's "The Toy Trumpet" is the closing music.
Wow, a heater was an option? Torque Tube, there's a phrase I haven't head in a while.
The heater, and the radio, were always options until the 70s, even on most luxury cars. Almost every single one on dealer lots were so equipped, but they dinged you extra money for them.
@@jamesbosworth4191 I had a '68 F100 stepside; it literally had zero optional equipment - 240 straight-six, 3-speed manual, no ps, no pb, no radio, no heater, gas tank behind the seat, absolute base trim. Originally delivered in TN.
No heater... I cannot imagine someone actually ordering a vehicle with no heater. It was, of course, one of the first issues I corrected. I had to actually DRIVE that thing, after all....
@@xaenon I can do without power steering, power brakes, power windows, power seat, but I have to have a radio, heater, clock, cigarette lighter, and last but not least, complete instrumentation. Idiot lights just don't cut it for me.
@@jamesbosworth4191 I can handle full-manual everything, and radio just annoys me. But there has to be heat. I did put temp and oil gauges in mine, Oh, and I converted it to a manual choke.
Cigarette lighters and clocks... didn't need 'em, because back then I wore a wristwatch, and smoking in the cab with the gas tank only a handful of inches behind me just seemed like a really bad idea.
@@xaenon I never liked the gas tank in that location either. If I bought a truck with the gas tank there, I would get an aftermarket under-bed tank and remove the one in back of the seat. Just seems scary to me.
1:49 To me, It's very interesting and somewhat disappointing in a way that after almost 8 1/2 decades of progress in technology, including the entire atomic and space age so far, we are still seeing so many passenger vehicles getting about 23.76 mpg of gasoline.
That is very good for a full-size car with a V8 engine. Most V8 and Straight 8 cars got only about 14 MPG. In the 70s, most got about 11 - 13 MPG. 6 cyl would get about 16 MPG.
I don't know - I have a 2.7 F150 that makes torque and HP like a '69 396 Chevy and have seen 27mpg highway - From a Pickup truck. We have done some good things, and they last about 3 times as long as my old stuff from previous decades. It's not all bad.
@@dfabeagle718 A tiny engine like that is not capable of making torque RIGHT OFF IDLE, and a turbo-charged engine isn't either, as you have to wait for the turbo to spool up. A SUPERCHARGED engine that small might be able to, but it is unlikely that a blown engine, if used in a truck that is used as a truck, not as a luxury car, will last very long. And a Chevy 396 run on today's synthetic oil will last a LONG time, providing you CHANGE THE OIL AND THE FILTER more than once every 10,000 miles.
@@jamesbosworth4191 How long do you spend at idle? The 2.7 made more torque than the 5.0 by 2750 up to around 4000 if I remember right, 400 foot pounds, but you can check the numbers. Also, spec'd 3.73's for the rear. The 10 speed doesn't hurt either. These things are incredible compared to whatever old school 231 buick you're probably thinking of. Go drive one and you'll figure out why thy use a 3.5 twin turbo for the Raptor instead of the 6.2 v8 they used to use. My 2000 Lightning had a 5.4 with an Eaton blower, and got used like a truck pulling loaded car trailers, 15-17 mpg pulling a loaded trailer. A 5.4 with a blower only made 40ft lb of torque more than my current 2.7 with twin turbos.
I love old stuff, but to compare it to modern engines is not fair to it. I've pulled down several 302's from the late 90's, early 2000's that had factory looking cross hatch and in spec ring gap at over 100k. NONE, not one of the old school SBC's I've ever pulled down could say that. Maybe by the last of them, the Vortecs, could. I don't mess with them or LS's , but the LS is also extremely well documented to be an engine capable of both HP and MPG in the same sentence. We're making better engines than we used to.
@@dfabeagle718 You can prattle all you want, but 2750 RPM is not "Off Idle", and no, I wasn't thinking of the 231 Buick V6 either, I was thinking of the Chrysler 331/354/392 HEMI, the Buick 322/364/401 Nail Head. It is simply not possible for a tiny foreign-sized engine to generate the same torque at the same RPM as a large engine, and nothing you say is going to make me like turbos on gasoline engines. Also, nothing and nobody is going to make me buy a car that has to be brought to a shop.
ford pioneered the dual plane manifold.
Sure did, the 34 Ford V8 was the first V8 engine to be so equipped. Many 33s were retrofitted with it, as the 33 and 34 Fords were almost identical. Ford claimed 85 horsepower for the 34, up from 75 for the 33 with a 1 barrel carb and a single-plane intake. In reality, the 34 made over 90 on a dyno.
Happen to have a 40 merc just like the filmstrip. Makes me want to dump a few bucks in it just because...😊.
This was before the war, when people cared about data and cost effectiveness.
Shame that Mercury is no more. Part of it is Ford's own fault. In 1998, they gave the Ford the same roof line as the Mercury, but at a substantially lower price. That killed demand for the Merc.
What 1998 model are you talking about ? Other than headlight / grille differences, they are the same, they use the same molds for stamping doors, and roofline and floorpan structures, the hood and deck are _slightly different_ to accommodate the different grille / tail panel.
@@jamesgeorge4874From 1992 - 96, the Ford and the Mercury used different roofs. The Merc outsold the Ford for the first time. For 1997, they dropped the Ford body and shared the Mercury body with the Ford. The Ford was now the same car at a lower price. Mercury sales fell sharply and Ford sales rose smartly.
Where's the comments from the kiddies with their Hondas and Toyotas, saying "only 95 horsepower ? My 1.8 liter with a Fast & Furious douchebag edition turbo makes 250 HP at 9,500 rpm" 😂 (the kiddies can stay off the classic car part of youtube and go back to playing video games. I'm tired of them always jumping in to post an ignorant comment about a late model turbo 4 banger compared to something 50+ years old) [there, got that off my chest]
We don't want screamer engines in our every day cars! We want LOW RPM TORQUE, and tiny screamers just can't generate it.
my 2004 5.4 f150 with all its engineering gets no better gas mileage???? wtf....
It has worse . Your truck stock claims 14 highway and 12 city although i could only get 12 highway stock. Gen 11 f150s weigh 7200lbs
Now after all my mods im getting 26hwy
Your F150 is a truck, the Mercury was a passenger car. Today's trucks are HUGE, and with engines now being nearly race-tuned, they aren't going to get good mileage. Radical engines just don't. MILD engines can get good mileage.
Your F150 weighs at least half again as much (perhaps closer to double!) what that Mercury did, and is geared to haul 1000# loads and pull trailers. And if it's a 4x4, you have all the additional weight and drag of the 4WD apparatus, even if it's not being used. In addition, much larger engine tuned to power, not economy.
You have to be realistic in your expectations. You don't buy F150s for fuel economy.
@@factory81chthey don't weigh 7200lbs Jesus christ... that figure you found was likely the gross weight, not the curb weight.
@@drewjames9167 Exactly, that is the max gross weight, I would guess the empty weight in somewhere in the 4k- 5k range, in the past the max GVW for a 1/2 ton was always 7K and you had to put that on a sticker in some states even for just non commercial passenger use. 9K was on the 3/4 tons. I think my 1 ton diesel is in the 7 range, hardly comparable to a 1/2 ton gasser.
Now Mercury has nothing because Mercury is dead because Ford and Mercury have decided that they make crappy cars. No, they just don’t have any good car designers employed there that’s the problem. Oh yeah, and they have a bunch of crappy engines.
Thank the Union for that.
@@nandi123you mean thanks to a greedy ceo. He gets his pay
@@gh2687 The CEO wasn't the guy who failed to secure the window that blew out.
@@nandi123 actually yes. Cheap products, get em in and out quickly so we can make more money and prof
Thank the EPA and U.S. government for that
That vehicle probably got no better than 13-14 mpg. This film is corporate propaganda intended for car salesmen.
I think you would be surprised at how good the fuel mileage was
given the car being driven economically
That V8 engine was actually quite small - 221 cubic inches, or 3.6 liters in metricspeak. I've owned sixes that were bigger.
It could be optimized for comparatively low rpms, since there was no real need at the time to whiz the engine up past four grand or so. The car wasn't very heavy, ieither - I think I saw estimates in the 3200 lb range? A fairly conservative axle ratio, small displacement, low-revving engine, and light car. I could reaistically see 15-17. EVERY automaker exaggerates it mileage figures in its sales pitch, and conducts tests under very controlled conditions.. You could take that mileage competition figure to the bank, though. Those competitions are rigorously administered, and the drivers are very aggressive with fuel-saving techniques.
You'd be surprised at many of those techniques would still apply today if people would just use them. But nobody has the patience. They drive without a single thought of economy, then whine and cry when they're only getting 60-80 percent of advertised mileage, and about the price of gas.
They said it gets over 23 Mi to the gallon. Why do you believe they lied and only got 13 miles to the gallon?
@@xaenon Actually 239 cubes in the Merc, but you are correct, the automakers always, even today, exaggerate potential MPG, and the motorists, both then and now, drive with only speed in mind, and then bitch and whine about their MPG.
Many Pre War cars were pretty light, speed limits were low in metro areas and limited access highways were rare. 20 mpg is realistic..