MTFCA Forum

So I just made an interesting discovery...

My Model T achieves approximately 18 miles per gallon (or about 13L/100km). Now by today's standards, that's not the best fuel economy, considering I used to own a Ford Mondeo Titanium (diesel), which used to get about 45 miles per gallon (or about 5L/100km).
But interestingly, I now drive a RAM 2500 Laramie, with the 6.7 Cummins diesel engine, which averages 18 miles per gallon or 13L/100km... The same consumption as my Model T!

Of course the obvious difference with nearly 100 years of technology improvements, the power output and torque figures contrast a bit!

Model T: 20hp / 15kW, 83ft-lb / 112nm,
RAM 2500: 380hp / 280kW, 811ft-lb / 1,100nm

Things have changed slightly!

Diesel fuel has more BTU per unit than does gasoline, especially gasoline adulterated with ethanol. The other main difference is much higher compression with the diesel engine and lack of throttling losses at all speeds and loads.
A T-sized engine operating on diesel would give excellent economy, even without computerized fuel metering.
Even older small diesel tractor engines can get a lot of work out of a gallon of fuel.
Small Japanese diesel pickups from the pre-computer era gave very good fuel economy, but they lacked the refinement of more modern designs.

The US "EPA" is currently attacking Cummins for allegedly gassing the polar bears. I'm sure they'll find a way to increase costs and reduce performance and economy, to no good end, much as they did to VW.

Torque is a function that is determined by the construction of the engine, more specific; the stroke, the longer the stroke related to a given bore, the more torque an engine delivers.
Limiting factor is piston speed, with longer strokes the speed that the piston travels will increase and wear and tear will get worse and lubrication of the cylinder wall will become a problem.
That is the main reason why modern engines are so called " over square" i.e. the bore is bigger than the stroke, the result is a wider horsepower band (higher rpm's) but less torque relative to displacement.
Engines can be built lighter, less tall and deliver more horsepower, which are all beneficial for modern high speed road traffic.
In shipping long stroke diesel engines are still preferred as the rpm range is very limited as it is related to the maximum rpm a propeller can turn before cavitation occurs, so slow revving (110 to 220 rpm) engines are a mainstay there.
Simply put Horsepower translates to Speed and Torque gives Pulling Power.

I have a 1937 Packard with an under square inline 8. (3 14 X 4 1/4) It moves the 3600 pound car quite capably. Torque peaks at 240 ft lb @ 2000 RPM while horsepower peaks at 120 @ 3800 RPM. Engine RPM at 60 MPH is 2880 RPM.

txgoat,
Your Packard engine had 263 cu in displacement. I am just wondering what the fuel consumption is. I would think above 16 mpg and I bet it us very smooth running.

Art Mirtes

TXGOAT2 wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 11, 2024 8:44 am

The US "EPA" is currently attacking Cummins for allegedly gassing the polar bears. I'm sure they'll find a way to increase costs and reduce performance and economy, to no good end, much as they did to VW.

Yea,if I owned 1 of the trucks "recalled" because of that mess I wouldn't ever take it back in.

In reference to the Cummings Dodge / Ram recall.
In Crap-a-fornia the California Air Resources Board and the California Department of Motor Vehicles is refusing to renew all recalled trucks that don’t have proof from Ram that the recalled update , ( down grades ) , has been done . The State requires that the truck owner submit a State form certifying from Ram the updates have been done. I am glad I don’t own a Ram truck.

Hi Mitch,
Isn't Australia pretty flat for the most part? Have you tried leaning out the mixture and I didn't see the fun factor in that equation?
It seems mine get 16-22 mpg depending on how much fun I'm having.
Craig.

My 23 touring gets 20 mpg when driven sensibly. And it has buzz box tuned coils. I wonder what it would be with ECCT adjusted coils.

Art Mirtes

MPG figures have not improved much. Not sure what my T is doing yet as not done enough journeys to find out, but here are some figures from cars I have owned:
1963 Cadillac Coupe De Ville 14mpg - averaged over a long journey from San Francisco to Miami
1966 Vauxhall Viva 38mpg
1990 Renault 21 40mpg
1990 Jaguar XJS 5.3 V12 18mpg
2004 Peugeot 406 Coupe 2.2 HDI 185hp 45mpg
2008 Maserati Granturismo 4.2 V8 16mpg
2011Volvo V50 2.0 Diesel 177hp 48mpg

We have pool cars at work and some bright spark decided we should show our green credentials so got Hybrids. They have petrol engines, electric motors, battery packs and come with a huge environmental cost to build. Probably not very recyclable either. I get about 48mpg on a run - so no better than my Volvo and not much better than my 1990 Renault (which was an amazingly good car).

Now up I have wondered what a high compression head, better manifolds and such would do to a Model T’s economy.

I have never looked at fuel consumption on 19 T or 31 A, but do note smiles per mile.

The T wins by a big margin. but the A is better than my truck or modern car.

In the OP, the modern vehicles are not pulling a car or truck where there was no thought whatsoever given to aerodynamics, nor are either of them blessed with a 4:1 final high -gear ratio. To top it off, the L-head four-banger that our Model T's came with is extremely inefficient by today's standards. 18-20 MPG in such a car is actually pretty good.
For the record - I have never attempted to check the fuel economy of my T, and I likely never will - it has no odometer, but I have a MPG program on my cell phone that I could use to check fuel economy. Unless the MPG became so poor that I knew that I had a problem, I just don't care. Fabulous fuel economy is not the reason that I bought my T. It does a whole lot better then my 431 V8-powered pickup truck. I don't care about the pickup's MPG either.

I find it a little odd that comparisons of miles per gallon rarely take into account the payload. Years ago we made several long family road trips in a 1937 Packard super 8 touring sedan. With a curb weight of 4500#, four of us, the family dog, luggage for two weeks, and the spare parts and "portable machine shop" I felt obligated to pack along (and never used) I used to joke that fuel economy by the gross ton mile was twice as good as a Toyota Corolla. By measure, it actually averaged 12mpg, but curiously it never seemed to matter - light, loaded, headwind, tailwind, uphill or down, never varied much.

Robert D.,
Touched on the environmental aspect. The big carbon foot print is in construction. The model T's construction carbon foot print is long gone.
It's operational emissions of CO & HC may be more than modern autos but the NOX emissions are near if not zero. I'm thinking they should be
considered a carbon offset. Well C.A.R.B. what do you say???
Craig.

Maybe we should not experiment with artificial intelligence Maybe we should figure out natural stupidity first.

The '37 Packard 120 is 282 CID. I may be mistaken about the bore. I believe the 1st 2 years of the 120 eight did have less displacement. They probably added 1/16 to to the bore.

BobUkPipedream wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:56 pm

MPG figures have not improved much. Not sure what my T is doing yet as not done enough journeys to find out, but here are some figures from cars I have owned:
1963 Cadillac Coupe De Ville 14mpg - averaged over a long journey from San Francisco to Miami
1966 Vauxhall Viva 38mpg
1990 Renault 21 40mpg
1990 Jaguar XJS 5.3 V12 18mpg
2004 Peugeot 406 Coupe 2.2 HDI 185hp 45mpg
2008 Maserati Granturismo 4.2 V8 16mpg
2011Volvo V50 2.0 Diesel 177hp 48mpg

We have pool cars at work and some bright spark decided we should show our green credentials so got Hybrids. They have petrol engines, electric motors, battery packs and come with a huge environmental cost to build. Probably not very recyclable either. I get about 48mpg on a run - so no better than my Volvo and not much better than my 1990 Renault (which was an amazingly good car).

Now up I have wondered what a high compression head, better manifolds and such would do to a Model T’s economy.

Is this Imperial gallon or US gallon? is there not a difference in the two units of measure?

Yes that's with the mixture leaned out, although the last time I checked the fuel consumption, it was before I'd replaced the timer cover and spark plugs...
New parts would have an effect I would imagine.
There are also a fair few hills around where I live
I try not to drive my T too hard, she does turn 100 this year after all

Craig Leach wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 11, 2024 5:52 pm

Hi Mitch,
Isn't Australia pretty flat for the most part? Have you tried leaning out the mixture and I didn't see the fun factor in that equation?
It seems mine get 16-22 mpg depending on how much fun I'm having.
Craig.

RVA23T wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:42 pm

BobUkPipedream wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:56 pm

MPG figures have not improved much. Not sure what my T is doing yet as not done enough journeys to find out, but here are some figures from cars I have owned:
1963 Cadillac Coupe De Ville 14mpg - averaged over a long journey from San Francisco to Miami
1966 Vauxhall Viva 38mpg
1990 Renault 21 40mpg
1990 Jaguar XJS 5.3 V12 18mpg
2004 Peugeot 406 Coupe 2.2 HDI 185hp 45mpg
2008 Maserati Granturismo 4.2 V8 16mpg
2011Volvo V50 2.0 Diesel 177hp 48mpg

We have pool cars at work and some bright spark decided we should show our green credentials so got Hybrids. They have petrol engines, electric motors, battery packs and come with a huge environmental cost to build. Probably not very recyclable either. I get about 48mpg on a run - so no better than my Volvo and not much better than my 1990 Renault (which was an amazingly good car).

Now up I have wondered what a high compression head, better manifolds and such would do to a Model T’s economy.

Is this Imperial gallon or US gallon? is there not a difference in the two units of measure?

Yes you are right. In the UK, we use the Imperial measurement system for gallons. So the imperial gallon is larger than the US gallon. My Cadillac did 14mpg in US Gallons as that is what I measured in the US over the 6000 mile trip (yes I know it’s actually 2600 or so miles, but I had no map and would sometimes flip a coin at junctions). The others are a bit less so if I got my maths right, then 45mpg equals 37.5mpg. I would rather not do the calculation in the Maserati as it is painful enough thinking about 16mpg…