Model T gas mileage

[Rick Potter]

Is that off topic far enough for ya??

Came home from a car show this afternoon and the bride tells me a 6th grader was referred to me by her boss. Turns out he is writing a report for school on fuel efficiency of old cars, compared to new ones. Since I own a 1922 Model T, I apparantly am now the expert on fuel efficiency for kids I never met.

The problem is, I have no idea what kind of mileage it gets. In the first place there is no speedometer or odometer. Secondly, mine has a 1939 V8 60, (how's that for an early small block?).

So.....my question for the panel is......Does anyone out there have any clue on what kind of mileage a stock T might get? I am guessing 20 mpg or so, since most cruised at 20 to 35 mph on those early roads, just putting along.


Rick Potter

[Derek Tuchscherer]

I Got tis from Wikipedia

The Model T had a front mounted, 177 in³ (2.9 L) four-cylinder en bloc motor (that is, all four in one block, as common now, rather than in individual castings, as common then) producing 20 hp (15 kW) for a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h). The engine had side valves and three main bearings. According to Ford Motor, the Model T had fuel economy on the order of 13 to 21 mpg (5 to 9 kilometres per litre or 11.1 to 18.7 litres per 100 km)[4]. The engine was capable of running on gasoline or ethanol[5], though the decreasing cost of gasoline and the later introduction of Prohibition in the United States made ethanol an impractical fuel.

HTH
Derek

[Mitchell Andrus]

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050711carmileageaveragempg

My 1930 Model A Ford Town Sedan (stock, 40 hp) gets around 21 on average, about the same as my 2005 Town and Country. A Model T (20 hp) should expect about the same.

Technology being what it was back then, that's pretty good.

Ah, I can smell the fumes now.

We've got to remember that my Model A doesn't haul around 800 pounds of structural re-enforcements, air bags, auto trans., power seat and window motors, air conditioner equipment, a 700 pound engine with all the trimmings..... overall, our cars are about doubling the efficiency of my Model A.

Twice the weight, twice the acceleration and top speed, light-years ahead in safety and comfort for about the same fuel ecomomy.

Put the other way around, my A's engine in my Town and Country would last about 500 miles before dying and get 7 mpg tops, and get a top speed of 40 mph going down hill.

[Terre Hooks]

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050711carmileageaveragempg

My 1930 Model A Ford Town Sedan (stock, 40 hp) gets around 21 on average, about the same as my 2005 Town and Country. A Model T (20 hp) should expect about the same.

Technology being what it was back then, that's pretty good.

Ah, I can smell the fumes now.

We've got to remember that my Model A doesn't haul around 800 pounds of structural re-enforcements, air bags, auto trans., power seat and window motors, air conditioner equipment, a 700 pound engine with all the trimmings..... overall, our cars are about doubling the efficiency of my Model A.

Twice the weight, twice the acceleration and top speed, light-years ahead in safety and comfort for about the same fuel ecomomy.

Put the other way around, my A's engine in my Town and Country would last about 500 miles before dying and get 7 mpg tops, and get a top speed of 40 mph going down hill.

Yeah. We've come a loooooong way in fuel economy.

[Joe Pelonio]

I'm happy to say that I'm not quite old enough to help on this question. I hope the student does consider the weight added by the safety & convenience features and power as Mitchell mentioned, plus emissions equipment.

A brand new model T built today would never meet any of the federal safety or smog standards.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Put another way, a Honda Civic (or sim) with the fuel efficient engine package weighs a little more than a Model T, and even with the modern add-ons gets 40+ mpg... doubling a Model T's milage with a fraction of the pollutants at the pipe.

Also, fuel economy wasn't a consideration until the early 80's. For the first 60 years, we just burned as much gas as we needed to because it was cheaper than fixing the problem and the science wasn't available yet.

Yes, we have come a looooong way in 30 short years. If we can double fuel economy in the next 30... we'll be in spitting range of control. I think it'll be more like 15 years.

[Gary Keedwell]

Another thing that doesn't get publicized very much ( why is that?) is how much air quality has inmproved in the last 30 years. The real statistics are very impressive..
Gary

[Roy Hatch]

What happened to the 200 MPG carburetor? Since I was a young man (many years ago) there was talk about the carburetor, but it was never released because of a conspiracy by the oil companies.

Nowadays all you need is a tornado fuel saver and you can double your fuel mileage. I know it's so - I saw it on television! And people actually buy these things.

See you later - there's a little green man at the door.

Roy

[Greg Cole]

Roy,
The in house engineer here at the day job installed one of those vornado's or whatever they're sold as on his old Jeep... he claimed it did help with fuel mileage very slightly.... but he gets all red in the face when I tell him we hear him coming cause the whine that comes from the air headed through the intake plenum. Or is that him whining about his mileage still?
A true cold air induction system does make a difference though, I've had one my my truck for years now. Even the K & N filters for the very restrictive stock housings help fuel mileage, then again just replacing the bug n dirt filled ones that are a couple years old helps alot......

Greg

[Wes Bischel]

Rick,
Can't help on the specific mileage of a stock T, but have your 6th grader search the Mobilgas Economy Run. They had fuel mileage competitions from the late '30's until the '60's (I think). The averages were derived differently than now, but the economy cars of the '50's were still quite respectable -especially by todays standards.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...818428,00.html

Wes

[Pat Germain]

Since Model-T engines were of a flathead design, they could be only so efficient and they polluted a lot: similar to the flathead lawn mower engines which are now being fazed out. I don't think they had any kind of ignition advance, like a vacuum advance, as well.

Consider also Model-T carburetors were very small. I don't know the specific CFM, but they couldn't move much air/fuel mixture even when wide open. Thus, they couldn't swallow much fuel.

[Mike Henderson]

Rick,
Can't help on the specific mileage of a stock T, but have your 6th grader search the Mobilgas Economy Run. They had fuel mileage competitions from the late '30's until the '60's (I think). The averages were derived differently than now, but the economy cars of the '50's were still quite respectable -especially by todays standards.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...818428,00.html

Wes

Those '50s fuel economy runs were not "real world". The people who drove them did all sorts of things to reduce fuel usage that ordinary people wouldn't do. Examples: They disabled the accelerator pump so extra fuel was not pumped in when they pushed on the accelerator. They drafted large trucks (2-3 feet behind a big rig). They turned off the ignition when going downhill and when coming to a stop. They drove as if "an egg was between their foot and the accelerator".

Professional drivers and not not immune to some cheating. That's why the EPA started testing for MPG.

Mike

[Robert E Lee]

1926 T gets between up to about 28 miles a gallon. The igniton advance is done by lever by the driver. 45 top speed unless you have a ruxel (spelling) rear axel which is a two speed rear axel, then top speed is up to about 60 so I have been told. I have one for sale if anyone is interested. ( but its not cheap )
Bob

[Wes Bischel]

Mike,
The linked article covers some of the obvious discrepancies between real world and the Mobil runs. Even still, they did better on gas than most people think. I was consistently criticized for driving my old "gas hog" '69 Falcon wagon. Most were surprised that it did better than their new SUV or mini van. (and had a larger hauling capacity) Granted we are much better off now - thankfully they don't build 'em like they used to!

Wes