Bullnose Truck Commercials

[Gary Lewis]

You are correct, Gary, in that the 1984 F150 belonging to my son is one that was equipped for the best gas mileage.It is a SWB [~3750#] built with a 4.9L ["feedback" controlled ignition and carburetion], 4 speed manual OD transmission and 2.47 [open] rear gears. The tires were 215/75/15 P-metric radials and the front bumper was equipped with the chin spoiler.At idle speed, the truck would travel at ~8 MPH. It was not fun to drive slowly.Before gasohol, the truck would return 26+ MPG when driven @ ~60 mph. And, it is true that if even a small hill was seen, it was necessary to downshift. With this combination, the truck could be driven at 65 mph in third gear and the engine could not be heard.FORD discovered that the trick to this type of gas mileage was in having an engine with sufficient low RPM torque to "pull this load". At these very low RPMs [~1200-1300], there is minimal friction losses and with the gas pedal almost to the floor, pumping losses were minimalized. In gas mileage threads/articles, it is often stated that the best gas mileage is realized when manifold vacuum is greatest, but with FORD's MPG package, the vacuum would be ~8-10" Hg.Years ago, I stumbled across a document [FORD, I believe] which indicated that 300/4.9L engines which were to be used with 2.70 [9"] and 2.46 [8.75"] rear gears had a different specification camshaft. I would assume for enhanced low speed torque. I am sorry to say that although I believe I did read this, I cannot find the article. Other more plentiful documents tend to indicate that all 300/4.9L engines shared identical camshaft specifications.FORD experimented with this engine and had great success regarding gas mileage and power. It is sad that what was seen with prototypes did not make it to production.The rear gears were changed to 3.55 and the truck is more fun to drive, but the mileage dropped to 21-22 MPG.

Thanks, David. That helps a bunch. So 26 MPG was available, but at a driveability cost.

 

As for the camshaft, I haven't found specs for them. However, if you go to our page at Documentation/Engines/300 Six and then the Specifications page you can see that in some years there were several different ratings for torque, and at different RPM.

 

For instance, here are the 1983 specs. You can see that the Fuel Saver package got a bit higher compression ratio. And the F-150 4x2 w/Man. Trans. & 2.47 axle had more torque at a lower RPM than any other combination.

 

[Nothing Special]

Thanks, David. That helps a bunch. So 26 MPG was available, but at a driveability cost.

 

As for the camshaft, I haven't found specs for them. However, if you go to our page at Documentation/Engines/300 Six and then the Specifications page you can see that in some years there were several different ratings for torque, and at different RPM.

 

For instance, here are the 1983 specs. You can see that the Fuel Saver package got a bit higher compression ratio. And the F-150 4x2 w/Man. Trans. & 2.47 axle had more torque at a lower RPM than any other combination.

 

I remember most of the commercials in the first post (I've seen the Mr Majestyk one on YouTube before, but I don't recall it from my childhood).One thing I get a kick out of is their comparing a full-size truck to compacts (around 1:00 and 2:30). I suppose it's a valid comparison if you're saying they get the same mileage. But it seems like apples and oranges, and really doesn't give you any basis for believing that the Ford is the better product.I'm reminded of when I was shopping for my 1985 F-250 in late '84. I went in planning to buy a Ford truck and only needed the salesman to help me get the options I wanted on the order form. But he had to give me his canned spiel about why I should buy a Ford. About the first thing he sais was that Ford trucks are built Ford tough. I pointed out to him that he was telling me that Ford trucks were built as tough as Ford trucks are build, which really doesn't say anything. At the time Chevy was also talking about Chevy tough. Only Dodge actually gave you an external comparison, saying that Dodge trucks were Ram tough. None of the commercials made any claims at which was the toughest, Fords, Chevies or male sheep. But I duess if you don't make any claims then you don't have to be able to back them up.Still, those were fun commercials, and all the trucks I've owned have been Fords!

[Machspeed]

I remember most of the commercials in the first post (I've seen the Mr Majestyk one on YouTube before, but I don't recall it from my childhood).

One thing I get a kick out of is their comparing a full-size truck to compacts (around 1:00 and 2:30). I suppose it's a valid comparison if you're saying they get the same mileage. But it seems like apples and oranges, and really doesn't give you any basis for believing that the Ford is the better product.

I'm reminded of when I was shopping for my 1985 F-250 in late '84. I went in planning to buy a Ford truck and only needed the salesman to help me get the options I wanted on the order form. But he had to give me his canned spiel about why I should buy a Ford. About the first thing he sais was that Ford trucks are built Ford tough. I pointed out to him that he was telling me that Ford trucks were built as tough as Ford trucks are build, which really doesn't say anything. At the time Chevy was also talking about Chevy tough. Only Dodge actually gave you an external comparison, saying that Dodge trucks were Ram tough. None of the commercials made any claims at which was the toughest, Fords, Chevies or male sheep. But I duess if you don't make any claims then you don't have to be able to back them up.

Still, those were fun commercials, and all the trucks I've owned have been Fords!

Bob, I think it's more about American auto makers realizing that they were losing some serious ground to their Japanese competitors. From around 73 to the mid 80's the big three were rolling out some real junkers. I grew up in a Ford family and I remember my father buying a brand new 79 Ford Fairmount Station wagon. Jeez, that thing was a piece of junk. Poorly built, poorly designed, flat out horrible automobile. And, it wasn't even the worst of what came out back then. We didn't have it long when he traded it off for a Subaru wagon, a far better car.

[Gary Lewis]

Bob, I think it's more about American auto makers realizing that they were losing some serious ground to their Japanese competitors. From around 73 to the mid 80's the big three were rolling out some real junkers. I grew up in a Ford family and I remember my father buying a brand new 79 Ford Fairmount Station wagon. Jeez, that thing was a piece of junk. Poorly built, poorly designed, flat out horrible automobile. And, it wasn't even the worst of what came out back then. We didn't have it long when he traded it off for a Subaru wagon, a far better car.

Yes, that was a particularly bad stretch. I remember looking at a Dodge Aspen during that time that was on the show room floor. I could see so many flaws in the body I was stunned.

But Motor Trend said they were the car of the year. However, Motor Trend now says this:

Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare: Great Idea, Lousy Execution

MotorTrend’s 1976 Car of the Year turned out to be one of the sourest lemons in history.

And:

Lee Iacocca, in his autobiography Iacocca, speculated that the F-bodies needed another six months of development before they were ready for the public. Problems began to spring up right away, some related to faulty design and others to bad build quality. Safety recalls included hoods that didn't latch properly, engines stalling on acceleration, seat belt tensioners failing to lock, fenders rusting with alacrity, suspension and brake components suffering from early fatigue, omitted muffler heat shields, and leaky fuel hoses. One particularly harrowing defect resulted in the steering-wheel shaft becoming disconnected from the rest of the steering system. The Aspen and Volare quickly became the most-recalled cars in history (a record that would soon be stolen away by GM's awful X-cars).

And these, mind you, were just the recalls. F-body owners dealt with countless other ignominies, including (but by no means limited to) leaky trunks, broken motor mounts, rapidly-wearing suspension parts, seizing brake calipers, and electrical problems in quantities that would make an MG owner blanch. Even the reputedly indestructible Slant Six proved fallible when installed between the F-body's rust-prone fenders.

So I didn't buy the Aspen. Instead I bought an X-car. After having it a couple of years the recall badges went from fender to fender on the radiator support.