ok....little 78 ford wagon chat. lol

Ok all.
by my other post you can see I'm interested Ianthe roadmaster. Well I'm also interested in the 78 ford with the big ole 460ci in it as well.
wat kinda heart pounding, rubber burning Bbc 460 is lurking under that engine bay? Is it a manly motor? Its killing me there's apparantly no third seat or rear facing seat in em. There's a storage area i heard but can i fairly easily rig up a small rear facingseat? I mean how big is the compartment in em? Give me yer oppinions.tnx, rod

 

Hya Rod...the Fords also optioned with the 3rd row...as for the 460?they can be great or lousy
The best one i ever owned was a 76 with a factory 2 barrel...not bad milage and could pull trees

the trick with a 460 is to go ALL out...or leave it stock
...or just find some DOVE heads and a 650/700 4 barrel and a aftermarket intake(the stock one weighs about 300 pounds)

just my 2 bits...i may owe ya change

 

I agree with the Rev. A 460 built right can be a world beater. You can even build one into a "BOSS" 429 Hemi head monster if you have the desire (And money) Generally speaking, late 70's stuff has the smog equipment which hampers power and they were detuned with lower compresion and what-not. Still, as the saying goes there is no replacement for displacement. More cubes means more grunt.

Having said all of that, best bet for the money is buy it and after making sure it has a good tune up install a nice free flowing exhaust system and call it good. It will pull your house of it's foundation if you ask it to.

 

As to the 'way back' seat, big Fords from '65 through '91 had DFRS - Dual Facing Rear Seats. They were 2 seats that faced sideways in the cargo area.

 

Yup...the Ford "3rd" seat is not a rear facing seat....it's 2 seats, one on each side, facing each other. It would not be easy to FIND or INSTALL in a non rear seat wagon.
As for the 460....love 'em. However the 78 460 is not like the earlier ones because of the CAFE standards that chokes them up. Still will pull a house but not the best at all for building up. Same with the truck 460. Like Ort said...slam on free flowing duals, get rid of the emission crap and call it good. I love the 460...it pulls like crazy and does it smoothly. You a gas mileage miser? Then forget about the 460....don't expect over 12 MPG.

A 78 Ford rear seating.....

 

Although I do not have personal knowledge of how 1978 Ford wagons are constructed, I would bet it is fairly easy to convert them to third-seat models. I base this on my experience doing the same with my 1970 Country Squire:



My car did not come with the rear side-facing seats; I added them from parts from a 1972 (I think) Colony Park. It wasn't very complicated. The seat backs just slipped into slots in the cargo floor doors. I had to drill a couple of holes, each side, in the well floor for the seat bottoms. There are some latches that click the cargo floor doors (seat backs) in place; I got them off the parts car but haven't yet installed them. The only other thing to do is add the seat belts, which I didn't get off the parts car and would someday like to find and install.

I think the wagon-back of the 1978 full-size Ford and Mercury wagons is very similar, from 1969 through 1978. I wouldn't be surprised if my rear side-facing seats would fit into a 1978 Squire, although the stitching pattern of the upholstery is different.

Manufacturers try to build cars so that it is easy to add options on the assembly line, if possible. So I think if you can find a salvage wagon with the rear side-facing seats, you can add those to a '78 wagon that came from the factory without them.

 

My Merc ( 1978 ) has the 460, All stock. I have more coffee cans under the hood then Starbucks. I'm putting out 220 hp or less

 

Tnx for the info guys. Appreciate it. Hg

 

I have LOTS of experience with the Ford engines from the late 70s. The first thing to do for mileage is to ditch the stock cats and the exhaust behind them. I went with custom made dual high flow cats and into a 2 1/4 inch dual system on my 351M. A good muffler shop will be able to tell you the correct diameter of pipes. I also had them put in an "X" crossover, and used FlowMaster DeltaFlow mufflers. For extra breathing, I did use the long tube headers from Hooker and had them ceramic coated. All in all, I gained about 6 mpg, and roughly 30 - 35 horse. In a 78 Thunderbird, I'm doing about 28 miles to the Imperial gallon, or 22ish to the U.S. gallon. Next up, I'm taking off the stock 2V carb and intake, and going with the Edelbrock Performer 4V with the square bore carb. Talk to Edelbrock about what the correct one for your engine is. their tech support is excellent. Finally, I will be swapping out my FMX for a heavy duty AOD from a late 80s F250. There is an adaptor kit available to make it fit. With a good tune up, and all this lot done, you should find gas mileage will be somewhere in the 40 mpg-plus range, with the factory 460 still under the hood.

IF you want to get even better performance and mileage, take out the big block, and get the 351W from a late 80s Crown Vic or Grand Marquis. Factory trim had a higher output than the 460 you have, both horsepower and torque, and can be upgraded the same way for mileage. You may even be able to coax 50 MPG from the old girl!

 

40mpg from carbed 78 460 or swap out the 460 in favor of a less torque 351 Windsor SFI and drop it in a 4800+ lb cinder block with wheels under it, wow that's a very impressive hypothetical guestimation.

Just one quick question for ya, is that with it idling on the back of the car carrier or is it shut off to that kind of fuel mileage?

Now this is some facts about the car in question.

1978 FORD LTD Wagon 7.5L V-8 Cruise-O-Matic

Specs of FORD LTD Wagon 7.5L V-8 Cruise-O-Matic, model year 1978, version for North America U.S. with 5-door wagon body type, RWD (rear-wheel drive) and automatic 3-speed gearbox. Basic specs and characteristics: petrol (gasoline) engine of 7536 cm3 / 459.8 cui displacement with advertised power 150.5 kW / 202 hp / 205 PS ( SAE net ) / 4000 and 472 Nm / 348 lb-ft / 2000 of torque. Dimensions: this model outside length is 5733 mm / 225.7 in, it’s 2024 mm / 79.7 in wide, 1440 mm / 56.7 in high and has wheelbase of 3073 mm / 121 in. The value of a drag coefficient, estimated by a-c, is Cd = 0.58 . Standard wheels were fitted with tires size JR78 - 15. Reference vehicle weights are: official base curb weight 2194 kg / 4837 lbs . How fast is that car ? Performance: top speed 179 km/h (111 mph) (theoretical); accelerations 0- 60 mph 10.8 s; 0- 100 km/h 12.1 s (a-c simulation); 1/4 mile drag time (402 m) 18.4 s (a-c simulation). Fuel consumption and mileage: unofficial: 11/17 mpg (U.S.), 21.4/13.8 l/100km, 13.2/20.3 mpg (imp.), 4.7/7.2 km/l EPA ratings , official average mpg ratings by a-c testing: 26.7 l/100km / 10.6 mpg (imp.) / 8.8 mpg (U.S.) / 3.8 km/l .

 

40 MPG out of a 460?? Dropped from the moon with the key off, maybe.
No offense, MikeT but I have seen your posts like this before and always found them confusing. Like here...you start out talking 460, switch to 351 and then, at the end, I'm not sure if you are talking IMP gallons, US gallons, miles or kilometers or what engine?? I try to read your posts to see where you are getting these unbelievable figures and I still don't know. Tons of guys have a dual set up with the Edlebrock intake and carb on 460 engines and I have sure never seen any of them get 40 MPG. Or 30 MPG. Or 20 MPG.
Please post a single engine and use US gallons and tell us your formula for getting the kinds of MPG you claim.

 

The only 460 I had was in a 1977 Ford supercab 3/4 ton, 1 ton rated camper special. Whether pulling our 30+ foot fifth wheel RV or driving to work and back, I got 9MPG. It did pull great and had enough power to pull a house, as they wrote. Actually the RV was our house during summers. I even had a large wind deflector when pulling RV.

If I ever got over 10MPG US gallons ethyl, it was all downhill with a tail wind. Admitedly everything was stock except duel exhaust.

 

Yup....I had a great running 460 in my 77 Lincoln Continental and it was stock and ran a consistent 11 MPG.

EDIT!!
WAIT!...I have confused 2 different cars. I just looked it up....My 460 Lincoln got 9 MPG too!
It's a burb that got 11 MPG not the Lincoln.

 

That was great compared to my 9MPG. Really, I could drive fast, climb mountains pulling the RV at 70MPH+, or cruise 15 miles to work and still get a lousy 9MPG.
Valves floated twice, ruining engine twice. When it began doing the valve float with third engine I traded it like a sick Kia! This was always at low speed without RV????????
Found out Ford's waurantee wasn't worth the toilet paper it was written on! Last Ford in my future.

 

I edited my prior post, Cat.
You are absolutely right! No matter how I drove that Lincoln I got a consistent 9 MPG!