Antique Fuel Miser. Makes you wonder?

[TheRealZed]

 

[Casey Jones]

Funny, this is the first we've heard of any fuel-efficient cars of that era.

It was well-known what cars could deliver, in terms of mileage. The Model T gave about 15 miles a gallon - not bad, not until you consider it only had 20 horsepower.

The German government's leisure-and-wellness department, which managed Adolf Hitler's People's Car project...was proud of the fuel mileage the "aerodynamic" (for its time) Type 1 car (engineered by Herr Doktor Porsche) got, between 25 and 30. That was remarkable for a car that could go 100 kph (62 mph).

Real gains in fuel mileage didn't come until improvement in tires (radials lower rolling resistance) and design (lower profiles reduce air resistance) and fuel delivery (electronic fuel injection). This is like the ignorami who point at electric cars of a hundred years ago, and pretend they were practical.

I haven't watched the vid. Because the real reason it's up there is to get clicks and thus money. I would bet some of MY money, what he's saying is complete and utter bovine scat.

 

[TheRealZed]

I dunno, it was ~25hp running @ low speeds on skinny rubber, so in ideal conditions it might have been possible.

Air cooled, 3.2L and light like he said... so it seems he is reporting the museum's claims accurately.

1917 FRANKLIN 9A - TAMPA BAY AUTOMOBILE MUSEUM

One of three remaining, our 1917 Franklin 9A utilized an air-cooled inline 6-cylinder engine. Learn more at the Tampa Bay Automobile Museum.

www.tbauto.org

This model was well known for its comfort, great handling, reliability, and fuel economy (40.3 miles to the gallon).

 

[Casey Jones]

He claims.

How would we verify? Franklin cars were extraordinarily rare, even 50 years ago. I have only seen one.

If they were that kind of an engineering marvel, they'd surely have sold more - but the water-cooled Chevrolets were far more desired. ONLY Franklin stuck with air cooling, and the Depression killed them.

Which was good - and bad. Being defunct, the patents were owned by nobody. Anyone could have used their techniques.

Nobody did.

It wasn't that there wasn't interest in making fuel-efficient cars. Nash, later AMC, came out with the Rambler, and then the English-built Rambler Metro. To get good gas mileage, there were compromises nobody wanted to live with.

Chevrolet came out with the Corvair. It was reasonable on gas - about the same as the Ford Falcon. One would think that if air-cooling design were more fuel-efficient, the Corvair would have been better.

In fact it's the opposite. Having owned several Volkswagens - one air-cooled, one water-cooled, and one, a Vanagon that was designed for an air-cooled engine but got a water-cooled one later...water-cooling translates to better fuel economy. Partly because operating temperature of the engine is more-firmly controlled.

I have two motorcycles - an air-cooled 200cc Yamaha and a water-cooled 700cc Honda. The Honda is the more fuel efficient. The Yamaha is so easy to fix, it's like a tinkertoy...but the Honda is the efficiency winner.

Again, I posit that this guy is just making clickbait. There's essentially NO data on real-world operation of any Franklin cars, beyond what a few owners may say. No way to get beyond the BS and find out the facts.

So he can say anything.

 

[TheRealZed]

He claims

Well, he quotes, the museum claims.

I dunno.

 

[TheRealZed]

hich was good - and bad. Being defunct, the patents were owned by nobody. Anyone could have used their techniques.

Yes but to be fair it was an expensive car to build, gas was cheap and milage wasn't an issue. They made very little as car company so why would anyone follow? It's not the first time that inferior technology turned out to be the better option just due to the basic economics.

 

[TheRealZed]

That doesn't mean that the mileage wasn't exceptional for the time. It's just that nobody really cared enough to pay what it cost to do.

 

[Casey Jones]

Again, I say, where is the proof?

We can't prove it because nobody's going to test a rare, valuable Franklin the way they'd test a Camry today.

We can only look at history.

This is the FIRST assertion I've heard of, and I have read a LOT of automotive history...the FIRST that ever claimed the Franklin was unusually fuel efficient.

Various auto makes were noted for various characteristics. The Model T and the Volkswagen Type 1, as I referenced. The Model A had twice the power, but got about the same gas mileage - because of mechanical improvements.

There is no way a wooden-wheeled device with axle-bearings and a differential gear of that era, was going to deliver high fuel mileage. NO WAY.

It's a small thing, but I'm tired of these liars who put clickbait up. And Eww Toob has become home for these mercenary liars, because of their monetizing scheme.

 

[Casey Jones]

Well, he quotes, the museum claims.

I dunno.

Museums are run with volunteers.

And also, they have an interest in floor traffic.

These are tough times for automotive museums. Quite a few of them have closed down - including one run by Chrysler in Detroit. The displays are sold on the open market, often to people with some money but little appreciation. Over at barnfinds.com there often pop up battered examples that have proof of having once been museum displays.

So, anything he can say to increase visitor traffic, he will say.

LACK OF ANY INTEGRITY AT ALL.

 

[TheRealZed]

We can't prove it because nobody's going to test a rare, valuable Franklin the way they'd test a Camry today.

They do actually drive that one in the video around. So I'm guessing they've got a real-world idea of what it consumes.

So I guess the question is are they telling the truth?

I'm never going to know.

 

[Casey Jones]

They do actually drive that one in the video around. So I'm guessing they've got a real-world idea of what it consumes.

So I guess the question is are they telling the truth?

I'm never going to know.

I just test-drove an old Ford van, someone is selling.

I drove it about twenty miles, about half an hour.

I have NO idea how much fuel it consumes - except that the seller said, it gets about 12 miles a gallon.

To properly test an automobile, for verifiable facts, as in a Popular Science or Consumer Reports road test...you'd need a measured fuel feed, or else to record exactly how much was put into the tank until it ran dry, warning-light came on, or other non-subjective metric.

I don't think they know, or care. It's really unimportant to a museum curator, or to a fanboi. But it matters when someone's crafting hype.

My logic-module says, this person is a LIAR, and he's doing it for MONEY. For clicks, translating into Google residuals.

 

[TheRealZed]

Lol. It might just be pathetic power and performance. 40mpg is one thing, taking 3 days to top out at 45 is another!

 

[Casey Jones]

NOTHING got 40 mpg in those days.

NOTHING.

It was a real amazement when the VW Rabbit came out and did just that. First car EVER, at least the first car that was practical and could travel at highway speeds.

Believe me, if the Franklin were REALLY that fuel efficient, it would have been known as such, back when the original buyers of Franklins were still alive.

 

[TheRealZed]

at least the first car that was practical and could travel at highway speeds.

Yeah well, mine never did that, you have to drive perfectly over neutral terrain. Which I guess is the point. I remember a 504 hyper-mileing it to some silly number (60s, 70s!?) that no one else could have ever managed it in real world daily driving.

Nash 600's were supposed to hit 36MPG top, impressive for a big car.

There are a slew of small cars that claimed 40 odd. Honda 600's, Crosley Hotshots, practical? Well I don't know. LOL

Citroën 2CV was pre golf (rabbit), practical and better mileage on any given day. Fiat 126's were good, The original 850 minis could nudge 40, Fiat 500's etc the list goes on. Europe and Australia were possibly full of little cars you never saw much of.

There was a little Aussie two-stroke with opposed pistons (head end!) the small over head piston somehow interacted with the main piston below. It was amazing by all accounts, born in a shed, went gp racing in the early part of the 20th century but never got any further. Really hard to find out about like it never existed, I tripped over it's story in a magazine. Hard to find much about it online. There is much lost to time for arcane reasons, not always that they were a bad idea.

So I dunno man, could they do it is one thing, could they do it practically, as a normal person would drive on today's roads is another thing.

My golf never returned 40mpg, ever. Could it do it? No doubt, it probably could.

So I don't doubt some of the claims, just like I don't doubt the mileage claim on my current car... do I get it? Nah, not even close.

 

[Casey Jones]

Yeah well, mine never did that, you have to drive perfectly over neutral terrain. Which I guess is the point. I remember a 504 hyper-mileing it to some silly number (60s, 70s!?) that no one else could have ever managed it in real world daily driving.

Nash 600's were supposed to hit 36MPG top, impressive for a big car.

Never heard of that one. But...if it were true (it assuredly was not, because the same engine was later used in Ramblers) why did the company make the Nash Rambler? If they'd gotten such great economy, what was to be gained by making a new, smaller body?

There are a slew of small cars that claimed 40 odd. Honda 600's, Crosley Hotshots, practical? Well I don't know. LOL

Crosley had a stamped-steel engine. Crosley designed it for an army front-line generator and pump power. It didn't MATTER that it didn't last. Later, Crosley got the idea they could make a car, in the postwar market...and made their lineup.

The engines were a disaster. Later, they tried to salvage the business by buying cast-iron-block engines from an outside supplier; it didn't matter.

Citroën 2CV was pre golf (rabbit), practical and better mileage on any given day. Fiat 126's were good, The original 850 minis could nudge 40, Fiat 500's etc the list goes on. Europe and Australia were possibly full of little cars you never saw much of.

The 2CV had a top speed of about 40 mph. Practical? I think not.

The Minis were a domestic-market car; and British Motors (later, British Leyland) was selling all they could make, in the UK. It was not a big profit maker. Few were imported here.

It was practical. It was also about 1400 pounds. I wonder if the mileage would have been the same Stateside, even with 55-mph speed limits.

There was a little Aussie two-stroke with opposed pistons (head end!) the small over head piston somehow interacted with the main piston below. It was amazing by all accounts, born in a shed, went gp racing in the early part of the 20th century but never got any further. Really hard to find out about like it never existed, I tripped over it's story in a magazine. Hard to find much about it online. There is much lost to time for arcane reasons, not always that they were a bad idea.

Don't know about that one. But opposed-piston engines have been around - Fairbanks-Morse engineered a two-crankshaft diesel engine for military ships during WWII; and then tried to enter the locomotive market with that unit. It had serious reliability problems, and Fairbanks-Morse was mortally wounded.

I also read a lot about the 100-mpg carburetor. It had everything to excite conspiracy buffs - created by a genius that GM killed, and bought the rights to, so they could lock it up in a safe. Of course, UNLIKE every other engineering breakthrough, this miracle carburetor couldn't be duplicated by others. UNLIKE the electric light, or the phonograph, both of which had independent inventors working on, and wound up in courts.

Bottom line is, the 100-mpg carb doesn't exist. If it did, we'd see it now. Allowing all the other fantasy to be true, that wonderful safe would have been opened when GM filed for bankruptcy.

Laws of physics are not like election laws - laws of physics cannot be broken.

So I dunno man, could they do it is one thing, could they do it practically, as a normal person would drive on today's roads is another thing.

My golf never returned 40mpg, ever. Could it do it? No doubt, it probably could.

Yeah.

So why am I supposed to bob my head to this punk liar and accept his assertion that the Franklin was this "AMAZING!" (the favorite word of young punks) car gets 40 mpg?

My ex had a VW Fox (different from the earlier Audi Fox) and it got 36 mpg, with me driving it hard. But that was in an era of fuel injection, rational emissions laws, and manual gearboxes.

My 1972 VW Beetle got me 23 mpg. Air cooled, and 1800 pounds.

So I don't doubt some of the claims, just like I don't doubt the mileage claim on my current car... do I get it? Nah, not even close.

Here's some more about the Franklin:

Franklin (automobile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Obviously the Wikipukia entry was written before this became potentially political - references are, the car was aluminum; it had an air-cooled engine made by a separate company (also owned by Franklin) which survived the collapse of the auto company. It was used in aircraft in WWII; and later was sold to the Polish government in 1975.

No mention of outstanding or even good fuel mileage.

 

[TheRealZed]

The 2CV had a top speed of about 40 mph. Practical? I think not.

Holy shit dude, say that on the wrong forum, and you'd spend the rest of your days defending it.

North of 5 million units sold over 42 years.... OBVIOUSLY, it was fit for purpose... not practical?! Sheeesh!

Later models could top 100 kmh, early ones could hit maybe 80 kmh... but they could do it across a field and given the state of Europe at the time that was handy. 30-40 mph was plenty given the roads in 48/50.

The Minis were a domestic-market car; and British Motors (later, British Leyland) was selling all they could make, in the UK. It was not a big profit maker. Few were imported here.

All over the place down here, we had several variants, my favourite being a Moke Californian that we used for wind surfing and the beach. Practical in its own way, but not a city car. The full body car was great, fun to drive, and enough for what the family wanted it for as a second car.

The lack of profit had more to do with England and Unions than the car... they did manage to kill most of their auto industry across the 60's & 70's.

So why am I supposed to bob my head to this punk liar and accept his assertion that the Franklin was this "AMAZING!" (the favorite word of young punks) car gets 40 mpg?

Even if they got into the 30's in real life, that was pretty good for the time. Nobody expects you to be THAT impressed, it's just a noteworthy old design among many others, I am sure.

No mention of outstanding or even good fuel mileage.

Yeah, I don't think it really mattered back then, and I'd guess it wasn't even a design criterion. More a result of other goals. Obviously, no one would pay the premium for the car, so no one really cared. Not the first time a basic unit has beaten out technically better cars. I had a beetle once, people loved them... it was a basic pile of crap IMO, swapped it out for a FIAT 124 Special T at about the same money second hand. Everyone told me the beetle was good, and the FIAT was bad. Absolute bullshit... the FIAT was a much better car in all regards, but I'd guess the beetle still out sold it.

People like what they like.

Anyway, chill, it's just a car with a different engine that was notable in it own way.

 

[Casey Jones]

Holy shit dude, say that on the wrong forum, and you'd spend the rest of your days defending it.

Cultists are what cultists are. Not putting you in that group; just trying to interject some reality into wild claims by the original vid.

North of 5 million units sold over 42 years.... OBVIOUSLY, it was fit for purpose... not practical?! Sheeesh!

It was practical for rural France.

If your entire region of use were to be, say, land the size of New York State, and all you had were horse-cart paths...it would be practical.

Not when there's freeway use likely, or even modern two-lane roads with speed limits of 60 or higher.

Later models could top 100 kmh, early ones could hit maybe 80 kmh... but they could do it across a field and given the state of Europe at the time that was handy. 30-40 mph was plenty given the roads in 48/50.

Even Europe decided it wasn't safe or practical to continue to make or sell

It's like this: If you live in a golf-cart community, the 2CV would be a fine car. If you live in Paris, with streets laid out during the Middle Ages, it would be a good choice. If you wanted not to worry about auto theft, it would be an excellent choice.

If you occasionally expect to drive 200 miles to another city, not so.

All over the place down here, we had several variants, my favourite being a Moke Californian that we used for wind surfing and the beach. Practical in its own way, but not a city car. The full body car was great, fun to drive, and enough for what the family wanted it for as a second car.

I had a Jeep Wrangler as a second car, too. Great to go get a Sunday paper with, with the top off. Also great to go get the obligatory milk and bread when there was a snow emergency going on.

But to actually get to work or go where I wanted, I had my "other" car, a Toyota Matrix.

Your primary transportation need be practical.

The lack of profit had more to do with England and Unions than the car... they did manage to kill most of their auto industry across the 60's & 70's.

Combination of low quality, squandered or bungled market-research, Lucas electrics and power plays, between the former Standard-Triumph executives, British Motor teams, and Leyland Motors.

British Leyland was a cluster-copulation right out the gate - but that is what comes of government, or other non-customers, dictating the terms of an industry's survival and their product lines.

In the end, BL was dismantled and sold to foreign owners, by brand and line. BMW bought the Mini franchise - but opted to discontinue the little car in favor of a Mini-tribute that is MUCH larger than other cars in its class

Why would BMW do that, it the Mini was so practical? Point is, while it was a good car for a Londoner, it wasn't at all practical for more-general use. Even a single young person would have a hard time living with it if he/she had a long commute on the open road.

Gas mileage, in that tiny car: According to Fuelly, it was about 30 mpg. As expected for that size of car.

1969 Austin Mini Cooper MPG - Actual MPG from 2 1969 Austin Mini Cooper owners

The most accurate 1969 Austin Mini Coopers MPG estimates based on real world results of 4 thousand miles driven in 2 Austin Mini Coopers

www.fuelly.com

Even if they got into the 30's in real life, that was pretty good for the time. Nobody expects you to be THAT impressed, it's just a noteworthy old design among many others, I am sure.



Yeah, I don't think it really mattered back then, and I'd guess it wasn't even a design criterion. More a result of other goals. Obviously, no one would pay the premium for the car, so no one really cared. Not the first time a basic unit has beaten out technically better cars. I had a beetle once, people loved them... it was a basic pile of crap IMO, swapped it out for a FIAT 124 Special T at about the same money second hand. Everyone told me the beetle was good, and the FIAT was bad. Absolute bullshit... the FIAT was a much better car in all regards, but I'd guess the beetle still out sold it.

Actually, people would really notice - since gas stations were not on every corner in those years. Fuel stops had to be planned.

It annoys me that people try this dishonest revisionist crap.

Fiats were crap. They were crap 50 years ago and they still are. Not their design - which has always been innovative and often beautiful to look at. DURABILITY is where they come up short.

How many Fiat 128s do we see around, now? How many Fiat Strada (Ritmo in Europe) models survived? We find plenty of Beetles from the 1970s still around; but Fiats of that era are extinct.

The Beetle was obsolete even before its first sale in the US; but unlike Fiats, or other European brands, they were extraordinarily well-made. They of course didn't last as long as modern Toyotas; but they held up much better than Detroit models of the time.

And Dr Porsche had engineered it to be economical. It was, really, probably the most-economical all-purpose car that could be designed using 1930s technology.

The Yugo was a Fiat 127, made by Zastava, a Yugoslavian firearms manufacturer, nationalized and then repurposed to build the Fiat-licensed models. Yugos lasted EXACTLY as long as Fiats.

Even the new Fiat 500s are getting rare. Finding one with over 100k miles is impossible. Finding one for sale with lower mileage...you find them cheap.

People like what they like.

Anyway, chill, it's just a car with a different engine that was notable in it own way.

Yeah And in that regard, it's interesting.

But all these untrue claims, all this claimed-sooper-sekrut knowledge, done by some punkboi who doesn't want to get a real job...just torques me. I want to take MY torque wrench and open some ventilation in the back of his skull.

 

[TheRealZed]

Cultists are what cultists are. Not putting you in that group; just trying to interject some reality into wild claims by the original vid.

Cultists, interesting take!

Actually, people would really notice - since gas stations were not on every corner in those years. Fuel stops had to be planned.

Minis, 2CVs, Beetles were all big sellers so they were obviously fit for purpose... I don't really get your point there?

Your primary transportation need be practical.

We had one Mini from new in 74 to about 92 from memory. It was a daily driver, and it was a practical shopping cart, school car etc. It did the job well. Furthermore, it was reliable, never broke down, never had major failures and was cheap to service. In reality, it was the "second car" but it did most of the practical work for the family. The other car went to work, sat in a parking lot all day and took us on holidays at best once a year... not even that.

Why would BMW do that, it the Mini was so practical?

errrrrr.... because you could still buy an original shape mini well into the 90s, I think even up to 2000 in blighty. That is an EPIC run for any car, name an American model that has come close without a number of total platform rebuilds aka not the same car. BMW canned it because it was crazy long in the tooth. Designed for 1959 not 1990 something! That alone tells you that it was a fantastically practical little car for it's day.

but opted to discontinue the little car in favor of a Mini-tribute that is MUCH larger than other cars in its class

Yeah, the boomers they were targeting to were also much larger with bad backs and more money! Talk about revising history to suit your narrative. Cripes mate, the new mini was created in a totally different context. Call the old one impractical on that basis is just wrong. They sold 5.3 million units of the original design, ergo... practical! Ditto 2CV, Ditto Beetle... the tool did what it needed to do.

British Leyland was a cluster-copulation right out the gate

Yup... but the Mini survived even them!

Actually, people would really notice - since gas stations were not on every corner in those years. Fuel stops had to be planned.

Yet it was the last thing that any manufacture concentrated on, as you noted, finding advertised fuel numbers on any of these old things is hard. I put it to you that Franklin simply built a car that no one wanted to pay for. They spent money solving a problem that wasn't really that much of a problem back then. They missed the market, obviously, they went down.

Fiats were crap. They were crap 50 years ago and they still are. Not their design - which has always been innovative and often beautiful to look at. DURABILITY is where they come up short.

The ones I had, although not perfect by any means, were about as reliable as the GM, Ford and Chrysler product most of my mates drove. They were technically superior in almost all respects and for the area we lived in, tight, steep, twisty country, they were much better to drive. My direct life experience with them wasn't that bad at all. While the GM product of the day had an engine designed in the 30's which frankly was an inefficient dinosaur of an engine.

How many Fiat 128s do we see around, now? How many Fiat Strada (Ritmo in Europe) models survived? We find plenty of Beetles from the 1970s still around; but Fiats of that era are extinct.

Not many, but they never sold that many... I also see virtually no GM, Ford or Chrysler product of that era as well. Considering they were the mass sellers down here, well, I dunno what that tells you... they are just old cars which are mostly off the road or totally restored and doted on.

They of course didn't last as long as modern Toyotas; but they held up much better than Detroit models of the time.

...and at the time the common wisdom was "jap-crap" People always have big opinions about things they have never owned! My girlfriends father had the original Civic, great little machine. Took the mini concept to a much better level.

You will hate this, I had Alphas as well, almost everyone that had never had one had the same opinion about them, crap... my experience was great, for the day they were a good car to live with. None of the doom ever trouble me, it didn't rust any more than my mates cars, it didn't break down any more, and it would sit on 100mph down the freeway happily, all day unlike the Holden's of the day.

And Dr Porsche had engineered it to be economical. It was, really, probably the most-economical all-purpose car that could be designed using 1930s technology.

... and it showed, horrible drive but then most people are not 'drivers' so it was good enough.

Even the new Fiat 500s are getting rare. Finding one with over 100k miles is impossible. Finding one for sale with lower mileage...you find them cheap.

No idea about the new series, but it has little to do with the originals.

But all these untrue claims, all this claimed-sooper-sekrut knowledge, done by some punkboi who doesn't want to get a real job...just torques me. I want to take MY torque wrench and open some ventilation in the back of his skull.

So let me get this straight, the museum is claiming ~41mpg on its little plaque. A number that they could possibly have checked (did they? Who knows?) because they do drive the thing on occasions. A number which is no doubt best case (assuming it's real). Personally, I've never driven a car that comes anywhere close to its advertised economy numbers in my real world driving. I consider those numbers as theoretically possible but practically meaningless.

Anyway, you are saying that for some reason they are lying by what, a factor of 2?

Maybe it's about as valid as the fuel stickers we see in a dealership. I dunno about the USA, but ours are optimistic to say the least! We'd be better off with a 1 to 10 scale that told you relative efficiency to the others. That'd be better than the unachievable numbers we get fed.... even if in the lab they are doable.

Really, I'm going to go with... the thing was probably fuel efficient, but it came with a cost in dollars, reliability and probably performance that didn't make sense to the market. So everyone bought cheaper, more reliable, heavier cars in spite of fuel efficiency (however good it was real world). Fuel was cheap, you could carry extra in the country, and it just didn't matter enough to pay any extra for a complicated machine that was harder to keep on the road.

Not the first time an engineer's dream hit some benchmarks that the market didn't give a crap about!

Chill, the kid probably believes the sign in the museum translates to the real world. He'll work it out one day, just young and enthusiastic. No need to shorten his life with that torque wrench! Shit, mine would be fatal... LOL.

 

[TheRealZed]

You also have a very US centric view... MANY of the cars you guys daily drove were just way too big for the landscape in places I've lived. A mate had an F250 (really, really rare down here back in the day), he couldn't park it most places in town at the time! Same for a couple of restored 50's wagons and sedans that rocked around the place. They'd have to pull over for people to pass the other way on some of our roads back then! Our BIG cars were small for you at the time.

 

[Casey Jones]

Cultists, interesting take!

Yes, when one crafts a probable false narrative...asserting "facts" that were unknown in the past...about something that's been with us forever...it's a form of cultism.

Minis, 2CVs, Beetles were all big sellers so they were obviously fit for purpose... I don't really get your point there?

There is no such thing as a "best" car. A good car for someone living in the UK, on that island...living in London...is not going to be a good car for someone living in Nevada. Nevada's distances are far greater; risk of a breakdown in the desert, far greater. Average yearly mileage, much more.

And weather is much harsher. A Nevadan interested in an economy car should look at a RAV4 or other CUV. Not a 2CV or a Mini.

We had one Mini from new in 74 to about 92 from memory. It was a daily driver, and it was a practical shopping cart, school car etc. It did the job well. Furthermore, it was reliable, never broke down, never had major failures and was cheap to service. In reality, it was the "second car" but it did most of the practical work for the family. The other car went to work, sat in a parking lot all day and took us on holidays at best once a year... not even that.

One person's experience, is his experience.

Tendencies come to be understood from a broad sampling.

Would you have driven that Mini from Texas to New York?

Would you have towed a trailer with that Mini?

Would you have taken five kids and your wife for a long trip with that Mini?

The point is, what one person experiences, is not always what all people experience. Nor what one person needs, is what others need. For most people, the Mini was impractical.

Interestingly, the MG Midget and MGB together sold FAR more than the Mini. It wasn't lack of dealers or lack of imports. It was lack of appeal.

errrrrr.... because you could still buy an original shape mini well into the 90s, I think even up to 2000 in blighty. That is an EPIC run for any car, name an American model that has come close without a number of total platform rebuilds aka not the same car. BMW canned it because it was crazy long in the tooth. Designed for 1959 not 1990 something! That alone tells you that it was a fantastically practical little car for it's day.

So their answer was, make it bigger. A big Mini.

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, the boomers they were targeting to were also much larger with bad backs and more money! Talk about revising history to suit your narrative. Cripes mate, the new mini was created in a totally different context. Call the old one impractical on that basis is just wrong. They sold 5.3 million units of the original design, ergo... practical! Ditto 2CV, Ditto Beetle... the tool did what it needed to do.

I hear that all the time. Big cars for big people.

My 1972 Beetle fit me, six-three, 190 pounds at the time...just fine.

A Yugo (Fiat 127) fit me fine, also.

Right now I'm considering a purchase of a Scion IQ - size of a SMART. IT fits me just fine.

Englishmen aren't noticeably smaller than Americans - unlike Japanese or Italians. The BMC Mini fit them fine.

The real problem, as you note without perceiving...was that the BMW Mini was sold to Boomers with memories; and those Boomers really didn't want a tiny car. It was a nostalgia piece.

Yup... but the Mini survived even them!



Yet it was the last thing that any manufacture concentrated on, as you noted, finding advertised fuel numbers on any of these old things is hard. I put it to you that Franklin simply built a car that no one wanted to pay for. They spent money solving a problem that wasn't really that much of a problem back then. They missed the market, obviously, they went down.



The ones I had, although not perfect by any means, were about as reliable as the GM, Ford and Chrysler product most of my mates drove. They were technically superior in almost all respects and for the area we lived in, tight, steep, twisty country, they were much better to drive. My direct life experience with them wasn't that bad at all. While the GM product of the day had an engine designed in the 30's which frankly was an inefficient dinosaur of an engine.

Are you familiar with "Engine Charlie" Kettering? Engineer for GM. Was OBSESSED with engineering for efficiency.

He came up with the first high-compression engines, that wrung much more power and economy out of a given engine size than had been seen. Unfortunately, he didn't play the office-politics game well, and he was arm-twisted out (to found DELCO and own Flxble, the bus maker) but he made GM engines models of efficiency for their day.

The Franklin had none of this.

I don't have proof the Franklin was NOT fuel efficient; it's just that this kid's assertion is in a vacuum. I give zero pfux what a museum plaque says. History never noted it. So much about so many cars HAD been noted, but not that.

It's a bullschitte assertion, in my read of auto history.

Not many, but they never sold that many... I also see virtually no GM, Ford or Chrysler product of that era as well. Considering they were the mass sellers down here, well, I dunno what that tells you... they are just old cars which are mostly off the road or totally restored and doted on.



...and at the time the common wisdom was "jap-crap" People always have big opinions about things they have never owned! My girlfriends father had the original Civic, great little machine. Took the mini concept to a much better level.

Yup.

Engineering, like science, is a progression. Present-day developments build on what was known.

Honda, the man, was an incredible engineer - able to understand what had been done, yet see it with a new eye. Once established in the motorbike business, he tried using motorcycle engineering - his one-unit engine-transmission, with air-cooling - in the Honda 600. It was a fun car for kids - I'd love to get one even now - but it didn't make it in the market.

The Civic was a clean slate. Honda-san gave up on air cooling; designed a new engine and transmission, and grew the 600's body to fit. It was a raging success - surviving even the problems the early ones had with rust.

Which Honda did the right thing on, buying back thousands of rust-destroyed cars seven years or so later. Later versions had much better rust protection.

But the Civic would not have been possible without the Mini. Which may or may not have used things learned out of the 2CV. And today's small cars learned things from those models as well

The Franklin engineers knew none of that.

You will hate this, I had Alphas as well, almost everyone that had never had one had the same opinion about them, crap... my experience was great, for the day they were a good car to live with. None of the doom ever trouble me, it didn't rust any more than my mates cars, it didn't break down any more, and it would sit on 100mph down the freeway happily, all day unlike the Holden's of the day.

Alfa-Romeo? I have no experience with them, and little interest. The badge has become a plaything for European oligarchs...purchased by Fiat, later FCA, by Sergio Sweaterman. Before his death on the operating table in Europe, where medical care is free.

Again...the perfect car for me is probably useless and unappealing to you. But I'd never own one of those.

... and it showed, horrible drive but then most people are not 'drivers' so it was good enough.



No idea about the new series, but it has little to do with the originals.



So let me get this straight, the museum is claiming ~41mpg on its little plaque. A number that they could possibly have checked (did they? Who knows?) because they do drive the thing on occasions. A number which is no doubt best case (assuming it's real). Personally, I've never driven a car that comes anywhere close to its advertised economy numbers in my real world driving. I consider those numbers as theoretically possible but practically meaningless.

They can claim any damn thing they want. It proves nothing.

That's what they're banking on - that so few people know about Franklins, they'll believe it.

Hype gets museum admissions, just as it gets Eww Toob clicks.

Anyway, you are saying that for some reason they are lying by what, a factor of 2?

At least.

Maybe it's about as valid as the fuel stickers we see in a dealership. I dunno about the USA, but ours are optimistic to say the least! We'd be better off with a 1 to 10 scale that told you relative efficiency to the others. That'd be better than the unachievable numbers we get fed.... even if in the lab they are doable.

The EPA numbers are unrealistic, also - because they're done on a dynamometer, without all matter of real-world effects, such as wind resistance and non-driven-axle friction.

But at least they offer SOME basis for comparison.

But not always. I got rid of a 2018 Tundra truck because it was horrifically thirsty on gas...and was CONSTANTLY shifting its ten-speed transmission. Which was there to give it EPA high (relatively) mileage ratings. (Otherwise, there would be a Gas Guzzler penalty).

In real world operation, that transmission, that whole setup, was useless and enraging.

Really, I'm going to go with... the thing was probably fuel efficient, but it came with a cost in dollars, reliability and probably performance that didn't make sense to the market. So everyone bought cheaper, more reliable, heavier cars in spite of fuel efficiency (however good it was real world). Fuel was cheap, you could carry extra in the country, and it just didn't matter enough to pay any extra for a complicated machine that was harder to keep on the road.

Not the first time an engineer's dream hit some benchmarks that the market didn't give a crap about!

There is no proof that they hit that benchmark. Again I say it: All the years all the old Franklins were around, NOBODY noted that they were good on gasoline! The one Franklin I saw...I won't forget it. My old man and I were taking a trip, through upstate NY...on the New York Thruway. We had a Jeep Wagoneer, which in those years was not a good highway car. We were taking it easy, 60 mph, but we passed this shiny old car.

"That's a Franklin," my old man said. "Made here in Syracuse."

We stopped for gas at the service area, and before we left, the old Franklin putt-putted in, and pulled up to the pump. My father had questions - yeah, said the owner, we're going to a car show. It's a good car; I like to exercise it this way. The Thruway's better than the stop and go on US 20, so that's how we're going.

Not a mention of good gas habits. He let us look through it...his was one of the later ones, with a fake radiator shell, he talked of how he had to be careful that it didn't overheat, of how hard it was to get parts if anything broke...but no mention of how good it was on gasoline.

Probably, almost certainly, it was no better than any other car of similar (relatively-light) weight.

Chill, the kid probably believes the sign in the museum translates to the real world. He'll work it out one day, just young and enthusiastic. No need to shorten his life with that torque wrench! Shit, mine would be fatal... LOL.

He can do what he likes.

Lies-for-hits is not something I like. I'm FED UP with liars - I don't care the reason or the justification. Every damn thing today, is a lie. This is one more, and this kid, I'd like to give him a slap...with a fist full of wrench.

 

[TheRealZed]

Would you have driven that Mini from Texas to New York?

Sydney - Brisbane good enough for you? Not the best grand tourer, better than a bike IMO, but then again we didn't do that very often. We drove the Moke up there once too FWIW, the cheapest way to move it. To be frank, in Sydney, you were better off running the small car and hiring a car for the distance stuff.

Would you have towed a trailer with that Mini?

We did, often. Didn't expect that, did you? For what we needed to drag, it did the job. If I showed you our house at the time, you wouldn't believe it could have. Billy goat territory. Most of the time, it dragged small sailing boats, nothing epic.

At least.

Claiming 40 off sub 20? I'd be surprised if they were that desperate for a number that wouldn't make any difference to attendance.

We were taking it easy, 60 mph, but we passed this shiny old car

Well, yeah, the economy (assuming the truth here, yes I know) probably came with really sucky performance. That would be consistent.

Alfa-Romeo? I have no experience with them, and little interest. The badge has become a plaything for European oligarchs...purchased by Fiat, later FCA, by Sergio Sweaterman. Before his death on the operating table in Europe, where medical care is free.

It was a great Grand Tourer, fun to drive highway miles and just go see places. Which I did...

Lies-for-hits is not something I like. I'm FED UP with liars - I don't care the reason or the justification.

He would have no idea... he probably just read the label and thought neat! Kids don't always lie, most often they think it's true even if it isn't.

That's what they're banking on - that so few people know about Franklins, they'll believe it.

Well yeah, who knows for sure... it would be interesting to challenge them to a fuel trail! Maybe we could wind some YouTuber up enough to tackle them... LOL!

 

[TheRealZed]

I found this...

During June 1909, a 1910 Franklin won the one-gallon fuel economy contest held by the Buffalo Automobile Club. The car broke all economy contest records on a course that was 16.5 miles (26.6 km) in length with a roundtrip total a 33 miles (53 km) from the club headquarters in Williamsville, New York and "straight out Main Street" in Buffalo. The driver was S. G. Averell in a 1910 model G Franklin weighing a total of 2,498 pounds (1,133 kg) went 46.1 miles (74.2 km) on the allotted one gallon of gasoline. Averall broke the record held by himself with a 1909 Franklin Model G made in New York City two months previous. All the cars in the contest except the Franklin were water-cooled.

Franklin Motorpedia ALL models, history and specifications

Herbert H. Franklin founded the H. H. Franklin Manufacturing Company in 1893 and, in 1901, teamed up with engineer John Wilkinson to develop

gaukmotors.co.uk

 

[Casey Jones]

Well, yeah, the economy (assuming the truth here, yes I know) probably came with really sucky performance. That would be consistent.

Not at all, I'd bet.

Because after Franklin the car company, closed down, the separate engine company (owned at the time by the same investors, headed by H. H. Franklin) sold that engine as an aircraft engine. It continued through and after WWII and then was sold to the Polish government, one of their State-owned companies. I guess the State Department figured it was an obsolete design, but the Poles didn't think so.

Aircraft engines aren't typically weak little things.

Bottom line is...my BS detector is going off on the original link. It doesn't mesh with either my reading or what was known about these cars when they, and I, were much younger.

 

[Casey Jones]

Check to see if he has a write-up about the outlaw 100-mpg carburetor.

Again...this stuff isn't magic. Laws of physics are immutable. Today's internal-combustion engines get nearly thirty percent thermal efficiency, and that's as high as it's ever been. Years earlier, it was much lower.

I only get 70 miles a gallon out of my 250-pound, 200cc, 12hp dirt bike. That's with higher gearing for road use, and that's keeping it under 45 mph.