I'm quite prepared to be wrong, but for the last 6 years a guy at Curbside Classic has really been ticking me off with some wrong facts from a Popular Science article from January 1975.
The complete article.
"https://www.curbsideclassic.com/aut...-a-triumph-of-imitative-style-over-substance/"
From my information from three other sources, Ford kept the same 250, 4.1 liter output for 5 years. It varied only if the fan clutch was engaged or not. 97 bhp or 72 kW @ 3200 rpm and 241 Nm or 180 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm is the figure for "un fan-clutched" power and torque.
The Ford 3.3 liter ratings varied from 83 to 85 HP in the same years, but the 75-80 Granada and Monarch didn't have the 3.3 liter option after 1975.
I have the figures from Ford, and the details Popular Science have used aren't the same as Ford's.
I wouldn't bother asking, but I had the same discussion with the Schedahl Brothers in 2016, when they stated that that year, Ford USA Quoted Rear Wheel net figures.
The complete article.
"https://www.curbsideclassic.com/aut...-a-triumph-of-imitative-style-over-substance/"
From my information from three other sources, Ford kept the same 250, 4.1 liter output for 5 years. It varied only if the fan clutch was engaged or not. 97 bhp or 72 kW @ 3200 rpm and 241 Nm or 180 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm is the figure for "un fan-clutched" power and torque.
The Ford 3.3 liter ratings varied from 83 to 85 HP in the same years, but the 75-80 Granada and Monarch didn't have the 3.3 liter option after 1975.
I have the figures from Ford, and the details Popular Science have used aren't the same as Ford's.
I wouldn't bother asking, but I had the same discussion with the Schedahl Brothers in 2016, when they stated that that year, Ford USA Quoted Rear Wheel net figures.
