When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yeah, you can actually cause an engine check light. I had to change my gas cap on my 2006 Camry because it wasn't sealing and kept causing engine check lights
It’s the longest winter ever and it’s not even the middle of January lol
I just don’t see any point in leaving the car running. There’s always the possibility that something could happen, and it can cause codes and electronics not to reset. Plus somebody can just jump in and steal the car.
Gas doesn't ignite like it does in the movies. I still wouldn't do it but smoking cigarette while getting gas isn't really that dangerous, it would just extinguish the cigarette if gas doused all over it.
But I don't smoke, wouldn't do that anyway, and who cares.
remember Thelma & Louise? When they shoot the gas tanker, that won’t happen?
A little off the topic, but, on the subject of Thelma and Louise, my late father, in the late 60s, owned a 1965 Thunderbird of that generation used in the movie, only it was a hardtop instead of a convertible. It was dark-teal metallic, with a light blue vinyl interior. I got to drive it many times ...and once on a trip from D.C. to Ohio and Indiana and back.
Last edited by mmarshall; Jan 12, 2025 at 06:33 PM.
A little off the topic, but, on the subject of Thelma and Louise, my late father, in the late 60s, owned a 1965 Thunderbird of that generation used in the movie, only it was a hardtop instead of a convertible. It was dark-teal metallic, with a light blue vinyl interior. I got to drive it many times ...and once on a trip from D.C. to Ohio and Indiana and back.
What engine did it have?
Louise's 66 T'Bird had a 7.0L, which was the most powerful engine offered. It definitely was quick for its day, 0-60 in the 9 second range and about 125MPH top speed. For 1966, that's lightning.
So when the cop pulled them over and said they were doing 110, that wasn't a stretch.
That Thunderbird isn't really my style but it's gorgeous. SL is my style, I do joke and say we own a convertible now and can pull a T&L if we want to. Funnily enough, I bet our R129 would perform fine in the dirt like that T-Bird did in terms of suspension etc. It is on a shortened W124 platform..
It had a 4-barrel 390 (6.4L) with the 3-speed Ford Cruise-O-Matic automatic. Made 300 HP and 427 ft-lbs. of torque. It weighted 4400 lbs, though, because of its extremely heavy construction for a unibody, so that engine was dragging around some good heft, and it was not geared like a muscle-car. Back then, most American unibody cars were Chrysler products....the T-Bird was one of the few exceptions.
That Thunderbird isn't really my style but it's gorgeous.
Agreed. I actually liked the next-generation, late-60s T-Bird a little more...it was somewhat smoother and quieter, and more of a true luxury-car, than the mid-60s version. Even as a teen-ager, comfort and quietness was my thing, not drag-strip performance like with some of my friends.
Last edited by mmarshall; Jan 12, 2025 at 06:43 PM.
Louise's 66 T'Bird had a 7.0L, which was the most powerful engine offered. It definitely was quick for its day, 0-60 in the 9 second range and about 125MPH top speed. For 1966, that's lightning.
So when the cop pulled them over and said they were doing 110, that wasn't a stretch.
That Thunderbird isn't really my style but it's gorgeous. SL is my style, I do joke and say we own a convertible now and can pull a T&L if we want to. Funnily enough, I bet our R129 would perform fine in the dirt like that T-Bird did in terms of suspension etc. It is on a shortened W124 platform..
Here's what my dad's '65 looked like on the outside.....i didn't have it fully-posted when you replied.
You can absolutely ignite a tank of gas by shooting it with a gun…it’s not a definite though
That is why U.S.-spec auto racing generally changed from gasoline to alcohol (methanol) as its primary racing-fuel back in the mid-1960s. There were a number of reasons, but the main culprit was this disastrous crash at Indy in 1964 that killed two drivers...Eddie Sachs and Dave MacDonald. I still remember watching that race on TV as a young kid....it was a tragic and terrible experience, and I felt it for some time. Alcohol is much safer, has a higher flash-point, and is much less likely to catch fire.
Years later, another tragic crash (the one that killed Dale Earnhardt) would force further safety-regs, but by then, you saw a lot fewer (and less-intense) fires.
it had a 4-barrel 390 (6.4L) with the 3-speed Ford Cruise-O-Matic automatic. Made 300 HP and 427 ft-lbs. of torque. It weighted 4400 lbs, though, because of its extremely heavy construction, so that engine was dragging around some good heft, and it was not geared like a muscle-car.
315 hp For 1966, the 390-cubic-inch V8's power was increased to 315 hp (235 kW). The larger 428-cubic-inch (7.0 L) V-8 became optional, rated at 345 hp (257 kW) and providing a notable improvement in 0-60 mph acceleration to about 9 seconds.
Wow I was close... 9 seconds was lightning in 1966.
315 hp For 1966, the 390-cubic-inch V8's power was increased to 315 hp (235 kW). The larger 428-cubic-inch (7.0 L) V-8 became optional, rated at 345 hp (257 kW) and providing a notable improvement in 0-60 mph acceleration to about 9 seconds.
Wow I was close... 9 seconds was lightning in 1966.
Yeah...my dad's was a 65....a flat 300 HP. Later T-birds, in the late 60s/early 70s, used the big 460-ci (7.5L) V8 from the Lincoln Continental. But that was more of a luxury-car powerplant than the Ford/Mercury performance-engines, which included the 427, 428 Cobra-Jet, and Boss 429.
You can absolutely ignite a tank of gas by shooting it with a gun…it’s not a definite though
It's quite hard actually. You need to use a tracer or have a mostly empty metal tank and hope it sparks, it was surprising......
Propane tanks are another thing that's really really hard to light off, only consistent round that would was 7.62x51 raufoss or .50 API but you expect both to do that. Normal 7.62 and 6.5 would just tear the tanks open
Last edited by Striker223; Jan 13, 2025 at 07:39 AM.
It's quite hard actually. You need to use a tracer or have a mostly empty metal tank and hope it sparks, it was surprising actually......
Propane tanks are another thing that's really really hard to light off, only consistent round that would was 7.62x51 raufoss or .50 API but you expect both to do that. Normal 7.62 and 6.5 would just tear the tanks open
I remember seeing an old Mythbusters ep on it and they said the same thing. Standard rounds they couldn't get it to ignite and couldn't get any tracers so they declared it busted. Later during a myths revisited ep, they had tracers and were able to get it to work
