Close



Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 62 of 62
  1. #51

    Default

    my old 84 tbird 3.8/aod averaged about 19 city and 30hwy, with a high of 36mpg. my 98 taurus wagon gets 20 city and 29hwy. all my inline sixes, both 170s and 200s, averaged 19-21 all the time, it didnt matter if it was my 64 falcon, my old 66 falcon, or my old 80 fairmont wagon. my old 80 fairmont four cylinder did about the same city mpg as the sixes, but actually topped 25 on the highway, except on the grapevine outside LA on interstate 10, then i had to get up that hill at full throttle in second gear at 45mph, and fuel economy as a result suffered badly, i got 16 on that tank. my old 80 pinto 2.3/spd got 21 around town, no highway numbers though as i never got out on the open road with that car. but two V8 cars that i had do disprove the, "smaller engines get better mileage" adage, my 66 mustang 289/3spd got 18 in town and 25 on the road as did my 79 fairmont 302/c4.
    64 falcon
    66 mustang
    05 grand marquis

    dont just believe in miracles, rely on them!

    fordsix.com admin

  2. #52

    Default

    2007 ford focus gets around 18-19 mpg in town. best i ever got was 22. pretty disappointing really since they are rated at 24

    i dont drive it on the highway so ive never checked that
    Looking for a Fox wagon

  3. #53

    Default

    oops just realized this thread was probably just for mustangs/fox bodies lol oh well
    Looking for a Fox wagon

  4. #54
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Depends what state you are in, but you can mix and match the low restriction foot ball hole X code exhast to a T code 3.3 and get an 7 hp boost with no cost, but you do have to mix and match the different emission parts. The 85 hp 78 t code has an adaptor EGR, the 92 hp 83 x code has integrated EGR with another head casting. AIR is oxygen sensor controlled on the 1981 to 1983 3.3 B ans X code California Fords, but the sensor can be used as a wide band O2 sensor hookup if you use the earlier exhast system. That allows you to tune for lean cruise.

    just need to get the head planned to 46 cc, use a composite 45 thou thick gasket, bump the timing up to 16 degrees while turning back the balancer ring so it still shows 9 dbtc to pass an inspection. Some companies do rebonding the original balancer.

    Inside the Duraspark module, run a Chevy HEI unit, and peg the total advance back to 36 degrees by whatever means.

    Then run the stock cam without the retard, which you do by using a JP heavy duty timing chain set for 1960 to 1970 Australian Fords.

    The Holley 1-bbl can be jetted up or down with a close limit jet of 61 to 65, and the power valve can be moved up or down till you get a nice fuel figure. The venturi can be opened up 125 thou for air flow and performance.

    The 3.08 gears are best, and a low mount block takes an AOD with a slightly redrilled case. Then your mpg and power will sky rocket. There is also the Thinderbird underhood cool air snorkel which gives cold air to the carb after warm up.

    If you use water injection, you can run 12.7:1 compression and a better cam and get a lot more power with much better economy.

    The electric fan from an SN95 will work with the I6, and the exhast can be changed to the dual cat V8 item if the front cat isn't there

  5. #55
    FEP Super Member IDMooseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Nampa ID 83686
    Posts
    4,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IDMooseMan View Post
    I fill my gas-powered vehicles like I fill my diesel truck; lock the nozzle on the lowest setting. When it clicks off, the tank is full. Grab the receipt and go play.
    Quote Originally Posted by jessew View Post
    I have to guess, F 350?
    My apologies, Jesse, I didn't see your post. You guessed correctly. To be more specific, and give a better comparison, I have a 1997 F350 XLT 4x4 crew cab long bed (168" wheelbase) with the E4OD automatic transmission.
    Craig "IDMooseMan" Peters
    1979 Mustang Ghia Notchback, 2.3L, Holley 5200, 4-spd, 3.08:1 7.5" diff, A/C, PS, PB, AM/FM/8-Track, Sunroof, Rear Defroster
    USAF SSgt 63170 1983 - 1992; Co-Founder, Vice President, Omega Delta Sigma, ID-A 2/2015
    To those that serve and have served, "Thank You", to those that haven't, "You're Welcome"
    2.3L Horsepower Potential Thread
    Buyer/Seller Experience Link
    Build Thread
    The Four-Eyed Game - 2018 Version

  6. #56
    FEP Member 83glxdroptop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Southeast Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Final numbers on my 1983 convertible 3.8 with 3 speed auto are not that good. I averaged 16 MPH in mixed driving. Car is tuned to factory specs.

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    Inside the Duraspark module, run a Chevy HEI unit, and peg the total advance back to 36 degrees by whatever means.
    I was with you up until this point. I've never found an HEI to do anything better than a Motorcraft
    Duraspark module.
    Cheers,
    Jeff Cook

    '85 GT Hatch, 5-speed T-Top, Eibachs, Konis, & ARE 5-Spokes ... '85 GT Vert, CFI/AOD, all factory...
    '79 Fairmont StaWag, 5.0, 62K original miles ... '04 Azure Blue 40th Anny Mach 1, 37K original miles...
    2012 F150 S-Crew 4x4 5.0 "Blue Coyote"... 65 coupe, 289 auto, Pony interior ... '67 coupe 6-cyl 4-speed ...
    '68 Vert, Mexican block 307 4-speed... '71 Datsun 510 ...
    And a 1-of-328 Deep Blue Pearl 2003 Marauder 4.6 DOHC, J-Mod, 4.10s and Lidio tune

  8. #58
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JACook View Post
    I was with you up until this point. I've never found an HEI to do anything better than a Motorcraft
    Duraspark module.
    True statement, except that the aftermarket non Ford standard part Duraspark modules are very unreliable. An original all Ford Motorcraft item is fine.

    The issue is that the i6 suffers from a disproportionate loss in power of about 50 hp verses
    1.a good breathing head with
    2.the right carb,
    3.exhast and
    4.ignition and
    5. cam timing, it really is that much.

    The whole reason the I6 is such an economy dog compared to a carb 2.3, or an EFI 2.3 Turbo and 5.0 GT 2V, 4V and EFI is those 5 things, and it has the worst economy to power compromise.

    The stock Duraspark is a 1968 conventional distributor with an adaptor for a larger Duraspark I or even larger Duraspark II cap, and some pretty ordinary internals which have a very specific slot and spring correction for advance which is quite hard to dial in without a dial back timing light.

    Sooo the easiest way of controlling optimum timing is to have all the stock emissions hookups, and house the Chevy HEI 4 pin unit in the Duraspark box.

    see http://www.fordmuscleforums.com/igni...park-case.html

    and http://www.carbdford.com/tech/HEI/hei.htm

    There is also a method of hyridizing the Duraspark II to a TFI work alike with TFI pre progammed advance curve nested in the Durapsark module. without giving the game away.

    Either way, the whole set up is able to be changed without raising the ire of the IM inspection if you do it right, with Ford 4.9 carb power. Or the same power as the Aussie 3.3, 121 hp. A 36 hp boost with the right cam, carb, exhast and ignition.

    It needs it, and the economy won't suffer, and probably, the emissions will pass.

  9. #59

    Default

    It's amazing what can be done for the 200I6. Both my I6 Fairmonts are 49 state cars so the '83 doesn't have an O2 sensor. In my case, it'll be easier and cheaper to convert to a '78 V8 since I already have a rusty soon to be dismantled '78 Fairmont wagon I had driven for 10 or so years. It used to pass California emissions so it will be a slam dunk. It only gets 15MPH but a T-5 would bump that up a bit.

    Come to think of it, I can convert the '78 2dr sedan to a T-5 since I have the E1Z bellhousing and a flywheel. May be a good interim fix.

    California had recently passed a law in which the catlytic converter must be the same size, configuration, and location as the original. We also have to maintain the same number of cats. Makes it a bit of a pain but at least we can still have dual muffers (if we want).
    Proud owner of the one and only Friggin' Futura

  10. #60
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    The I6 Fox guys are always on the out field, the V8 is the only easy emission compliant upgrade game in town, since anyone in CA will cover off just about any unleaded gasoline Windsor 302 in any Fox body, and it'll pass visuals and you'll even get way with an upgrade from the 2bbl to a 4-bbl , CFI or EFI because of the Mustang 5.0 spec. The rules on cats for those V8 Foxes are actually close to a total freebie because aftermarket EO orders exist for you to totally change a stock 1978 to 1983 3.3 car to any 1979 to 2004 5.0 Fox or SN95 exhast. That means the stock cat configuration rule is just able to be overturned by getting almost any later 5.0 exhast. The EO's or the stock donar V8 exhast from the engine model year are the trojan horse to make it all possible. Miata SBF V8 owners even find that its possible to go a lot wilder on exhast if you use new EO compliant cats from the right model year 5.0.

    With any 5.0 swap, you get better MPG's, MPH's and quarter mile ETs than any stock 3.3.

    There are some exceptions, but they mar the rule of lae. For intance, All 1975 to 1980 T code 3.3's and L code 4.1's in the Foxes and for the X-shells, they all came out with a single cat. For the 1981 model year and after, that is the 1981-1982, B code 3.3's and 1983 only X code 3.3's had dual cats, a light off primary, and a conventional secondary. The O2 sensor was used as a AIR/EGR controller on CA Foxes to protect the cat from damage from the lean fuel air ratios.

    However, there is the option of matching a later B or X code exhast on the T code, and using the stock 1975 to 1980 spec cat on Foxes and X shell Fords. Then you get 7 hp extra. 85 hp goes to a whoop a$$ 92 hp. Yay, seven horsepower.. The later E0, E1, E2, E3 casting head can be put in on the sligh, as the kickdown bracket covers the casting number, and if treated to a 90 thou shave and a clean up, an F150 carb and ignition system can be fitted in with a few little tricks. Then your into 120 hp territory. Yeehooo.

    The 1972 to 1983 Ford 3.3's had 4 degrees cam retard, so if you remove it and regrind the cam to a 264 to 268 spec, do the igntion timing bump up without altering the visual 9degrees before top dead center visual test, and if you use the TFI module with an electronically controlled timing can be done if the pickup is made digital like the 1984 to 1992 HSC 2.3 and 2.5 EECIV four cylinder 3.3 based Fords. Then the whole thing can look stock but have V8 style power, with very good low end torque. But unless it has been benchmark tested against another stock 3.3, the CA and CO state will put it on a 90 day burn list, and you won't pass emissions if an emission tester sees a non EO, non standard carb part on it.

    And that is why ohv windsor 5.0's are the easy econo swap..the worst single exhast 2-bbl in the Panther platform made 130 hp and something like 220 foot pounds, even a single exhast 119 hp 4.2 V8 takes out any 3.3.

    But with the right gear, a stock 3.3 air cleaner covers up a 2-bbl Holley Weber 5200/6500 or Motorcraft 2150 or Rochester 2CG 2Jet carb, and with the right mods on a stock 1978 to 1983 3.3, that can make well over 160 hp and pass emissions.

    It just that in CA and CO they would never be technically legal.

  11. #61

    Default

    I'm surprised the '83 has 7hp over the '78 as it is a dog off the line, accelerating or climbing hills. It could be my '83 is cobbled with the 2.73:1 rear and the carb is nearly shot. The '78 actually feels peppy in comparison with the 3.08 until it has to climb hills and if I don't get a running start, it's flat on the floor and no more.

    I had a chance to compare the two engines today and noticed the '83 has air injections into the exhaust manifold before the light off cat and afterwards. It has a diverter valve after the dump valve and miles more tubing than my '78. The '78 just has air injected into the exhaust head pipe. I also marveled at the '83's moonshiner's 'still technology used for the pipe from the exhaust manifold feeding the EGR valve while the '78 had a simple loop. It looks like the position of the starter will not be a problem with either set up.

    What would be costly is shaving the head. Machine work here costs a bit and the down time of the vehicle would be a bit long for me (not very fast when doing new things).

    However if I were to do this, the '83 head and exhaust manifold (and head pipe) on the '78 would be the way to go (7hp is quite a lot when starting with a ghastly 85) with the requisite shaving 90 thou off the head and the 45 thou head gasket. The cam, after market timing chain and altered balancer would round things out. TFI tech in an I6 distributor would be a bit beyond what I would be comfortable with - I would stick with either the 49 state blue strain relief Duraspark module (Ford/Motorcraft) or the California red strain relief version if I can remember what the difference is. I seem to remember there was something actually beneficial with the red but it also costs wayyyy more.

    At 120Hp that is getting close to V8 territory (unless that is flywheel, then maybe not). At any rate, I wonder what MPG figures that would yield with a T-5 and a 3.08:1 rear.

    Speaking of V8 HP, I looked at the '79 T-bird engine specs and wow, 302 rated 130 HP 256 TQ and the 351W at 135P and 286 TQ? Really? A 351W with 135HP flywheel? That's pathetic! My '78 rusty wagon with the Edelbrock Performer 302 intake, Holley emission's legal replacement 2bbl (and discontinued) carb, and 4 extra degrees intake and exhaust cam over the stock '78 cam with E7TE heads managed a measley 136HP best at the rear wheels. With a C4 and Trac Lok 3.08:1 '83 Mustang rear it can only muster 15MPG highway.

    I have to agree with your assessment - which is why I had tossed the 3.8L head gasket popper from the '82 Cougar wagon and will be converting to an '89 Mustang SEFI 302 and currently plan to back it up with a T-5 and 3.27:1 rear gears. It's boring but sometimes, boring is good...

    The '78 2dr sedan? It'll get the '78 wagon's engine and for off road excursions, a 351W. With manual steering swapping back and forth wouldn't be too bad.

    The '83 2dr sedan is slated for Voluntary vehicle early retirement - the car's worth 1K vice the 200 street value. I'll be swapping out the manual steering rack, FRPP A-arms, and steering wheel I installed (plus swapping in a bunch of broken noncritical parts).
    Proud owner of the one and only Friggin' Futura

  12. #62
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dean_T View Post
    At any rate, I wonder what MPG figures that would yield with a T-5 and a 3.08:1 rear.
    AS 2077 Fuel figures for the 1982 to 1987 3.3 OHV XE and XF 5 speed and 1988 to 1991 3.2 OHC EA Falcon were about US 28.8 miles per gallon at 62 mph (highway), and 17.8 mpg at 37 mph (city) with 120 hp carb and 135 hp 2-injector CFI and 3.23:1 gears and approx 3.50/2.14/1.39/1.00/0.78 gearing in a 2910 to 3269 pound sedan. Early Falcons were blunter than Fox Fairmonts with 0.50 drag factors and 25 sq foot front areas. As weight increased 13%, Ford reduced total aerodynamic drag a massive 56%.

    That's what a proper flowing and calibrated induction package does on a 3.3 I6; it adds about 50% more power, with a 25% gain in fuel economy over the 1-bbl 3.3, and no net economy loss at any speed.

    Despite the figures, there is no net mpg loss, and if they were revised to suit the US federal MPG figures at 55 mph on cement roads, it would certainly be about 25% more economical.

    The key is that the 81 SROD 4 speed 7.5" 3.08:1 diff combo in the lightest 2640pound Capri RS showed 16 to 17 mpg in regular use, 21 to 22 if it was babied, and 30 mpg at a constant 55 mph in zero traffic staturation flat running.



    See http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...arch1981_1.jpg

    and http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...arch1981_2.jpg



    Our four speed 2.78:1 diff Aussie 3.3 manual 1-bbl alloy head crossflow Cortinas did 17.8 second quarter miles, 115 mph top speeds and converted US MPG figures of 18.8/29.4 urban/highway, with 2000 rpm at 55 mph in the non over drive Borg Warner Single Rail

    Lastly, adding a T5 to a 2.3 and still with a non performance orientated 3.08 diff vrerses a non over drive single rail Hummer or SR/3.08 combo, the gearing reduction at 55 mph was 25%, and MPG improved 12% from 34 mpg to 38 mpg at 55mph.

    Late 1980 add with early hook action T5

    Name:  ad_ford_mustang_white_1980.jpg
Views: 47
Size:  96.9 KB

    early 1980 add with 4 speed 2.3 figure

    Name:  1979-1980-1981-ford-mustang-22.jpg
Views: 51
Size:  30.8 KB

    So that's the gain from 25% higher gearing. Ford almost never used the same axle ratio in manuals and automatics, autos on average had 13% higher gearing than a 4 speed axle ratio. Hence an Auto to manual mpg improvement when the same gearing is used was proportional to the hp loss in transmission. The nominal figure is 5% extra hp loss via an auto, but with 13% higher axle gearing that auto's almost always run, its a 19% mpg loss at 55 mph due to heat, variable torque converter slippage and sun gear losses. A T5 Manual with 3.08 diff and 0.80:1 top should show at least a 33.3% fuel consumption improvement over a C4 3.08 auto. Lock-up clutches on a C5 or AOD bring the 19% economy loss down...an AOD has a 49% overdrive which gave a 24% fuel economy credit on a 1981 145 hp 351W LTD.

    There was a lot wrong with CAFE highway figures, but the improvements due to a properly geared over drive auto and manual are as clear as crystal if you look at the historic comparisons in the Panther and Fox cars in the 1980 to 1987 period, with the 5.0 EFI showing the greatest gains of any engine combination.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •