Close



Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 62
  1. #26
    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 PaceFever79 View Post
    As you say, there are many factors for mileage

    Power to weight ratio
    Engine tune / efficiency (HP per liter)
    Gear ratio, tires, and aerodynamics
    Climate (warmer climate uses less fuel)
    Driving style (getting optimum mileage takes skill)
    Terrain (flat terrain gets a lot better mileage than hilly terrain)
    The 2 and 4-BBL 5.0 SROD and especially the 5.0/T5 is a very well matched engine.

    For the reason above. Ford put millions into the Windsor 302, and its just the best option for economy and performance

  2. #27

    Default

    My 83 was the first use by Ford of the computer controls manifold fuel injection When I first got my car I spent the first tank full keeping my foot out of the Turbo. I got 27 mpg!! I have a 2008 Suzuki Forenza as my daily car that 27 years newer and that gets 29mpg. The ford Turbo was way ahead of its time.


    As said a tranny change to OD would be a major fix. Maybe a tranny from a Lincoln Versaile would do the trick. Problem is finding one.

  3. #28
    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 83GTURBO View Post
    My 83 was the first use by Ford of the computer controls manifold fuel injection When I first got my car I spent the first tank full keeping my foot out of the Turbo. I got 27 mpg!! I have a 2008 Suzuki Forenza as my daily car that 27 years newer and that gets 29mpg. The ford Turbo was way ahead of its time.


    As said a tranny change to OD would be a major fix. Maybe a tranny from a Lincoln Versaile would do the trick. Problem is finding one.
    The non overdrive C3 was a rare option only on the carbed 2.3 for a year or two while it was still listed. The C4 and C5 was listed as a Ranger 2.3 option. The poorly sorted A4LD was listed as the 145 hp non intercooled 2.3 efi Turbo in the Tbird Super Coupe, showing Fords lack of trust in the hopped up C3. By 1997-2001, the 4 and five speed versions of the 4R44 and 5R55 in the 3.0/4.0 Rangers and Explorers was a standout transmission, and it is the one to mate to an A4LD bellhousing off a non turbo 2.3 Mustang trans. anytime you use the 4cylinder bell housing, you have to replace the front pump with a New Old Stock or brand new item, and then figure out the trans controller switches, buts its dooable to a 2.3, for much improved strength.

  4. #29
    FEP Senior Member Matt J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 83glxdroptop View Post
    Just to make sure I am doing things "right". I have averaged out three tanks of fuel, pumped from the same pump at the same station, till it just starts to overflow. The new math works out to 16.46 MPG. The motor is a new rebuild with about 800 miles on it. I have noticed that it seems more "settled" as of late. Runs smoother, idles like a champ, no funny smoke out of the pipe. Going to pay attention to driving habits and all of the usual fuel economy topics (properly inflated tires, alignment, proper engine and carb tune, etc.) see if I can squeeze another few miles out of each gallon.
    The motor will likely improve as it breaks in. A better way to measure your mileage isn't to fill it all the way until it overflows, as some of the fuel will be lost in the filling, some could come out of the breather, etc. Just run the pump until it's almost full (you can hear the tank filling up) then slow it down and let the nozzle kick off as it's supposed to. That way you're pretty sure you're establishing the same starting "full" point every time you fill it. Keep in mind a variance of 1/2 gallon will really affect your mileage rating! Reset your trip meter (assuming your odometer is working correctly) with every tank and divide the miles driven on the last tank by the final mileage. That way you'll know how many MPG you got on the last fuel, even if you only topped off and added 6.3 gallons. I always do this, as it's a really good way to tell if something isn't right with the motor.

  5. #30
    FEP Super Member PaceFever79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Western PA
    Posts
    9,618

    Default

    It's also much more accurate to check your mileage using one trip. That's because you
    use the most gas cold starting and driving. Also different terrain and quick errands can
    use more gasoline then just a constant drive. So top it off, drive it for around 50 miles,
    then top it off again and check your fuel mileage.

  6. #31

    Default

    My 85 Convertible with a 3.8 CFI gets about 18mpg 20 on long trips.
    65 Mustang
    77 Mustang
    84 GT Turbo
    85 Mustang Convertible
    86 Mustang LX

  7. #32
    FEP Super Member gr79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    5,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSVOTrust-MarkHaas View Post
    Yeah I have one! Try some fuel from another state. (other than CA/AZ in winter)

    WE in MI have been finding that the oxygenated fuels are of lower and lower octane ratings lately! So much so that there is a inverse affect in MPG as a result of SUB 87 octane fuels.

    Mark
    Have had consistent good overall results with regular grade Sunoco, BP.

    Driven easy in city and steady 60-70 mph on highway. Normally stay in the 1800-3800 rpm range.

    1979 2.3T Cobra, 3:45, stock size tires.
    Ave: 20+ since the 80's.
    No huge change in MPG swapping the 4 speed RAD for a T5.

    Also have a 2wd 1993 Ranger XLT 2.3/5sp/3.45- 20+ mpg.
    Curb weight is approx 500# more than the Mustang.

    Prior cars; ave MPG:
    Two VW's (1970's, carb and EFI, manual trans)- 18
    1985 LTD LX 5.0 HO/auto/3.27- 19
    1986 Ranger XL 2.3/5sp/3.45 2wd- 20+
    1967 Mustang convertible 289/auto/2.79- 17
    Last edited by gr79; 11-26-2013 at 05:45 AM.

  8. #33
    FEP Member LSCR351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North Florida/ "Way Down Yander On the Chattahoochee"
    Posts
    233

    Default

    I didn't see anywhere idle speed was mentioned, but that is a HUGE factor. The lower the better.
    69 Mustang Fastback= EXPENSIVE
    84 SVO= project pick up the front wheels
    86 Coupe= project show car
    87 Mark-VII Vortech'd351/T56= TROUBLE
    93 Town&Country= DD/work van
    96 F150 Lightning FlareSide= boat hauler
    99 P71 the "PO-RAUDER"=weekend ride (awaiting built motor)
    00 Excursion 7.3PSD= long distance trips
    05 F250 V10 SCSB= the Hot-Rod pick-up, trailer puller
    Wifes rides: 97 Exploraineer Sport V8= DD, 93 GT 2.3t/T5= backup, 05 F250 SCSB 4X4= toy

  9. #34
    FEP Super Member gr79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    5,141

    Default

    Set mine at 1000 rpm years ago.
    A little more in winter (lights, defog, heat blower, on most of the time).
    Never was satisfied with the factory 900 rpm.

  10. #35
    86 50CPRI
    Guest

    Default

    All your numbers seem to average out. I agree with the poster, 'It doesnt really make sense to go with the smaller motors, when the factory 5.0, T5 combo will average 18 in city/mixed and a solid 25 on the highway. I tried, and tried to get a 2.3 N/A A4LD combo with 3.73's(probably my downfall) to give me the 20's/30's that I kept hearing the aero cars get.
    It was a '92 drivetrain complete 2.3 Dual Plug,DIS,FI into an 86 Vert. Best I got was about 18 mixed driving, not much better on highway. I do think, in retrospect, that the heavier convertible and the 3.73:1 ratio were hurting me.

    I always wanted to try a 3.8 SuperCoupe motor with a turbo instead of the supercharger with the 5 speed in an older Fox....but it would be for fun, not milage

  11. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 86 50CPRI View Post
    All your numbers seem to average out. I agree with the poster, 'It doesnt really make sense to go with the smaller motors, when the factory 5.0, T5 combo will average 18 in city/mixed and a solid 25 on the highway. I tried, and tried to get a 2.3 N/A A4LD combo with 3.73's(probably my downfall) to give me the 20's/30's that I kept hearing the aero cars get.
    It was a '92 drivetrain complete 2.3 Dual Plug,DIS,FI into an 86 Vert. Best I got was about 18 mixed driving, not much better on highway. I do think, in retrospect, that the heavier convertible and the 3.73:1 ratio were hurting me.

    I always wanted to try a 3.8 SuperCoupe motor with a turbo instead of the supercharger with the 5 speed in an older Fox....but it would be for fun, not milage
    http://kansascity.craigslist.org/ptd/3772914385.html
    '03 Explorer Limited
    '85 LX
    '85 Twister II
    '89 LX
    '98 v6
    '77 Mach 1.....and I still own them all.

  12. #37
    86 50CPRI
    Guest

    Default

    that IS tempting!

  13. #38
    FEP Member 80 Capri's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lawrenceville, GA
    Posts
    247

    Default

    I recently got 33 mpg out of my 1980 200 I6 on a 284 mile trip, 90% of which was on the interstate at 65-70 mph. Car has a 2.79 rear gear with a SROD trans, MSD ignition, electric rad fan, 12SI alternator, Carter YF carb, and a single out header. EGR and anything emissions related has been removed and blocked off. Engine was originally from an '80 Capri, though I currently have it in a '72 Maverick. I would imagine it would do even better if it were still in a fox.
    1980 Capri RS

  14. #39
    FEP Super Member gr79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    5,141

    Default very pleasant surprise!

    Quote Originally Posted by gr79 View Post

    Ave: solid 19+ city/hwy for 30 years.
    Driven easy in city, 60-70 mph on highway.
    Used to get ave 20-22 back in the 80's (premium fuel).
    Over 60 mph, will drop to 17 or so.
    2.3 Turbocharged/T5/3:45, 25" dia tires.
    Occasional short bursts under boost.
    Latest figure after carb changeout/dial in, 1 month of regular driving:
    Consistent 23-25+ mpg city/hwy.
    Getting over 60 miles per 1/4 tank.
    Fuel brand no factor (87 ron).
    Did not touch timing setting, nor the old AWSF-32C spark plugs.
    Steady idle 1000 rpm @ 19-20" vac.
    Overall driveability, power are fine.

  15. #40
    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 gr79 View Post
    Latest figure after carb changeout/dial in, 1 month of regular driving:
    Consistent 23-25+ mpg city/hwy.
    Getting over 60 miles per 1/4 tank.
    Fuel brand no factor (87 ron).
    Did not touch timing setting, nor the old AWSF-32C spark plugs.
    Steady idle 1000 rpm @ 19-20" vac.
    Overall driveability, power are fine.
    AND

    Quote Originally Posted by 83GTURBO View Post
    My 83 was the first use by Ford of the computer controls manifold fuel injection When I first got my car I spent the first tank full keeping my foot out of the Turbo. I got 27 mpg!! I have a 2008 Suzuki Forenza as my daily car that 27 years newer and that gets 29mpg. The ford Turbo was way ahead of its time.


    As said a tranny change to OD would be a major fix. Maybe a tranny from a Lincoln Versaile would do the trick. Problem is finding one.
    Proves what light weight and a good turbo 2.3 can do.
    Very impressed!

  16. #41
    FEP Super Member gr79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    5,141

    Default

    Forgot to mention
    Current oil in engine: Valvoline VR1 10w30 (+ FL-1A of course).
    Prob helps a little.

    Changed the fuel tank cap too.
    Rubber seal was pretty much shot.
    Installed a old spare that has a good non-cracking rubber seal.
    Am going to temp reinstall the one with cracking rubber seal as a test.

    Mileage has not dropped any noticeable diff during the recent cold snap.
    Runs a little lean for the first few miles of warmup, as always.
    Last edited by gr79; 05-25-2013 at 08:38 PM.

  17. #42
    FEP Super Member webestang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, MO.
    Posts
    5,208

    Default

    So I just read through an article in Motor Trend. They were comparing cars like the 2014 Honda Civic, Dodge Dart, a Kia, Mazda 6.....all those rides got between 19.6 and 25 mpg.
    So where is the big gas savings that everybody talks about buying one these cars instead of driving my 85 or 88 that gets about the same mileage?
    Just find it interesting that the automotive world has come so far yet is still climbing a very steep hill.

    Scotty
    1985 Fox Notch 4-banger Ranger tube header Eastwood Royal Blue
    1988 Fox LX 5.0 AOD Vert BBK 170mph speedo Candy Apple Red
    1999 Mustang Coupe V6 Auto Chrome Yellow -Daily Driver.
    Past Pony's.....
    68 Coupe Inline-6 3-Speed-Man. Primer
    78 II Hatch 302 3-Speed-Auto Sunroof Black
    81 4-Eye Coupe 4-Banger 4-Speed-Man. White

  18. #43
    86 50CPRI
    Guest

    Default

    Seems like the more 'progress' we make..
    Its funny though..myfirst car a 74 Dodge Colt got 30 mpg loaded to the roof or empty. 90s Civics were solid high 20's low 30's milage cars.Geo metros were high 40 low 50s... now we need hybrid technology to match those..Youre right...where is the benefit?

  19. #44
    FEP Super Member gr79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    5,141

    Default increasing fuel econ for the wrong reasons?

    -Keep adding gadgets and fed govt required mods.
    -Curb weight goes up and up.
    -Power train has to be re-engineered to compensate for lost fuel mileage.
    -All are super costly across the board.
    -Junkyards can continue to crush up many more very expensive and good parts.
    -Then restart it all over again each model year.

    Paper airplanes can crash into each other with little damage.

    Safety equip will always be of value, to an extent (fail safe simple ones).

    Is increasing the total mass (bulk) of cars part of the answer to safety?

    A big hammer always hits harder than a little one.

  20. #45
    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 gr79 View Post
    -Keep adding gadgets and fed govt required mods.
    -Curb weight goes up and up.
    -Power train has to be re-engineered to compensate for lost fuel mileage.
    -All are super costly across the board.
    -Junkyards can continue to crush up many more very expensive and good parts.
    -Then restart it all over again each model year.

    Paper airplanes can crash into each other with little damage.

    Safety equip will always be of value, to an extent (fail safe simple ones).

    Is increasing the total mass (bulk) of cars part of the answer to safety?

    A big hammer always hits harder than a little one.
    Sadly, the crash labs 200 ton safety block and 60% multi car overlap crash statistics force bigger cars to be softer and smaller cars harder, and the difference in car to car weight forces the maker to stiffen up and beef up everything. The peak decelerations have to be brought down to under 30 g's to protect spline and heart rupture, and that forces the weight to go up, no way to tone it down. Now, the charted weights to meet concrete block conformance are controlled in a steel car. Alloy or aluminum cars with procon 10 style tendons (ala Audis and some Jags) have an ability to reduce weight but at a cost. Even then, the crash conforming masses of a modern class of car are controlled, and you can't really change it. The last SN95 based Mustang had big trouble meeting the crash regs, and it was a pretty heavy machine. The lastest Mustang is thought of as being trim, taut and terrific when in 2005, it was a heavy Christmas pudding (a heavy, dense cake).

    The size expances also increases frontal area of these bigger and taller, often four wheel drive high boy cars. The rolling resistance goes up, the drive line drag increases, and so the overall areodynamic drag of a 0.28 cd sedan is sapped by a 21 sq ft bluff face. Even an old Jap car, like a 1983 Prelude, has less overall drag when its only got 18.5 sq feet of frontal area with a maginal 0.36 drag factor.

    Rolling resistance with a car with 185 section tires like that 83 Prelude, makes four tires consume barely a 2 hp loss at 65 mph, but with the 255 section tires common to many modern cars, they suck up 40% more hp. And then the federal mandated emissions and flex fuel capability means a modern car can't constantly lean cruise at the ideal 16.2:1 for best fuel economy, whereas that was possible with 1975 to old pre 1988 cars. Now highway cruise fuel air ratios have to swing all over the place to look after the catalyst, purge the evaporative emissions and clear the ODB of possible failures. They all hurt fuel economy, performance, and then the average 25% weight gain since 1983 results in more fuel use up hills, proportional to the weight gain and slope. Unless its Bonneville flat, that means a fuel consumption penalty. Rolling reistance then goes up proportional with weight.

  21. #46
    86 50CPRI
    Guest

    Default

    Xctasy, I enjoy your thorough explanations in your posts. They tend to be wordy, but very informative and well stated. Interesting insight on the American Auto Industry, especially coming from someone half a world away!

  22. #47
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Thanks. My spelling is still horriable. The point is that I've studied the motor industry from four perspectives, British, Japanese, Australian and American, and the same thing applies. Compliance with standards pushes designers into uniform responses. Designers who 'run away' from smart responses sent their companies bust. The best of the US industrial hit squad was Henry Ford and the people he influenced, whose approach was just to reduce, distill, and build it down to a price, and if that doesn't work, find someone who will. There is little doubt that the designers of the original Mini (Britian), the 240z( An American, but Japanese built), the 30 US mpg Aussie 1980 to date alloy head Falcon sixes, and the Ford Taurus, saved the butt of Austin, Datsun, Ford Oz and Ford US many times over. The responses weren't cookie cutter cars.

    If the explaination of that is wordy, sorry.

    When a designer has spark and drive, the regulations don't stop them on the quest to make More Miles per Gallon. Cars are no different to designing world class yachts, space ships or bikes. Americans can beat the rules, but the death of the Austin Healy, the Datsun 510, the current Aussie Falcon, and the US Crown Victoria was due to design people not being able to reach that extra inch for the final punch. Sadly, there will be no continuity for the British Sports car, the Japanese Econo Racer, the Aussie and Yank Tank.

    About Five years ago, I discussed with a Ford Aussie guy that the next Falcon engine should have a shallow deck small capacity i-six like the orginal 1960 144 Falcon, or what the four door Skyline R31 became, and you could push diesel and turbo gasoline engines out of the susage machine faster than feeding the world hot dog champions at the world finals. Edesl Ford II awalys siad his biggest regret was that Ford could have made the 240Z, that would have been the way Forward for sure. Instead, we are stuck with 2 liter Falcon Ecoboost engined Falcons which are no better in real worl driving conditions than the 4 liter I6. That's were modern engine desgin takes us when there is no comprehesnive, expensive weight reduction. The public know they've been conned, and don't want to buy half a million units per year unless you do a Henry Ford on all parts of the package. The silicon valley ethos of Smaller, lighter, faster is something Americans now see as a fun option, since the Japanese and everyone else have followed the US vehicle size protocols.

    Ever since the Fox, K car FWD and two door downsized B car GM specialty rear drivers that sold so well, getting into econo boxes suddenly got a lot more fun. Life without the Fox Stang, Voyager and Grand National X would be a navel gazer. They were all sliced-back-to-the-bone 'econo crap' boxes, but they took off and gained cred and massive sales. And saved the companies when other lines were in decline.

    There is a DULB equation, where dollar per unit per pound equation is used, and Ford, GM and Mopar have to keep working hard at that to see that they are moving towards making the consumer want to pay more for less. As one guy from the Aussie press said in 1981, perhaps GM should go into air planes, because dollar for dollar, that makes the most money per pound of material. But the GM guy said yes, but only if we can get the volume of sales units up.

    Lighter, more economical cars for each size class are what people want. The sizes are predescribed, so some-one has to convince people that paying 15 to 20% more for 5 to 10% less pound weight is worth it. 'Cause that is how much it costs...

  23. #48
    FEP Member 83glxdroptop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Southeast Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Maybe getting of my original question, but when you factor in the cost of buying a new car VS. keeping a 15 year old (or older) "clunker" that gets less maileage, I think that keeping the old ride is a better deal. When gasoline spiked to $4 plus here in California everyone seemed to dump their mid size sedan, think Camry (20mpg) for a Prius (40 mpg). Did they consider a new car payment? Higher repair costs? Higher insurance costs? I saw many usable 10 to 15 year old cars go to the crusher because they fetched $1000 which in turn was used for a down payment. Ex: My daily is a 1991 Lexus LS400, 320,000 miles. Runs like a champ, I've put $2000 in repairs, upgrades, maintenance into the car in the last 2 1/2 years. I paid $2250. Insurance is $30/ month. I get 17 mpg. I calculate $.40/ mile to operate to date. That number will only go down over a 5 year average becuase most repairs were suspension related and will not need to be done again (assuming the car does not go on for another 22 years, but with these LS400, you never know!).
    Last edited by 83glxdroptop; 05-31-2013 at 01:35 PM.

  24. #49
    FEP Power Member In2Fords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,079

    Default

    My fiance'e has a 96 sploder sport with 270K miles and in the last 7 years we have put on about 90k miles or so. In that time we have replaced the heads with brand new aftermarket since the factory ones are so prone to cracking and both of the heads were infact cracked, belt tensioners, ball joints, ignition lock/switch rod, odds and ends but well maintained and getting an average of 17 mpg highway and 12 city, its tired and I have been hearing a slight rod knock for a few years, the trans just blew out on saturday and its been having a problem with timing so we have been using premium but there is a electrical problem and we have had to build a relay and bypass the old fuel pump relay to get the fuel pump running.
    She drives 62 miles a day for work getting an average of 14 mpgs thats $354 a month in fuel just for work. She bought a brand new 2014 Kia Forte on Tuesday, the dealer doubled the warranty so its for 20 years or 200K miles and should be getting 36 mpg so that brings down the fuel cost down to $137 but most people with the new Forte claim 40 mpgs so maybe we will get better.
    Thats a $217 difference in fuel but her payments are $300 and her insurance went down $23, so theres a extra $80 a month if we only compare fuel, Im willing to bet in the next few years with repairs the Kia will be a huge savings! We bought the extra package that includes all service for the next 10 years, its a couple grand more but free oil changes, tires, belts....everything, it adds up! she likes it better as far as options, she has the nav and sound system and bluetooth and all that. The biggest reason for it is that I work away most of the year and everytime I fly out her car breaks down, now she gets free roadside, free rental car if needed..... being a store manager in a emergency she needs to be there or she gets fired, it is worth it for the security.

    Now that the sploder is mine I have to replace the trans and got to looking on Copart, they have a 2000 sploder 4 door with the doors smashed in, plain jane model, no frills BUT it only has 51K miles, Ill pick that up for about $1K and swap over EVERYthing under the truck, the whole drivetrain, axles, suspension, everything, it should be good as new and I can sell the body and interior for close to what Ill buy it for!!

    So does a new car save money? Depends on how handy you are, me, no, a new car isnt worth it, I am doing the sploder swap, doing the same with my 79 capri from a wrecked 97 gt and I get to play with my turbo 84 t-top. My fiance'e? YES, a new car is a huge time and money saver for us.
    1979 tangerine capri, 40k miles, sn95 8.8, spindles, eibach v8 springs, caster camber plates, manual steering and brakes, Lincoln master cylinder, rebuilt 2.3t/t5 from 85 tbird, nothing much!

  25. #50

    Default

    Here's another data point:

    1978 Ford Fairmont 2dr sedan. Four option car: A/C (blows ambient air), P/S (still quiet), A/T (leaks a bit), and 49 state 200 I6 (car's DSO is St Louis).

    I swapped the standard rearview mirror for a Day/Night unit I kept from the '81 excop Fairmont. Replaced the missing steering wheel center with the one from my rusty '78 Fairmont wagon. Installed a vacuum ball from my '82 Cougar wagon because the line to the 2dr sedan is broken somewhere inside the fender.

    I changed the oil after I bought the car in February 2012 and just recently changed it again after 8K miles (oops!).

    The only thing I had to replace is the battery - the one that came with the car became non-responsive in about three months. Being my main driver I think insurance is around 250 a year.

    City MPG is a miserable 12-13 MPG. Highway is 15 MPG. Car now has just over 114K miles. Rear gears are 3.08 which I find odd but it definitely can scoot off the line faster than my '83 Fairmont 2dr sedan with the 2.73 rear.

    I weighed the '78 with a full tank of gas and it was 2,836 pounds. The '83 Fairmont topped out at 2,850 with a half a tank of gas. The only differences between the two cars is the '83 has a rotary A/C compressor, converted to manual steering but has power brakes. The '78 still has power steering but non-power brakes. The '83 has a longer shaft steering column, bumperettes, more shiney fancy trash on the doors, windows and sides, window frame mounted dual mirrors, the big bell 200 I6 block and I think a C5 trans. The '83 likes to stall in the middle of the intersection if you stomp on the gas from a stop leaving you open to being hit by a Mack truck from the cross traffic.

    My '89 5.0L AOD with 3.27 rear gears Mustang (hatch) consistently slugged down 15 city and 23 highway.

    I'm really getting annoyed with the 200...
    Proud owner of the one and only Friggin' Futura

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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
  •