Close



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 34 of 34
  1. #26
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    That's what I'd expect. You can see the old CAFE numbers on the net, and drive reports show that at 55 mph, a 4 speed manual 3.3 liter 1980 Capri used to get 30 US MPG flat, and 22 mpg diven with economy. Any time else, it'd drop to 16-17 mpg.



    I've studied this at length and have three answers. Through the discipline and information on these old Ford and Fox engine combinations, the Corpoarate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) average fuel consumption figures showed that it is possible to do a fuel consumption prediction for flat roads.

    It was here that I learned there are many primary factors for mileage.

    Power to weight ratio
    Engine tune (Idle speed influences, ignition, 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)

    I have a computer simulator which calculates field US miles per gallon given some basic details. I've used it to forecast different miles per gallon for different engine combinations. And then backed it up by realworld testing.

    It stems from an argument that arose in the early 80's when Chrylser Australia sold a four 1.6, 2.0, 2.6 and 4.3 liter sedans, and they all got the same real world fuel economy figures. Wheels May, 1980 found no difference in 2.6 vs 2.0 fuel consumption, and then the blunt old 3200 pound 4.3 liter Electronc Lean Burn CM Chrysler Valiant posted US 26.4 mpg (33 imp mpg) at 62 mph and used to get 21 US mpg (26.2 imp) city to higway.



    The adds in Australia and the United States were crazy. Fords Mustang 2.3 with T5 got 38 mpg at 55 mph,


    while the Aussie 3.3 Cortina got 28.2 mpg US (35.3 imp) at 62 mph



    Ford Cortina verses Sigma verses Faclon verses Valiant fuel economy wars were extingished when the Total Economy run came out.

    adds


    The three points are:-

    1. In 1978, Ford started responding instantly to CAFE regulations by making its cars

    a) 20% slicker through the air (better coefficent of drag, reduced frontal area through downsizing, 400 hours of wind tunnel desgin for every new design from 1978 onwards), and
    b) over gearing everything 25%.

    The areodynamics results in a huge reduction in engine power needed at speed, and at 65 mph, a 25% reduction in engine revs needed results in a 8% reduction in fuel use. So SROD's, 5 speed over drives, and the Fox body automatics with Moon Shoot gearing were how Ford got the 25% reduction in engine revs. This was the era of the 25% (0.81 and 0.79 in the SROD 4 and 6 and T5), 39% (0.72 in the SROD V and 49% over drives (0.67 in the AOD 4 stage), and a 50% overdrive is enough to save 15% in highway miles per gallon.

    Ford did this because maximum fuel economy happens when gearing and capacity is optimised to the car... a modern Chevy, Ford or Mopar 6 liter capacity engine can match a 4.2 if its geared right, and the Corpoarate Average Fuel Economy figures 1981 5.8 LTD got better economy than the 4.2 or 5.0 LTD.

    2. Due to the need to mandate stoichiometric air fuel cruise ratios in the Federal high way and city emissions cycle, some 1, 2 and 4 bbl carb enginess seem to do better than EFI for MPGS on certain engine combinations (300cube /4.9liter F100 and F150's verses a 4.9 EFI or 5.0 carb or EFI spring to mind), especailly when there is a 4-bbl or EFI with 30 or 65 more hp...In the old days before closed loop and open loop EFI, some 1 and 2-bbl engine combinations met the Federal emission manually at leaner than 14.7 or the oygenated 15.2:1 that is stochimetery, and this allowed them to stay out of the later 12.5:1 open loop air fuel ratios. The modern 3 way cat, feedback system on oygenated fuel doesn't hurt the fuel economy one bit, but they have some inbuilt limits the old engines don't, and occassionally, the later EEC managed engines suffer just as many inservice problems as the early 1978 to 1982 engine. After 1983 in all states, feedback non lean burn engines became mandatory, even if they were called ELB, High Swirl, or Lean Burn, they weren't ever lean burn again because 14.7:1 became the ideal air fuel ratio. EFI engines can run at 22:1 in low load situations if the exhast valves are tough enough, but the electronics after 1983 forced car makers to adoped non lean burn air fuel rations, and so every engine is 10% less efficiecnt than a non emissions, lean burn engine. So some of those 1978 to 1982 engines could really fly great fuel numbers

    3.The ideal gearing for economy was cracked back in th 50's but we had to wait till the late 70's and early 80's for the formula to be re-arranged for best miles per gallon for a given average cruise speed. It is based on the from the Index of Thermal Efficiency, found in French Grand Prix and English RAC litrature by Hodges,

    and was revised in 1980 for the Australian Total Economy Run, to use the average frontal area and drag fact for a lates seveties, early 80's car. See http://www.snooksmotorsport.com.au/i...d=31&Itemid=39

    Here is my computer out put for a 3.3 and 4.1 engine in a Fox Mustang, using the Snook variation on the Index of Thermal Efficiency




    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy
    You can calculate it for any pre 1983 passenger car without a wind cheeter body.

    The method eliminates different frontal areas, tire drag and variable drag co-efficents, and is based on a coarse chip road surface, so it works for non wind cheeter boxy Mustangs, Falcons and sedans and wagons driven in non freeway conditions.

    [size=8.5]mpg@62mph =* 1/(140 L/M act + 0.006W + 5)*100*2.2588
    *********************** 3.540062

    Where:*** L = the engine swept volume in liters, calculated as follows:
    ******************** Bore in mm*Bore in mm*Stroke in mm*No of Cylinders*0.78543691
    ************************
    ************** M act = mph per 1000rpm in the highest available gear, using normal driven wheel tire*
    ********************* placard details as follows:
    **************************** ****************** ****************
    *******************(Tire section*Aspect ratio as decimal)+(Tire section*Aspect ratio as decimal)+Wheel diameter in inches*25.4
    1.022
    ******** Then multiply the result by 3.141 * 60, then divide by the diff ratio, and multiply by the top gear ratio

    ********************* Note: If auto,atic, 15% allowance for slippage was allowed for automatic transmissions,
    ********************* and the result of M is mulitiplied by 0.85.
    This is because a T5 and 7.25 to 9" diff takes 26.5% power from the engine,
    a C4 and 7.25 to 9" diff takes 31%. Difference in power loss from a manual to an automatic is usally 0.85

    *************** W = weight of the vehicles in pounds, plus the ballasted weight of the
    *********************** one driver and same weight passenger (200 +200 pounds and full tank of advertised fuel US Gals times 6.073 pounds).
    Divide by 2.2046223[/size]

    Those figures above for

    the 1981 3.3 Mustang SROD 4 speed , 3.08:1 diff, 0.81:1 top gear(overdriven)= 28.5 US mpg at 62 mph on a 2.49:1 overall final drive
    the 1981 3.3 Mustang C3 Auto 3 speed , 2.73:1 diff, 1:1 top gear =24.7 US mpg at 62 mph on a 2.73:1 overall final drive
    the planned 1981 4.1 Mustang AOD 4 speed , 2.73:1 diff, 0.67:1 top gear = 27.2 US mpg at 62 mph on a 1.83:1 overall final drive
    That last one is like a 1979 to 1982 4.2 V8 with a 1.83:1 diff ratio. If it was lowered to the factory 2.47 or 2.26, and rerun with a 4.2 engine, the fuel consumptionat 62 mph would be 22.4 or 23.7 mile per US gallon at 62 mph.

    I re-ran it with the 4.2 4-bbl and AOD with 3.45 diff and got 23.4 US mpg at 62 mph.


    The above Capri 4.2 with AOD combo with a 2.31:1 overall final drive would have done pretty well.

    The lock-up clutch sure would have helped too. If you can employ the lock-up, there is a potential saving beyound that, maybee an extra mpg at 62mph.

    Oh, and a 2.3 with T5 running just a 3.45:1 diff gets 38.6 mpg at 62 mph using the same information. The point is that as an engine gets bigger, it can carry higher gearing, and to do that, the camshaft duration and lift can get dropped. A 4.2 runs 244 degrees of duration and has maximum power and195 lb-ft of torque at 2200 rpm, which is very low in the rev range. At 100 mph, its only turning 3400 rpm with 2.47:1 gears, so its pefectly geared for 115 hp.

    It comes from the above formulae above, and it works.

  2. #27

    Default

    Oh, I agree and thank you for the worthwhile read. I have just always heard "poor economy" in the same breathe as 255 v8, so I was pleasantly surprised with my 23+mpg.

  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 Jimbo302 View Post
    Oh, I agree and thank you for the worthwhile read. I have just always heard "poor economy" in the same breathe as 255 v8, so I was pleasantly surprised with my 23+mpg.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo302
    My 255 is in an 81 Mercury wagon. It has gotten about 20mpg hwy. It has 68k miles, 2.26 gears (it will cruise above 80mph without any issues, lol)
    By accident, during my audit and road testings tight shcedule and a lack of proper social disciple, I found my Fox Mustang cruises really easilyat 85 mph with just the 2.73/c3 auto and guttless 92 hp 3.3. Those little Foxes were much narrower than the other 3 across bench seat origin Fords. They were more like the 1960-1965 XK2000 series round body Falcons, trim , taut, and terrific, not unnessecarily big. Due to its width, it had little frontal era, and never more than a 0.48 drag factor. Even with a roof rack and a 0.53 drag factor like on some of the sunshielded and encrusted wagons, being only about 69 inches wide rather than 75 to 81.5 inches like the big Fords, that puts you into cruises at 80 mph with as little as 48 hp of total engine, trans and road load. With another 4 sq feet of frontal area, you need 58 hp to drive it at that speed, 10 hp extra.

    At 112 mph, it needs another 100 hp, or 158hp with 25 sq ft verses 133 hp with 21 sq ft.


    The focus on small Ford probably got Lido Anthony "Lee" Iacocca the boot from Ford in the late 70's, but the economy and ease of fine, quiet 80 to 95 mph cruises in these Fox cars is a delight. In one flat area of chip seal in the Southern lakes area where the roads aren't technically public, I found my Mustang tops out at exactly 100 mph with just 92 hp. Pretty darned good for an athmatic automatic six.

  4. #29
    FEP Super Member Blainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Medicine Hat, Alberta,Canada
    Posts
    2,870

    Default

    I wonder why that 289 intake will work for the 255 but not other intakes. I guess I have to get more info on interchangeability.
    -Currently Searching for "The One"

  5. #30
    FEP Super Member Blainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Medicine Hat, Alberta,Canada
    Posts
    2,870

    Default

    Does anyone know if those parts in that catalog have change up numbers? Especially the intake,cam, and carb?
    -Currently Searching for "The One"

  6. #31
    FEP Super Member Blainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Medicine Hat, Alberta,Canada
    Posts
    2,870

    Default

    I looked at that intake that was used in the article. It has square exhaust ports and the 4.2 heads are a smaller oval ports. If they put that intake on, I could see some issues with exhaust pressure problems and gasket issues unless they "squared" the oval ports.

  7. #32
    FEP Super Member Blainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Medicine Hat, Alberta,Canada
    Posts
    2,870

    Default

    Anyone think a square bore intake will work with oval heads. It obviously worked on that capri. I might want to go that route with the issues I am currently facing with the carb. I know chevy bb owners did it all the time but there is still controversy.
    -Currently Searching for "The One"

  8. #33

    Default

    I think we're also leaving a lot on the table for the 255 by not having more modern technology in them. I'd love to see how they would react to Mass Air EFI, roller rockers, roller lifters, better cam selection, in addition to the obvious things like an AOD. I'd suspect they'd surprise a few people.

    Tom
    1986 GT Hatchback.
    Overheard at Carlisle 2013: "Wow, this thing still runs?"
    You're darn right it does!

  9. #34
    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 Jimbo302 View Post
    Good info xstacy.

    I had always heard these things never got the economy expected out of them, so my car confuses me. I took a 170mile drive the other day in the wagon, 90 miles of it was 80mph and above, with one run up to 100mph. The remainder of the trip was between 65-75mph, all gps. The end result was 22.6 miles per gallon. I'm almost curious enough to mod the little 255 and see what it is capable of..... almost.












Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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