Four Eyed V6 5 speed

[erratic50]

Did Ford ever produce a four eyed fox with a V6 and a 5 speed? How about any manual transmission of any type?

Early on when I was looking for a Mustang I always wanted a nicely optioned LX hatchback with a V6 and a 5 speed. Then I drove my 5.0L and bought it that day. (No seriously, I did). Lol

I would think a well tuned and properly geared V6 setup in a fox might do 28-30 MPG at 60-65.

Meanwhile my 5.0L only got 33 once and I drafted semis on the interstate to do it. 28 was doable on the interstate if I would drive 95-100 ..... but fell to 25 if I drove under 85 and to 24 at 65. Any slower, 20. Except 45 in 4th was decent.... Learned that on glare ice -- who actually drives 45?!

[Haystack]

Nope, but a sn-95 v-6 trans bolts right up, just gotta get a 302 aod driveshaft.

In my 5.0 87 tbird I could routinely get in the high 20's and low 30's with 2.73 gears. 5th was almost useless in hilly or mountain roads, but I could cruise in 5th @ 45mph with no bucking or burning valves.

[erratic50]

Yea - I've had 2.73's in my 5.0 for years. I'm an admitted lead foot but mine did ok for a V8 that was played with. I never had to so much as had to downshift for a hill on I80 between SanFrancisco and Omaha when I drove it back from the Bay Area in the late 90's. 0.68:1 overdrive with that weight of car and a turned up 5.0 is a lot of fun to drive.

My current trans is a T5Z with 0.63:1 which now that I'm running an intake designed for 1500-6500 is a bit tougher to pull. 1500 is 70- it does it but it doesn't like it. It doesn't lose speed on hills in eastern Nebraska but it also can't gain speed up hill in overdrive at will anymore.

Will be great once I throw some 4.10's in it. Lol. So much for mileage

[Haystack]

The 4.10's might help.

The way the stock computer see fuel, it usually is the same from 50% to wot. If you are using more then 50% throttle in 5th, ya need to step back to 4th and I'll bet mileage will be better.

I was really surpised how gutless my 150hp 190+k mile car felt driving freeway in 5th. My "test drive" was hopping on i-80 and driving from salt lake city to wendover. Averaged about 25 mph, but I did stop at all three rest stops both ways just to bang gears.

Dont forget, with a 2.73 rear gear, you can do just about any freeway speed by the top of second and third will get ya well over 100mph. I think I hit 112mph by my speedo on my test drive in 3rd.

When I drove it 1600 miles the next day, I averaged about 30mpg, still getting to learn the car and setup. I quickly learned that if I was anywhere near 1/2 throttle, I was better off to just hit 4th gear. In 4th I could pass anything on any grade within reason. I ended up driving through glacier nation park in montana to get where I needed to go, and boy that was a great drive and a ton of fun. It was two days after they opened up the moutain pass, tons of snow and parts of the road were still washed out or covered in rock slides, but man what a view.

Got pulled over and searched for drugs three times in idaho. My bumper was dragging, I had about 800lbs worth of tools in the trunk for work, plus I brought everything just in case I broke down along the way.
With a .63 od, I think I would have needed to be going 80+mph to really use it. I actually had mine setup close to that, I had the .68 od ratio and 275/60's on some 10 holes, and it dropped my freeway rpm's quite a bit going from a 25.6" tire to a 28.1".

[xctasy]

Did Ford ever produce a four eyed fox with a V6 and a 5 speed? How about any manual transmission of any type?

Early on when I was looking for a Mustang I always wanted a nicely optioned LX hatchback with a V6 and a 5 speed. Then I drove my 5.0L and bought it that day. (No seriously, I did). Lol

I would think a well tuned and properly geared V6 setup in a fox might do 28-30 MPG at 60-65.

Meanwhile my 5.0L only got 33 once and I drafted semis on the interstate to do it. 28 was doable on the interstate if I would drive 95-100 ..... but fell to 25 if I drove under 85 and to 24 at 65. Any slower, 20. Except 45 in 4th was decent.... Learned that on glare ice -- who actually drives 45?!

A few here have done the V6 to 5 speed conversion in there Essex V6's. They make fine candidates, but I'm not sure they'd love the 2.73's like every 5.0 GT does.


The even fire 90 degree V6 has a dynamic balance problem without a balance shaft. This may seam a little silly when a 2.3 four or five speed four cylinder is so rough, but Ford and GM were loath to add 5 speeds to there 231 cube V6's because of it. Ford found other issues when the engine was supercharged, and the plan all along was to adpot the Toyo Kogyo Mazda gearbox with center pushout bearing clutch. The edict had gone out that the Rear drive Mustang was dead, and there was no extra money set asside for fortifying the Essex 90.

It all changed when the Super Coupe 3.8 came out, and the SN95 basically re prioritised the 5 spped V6.


Remember, Fords game plan is trucks, V8's and Mustangs. Sixes in line or bent, are just inventory fillers, never supposed to be more than that, even if 60% of all Mustangs haven't been V8's at various times. Puting 5 speds on em just takes the focus away from where the real money's add, value added V8's.


In terms of fuel economy, there is so little road load on a car with only 20 squar feet of frontal area, and a sub 0.40 drag factor. The T5 and 8.8 axle also has a very low drive train loss, and the V8 is such a nice sounding engine to be towd along by.


V6's always are gruff, and sound a lot more edowed with baritone dump truck base, but they never deliver the goods like a V8. Its that mid range grunt that does it. Off idle, a V6 is rough, but has plenty of torque, but then lakcs the same mid range punch a 5.0 has.

We had 3.2/3.3, 3.9 and 4.1 T5 5 speeds down under in our Falcons, and they were always a disapointment compared to a good 4.9 Cleveland or 5.0 EFI Windsor. Fuel economy wise, the gain in less capacity is always offset by its inability to carry tall gearing.


On a pounds per cube basis, Fords 5 liter V8 is the most economical engine on the planet. Like it did in the SROD days, the Ford 5.0 carries its moonshoot long legged gearing with sublime ease.

[FoxChassis]

Did Ford ever produce a four eyed fox with a V6 and a 5 speed? How about any manual transmission of any type?

V6 with a 5-speed? No.

V6 with a manual? Yes, in 1979....2.8L V6 w/ Tremec 4-speed manual overdrive (aka "SROD"). I have a couple in the database.

[xctasy]

V6 with a 5-speed? No.

V6 with a manual? Yes, in 1979....2.8L V6 w/ Tremec 4-speed manual overdrive (aka "SROD"). I have a couple in the database.

Yeah, I got that too after a lot of searching back in 2014. Chuck W and others confirmed it too. Its a rare option, though, problem for manual 2.8's then became the rationalisation of the 2.8 to the Mercury Capri when European 2.8 Granada and CapriIII sales sored and sucked up supply. That and 2.8 emissions non compliance for 1980. I think the SROD was even a California option.

1n 1983, the Ranger had a 5 speed 2.8 115 hp option, but it never went back into the Fox Mustang.

Adding the over driven SROD or 5 speed always added as little as 2 or as much as 9 mpg to the 55 mph fuel figures, so it was a good 31 mpg engine, about 1 mpg better than an SROD or T4 3.3 Mustang when the manual 3.3 option returned after not being avaialbe for 1979.

It was October 1979 that By Mike Knepper anounced the SROD 4-speed became a late emissions compliant edition. A little like the Auto Carb Turbo 2.3's did in 1980, T4's in 3.3 1981 Fords, or auto 4.2's in GT's in 1982. You had to do a little looking in the literature to "get it".

http://www.aboutautomobile.com/Fuel/1979/Ford/Mustang



Car and Driver, the Consumer Guide, and everyone else that read Fords promotions packages for the 79 model year knew that it was "officially" unavaliable in the stick shift. That affirmed the 2.8 was a C3 auto only deal, and unofficially, it was due to emissions.

Aug 1978, not an option.
"It will be the secretary's Mustang, since all V-6s will be built with automatic transmissions"

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...options-page-4

Oct 1978, an option.

"The 2.8-liter V-6, in tandem with a four-speed, is a good way to outfit your new Mustang. "

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...g-turbo-review


No performance figures on the C3 auto CAmarket VV2700 or the C3 or SROD RUG 2150 carbed 49 states engines,

Each was 4 hp up on the last Mustang II 2.8, and about 16 hp up on the 93 to 104 hp Pinto 2.8. It depended on where you got your info. When it came back in the 1983 model year Ranger it got 115 hp in 4 and 5 speed manual form,

http://www.aboutautomobile.com/Fuel/1983/Ford/Ranger

and was very strong little 31 mpg engine, although the heavy little Bronco II killed 11 mpg of the highway figure, and many of the engines as well. 3090 to almost 3400 pounds just killed it compared to 2658 pounds.

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...gnition-module

[xctasy]

The deal with the manual conversions to normally C3 2.8's or C5 3.8's (since both were really similar in horspower) is that the Cologne V6 autos came out with 3.08:1 axles, and the 3.8 Essex, 8 code 2.73's commonly.


Ford tried the AOD, and decided to downgrade back to the C5 untill the inventory was all used up. Stock 1983 Fox body Mustangs gave 25 to 27 mpg at 55 mph highway. Next year, mpg went down to 24 mpg. so the manual SROD or T5 5.0 Fox was always more economical than any C5 automatic Mustang/Capri

The heavier 1984 Thunderbird 3.8/AOD could average about 19 city and 30hwy, with a high of 36mpg often reported due to its slick shape. CFI lost about 1 mpg. It used a 3.08:1 ratio, for a 2.06:1 top gear. Mpg gain over a C5 was about 4 mpg.

When a manual gearbox is added, you generally gain 18% on your highway due to fulltime lock up; there is no torque converter loss that even lock-up clutch AOD and C5's have, so you gain about 4 mpg if everything else stayes the same.

Any time Ford puts in a 3 speed, they raise the gearing about 13% higher. So 2.73 is the common axle for any 3.8.


When an over drive is added, they normally put in a stouter higer numerical axle, the 3.08's.


In 1994, the 3.8 T5 Mustang SN95 got only 27 mph highway.

Adding a T5, Ford used 2.73s in the much heavier SN95's. GT's had 2.73:1 or 3.08:1.

When the 1999 model came out, the 3.27:1 axles became standard across the board.


Based on my gear ratio program, adding a T5 to a C5 2.73 Fox 3.8 is going to give it an extra 4 mpg, and then, due to the perhaps 0.72 or 0.68 overdrive, another 12% on that. So 25 becomes 29 in 4th, and 32.5 mpg at 55mph in 5th. That's based on the road load figures CAFE uses at 55 mph.


Ideal ratios for a 3.8 V6 are the 3.45:1 7.5" axle, and close ratio gearset of 1st 3.25:1- 2nd 1.99:1 - 3rd 1.29:1 - 4th 1.00:1 - 5th 0.72:1 like our Aussie 216 hp XR6's and 168 to 197 hp GM 3800 Commodore V6's ran, effectively the same T5 gearbox with ratios suited to best acceleration, traffic jams, highe speed touring. Down here, Pfitzner Performance supplied the racing Super Six catagory with Commodore part no. SL-T5-34-S-C ratios, pretty common.


Not an advert since its thousands of miles away...

Designed as a saloon car racing gearset, this product is firmly entrenched in Australian saloon car racing today. Offering superb reliability and low drivetrain power loss, this 1st to 4th set is a must have for saloon car racers today.

A 5th gear option is available for this product.

3.252 / 1.773 / 1.287 / 1.000 / std 5th is http://www.ppgearbox.com.au/page.asp?productid=34

Like others, they offer Sebring 0.831:1 short ratio over drives for those who like to use the gears. Suits 3.08's, still gives 2.55:1 top, and brings a standard case WC T5 up to 450 hp V8 capability in all gears. Overkill, but used all the time in race cars down here

http://www.ppgearbox.com.au/page.asp?productid=35


It avoids the stump puller Ist, and 0.63 overdrive ratio problems the standard T5Z comes with, and allows it to use some of the other gears.


A really good read is this...it shows how dang good a 5.0 is for ecomomy in a Fox

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...ur-non-V8-ride

[erratic50]

Fun topic - glad I brought it up!

So the answer is NO - Ford never did make a V6 5 speed 4-eyed Mustang. That's what I thought. I remember back in 1991-1992 spending a long time looking for one. What I ended up instead is surely a V but it seems to have two additional plug wires.

[FoxChassis]

Only years Mustang had a V6 was 1974-79, 1983-86, and 1994+.

1991-93 2.3L Mustang had 2 spark plugs/wires per cylinder for a total of 8 plugs/wires.

[KevinVarnes]

A bit off topic, but the SEFI 3.8 is capable of some pretty decent mileage numbers. I used to knock down 30mpg (all highway) at 75-78mph in my '95 SuperCoupe with the M5R2 5-speed trans and 2.73 rear gears. My "92 base T-Bird with the 3.8, AOD, and 3.27 rear was good for 26-28mpg (again all highway) at 75-78mph. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to get similar or better numbers in a lighter fox chassis with slightly worse aerodynamics.

[Haystack]

There was a guy on another forum that had two 87 cougars, one a 3.27 rear aod cfi 3.8, the other was a bone stock s.o. 302 with an aod and optional towing package with 3.27 gears. He made mods to the 3.8 to increase gas mileage taking meticulous notes with each mod. When comparing the two directly, the 3.8 had 2% better city gas mileage and highway it was a wash, with the 302 getting the same or better.

With the 302 having way more torque and a bit more hp, no reason not to use it.
I think that most gas mileage depends on gearing. Every 1000 rpm uses about 4x the fuel.

[xctasy]

That's what Ford found. The CAFE fuel figures for 1980-1981 AOD 351 LTD's used the same amount of fuel as the 4.2 or 5.0, 25 or 26 mpg for each. The gearing yeilded the same highway figures. In urban/City, the bigger engine uses a little more, but not much more. Rember, the whole reason for going 255 was to gain 1.5 mpg on the open road. On a Panther, there was no advantage at all going down in capacity.On the Mustang for 1980, the 4.2 C4 auto with 2.26 gave 26 mpg, the 5.0 C4 auto with 2.47 gears, 1979 style, what, 24.5 mpg. On a maller car, some advantage, on a bigger car, none.

Hence GM using 6 and 7 liter V8's and getting 30 mpg.

Going down cubes and dropping cylinders (AFM via lifters and variable timing ) helps in the non steady state area, but not much.



Ford should have added 5.8 AOD's to everything big, and 5.0 T5's to anything else. In fact, for 80 and 81, the HO option 5.8 was more economical than the engines with Standard Output 5.8.

Going to port injection on the 3.8 didn't hurt fuel economy one bit over the CFI 3.8, and gave extra power.


I'm a six cylinder kind of guy, but you can bet that Ford must have had a terriable time figuing out how the dickens they could downsize any engine again after the comparing the 4.2 to the 5.0, the 4.2 to the 5.8, or the little 2..8/2.9 Truck and SUV engines with the 4.0.


And the Pinto 1600 verses the Pinto 2000, the bigger engine was more economical.


Little engines in heavy cars just died on American highways in the late 60's, 70's and 80's.


Every Escort should have had a Vulcan 3.0. Every Fairmont a 5.0. Every Panther a 5.8.

Unless its turbo or supercharged...No car should really have more than 15 pounds per cube...and for best results, take the unladen weight, knock a zero off of it, and you got the engine that should be in there. 10 ponds per cube, yeah!

5000 lb, 500 cubic inches, not less than 333
4000 lb 400 cubic inches, not less than 267
3000 lb 300 cubic inches, not less than 200
2500 lb 250 cubic inches, not less than 167
2000 lb 200 cubic inches, not less than 133
1500 lb, 150 cubic inches, not less than 100.

The fuel economy formulae are based on frontal area, drag and play off gearing against brake specfic hp, so you can chose what engine you use, and gear it accordlingly.

As soon as you Ecoboost, and add all that other kind of magical direct injected and other fuel delivery type multivalve-ery, you can make a smaller cubic inch engine do a better job than a 5/5.8/7.0/7.5 liter OHV V8. But you can't cheat miles per gallon, as every engine is still only about 25% mechanically effiecent.

[Haystack]

For the longest time I wanted to do a 300 i-6 fulie with t-5 backing it.

We had an old 78 van with the 300 i-6 and a srod 4 speed. Got 18 freeway and not bad around town. You could launch it hard in 1st gear and the nose felt like it would lift off the ground.

Unfortunately, it was all done and falling on its face by 3000rpms it felt like. In 70k miles or so, the body practically rusted away and I think my dad put 5 transmissions in it.

I remember right after I learned to drive, I took it acrossed town and the shifter broke off in 3rd gear. Burned up the clutch trying to get it home, then couldn't find another trans to replace it. Now I'd throw a t-5 in it with no hesitation.

[xctasy]

The SROD shifters can work fine...but they can also screw you over as per your Daddies 5 gearbox Experience. All the factor of safety the old 9 bolt TopLoaders had was taken out. Nice shifter, lousey strength.

My mate Martin had a 1967 "A" Code Mustang 289 HP into a 1983 Falcon GL sedan, just like this.




Magic car, and with 3.23:1 axle gears, and the V8 SROD, it was a delight. Some thing very special about doing a hundred mph in third, and then cruising along at 2000 rpm at 60 mph. He never had to do more than 4500 rpm in it, and it was frugal.


The internal saddle was L-O-N-G and it would allow rapid shifts which were too much for the aluminum housing, things would gall, and horriable things happened. Elseware, that kind of Single Rail saddle was smller with a lot less leverage, and most Borg Warner versions of the Single Rail were pretty good, as long as they didn't have the stupid lock tab. The US SR4 short nylon saddle set up should have been copied into the T170, but I guess the movments and shaft centers were all too different.


Anyway, Ford has been smart enough to ensure the lower tier sixes of any configuration never steal the thunder from the Bent Eight. It would take more than a great gearbox to turn the V6 inot a 5.0 beater in any score. Supercharger, turbo, yes.

Ford went down that road in Australia after a long 10 year period of not having any V8, and they just sold 250 I6's and the whole car line lost a bunch of market share becasue it had no descernable Ford Image. I mean, for most of us, Henry Ford invented the V8....a turbo six might be interesting, but its kind of the death kneal of a model line when you try and S3x it Up with a Super Six.

For Jaguar, they needed the V12,
for Aston Martin, the needed the V8 and V12.
For BMW, a raunchy six wasn't even enough for an M1, even if it was faster and 0.4 seconds quicker over the 1/4 than any 351 GTS Pantera.
For Audi, it was the W engijes and V6's have never made an emotional conection.
For Merceades, the 300SL Gullwing was never enough.
For Fiat, the 2300S was a lost cause, and the Ferrari engined 130 couldn't come soon enough.
For Rover, the Buick V8 engined SUVs saved it
For Rolls Royce, the Packard engineered 6250/6750 saved it too.


And that is why the 2018 Mustang won't have a bent six anymore. The aspirational model is the V8!