400M swap?

[quikstang2]

I've got a 1984 LTD wagon. It's originally a 3.8L/AOD/7.5" set up. The motor popped it's gaskets at about 60K, so I tossed the 3.8L from an '84 Mustang in it. (Had to use one of the LTD headers, and should've kept the motor mounts too.) So that's what it is now, and the 3.8L is locked up now.

I wanted to go with something carb'ed, just for the simplicity. It'll cost a lot to get the 3.8L there. My brother has a 400(M) in a 1978 parts Bronco that I was thinking about using. I know I'd need a bellhousing for the AOD (400 has a big block pattern). Wasn't sure about the input shaft or torque converter. I was also curious about the linkage that runs from the TBI (or carb on the 400) to the transmission. The 351/400 is taller than the 3.8/302. Could be some issues there. The other option is to use the C6 in the Bronco, after I find a tail shaft to replace the transfer case. (Yes, I know the AOD would need to be beefed up, and I should at least get an 8.8 rear.)

I'm still learning about the 400, so any tips or info from you more knowledgeable guys would be great. Just kicking the idea around for if I don't find something easier/cheaper. The 400 is one mean sounding motor, and it won't flinch at the extra weight of the wagon.

[quikstang2]

Reading through this article, and it make take more work/fabrication than I am currently able to do at the moment, given my resources. Might be easier to find a carb'ed 302 (still some adapting) or make the 400/C6 work (need 2WD tailshaft, and probably "clearancing").

That article uses an adapter plate instead of a bellhousing. It also states the AOD doesn't have a kick down rod, which mine does. Maybe I can use the C6 kick down rod to get around some of the difficulties in the swap...

[Mustang-junky]

Just grab a 302 and AOD out of some junk yard vehicle. Throw it in there and drive. The 400 will be a lot of work for little return. Full sized wagon, crown vic, grand marquis, 2 wheel drive 1/2 ton pick up, van. There are a ton of choices out there better than a 400m, both in simplicity and cost.

Jess

[quikstang2]

I know. I was exploring the choice because the 400 itself is free, I don't have to go find it with time I don't have, the ignition and fuel pump are all there, and it's really boring to always see a 5.0 in a Fox body. I could ask dad about the 289 in the 1975 Bronco as everything is there and it's already carbureted.

Also, I already have an AOD in the car. I'm not buying another transmission for use as a greasy paperweight.

[Mustang-junky]

Lots of money has been spent trying to make free or cheap parts work, by myself and countless others. The 400 has been generally recognized as a turd.

If you are considering a 400, you should look at a 429/460(I know, I know, not free). Much more performance parts out there, and it would be more unique. What could be cooler than a fox wagon with a 7.5l big block?

Jess

[quikstang2]

I tossed the 460/C6 I had long ago. Still have the motor mounts somewhere. It was supposed to go in the 1984 convertible, but we had to get rid of everything. I've seen a handful foxes with a BBF around here (Haven't seen a 400). I'm not interested in an abundance of performance parts. 400 moves the '78 Bronco fairly well, so I'm not so sure about that turd comment. I'm well aware it'll take some money/time/fabrication to make it work.

Asked dad about the 289 and he said I could have it. Might look into what that'll take in my free time. Admittedly, it'll probably be easier to make work, and probably cost less since I know it used to run.

[Mustang-junky]

Well then what was the point of this thread? If you want to put an oddball motor in your wagon just to have something different, then do it.

Jess

[xctasy]

Yes, but

1. the engine mounts vary, and aren't the same as other Windsor, 335 Clevelands or 385 Limas.

Follow this http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...-in-the-making

and network with http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...big-bay-U-have

Unless your a member, the Tom Wells links on http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...na)-gets-a-557 won't work to the First Coast Cobra Club.



If you use the Bronco engine mounts, you may not have to run a Cleveland Fox body engine plate, and a C6 should fit. Don't even consider an AOD, it'll cost you too much.
2. Use the FOx body Cleveland 351 sump with external dip stick.
3. The 400 is a thin wall henry, but its block is much better than the 351C. Even with open chamber heads, it can flow 380 hp with the right cam and intake. Start with a 2-bbl Autolite, then upgrade when you have funds.
4. Use the stock iron headers and custom make the down pipes. You'll need to adapt an 8.8 with a set of 2.73 gears.

[mustangxtreme]

To run an aod behind a 400 will take an adapter plate. The c6 kick down linkage won't work with an aod. It needs a tv cable. The hardest part of installing a 400 is the oil pan, oil pump pickup and exhaust. I used a k-member from a 96 mustang, used truck motor mounts, built my own oil pan and pickup and modified some headers 351c headers, moved the transmission mount and shortened the driveshaft. Here is my build thread http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...81-Black-Magic

[v8only]

That engine would be a downgrade from the 3.8. Power is about the same, but it weighs a ton...mods are possible, but not cheap

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[webestang]

I too was offered a 400M for my 85 coupe to replace my 2.3 and C-3......"No Thanks" came into my mind so quickly. I'm going 302 AOD 8.8 someday. I had a 400M in my 1980 LTD wagon, good engine for that car, not so much for a Fox body. Would be WAY to noise heavy and as stated above, a pain to fit it in there.

[quikstang2]

Mustang-junky: I'd tell you again, but ain't nobody got time fo' that.

xctasy: Thanks for the tips and info. The links to that other site worked, and I'm not a member.

mustangxtreme: I can't use the BBF-to-AOD bellhousing in the link I posted? Unless I'm mistaken, my AOD has a kick down linkage. (I'll put pictures at the end.) Your thread is great and I subscribed to it. Did you do all that work with the oil pain and k-member just to get everything below the stock hood? I've got a cowl hood with more than enough room if that's an issue (from when I had the 460 in another car).

V8only: Little bit of exaggeration there. The power rating that matters (torque) is massively greater with the 400 than the 3.8L. (The 1984 3.8 only had 120hp, which is about the same as the 2.5 Lima in my Ranger. I think the Ranger has more torque too.) Mods to the 3.8 are also not cheap (about $600 to have the intake modified for a carb), which is part of why I am feeling out other option. Also, the 3.8L is seized up, so I'd have to rebuild it. Bought one 3.8 blown up, the original wagon motor popped its gaskets at 61k miles and the last one I have has been nothing but trouble (likes to eat distributors) before it died too. I wouldn't mind building it, but if I can get something better (which the 400 is) for about the same money, I will.

webstang: I wouldn't replace the 2.3/C3 if I had that either, but I don't. Ideally I'd like to have the straight six. Neither are easy to find around here.


Ok, here is a picture from the LTD. Unless I'm completely mistaken, that's a kick down linkage going down to the transmission (It does go down to the gear selector on the transmission. I followed it there when swapping the orinal blown 3.8 out). I don't know where the pictures are, but I had verified that given the transmission pan and gear selector, I have an AOD in this car.

[slow84lx]

The 1984-85 AOD used a TV rod. That is a TV rod in your picture, not a kick down rod.

[mustangxtreme]

I can't use the BBF-to-AOD bellhousing in the link I posted?

I suppose you could but, that bell housing requires the original bell be cut off adding expense.

Unless I'm mistaken, my AOD has a kick down linkage.

TV cables connect to the transmission's tv lever just like a kick does. I'm not sure if a tv cable could be used as a kick down.

Did you do all that work with the oil pain and k-member just to get everything below the stock hood?

Yes, that was my goal. It also allowed me to set the engine back some which helps with weight distribution.

That engine would be a downgrade from the 3.8. Power is about the same, but it weighs a ton...mods are possible, but not cheap

Factory hp/tq ratings for the 71 400 I'm using are 260@4400/400@2000. As far as weight goes, a 351w weighs 525lbs while a 400 weighs 575. 460s on the other hand weigh in at 720lbs. I'd say not too shabby for a lower compression 2bbl engine.

[quikstang2]

slow84lx: Ah, that clears things up... kind of. I haven't seen it referenced as that. Would I be able to leave it as is for a carbureted 3.8/5.0? Or would I have to convert it to a TV cable or something? I'm not sure what that means for putting in a 400/351M...

mustangxtreme: So the AOD is one of those stupid one piece deals too? Balls. Looking more and more like finding a 2WD tail shaft to replace the TC on the C6 is the way to go. Engine height and weight distribution aren't a huge concern for me with this car. I guess I'll have to trial fit and see what happens on that.

[xctasy]

See below

[xctasy]

I know these engines, because for years, a Cleveland 351 was may favorite engine, despite the awfull egg sheel thin 351 C cylinder bores and gernal canted valve head detonation issueswhich wrecked the dream. The 351M and 400 don't have the same issues as they have nice big chamber heads, and really great bore integrity, more like the later post 1985 302 and 351 Windsors, when FordsCleveland and Mexican factories improved the tollerances on the normally the 120 thou thick cylinder on 4" bore small blocks. In service, with rust, this cn be as little as 90 thou, and any Cleveland or early non seasoned block Windsor won't take a 40 thou overbore with those shonky "Thin Wall Henry" bores. This was a real crime when from 1963 to 1993, Four inch Bore Chevy engines had up to 180 thou bore thickness at the trust faces. And is so doing, any 302, 327 or 350 Chev will cope with 12:1 compression ratios without destroying block like the Clevelands always did in oval track and endurance race situations. Its a know fact that when Ford Australia officially raced the 351C 4V engines, the scrappage rate in 1970 to 1977 factory sedan racing due to oil stravation, bore splitting and detonation caused conrod and main bearing failure was legendary. With cigarette money and factory homologted XE code special gear phased in at the factory, Ford could afford to feed teams all the blocks they needed, but the engines were always fragile if those three things weren't fixed. There was a forth, and that was the canted valves siezing, so non factory roller rockers got illegally subbed in in Falcon sedans. Without them, they wouldn't last a 500mile or 1000 kilometer race.

The canted valve engines are a huge amount rougher than the wedge headed Windsors, and that was why Ford US dropped the smaller Cleveland variants 335 line...it often had service issues with those blocks that the Windsors didn't. The 351M and 400 were vastly better engineered to look after the cylinder walls in service. The Cleveland also had an oiling problem at 6200 rpm onwards, caviation of the oil pump, which fomaed up the oil, and anytime hydraulic cams were used, the rocker covers filled up with oil while the sump was emptied in rce situations. Same with the Boss 302. So those priority oiling systems were a canted valve Boss 302 and 351, 351C and 351m and 400 problem. Ford solved it by very carefull sump design with windage tray, crank scraper, and a Briggs and Stratton fuel tank mounted on the front sump to increase the oil capacity when 80% of the oil was in 60 thou globules of oil spray in the block at 6500 rpm. Then there were restrictor kits in NASCAR, and then Weavers scavange pumps on all 1973 to 1985 Group C Improved Sedan Australian racers. So a lot of info exists to sort the problems with the canted valve engines, but it wont be an issue unless your doing 6200 rpm plus. Ford restricted the rpm by electric rev limiter to 6150 rpm because Lee Morse and his team found the sump was getting empited, and when they restricted oil flow to the top of the engine, the valve springs would fail. Hence the Autolite rev limited on the small block Cleveland headed HO and Boss variants. In Panterras, it could go to 6300 rpm because of other engineering changes.

Now, those AOD and C6 transmissionare over 165 pounds, not 75 pounds like the C4.

There were kickdown rods in the AOD F150 4.9, and kickdown cables in the F150 5.0 and 5.8's, so the AOD can take either. Since the AOD is FMX based, and therefore a hugely revamped 1954 based design also made by Detriot Gear and Borg Warner as Model 8 and Maserati AS6's, it was rolled out in pilot builds by Borg Warner Corp as MX, FX and CW variants of the Cruise-o-matic theme. The AOD was a vastly improved FMX with a very smart and compact over drive system, and some really good C6 and C4/C5 servic components. Its TV operation is still cam based like the late 50's Borg Warners, thogh, and that's what screws everybody up...it doesn't suffer fools gladly, and if done wrong, the inerent weaknesses of the progressive lock-up clutch results this "jump in to top in a pop" trans melting down. If it had a Toyota/Vovo Asian Warner Ford Exploere style OD lockout, it would have been a lot better. As it is, do it wrong, and I assure you it'll be dead in a weeks worth of driving.

Thus, the set-up instructions are the same as the Borg Warner 35, 40, 42 and 51 as used in late 60's L6 232/258, V8 304's, and all Australian 170/200/221/250 and 4.0's that didn't get a C4.And the early V12 XKE, XJS and XJ12 5.3.

If you don't copy the total pullout and at rest slack dimensions to the letter, you get roll out thump, and you can then kill an AOD or Borg Warner in week.

The other issue is that despite the fact that I think the AOD is the best trans Ford ever made, the whole trans behind a Big Block patterned 335 or 385 Lima will need clocking 12 degrees and fitting with an adaptor plate as per the old Art Carr 429/460kit. His company was made insovlent, and thid kit is only able to be gotten through his subsidary companies. That kit also requires a special transmount.

If you follow the builder of the Gila Monster Fox Mustang, Mad Mike , has devised a a compact internal gearbox crossmember of the tape than can then be angled 12 degrees can be made to fit it,



but the AOD is seriously under strength and needs a Siver Fox valve body, proper servos, and a full rebuld to cope with a 400.

[mustangxtreme]

So the AOD is one of those stupid one piece deals too?

Yes the bell housing and transmission body are cast as one piece. The bell housing you posted bolts to the front pump after the original bell housing is cut off. What I don't know is whether you can cut it off with a cut off wheel or if it needs to be machined.

[xctasy]

You have to hunt around, but the free market yields the prize....this from Bendtsen’s Speed Gems Transmission Adapters


See http://www.transmissionadapters.com/Ford%20429-460.htm



Don't click on the 429/460 Chevy THM 700R4 kit.

This is the Ford 351M/400 to small block Ford at $ 795.00

Bendtsen’s Transmission Center Inc. 763 767 4480
13603 Johnson St NE, Ham Lake, MN. 55304
bob@transmissionadapters.com


That will do the trick.

Then run it with a set of 3.45, 3.27 or 3.08:1 gears. The Silver Fox valve body is around, and it fixes the two biggest problems, the jump into top first OD which over loads the trans, and the upchange speeds and gear operation protocols. According to one of our 250 guys that uses iton another forum, it is a fully wide awake modification which transforms this normally latent slush box.

See http://silverfoxtrans.com/silverfoxt...om/VB_AOD.html, and discuss with Dan Gilsdorf. Please make sure give him the following information:
- Specs of the car (what it is now wit respect to all power options, axle ratio and axle type, and what you plan to go to)
-Gear ratio (I'd suggest 3.45's or 3.27 or even 3.08's as you can get the right speed driven gears to correct your speedo with these)
-Converter stall (normally 2350 on a 3.8, but stock V8 is just 1650 rpm,but there is no reason to change it)
-Converter design (lock up)
-Horsepower and torque estimates

(The ratings given should be the 2v 400 1978 Bronco SAE net, not the 9.0:1 compression 260 and 400 lb-ft first year SAE Gross, so they are really an 8.4:1 compression engine with 172 hp @ 4000 rpm and 298 ft lb @ 2200 rpm. As a comparison, the Australian leaded fuel emmissions engine with 9800 Thermoquad 4bbl 351C with 75 cc 2V heads and 8.9:1 compression gave 216 DIN net dual exhast, 200 DIN net single exhast, 316 lb-ft dual or 306 lb-ft single. The early 1976 ones with 2.75 diff could do 15.9 seconds 1320 ft et's with an FMX in a 3811 pound Fairmont GXL, to only 16.1 secs in a 3417 pound Fairmont ESP (2.92 diff, a.c, power steering, all the mod cons) with a single exhast 4 speed single rail. The early S packs with 3163 pounds, no ps, a/c, could do 15.8 seconds flat. Falcon Cobras with the same 2.75 gears and 4 speed had trouble doing 16.3 secs in a 3800 pound coupe.

In a Fox, an AOD 400 with 3.45 gears would easily weigh in at 3200 pounds with power steering, and you car would do easy flat 16's with a dual exhast.

-Use of car ( daily driver )

A standard trans home rebuild is only 400 bucks or less with a shop manual to help, and the upgrade kit can be anything from just the constant pressure valve body, but the OD lockout is recomended. You don't want the 4W70 wide ratio gear set, and you might be able to pass on the od lock out if you use 345 gears. But an AOD is a very specific kit, giving great results if you follow the rules.The SPT-1 kit is $270 shipped, and you can adjust the 5800 rpm shift points down to a more rational 5000 rpm, which the 400 will just love.

[quikstang2]

Thanks for spending the time to type that all out. Great info there. The car is intended to just cruise around town with, nothing more than normal highway speeds at most. So I don't think I'll be up in the 6200rpm range. Those upgrades might be worth a shot if I start upgrading or have to pull it apart to rebuild.
As for the AOD vs C6, what would you recommend? I'm looking for the cheapest/easiest route really, but if one is MASSIVELY better in a got-to-have-it way then I'll consider more money/work.

[xctasy]

Read this. In this article, http://www.ford-trucks.com/article/i...rd_Bronco.html

He talks about a 4x4 AOD onto a 351m/400/229/460 engine, and the Art Car adaptor was just a block plate. Some conversions clock the AOD, some don't, but the details here specifically don't require the bellhousing to be machined off. The aftermarket Art Carr beelhousing was an FMX knockoff, but made to withstand race conditions and be ANSI or SGI rated.

The costs are signifcant if you want to do it all, but just an adaptor, a rebuild and a SiverFox valve body should allow a 3.45, 3.27 or 3.08 axle car to loaf along for a long long time

Then the double hump Fox 351C sump, the need for a custom Lokar transmission dip stick, perhaps the front block plate to eliminate the engine mounts should it be that the exhast system and rack and pinion shaft postions gets trickey. But I think even though its a very tall engine, your 400 could fit under the hood and it would package real nice. There is a lot of metal in a 400 Ford, and our Aussie 351C 2V's with 4-bbl carb, the power steering pump, iron intake and York/SelectAire/Tecumseh a/c pump were 719 pounds all up without even an 165 pound FMX on the back. the whole shebng was 884 pounds all up from fan to extension hosing. A stock Boss 351 engine was 569 pounds without presure plate and power steering or a/c, so don't be supprised if the 400 weighs in the same as a 429 if you are keeping all the power options. I've been told Ford over compensated with the 351M and 400, and used a lot more metal in those tall deck blocks in response to service issues with the Cleveland. The Aussies that used them said they were as heavy as a big block.


[quote]The 351/400 is taller than the 3.8/302. Could be some issues there[/qoute]

Get a 2-bbl 4412 500cfm Holley 2-bbl. The air horn gets machined off like what was done on the factory Six Pack Mopar carbs



If the 2-bbl without an air horn is placed where the stock 2-bbl its is now, you'll get 1.75" of height off the carb, and be able to shut the hood like its a 351w or 351c.

With the Fox body 250 i6's conversion I do, a very good kit to eliminate the air horn on a 2 or 4-bbl Holley is this kit. Since most Holley 500cfm carbs on a 400 find the 73 jets too rich, and the stock 60F's on the motorcraft 2150 just a little lean. With this kit, you won't have rejet a Holley 2-bbl 4412, and you can get things under the hood, you can trim off the choke horn, and use the aviation Tom McNeilly throttle lean device, and never have to change the jets again. It produces 150% rich on straight up setting, then about 1/4 turn or so in a position that has to be determined by time on an exhast gas analyser or dyno , it drops back to the required jet size. If you do a dyno run with this, you could produce optimum jetting by measuring the degrees of movement of the carb float mounted crank. For cold starts, it would get shifted upright via a bowden cable, and then throttled back to that positively stopped position when its warmed up. Its like a Percy's adjustajet, but it produces a much better 'roosters tail' of fuel atomisation. 2-bbl Holleys aren't great at fuel distribution, but the kit is from tomcn@earthlink.net for US $150 dollars excluding post and packaging.These are throttle leaning devices used for light aircraft



-Tom McNeilly
14001 East Williams Field Rd.
Gilbert, AZ 85296
International phone number is +1-602-899-7613

He's in Arizona, USA.

Northwest Aero Products also has them available. They are at
13812 179th Avenue SE
Monroe, WA 98272
International phone number +1-360-805-8183
Call displayed telephone number to ask for respective email address of Northwest Aero Products.

Follow those recomendations and you'll be able to adjust total jetting while still using the power valve.
For air cleaner base, use Dale Wilches awesome spun aluminum 1 3/8 offset and 2" drop air cleaner base.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Offset-air-c...-/350456237704

[quikstang2]

xctasy: Thanks again for all that info. I had found that article you linked to when I was trying to Google search some information. Sounds like a lot of work, but doable. It'll take time, but as long as the car doesn't rot beyond repair, I've got plenty of time. I'm trying to establish myself to the point where I can park the car somewhere enclosed and not humid. Looks like I need to account for drivetrain building space too. Spreading it out over time lets me save more money in a more manageable way too. That adapter kit is a hefty chunk of change. I may look into making subframe connectors for the car to balance out the stresses of the extra weight and torque.
Also, after all that Australia talk, I just bothered to look to the left and notice you're a Kiwi. You guys really like to go all out on the stuff we consider odd-ball or impractical over here. Should make for a somewhat unique build on this corner of the sphere. I'm half tempted to revive the 1984 race chassis convertible and go all out on the motor/trans for that car.

mustangextreme: That sucks. I hate the M5OD in my Ranger for that reason too... and many others... but for upgrade reasons, that one piece design is annoying. Looks like the adapter plate is the way to go.

[xctasy]

As for the AOD vs C6, what would you recommend? I'm looking for the cheapest/easiest route really, but if one is MASSIVELY better in a got-to-have-it way then I'll consider more money/work.

I've got a program the calculates open road miles per gallon at any speed , similar to Bowland And Grippos http://www.bgsoflex.com/mpg.html

His isn't based on engine capacity or gearing, it assumes everything is optimized for 100% efficency at the best Brake Specific Fuel consumption around , and doesn't allow for torque converter loses like mine does (even locked up, there is slip), so at 65 mph, you won't get the 24.91 mpg they claim at 65 mph, or the 25.85 at 62 mph.

Bowling's Vehicle MPG Estimator

Input Parameters Are the Following:
Coefficient Of Drag = 0.4800
Frontal Area = 20.8 Sq. Feet
Vehicle MPH = 62
Vehicle Weight = 3200 Lbs.
Tire Pressure = 32 psi.
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption = 0.0667 gal/hp-hr.
Drivetrain Horsepower loss = 12
Computation Results:

Computed Drag + Drivetrain Horsepower is 36
Engine Fuel Consumption is 2.40 gal/hr
Engine MPG 25.85

As an estimator, is a great bit of program though!

My program only uses 62 mph, as it based on an Aussie Australian Standard calculation, and I don't want to rearranged the 12 inputs to suit any speed just yet.

The point is that the 400 can cruise all day at less than 2200rpm even if you run a looser 2350 rpm stall 3800 converter, then the fuel figures at speed can be as good as a poorly tuned 3.8. The stock 7.5 inch diff, if it had a limited slip, would do quite well. You have an AOD, you don't have a C6. At 62 to 65 mph, that is about 1800 rpm in over drive top.

A C6 needs a set of 2.73 or 2.47 gears to be economical.3.08's wouldn't be my chioce with that engine.

So I ran the numbers with the AOD, 400 and 3.08, and i got 20.3 US mpg at 62 mph by my calculation. The C6 with 3.08 gears gives only 13.7 miles per gallon becasue of torque converter slip. With 2.73 gears, it gives 15.0 miles per gallon. If you could make a set of 2.47 or 2.26 axle gears survive, 16.1 or 17.1 mpg at 62 mph.

That's why I love the AOD. You can rerun this with 65 or 55 mph, the figures show more than a 40 to 50% gain in mileage with AOD over the C6 with highway speeds.

If you drive everywhere at 65 mph, you'll save 45% at least on fuel with an AOD verses the C6, the 2.06:1 overall gearing is alone would make it worth 18.3 mpg, or a saving of 34%, but the lock-up clutch is a worth 11%.

And that is why Ford ble$$ed every post 1983 V6, I6 or V8 passenger car or light truck with this little gem mandatory or at least as an option.

172 hp in a Fox can make it top out at 123 mph with the 3.08 gears and AOD, and that's the iceing on the cake.

You guys really like to go all out on the stuff we consider odd-ball or impractical over here

I think someone said if the price is too cheap to believe, its probably Chinese...

That's because American engineering is first rate and it gets the job done with a moderate up front cost, and Ford engineering in particular is made by evolutionary steps. I have a 1960 based engine in my Fox, with a French gearbox and French tires, yet its cheaper to run than my Australian Falcon or my Japanese Toyotas. And my Explorer was the same, dirt cheap. The RAV4 and 98 XLT 4.0 run overdrive gearboxes, and it saves mega dollars at the pump, with the 205 HP sohc Explorer as good as my twin cam 170 HP J spec 3sge RAV4. Having twice the engine capacity didn't make it use twice the fuel. My 3.3 Fox does 23.5 US mpg at 62 mph by computer simulation, but its never flat cement highways here, its always hilly or windy or wall to wall trucks with no passing lines, and best I've done is US 17 mpg. Your 6.6 engine Fox could do better than what mine does on New Zealand roads as well especially if you don't have winding roads with 3300 foot rises over it like we do.

http://s1215.photobucket.com/user/xe..._4080.mp4.html
http://s1215.photobucket.com/user/xe...I_4076.mp4.htm




Running US Fox body cars at the race track or as a company commerical venture is easy, and its always cheaper than Asian or European or English stuff. Plus you guys talk English and have friendly, fast responses to problems, and all my questions can be answered from a US website. Democracy may have its price, but these forums are simply sensational because everyone can find the right answer that suits there needs and budgets.

[mustangxtreme]

I would venture to guess the mileage would be better than expected. My personal best with a 400 c6 in a 4dr 72 LTD was 21mpg highway. Granted the car had taller tires but it also had considerably more weight.

[xctasy]

I trust practical testimonials. I've heard similar things from the Aussies who drove 3.8 2-bbl Buick engine Olds Cultlasses in US conditions, they couldn't quite figure out how a 200R 4-speed 1981 could easily do 30 US mpg at 65 mph. A lot of the good data on the GM b body compact coupes is missing, but the Ford stuff is there and really underscores what an AOD can do.

I got 2.75: 9"diff, 2.05:1 stall ratio FMX, 4158 pounds 14.9 mpg at 62 mph by my program, which assumes the 1977 to 1981 average .44 drag and 20 sq ft of frontal area...I don't see exactly how with a 0.53 drag factor and 25 sq ft area can do better. Nor do I see how it did 128 mph when there was only power for 111.7 with its 172 hp factory rating. I used 0.53 and 25 sq ft for those

It's about understanding that its possiable based on how flat your roads are, and how you guys cheat the wind and air density in traffic behind trucks, and some of the altitude differences and, especially, how much coastdown reduction a great concrete road makes. My studies show a 10% reduction in fuel use with an inflexible cement pavement with minimal surface texture they give. Tar macadam, and two lane blacktop Australasian economy calculations aren't exactly a US highway replication, you'd agree.

My sources (From http://www.automobile-catalog.com/ec...-o-matic.html0 give, at 62 mph (100 km/h):14.2 mpg (U.S.) for the Custom 500 4-dr 400 Ford.

I've however seen this quite a lot in US cars on freeway conditions. My calculations for an E350 4.9 van with 38.6 sq ft of frontal area was 9.9 mpg at 75 mph, but people claim to get 17 mpg in practice.

I don't mind, Detriot was getting very smart with areodynamics, engineers were able to tailor 2-bbl 400 efficiency on the early big full size Fords, and the E350 has gotten a lot slipperier, and maybee, I've gotta drop the road load a little on my calculations

In 1977, big 3750 pound Falcons with high compression 9.4:1 4-bbl 302 Clevelands used to get 10.6 mpg at 80 mph average on a 2640 mile Sydney to Perth cruise from a 207 hp powerplant.

In 1981, a 2450 pound Alfa Romeo Alfetta 2.0 liter got 13.6 mpg at 83.5 mph over the same distance. But those roads weren't US fine cement, and there were tired drivers trying to forsee wombat, wallaby, kangaroo and bull hits.

And so I have a problem with the 40% to 70% hysterisis, but I don't doubt the testamonials.