Author Topic: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W  (Read 6651 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2022, 08:09:50 PM »
Thanks for the input, guys I appreciate it.

As far as driving habits, I'm consistently in fuel-saver mode, unless I'm driving a hot rod. The truck has very little rolling resistance. It has the stock pizza cutters and I keep them aired up around 40psi usually.

Probably going to abandon this idea and maybe concentrate on making the 300 as efficient as I can. It's no powerhouse but man, is it reliable. Haven't had to do anything to it but fill it with gas and change the oil and filter occasionally.

Frank, funny you mention a turbo as that has crossed my mind. lol. I don't know. I have a '74 and a recently acquired '70 Cougar both needing attention, so I probably should leave the truck alone.

RustyCrankshaft

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2022, 08:24:31 PM »
I have a 96 F150 shortbed 2wd with a 300 (last year for the inline) and a 5 speed. It gets 18 all day every day (would get 20-21 before the rear gear change). It's no race car, but it's dependable and for what it is I'm happy with a consistent 18. After a early 2k's E150 spindle and brake swap, a little more gear and it's also a lot more fun to drive.

Granted it was a brand-x small block, but I think the results are fairly universal. The amount of money you'd spend tayloring the engine to get max mileage never returns on the investment. Build a good engine and spend that extra money on chassis upgrades that will help mileage.

gdaddy01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2022, 08:51:17 PM »
just drive something with a 460 in it for about a month and then everything above looks great .

AlanCasida

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2022, 10:18:21 PM »
My '66 F100 that I run around in gets a little over 16 mpg with a basically stock '68 390/C6. I do have an Edelbrock F427 intake on it and a 600 Holley and a Pertronix conversion but that's it. Since all I do is drive it...no towing I put a 2.50 rear gear in it out of a '77 Ranchero. That makes it run down the road real nice. at 65 it's only turning about 2000 rpm.   
« Last Edit: March 03, 2022, 10:19:58 PM by AlanCasida »

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2022, 02:36:56 AM »
My '66 F100 that I run around in gets a little over 16 mpg with a basically stock '68 390/C6. I do have an Edelbrock F427 intake on it and a 600 Holley and a Pertronix conversion but that's it. Since all I do is drive it...no towing I put a 2.50 rear gear in it out of a '77 Ranchero. That makes it run down the road real nice. at 65 it's only turning about 2000 rpm.
Nice truck, Alan.
I'd be very happy with something like that. If a person could get that kind of mileage out of a 390, seems a 352 should equal or better that figure I would think, no?
Or maybe 390 cubic inches is the "Goldilocks" size for the FE engine design that brings the best MPG per work done.
Seems like I remember being told years ago by people who owned 390 powered vehicles that they got pretty decent mileage. But maybe I'm manufacturing memories. lol.
What cylinder heads are on your truck engine?

JimNolan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • 63 Galaxie XL 410ci / 57 Fairlane 500 390ci
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2022, 10:17:07 AM »
Another guy on here referenced this fact. A bigger engine will get better gas mileage at highway speeds. If you have a 4000 lb. vehicle the load placed on the engine to pull that at 65-70 mph is higher on a smaller engine. In 1974 I bought a F100 with a 302 engine/automatic. It got 12 mpg around town and 12 mpg on a trip (speed limit 70 mph). My buddy got a 1975 Ford extended cab with a 460ci engine. He got 17 mpg on a trip. My 550 Honda motorcycle got 35 mpg going back and forth to work 50 miles away. I traded it for a 1300 6cyl Kawasaki with 120 hp and got 42 mpg  going back and forth to work. I learned early in life a small engine vs a large engine was no contest when it come to gas mileage pulling the same weight at 65-70 mph.

cleandan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2022, 11:38:23 AM »
410Bruce, think of your economy situation while considering how you drive the truck the majority of the time..
The majority of your driving will use up the majority of your daily fuel....Tailor the truck to that task and let the rest happen as it unfolds.

There are things you can do to the truck, that have nothing to do with the engine, to help with fuel economy.
Lowering the trucks ride height will lower the air it distrubs going down the road...but if the majority of your driving is around town, under 45 mph driving then it really does not matter because below about 40-45 aerodynamics is not that important while at the same time aerodynamics above 65 in exponentially important.

Building a front air splitter to direct air around the truck rather than letting it go under will help.
Installing custom panels under the chassis to smooth airflow under the truck will help.
Running thinner tires, at least on the front to decrease wind resistance, will help.

Installing differential gears to best serve your driving needs can help.
I have owned a few different Crown Vic's (1992 being the first) and I installed 3.73:1 gears just for fun...you know, a bit more pep at the light.
I found this helped my in town driving quite a bit, going from 14-16 to 20-22 without chainging any driving habits...read that to mean I like to accelerate when the opportunity knocks.

The 3.73's did lower my highway mileage, but only by a tiny bit because I rarely drove above 70 mph on the highway for more than a few miles, usually setting the cruise control between 65-72  depending on the highway I was on.

The change in gear ratio helped where I drove the car most which was around town, while not impacting the rest of my driving to matter much.

With a truck try your best to stay under 70 mph because at 65 mph the widn resistance begins to really effect economy and it only gets worse the faster you go....especially with a less powerful ingine like the 300-6.

Concerning the engine and economy, you want to build for the most efficient combustion chambers and the highest port velocity you can within the useful rpm range you will operate.
If it is an around town truck that means from basically 1500 rpm - 3800 rpm, with the vast majority of your driving happening in the 1800 rpm - 2400 rpm range.

Finally, acknowledge the fact you are driving a truck....not the most aerodynamic vehicle by a long shot.
If you have old style, multi tube girder looking towing mirrors they grab air.
If you have roof gutters and chrom trim they grab air.
If you have many different elevations on the door glass, trim, sills and elsewhere all that grabs air.
The brick style front end has a huge frontal area and grabs air.
The overall height grabs air.
The height of the chassis off the ground, with all its various nooks and crannies grabs air.
The way the air flows over the back of the cab, or topper, grabs air.
The taller, wider tires grab air.
The larger wheel wells grab air.......The whole friggen thing grab air in some manner so unless you address those issues you will be working toward a mostly moot result.

Even if you minimize all that, within reason mind you, you will likely not get a full sized truck to attain 20+ mpg in normal daily driving.

This means you should set your sights on attainable results and understand that is where things will be.
If you can get your older truck to 16+ mpg, on a regular basis, be satisfied and happy, otherwise just relegate yourself to the enjoyment of the truck with its lesser economy and concentrate on other things.

 



410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2022, 12:13:19 PM »
Cleandan, thanks for the detailed response. This truck is my only daily driver, I use it for everything. My other daily driver is a motorcycle and these days I'm more inclined to drive rather than ride as everyone else is out to kill me on my bike. lol. I do still ride, just not on a daily basis.

And for everyone, I guess I should clarify my standing on this fuel economy issue. I realize I'm not going to get 20 or 30 miles per gallon with this rig. I would just like to maximize what I could with what I have.
That being said, if the current 300 in the truck gets let's say 13-16 MPG, if I can get a V8 in the same range with more power and torque that comes with it, I would like to go with that.
A lot of the driving experience for me is the sound of the engine. A V8 has that lovely, enjoyable sound for me whereas a 6 cylinder does not.

I will try to post a pic of my truck later but here is a brief description of it.

1989 F-150 short bed, stripped model, no AC, power windows or carpet.
Stock ride height.
One fuel tank.
Stock pizza cutter wheels and tires.
No elephant ear mirrors.
No add-on visor, headache rack or camper shell.
300/6 with C6, 8.8 rear, no posi.

GerryP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2022, 12:30:06 PM »
Just some spitballin' on theory.  There are a number of factors that go into how much fuel you will use.  Mass and drag are always going to be part of that and you might not be able to do too much about that unless you change vehicle type.

The biggest gains in fuel economy came from the use of overdrive transmissions.  Fuel economy gains from fuel injection and electronic ignition was nearly nothing.  Manufacturers were also downsizing and dropping weight while they were also improving aero.  Again, overdrive.

One thing to consider when pondering engine size are the pumping losses.  Pumping losses are the engine working against the throttle.  The less the throttle is open, the more efficiency is lost.  A 500ci Cadillac engine at idle is not sipping fuel like a 1200cc Volkswagen at idle.  That also applies to how the engine operates on the road.  It is popular to think that an engine operating at its highest vacuum is at its most efficient.  That is not true.  Again, the engine is working against the throttle to get that high vacuum and those are pumping losses.  One thing about the high vacuum is that it proves you will get the most vacuum with the least throttle opening.  To run more efficiently, you would want to reduce those pumping losses.  Again, you get nothing in return for pumping losses.  So, a smaller engine working harder has less pumping loss than the big engine working easier.  One of the reasons diesels get better fuel economy is they are throttle by fuel, not by air.  They run without an air throttle.  That's just one reason.  There are others, like more energy content in the fuel, but I don't want to drift the focus here.  The only thing is that unlike monitoring vacuum, you can't monitor pumping losses other than at idle.  So how are you going to drive to reduce pumping losses?  You really can't.  Except by engine size.

FrozenMerc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2022, 12:45:44 PM »
I would be willing to bet a box of doughnuts that swapping the C6 for an AOD would get you from 13-16 to 16-19 mpg, unless you have a really tall rear end gear.  The nice part is it is a bolt in, but looking at the numbers, is it worth it?

$3K for a trans swap, yes you can probably do it cheaper, but lets say you buy a nice, new AOD trans from somewhere and a few other pieces and widgets you end up with about $3K into the swap. 

The AOD get's you 3 extra mpg on average.  At $3 per gallon, it will take about 90,000 miles of driving to pay off the $3K spent on the swap, factor in inflation and net present value over the next 4.5 years that it takes for you to rack up 90K miles, and it probably isn't worth it. 

But then again, NONE of the things we do to these old cars on this board are generally worth it from a pure accounting standpoint.  It is just for the Fun, and it is arguably better than spending the cash on hookers and blow.

Falcon67

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
    • View Profile
    • Kelly's Hot Rod Page
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2022, 01:48:03 PM »
FWIW - 2021 F-150 Super Crew 3.5L EcoBoost twin turbo 10 speed.  400 HP, 5120 lbs, averaging 19 MPG right now.  That includes 40 miles/day on the freeway running 80 or so.   Without the full load of 21st century tech, you're not going to get much of anywhere.  The 1993 F350 7.5L weighs about 5600 and gets 9.9 MPG going downhill with a tail wind at 65 MPH.  My ex 2020 F-350 XLT 7.3L 10 speed crew weighed 7120 and averaged 12.5.  Same 40 miles/day at 75~80 MPH.  Averaged 15 in NM. 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2022, 01:50:52 PM by Falcon67 »

cjshaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4461
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2022, 08:09:28 AM »
It is popular to think that an engine operating at its highest vacuum is at its most efficient.  That is not true. 

Sometimes theory is bunk. When accelerating, using less throttle leads to more fuel efficiency. Less throttle on acceleration means more vacuum. Think about vacuum wipers: if you're pushing on the throttle harder, and the wipers go away from less available vacuum, your fuel mileage is going away also. It just goes to show that that theory doesn't apply in every situation.

Comparing newer, fuel sipping small engines, isn't exactly relevant here. We're comparing a 352 FE to a 351 W. A diesel, or newer small engine, has no relevance to the question asked.
Doug Smith


'69 R-code Mach 1, 427 MR, 2x4, Jerico, 4.30 Locker
'70 F-350 390
'55 Ford Customline 2dr
'37 Ford Coupe

GerryP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2022, 11:33:52 AM »
...
Comparing newer, fuel sipping small engines, isn't exactly relevant here. We're comparing a 352 FE to a 351 W. A diesel, or newer small engine, has no relevance to the question asked.

Sure it does.  It serves as an example.  And if you were interested in best engine efficiency, you want to reduce pumping losses.  Highest vacuum means higher pumping losses.  Of course, you use as much throttle as is necessary to achieve your objective.  Idling through a story parking lot takes less throttle than does making a hard pass at the drag strip.  Vacuum and pumping losses will be different in those situations but you can't drive at full throttle though a parking lot with Saturday shoppers, so you don't exactly have control over that situation.  Again, just an example that demonstrates the point.

shady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1006
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2022, 12:42:58 PM »
I think the C6 is the killer. Go to an AOD or the 3 speed OD since you already have it, and optimize the rear with slightly steeper gears. Biggest bang for no a lot of money.
What goes fast doesn't go fast long'
What goes fast takes your money with it.
So I'm slow & broke, what went wrong?
2021 FERR cool FE Winner
2022 FERR cool FE Winner
2023 FERR cool FE Winner

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
Re: Fuel Efficient Build---352 or 351W
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2022, 06:07:59 PM »
Long ago, Mobil Oil, often in conjunction with Ford, ran for some years economy programs to highlight fuel efficiency. Many of the 'tricks' mentioned above were used to maximize fuel savings. Yet, one thing they did that stuck out (in my mind at least) the most was engine rpms. In short, running the cars at the lowest possible rpms saved the most gas, and this long before computer controlled EFI equipped engines, lock-up convertors and multi-gear transmissions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobil_Economy_Run
« Last Edit: March 05, 2022, 06:12:19 PM by machoneman »
Bob Maag