FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: 410bruce on March 03, 2022, 06:13:17 AM
-
Okay guys, another fuel economy question for you regarding a couple engines.
If you had your choice, which engine would be a better candidate for a fuel-efficient build, a 352 or 351 Windsor?
Given the current situation around us now has me thinking more about MPG than HP.
Would still like to have good torque and a throttle responsive engine, only focus more on efficiency.
Factory cylinder heads, pump gas, backed by a C6 in a 4000lb truck. Will be using an aftermarket throttle body EFI system.
I do have one of those overdrive Top Loaders that came in late '70s trucks I could install, if it would be worth the trouble.
As always, any input greatly appreciated.
-
How about a straight six?
-
Okay guys, another fuel economy question for you regarding a couple engines.
If you had your choice, which engine would be a better candidate for a fuel-efficient build, a 352 or 351 Windsor?
Given the current situation around us now has me thinking more about MPG than HP.
Would still like to have good torque and a throttle responsive engine, only focus more on efficiency.
Factory cylinder heads, pump gas, backed by a C6 in a 4000lb truck. Will be using an aftermarket throttle body EFI system.
I do have one of those overdrive Top Loaders that came in late '70s trucks I could install, if it would be worth the trouble.
As always, any input greatly appreciated.
Here is my input.....if that's the goal, the one you can build the cheapest, to include all ancillary parts for the whole project
Why? Put the extra money in the bank for gas.
Neither was known as a gas sipper in their day, both need good parts to be more efficient, and depending on transmissions, headers, intakes, heads, etc...the one that saves you cash on the build will likely give you more gas money than the difference in mileage. That being said...the 351 would also have a weight advantage depending on configuration
Another sorta wise guy comment...with inflation at 5% and climbing in some markets, you are also increasing potential cost by thinking too much :)
-
For what my two cents is worth...I believe how you build either engine will make the real difference. Modern ring packs for less friction and better sealing, custom pistons to dial in your compression, EFI will help and even better would be port injection for better balance, and believe it or not a roller cam to allow use of modern oils.
My fuel economy jumped 0.5 to 1 mpg switching from a high zinc oil to a modern synthetic (10W30 for both)...that's after several thousands of miles and always calculating my mpg using each oil with my roller cammed FE.
IMO, the trick to building fuel economy into any vehicle is sizing the engine to the job. For instance, I had a 390 in my truck that got the same mpg as new F150's with the 3.5 ecoboost when pulling a 10K lb camper. Running empty the 3.5 beat my 390 easily for mpg. The 390 wasted gas when my truck was running empty (no trailer attached)...it was the wrong size for that job.
My427stang has a good point...you're loosing buying power by hemming and hawing :-)
-
How about a straight six?
The truck has an EFI 300 6 in it now. The fuel economy is nothing to write home about. I've heard how great these engines are as far as low RPM torque and towing capacity, I don't tow, but so far have not experienced the awesome torque. In fact, it's relatively flaccid as far as I'm concerned.
I'm just a V8 guy.
-
How about a straight six?
The truck has an EFI 300 6 in it now. The fuel economy is nothing to write home about. I've heard how great these engines are as far as low RPM torque and towing capacity, I don't tow, but so far have not experienced the awesome torque. In fact, it's relatively flaccid as far as I'm concerned.
I'm just a V8 guy.
They do have good low end torque...for their size. Around 3000 rpms is the end of their world. They can't keep up towing with a bigger V8, especially at highway speed.
I expect around 16 mpg with them in a pickup. A very carefully custom built 351 or 352 should get real close to that.
-
Okay guys, another fuel economy question for you regarding a couple engines.
If you had your choice, which engine would be a better candidate for a fuel-efficient build, a 352 or 351 Windsor?
Given the current situation around us now has me thinking more about MPG than HP.
Would still like to have good torque and a throttle responsive engine, only focus more on efficiency.
Factory cylinder heads, pump gas, backed by a C6 in a 4000lb truck. Will be using an aftermarket throttle body EFI system.
I do have one of those overdrive Top Loaders that came in late '70s trucks I could install, if it would be worth the trouble.
As always, any input greatly appreciated.
Here is my input.....if that's the goal, the one you can build the cheapest, to include all ancillary parts for the whole project
Why? Put the extra money in the bank for gas.
Neither was known as a gas sipper in their day, both need good parts to be more efficient, and depending on transmissions, headers, intakes, heads, etc...the one that saves you cash on the build will likely give you more gas money than the difference in mileage. That being said...the 351 would also have a weight advantage depending on configuration
Another sorta wise guy comment...with inflation at 5% and climbing in some markets, you are also increasing potential cost by thinking too much :)
Ross, why do you always have to be such a downer? lol.
As far as your last statement, I'm kind of in a predicament. My family has all passed and I have no friends who are motorheads to bounce ideas off of. So unfortunately, I have lots of time to think too much and post up seemingly inane threads in front of thousands of strangers. Yay me. ;D
-
Your weight and aero are all wrong for MPG. You can try to get better fuel economy out of a truck, but if you are really concerned about fuel economy, you'd have yourself a driver for when you don't need the truck. But you will have to drive some incredible miles to make up the money on what you put in the tank.
As has been pointed out, when it comes to vehicles, spending money to save money almost never works out. We went through this in the middle '70s with the Arab oil embargo and gas shortages. Back then was a little different in that fuel was being rationed, so it wasn't so much the price, but more if you could even get gas. There were some parts out there to increase fuel economy. The Edelbrock SP2P comes to mind. And, yes, they did work but only for fuel economy. The engine sucked otherwise. A lot of people dumped Cobra Jet Torinos to get a Corolla.
You would do better with a 351W as far as the most up to date technology, price, and weight.
-
On an FE engine the base RPM that you can run is 1700 rpm (rpm in which you can mash the gas down in any gear without having to go to a lower gear). If you can keep your rpm between 1700 and 1850 rpm when cruising you'll get all kinds of gas mileage out of a FE. My 1957 Fairlane 500 with 390ci-315hp/5 speed Tremec TKO 600/3.50 True Trac and 27" rear tires gets over 21 mpg at 65-70mph. Around town in stop and go traffic is where nothing is going to shine. The transmission is where you get gas mileage.
-
maybe just keep what you have and do a rear swap. More than once have I put a steeper rear in that resulted in better performance and better MPG. Keeps the truck in its torque range.
-
as far as day dreaming no cost out of pocket , the 352 is what I would build with tiny roller cam , modern piston and ring package as high of compression you can get away with, TFS heads , port fuel injection , headers and some kind of OD 6 speed manual or automatic transmission and functional Lock up Converter if it an automatic
-
I have done both. In fact, they were very similar builds. Both engines have a +0.030 over bore, similar cams, 600 cfm Holley's, approx 9:1 compression, etc. The only real difference is the 352 got aluminum Edelbrock heads, and the 351W used the stock '78 LTD smog heads. The 352 is in my '62 Merc Monterey wagon, backed by a non-lock-up AOD and 3.6 rear axle. The 351W is in a '51 F-1, backed by a M5R2 5 spd, and 3.08 rear axle. Tire size is real similar between the two.
The '62 will pull down 15 mpg cruising at 65 mph. The '51 will also pull 15 mpg on the highway. You could argue 352 is the more efficient motor of the two since the wagon weighs a good 1000 lbs more than the little pickup. I think the wagon probably has better aerodynamics, but it probably isn't all that great of a difference.
That said, I also built a decent 300 6. Full length split header, Comp 270-H cam, Offy Dual-Port Intake and Holley 600 cfm carb, flat top slugs that brought the compression up to about 9:1. Backed by an AOD in a '83 Bullnose, it would pull a consistent 18 mpg down on the highway at that magic 65 mph mark.
If I was concerned about mileage, I sure as heck wouldn't build something around a C6. Great, durable transmission, but terribly inefficient. Manual transmission with overdrive would be the best way to go.
As JimNolan said, target a 1800 to 2000 rpm cruising range. Build as much compression into it as you can get away with, and cam it to have the torque peak in the 2200-2500 rpm range and be prepared for the thing to be out of wind around 4500 rpms. Optimize the build so you can maximize the area under the entire torque curve, and dial in you AFR's across the cruising range.
-
If I was concerned about mileage, I sure as heck wouldn't build something around a C6. Great, durable transmission, but terribly inefficient. Manual transmission with overdrive would be the best way to go.
Agree 100% with that statement. Unless you spend big bucks to adapt a newer automatic trans, manual is the way to fuel efficiency.
If you're going to stick with factory heads, I'd go with the 352. All factory heads on the 351 platform suck, bad.
A couple things that people typically ignore when it comes to fuel efficiency.
1: Rolling resistance. Wheel bearings that don't freewheel extremely easily, or ANY brake drag will pull efficiency down quickly. A front end alignment that minimizes resistance is mandatory.
2: Driving style/throttle opening. Driving style has as much to do with efficiency as anything. A vacuum gauge can teach someone how to drive more efficiently. Any time you see the gauge needle drop, that's efficiency going away. Slow on the pedal, slow off, neutral coasting to lights and stop signs, etc etc. I watch how most people drive and can instantly see why their fuel economy sucks. Not saying the OP is that way, just people in general.
I managed to regularly get 16+ mpg out of a '68 F250 Highboy with factory iron heads and iron 4bbl intake with a mild Crane cam. The truck had no rolling resistance, and coupled with a light foot and driving style, it would get that every time. It probably would have pushed 20 in a much lighter F150, given the same engine and freewheeling resistance.
-
For your criteria, I would definitely stick with the 300-6.
If the bottom end is still good, I'd pull the head, install 1.6 Ex valves and smooth the bowl, do the best In valve job, that you can do or get, mill the head about .020. Put a small cam in, with LSA of 114 - 116 and then top it with a turbocharger, for the extra pulling power you want and of course put that alum TL 4 spd OD trans in it.
All that said, your still going to have to keep your foot out of it, for mileage but, the FI will also help you with town mileage.
-
FE in a full size truck and good gas mileage. That's a good one! ;D Keep 'em coming!
351W is a pig too.
I had an '82 F100 Stepside with a 300-6 and an overdrive stick transmission. Down hill with a good back wind it might have gotten 15mpg. The power was nothing to shout about although those "in the know" touted the torque of the truck six. I am convinced a 302 V8 would do everything better.
Thinking a 4000lb brick can do better than 15mpg is a bit "optimistic". Those that say they've done better than that are putting their credibility on the line.
Case in point. I have a Jeep Wrangler with an automatic, 4.0-6, and 3.50 gears with 33" tall tires. On flat ground on the highway we may get 15-16mpg. Another example of moving a nearly 4000lb brick with a six cylinder motor.
-
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.
-
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.
-
just drive something with a 460 in it for about a month and then everything above looks great .
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
I remember the Mobile Economy Run, very well, in the '60's. Huge amount of TV ads where sold for it.
My folks bought a '61 Falcon Futura at the beginning of '61, with a 144 ci, 3 speed. A nice little car that got a actual, 30/31 mpg, with a 3.10 rear in it, about 26+ in town (if I wasn't driving it).
I know Ford was using high geared rears, by '58. My second car after HS was a '58 Edsel, 410 MEL (read 4500 lb, big box). It had a 2.89 gear and on the fwy, it could get, a measured 16 mph. I think that's when Ford changes it's thinking on rpm, as the 312 Ford-o- matic, had a 3.56, std ratio. Crown Vic's are now running final drives of less than 2.00 and over 40 mph per 1000 rpm.
I think their next gas saving strategy was weight, in the late '70's? when you started seeing lots aluminum, like engine brackets and air cleaners.
I'd still go with the 300, 4 spd OD or AOD and a turbo. Most bang for your buck.
-
Well, after doing some online research, it seems no matter if the engine is a 300 or a 460 and everything in between, including the later model modular engines, the fuel mileage is going to be between 10 and 16 MPG.
Of course, there are cases where some, with modifications, get better or worse but for the most part, 10 to 16 seems to be it. My current set-up with the 300 being near the top, even with the C6.
So, the only "rational" reason I would have for swapping to a V8 would be for the sound, and of course the power increase associated with it.
For now, I'm going to give the ol' 300 a complete tune-up and a transmission filter and fluid change.
Will do a before and after MPG check and see if any gains were made.
-
Are you opposed to a Coyote-swap? ;D I average about 24mpg (60/40 city driving) in my '18 GT, and can squeak out 32mpg on the highway.
-
Are you opposed to a Coyote-swap? ;D I average about 24mpg (60/40 city driving) in my '18 GT, and can squeak out 32mpg on the highway.
I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a Coyote swap, if someone would like to donate it to me. ;D
-
Are you opposed to a Coyote-swap? ;D I average about 24mpg (60/40 city driving) in my '18 GT, and can squeak out 32mpg on the highway.
I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a Coyote swap, if someone would like to donate it to me. ;D
I see donors for sale quite often. They're not a dime a dozen like LS's, but they're a solid choice for a lot of builds. Before our '69 Mach 1 project burned me out, I had hoped to do a 1955 F100 restomod with a Coyote engine.
I ran mod motors for years. Spent a lot of money making mod motors fast. Then, I got this Coyote car and it was a game changer. I have friends running Gen 2 Coyotes, bone stock engine plus blower/turbo, and they're squeaking out 800-1000hp with nothing more than fuel system upgrades as supporting mods. It used to be that the same amount of money would get you ~400hp on a mod motor on a good day.
-
Well, a 1995 Mercury Marquis popped up my local Craigslist for free. 4.6 and whatever OD auto was behind them that year.
Car was left behind by a former tenant. Evidently was having overheating issues. It does have a title and is signed off by the owner. It's only about 8 minutes from me.
I'm thinking this may make a pretty decent swap. Thinking I may gain a mile or two per gallon, certainly no worse than I have now, I would imagine.
EDIT: It's already gone.
-
Gone - dang, that would have been a worthwhile catch I think. Mod motors are interesting beasts from what I've read. I still think a Coyote/blower swap into the dragster would have been a fun deal if the budget could have stood it.
-
Semi trucks went through this along time ago.
It was found the lower numbered rearend gears were better for milage and engine life than overdrive transmissions.
Class 8 semi trucks started using overdrive auxiliary transmission way before my time. Probably the 1950's, than started using overdrive main box transmissions. Like
RTO-9513, 13 speed overdrive in the late 60's early 70's.
It takes more power to turn the overdrive gears with a higher number rearend gear than it does to drive a straight though direct drive trans with a lower rearend gear.
Before it was figured out there were 13, and 15 speed double overdrive transmissions.
When I was in high school my dad and I built a car out of junk parts.
A 352 , 2 barrel 4 speed out of a 1967 ford f250 truck.
The chassis was a 1979 LTD station wagon cut down and shortened up.
The wagon had a 2.26 to 1 gear ratio rearend. We used the granny gear 4 speed out of the truck.
It would go 35 MPH in low first gear.
It would get 23 miles to the gallon on the highway.
-
Yes, all those 'extra' gears do sap hp even before it hits the rear end gears. Direct drive after the transmission, so to speak, eliminates hp loss through an overdrive unit.
Heck, some here know this but those killer SS Hemi drag cars started using Chevy 12-bolt rear ends (or at least the center section) once someone pretty smart realized that the Ford 9" rear (or Dana 60 for that matter) consumed more hp than the hypoid angle of the GM based rear gears. Not much gain I understood but hey, max effort cars did go faster. Lesson is that the less 'drag' as I'll term it in the driveline = quicker e.t.'s or better fuel mileage.
-
I had actually considered just what you did, using the all syncro T19, in the 54 Ford car I'm doing.
I looked for and found a trans, drove 80 miles to get it but, when actually putting my hands on it, it was bigger and heavier than I had imagined and I would also have to use a cast iron bell. So, thinking it over and not knowing the 1 - 2 shift quality (have driven the T18 long shift) , I decided to pass on it.
I suppose running at a steady rpm, the gears wouldn't eat hp but, I can't imagine not eating hp in accelleration.
Here how it would be in a car, with 5500 max rpm. Not bad rpm splits, not like you would think a "granny" low gear would produce!!
-
FE in a full size truck and good gas mileage. That's a good one! ;D Keep 'em coming!
351W is a pig too.
I had an '82 F100 Stepside with a 300-6 and an overdrive stick transmission. Down hill with a good back wind it might have gotten 15mpg. The power was nothing to shout about although those "in the know" touted the torque of the truck six. I am convinced a 302 V8 would do everything better.
Thinking a 4000lb brick can do better than 15mpg is a bit "optimistic". Those that say they've done better than that are putting their credibility on the line.
Case in point. I have a Jeep Wrangler with an automatic, 4.0-6, and 3.50 gears with 33" tall tires. On flat ground on the highway we may get 15-16mpg. Another example of moving a nearly 4000lb brick with a six cylinder motor.
My 2018 RAM 1500 with the V6 will routinely get 24 mpg with interstate driving. On a "normal" week with running errands, stop light driving, etc., it will get 21-22. It's a hefty girl at about 5300 lbs.
-
My buddy had a 92 F-150 with the injected 300, 5 speed manual, supercab with a cap. He would get 19 mpg and sometimes up to 21 mpg on longer trips. The truck would still acceptably tow a open trailer with a car on mostly flat terrain. The F-150 had the smaller trans, not the ZF installed in the 250 and 350's.
Tires do make a difference, the smoother summer tires are worth 1/2 to 1 mpg over mud & snow tires.
Easiest aero mod to a truck is a tonneau cover.
-
Well, after doing some online research, it seems no matter if the engine is a 300 or a 460 and everything in between, including the later model modular engines, the fuel mileage is going to be between 10 and 16 MPG.
Of course, there are cases where some, with modifications, get better or worse but for the most part, 10 to 16 seems to be it. My current set-up with the 300 being near the top, even with the C6.
So, the only "rational" reason I would have for swapping to a V8 would be for the sound, and of course the power increase associated with it.
For now, I'm going to give the ol' 300 a complete tune-up and a transmission filter and fluid change.
Will do a before and after MPG check and see if any gains were made.
Some interesting reading on this topic. Thanks for putting up the question.
You stated that you don't tow. Are you concerned about the build being able to tow well if need be ?
The fuel and timing map to go with the EFI will be very important. I'd ditch the C6 for either a more efficient automatic or a 5 speed manual. Tires and gearing are a Huge consideration for your mpg. The comments regarding final drive gearing vs OD is something to consider. Tire type and dia go with the gearing.
I know the budget is always a consideration, but if you could find a Windsor stroker kit to build a 408 or an old crate motor 393" (4.03 x 3.85) might serve you well. If that's not in the budget, the 351 with a set of World Products cast iron heads worked over a bit could pay dividends.
You probably have several more choices in modern dual plane intake manifolds with the Windsor than you have with the 352. That's something to consider in your equation. Get the correct camshaft for the engine, a set of Tri-Y headers, tire choice, driveline lubrication etc and build a high mpg combo. Maybe you could get your OD Top Loader to match up with the right planning and math.
You could always look to build an efficient high compression propane fueled engine ? ...Now that would be a hoot. Propane is about 104 octane. I've not done one, but I've thought of it more than once.
-
Thanks for the continued input, guys.
Checked the MPG and according to my math, I'm getting 17, no highway use during this time, just in town and secondary roads.
However, my speedometer is 4-5 MPH optimistic which I believe would affect the odometer as well, so the 17 number may be incorrect. Probably lower.
You know, it's not so much about how much I spend on gas as it is at how often I have to stop to refill. I'm beginning to think this truck has a tiny tank.
If I get down to like an 1/8 of a tank or less (according to my gauge which is highly suspect), it seems like it only takes like 6-8 gallons to fill it.
Is it possible this thing only has a 10- or 12-gallon tank?
-
Thanks for the continued input, guys.
Checked the MPG and according to my math, I'm getting 17, no highway use during this time, just in town and secondary roads.
However, my speedometer is 4-5 MPH optimistic which I believe would affect the odometer as well, so the 17 number may be incorrect. Probably lower.
Yes, yes it will.
-
I worked for a construction company in the early 70s and had several crews to keep track of and each supervisor could order a new pickup of choice. I ordered a (as I remember a heavy 1/2 I think upgraded load) the motor i got was 390 w/auto not sure of gas mileage seemed to be very good and had good power so good with load capacity it got borrowed for some long hauls for different equipment I think it was 2bbl with higher rear gear(2wh drive) ---maby the motor was running in a good rpm torque zone most of the time or just a good combination -bore/stroke and torque-- over time 390 stroke helped mileage/power over 332/352--410 may be better for heavy p/u --for p/u and a light work 390 always seemed to do well -2bbl or small 4bbl seemed to do best on fuel-- put a brick under foot seems to help most!!! and keep in good torque zone build for good low rpm work
-
Well, a little different turn of events here.
Made a deal for a 1998 2wd Explorer 5.0 and will be using the entire powertrain from it. The engine runs great and idles smooth, however it does have 170,000 miles on it.
It does move forward and back under its own power but as far as running through all the forward gears, that is undetermined at this point.
Pretty excited about this. GT40 style intake manifold, GT40P heads, coil pack ignition system and a small, pea-shooter cam. Should be a nice, torquie, smooth running package for the truck with decent MPG, I would think.
-
Good score. At a minimum, I'd yank the timing chain/gears and replace them. Also, the valve seals if not a valve job too.
-
I think you said you have a C6 tranny now so I imagine you'll like the 4R70W a little better. I'd be less excited about the '98 vintage sbf when considering the amount of work for the whole swap...I'm guessing the power and mpg will be only a little better than the current I6. A coyote 5.0 would definitely be more exciting.
-
Good score. At a minimum, I'd yank the timing chain/gears and replace them. Also, the valve seals if not a valve job too.
When I come across an engine with miles on it but still runs well, I generally do replace the timing chain set and oil pump and pick-up.
Won't pull the heads. If I do that, then it snowballs from there. lol.
-
I think you said you have a C6 tranny now so I imagine you'll like the 4R70W a little better. I'd be less excited about the '98 vintage sbf when considering the amount of work for the whole swap...I'm guessing the power and mpg will be only a little better than the current I6. A coyote 5.0 would definitely be more exciting.
No more work than anything else, really.
Yes, a Coyote would be more exciting. It would be exciting to have the money to purchase everything I would need for the Coyote swap as well.
Not going to find a Coyote engine, transmission and all the wiring and fueling to swap into my truck for a grand--which is what I am paying for the entire Explorer. Disc brake rear axle I believe there too, if I care to use it. :)
-
Good score. At a minimum, I'd yank the timing chain/gears and replace them. Also, the valve seals if not a valve job too.
When I come across an engine with miles on it but still runs well, I generally do replace the timing chain set and oil pump and pick-up.
Won't pull the heads. If I do that, then it snowballs from there. lol.
True on the 'snowball' effect! Still, I'd replace the valve seals with the heads still on. Why? I see tons of high mileage 5.0's in all kinds of passenger cars that smoke out the exhaust in acceleration, deceleration or (!) both. They harden with age and start passing oil....as you likely know. Cheap, a tad difficult but worthwhile.
-
Okay guys, another fuel economy question for you regarding a couple engines.
If you had your choice, which engine would be a better candidate for a fuel-efficient build, a 352 or 351 Windsor?
Given the current situation around us now has me thinking more about MPG than HP.
Would still like to have good torque and a throttle responsive engine, only focus more on efficiency.
Factory cylinder heads, pump gas, backed by a C6 in a 4000lb truck. Will be using an aftermarket throttle body EFI system.
I do have one of those overdrive Top Loaders that came in late '70s trucks I could install, if it would be worth the trouble.
As always, any input greatly appreciated.
My best MPG FE is a current truck (F100 Ranger '66) with a stock 352 and a factory Overdrive and 3.25 gearing. Consistent 22 mpg @ 65 MPH
where as a typical 352 with a 3.50 gear or a F250 with 4.10 & taller tire is 10-12 mpg. Factory 2v carb always the best. Tried other 2v's and lost 3 mpg.
Another daily 352 truck that has a added 1961 4v intake and holley and fine tuned with as much timing as I can give it is 14.5 mpg if I drive it nice but now the holley is giving issues so mpg recently dropped under 10.
I have found as typical the manual trans always seems to give better mpg.
For fun of it I wanted to see what I could get out of a 390 with low rpm power and MPG main goals. Started off with a .020 390 block and custom pistons with better ring pack, 9.00 comp, idle to 4000 rpm custom cam and will be running a c-6 with a GV OD and a 3.50 gear set to start off with. I have a few extra 3 spd overdrive (factory type) transmissions I may try. Goal is 18 mpg @ 65 mph. For this one I had Drew do me up a 390 GT Holley and I added 406 manifolds from Kugal. Excited to see where it's at for power and mpg but thinking may not quite get to 300 hp but should make incredible tq.
Truck I drive the most I did a 2020 Raptor Crate engine and a 10spd auto with a 3.50 gear but switching to a 3.0. It gets 25 mpg @ 65 on 91 and 20 mpg on E50 while making over 600 hp to tire and 658 tq to tire. If I get too happy with throttle it drops to 17.
The factory 3 spd manual OD trans are a great deal for mpg. I have found the GV OD is also a great improvement.
Did one 351w and was not impressed with mpg or power.
Sound funny to say FE and MPG in same sentence but the stock 352 with a tall gear and od shocked me as to what was avail from factory 56 yrs ago.
-
Okay guys, another fuel economy question for you regarding a couple engines.
If you had your choice, which engine would be a better candidate for a fuel-efficient build, a 352 or 351 Windsor?
Given the current situation around us now has me thinking more about MPG than HP.
Would still like to have good torque and a throttle responsive engine, only focus more on efficiency.
Factory cylinder heads, pump gas, backed by a C6 in a 4000lb truck. Will be using an aftermarket throttle body EFI system.
I do have one of those overdrive Top Loaders that came in late '70s trucks I could install, if it would be worth the trouble.
As always, any input greatly appreciated.
My best MPG FE is a current truck (F100 Ranger '66) with a stock 352 and a factory Overdrive and 3.25 gearing. Consistent 22 mpg @ 65 MPH
where as a typical 352 with a 3.50 gear or a F250 with 4.10 & taller tire is 10-12 mpg. Factory 2v carb always the best. Tried other 2v's and lost 3 mpg.
Another daily 352 truck that has a added 1961 4v intake and holley and fine tuned with as much timing as I can give it is 14.5 mpg if I drive it nice but now the holley is giving issues so mpg recently dropped under 10.
I have found as typical the manual trans always seems to give better mpg.
For fun of it I wanted to see what I could get out of a 390 with low rpm power and MPG main goals. Started off with a .020 390 block and custom pistons with better ring pack, 9.00 comp, idle to 4000 rpm custom cam and will be running a c-6 with a GV OD and a 3.50 gear set to start off with. I have a few extra 3 spd overdrive (factory type) transmissions I may try. Goal is 18 mpg @ 65 mph. For this one I had Drew do me up a 390 GT Holley and I added 406 manifolds from Kugal. Excited to see where it's at for power and mpg but thinking may not quite get to 300 hp but should make incredible tq.
Truck I drive the most I did a 2020 Raptor Crate engine and a 10spd auto with a 3.50 gear but switching to a 3.0. It gets 25 mpg @ 65 on 91 and 20 mpg on E50 while making over 600 hp to tire and 658 tq to tire. If I get too happy with throttle it drops to 17.
The factory 3 spd manual OD trans are a great deal for mpg. I have found the GV OD is also a great improvement.
Did one 351w and was not impressed with mpg or power.
Sound funny to say FE and MPG in same sentence but the stock 352 with a tall gear and od shocked me as to what was avail from factory 56 yrs ago.
Good information, thank you.
That first 352 is indeed impressive. On the second 352 truck, what transmission and rear gear were you running?
On the 351 Windsor, you're not the first person I've heard who says it doesn't get good mileage. They come with some pretty poor cylinder heads designed for the 302, and they are even stifling for that engine.
I wonder if it's a case that the heads just don't flow and consequently, you need to lay into the throttle more to get it to do what you want. Or maybe most of them found their way into F-250s and were just overwhelmed with tonnage?
Since the deal with the Explorer didn't materialize, you have me taking a look at the 352 again. :)
-
2nd truck which is my daily driver now and the truck I am building a clone of the one my dad bought new.
It has the Factory 3 spd Column OD trans in it but I have yet to hook up the wiring to activate the OverDrive. This truck has a 3.50 gear
MPG had started to drop off then found the points had started to burn at 5000 miles. Will probably switch to DuraSpark MSD combo.