Author Topic: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?  (Read 6442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« on: September 25, 2019, 08:27:03 AM »
Hey guys! Just curious if this is a possibility or fantasy. I'd like to have a fun, torque-laden engine with excellent throttle response that also got "reasonable" fuel mileage.
You guys may recall this thread  http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=7463.msg81768#msg81768 
I sold my daily driver and this truck has become the DD.
Is there any possibility of getting a 410 to 15-16 MPGs without neutering the torque potential?

I'm right on the verge of building a 5.0 HO small block to drop in but if I can get the 410 to deliver the above figures, I'll bypass the 5.0.

As always, thanks for any advice/input.

BattlestarGalactic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2019, 08:58:56 AM »
The 302/aod would get you the needed 15 mpg.  My 89 F150 and '95 F150's get that without much effort with 302's/auto.  They actually like a 3.55 gear with the OD.  Too little gear and the OD is too much on the highway and seems to unlock the converter more on the truck with only 3.08 gears(the 95).

An FE and a C6 is likely not going to get you there easily.  It would be hard to get good highway mileage if you geared it for town driving.  If it was stick, I would give higher hopes of mileage.

My .02.

Larry

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2019, 09:25:04 AM »
The 302/aod would get you the needed 15 mpg.  My 89 F150 and '95 F150's get that without much effort with 302's/auto.  They actually like a 3.55 gear with the OD.  Too little gear and the OD is too much on the highway and seems to unlock the converter more on the truck with only 3.08 gears(the 95).

An FE and a C6 is likely not going to get you there easily.  It would be hard to get good highway mileage if you geared it for town driving.  If it was stick, I would give higher hopes of mileage.

My .02.

Thank you.
I do plan on a 5-speed install eventually. Kind of given up on the T-45 but more than likely will be going with a good ol' T-5.

e philpott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 920
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2019, 09:41:00 AM »
TKO600 is your best bet for fuel mileage with a 410 with manual , for automatic you would need 4R70 , E4OD/4R100 or GM 4L70E or 4L80 , Bell Housing and a 500.00  computer to control it

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2019, 10:13:49 AM »
TKO600 is your best bet for fuel mileage with a 410 with manual , for automatic you would need 4R70 , E4OD/4R100 or GM 4L70E or 4L80 , Bell Housing and a 500.00  computer to control it
A TKO is not in the budget.

Thanks.

drdano

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2019, 10:14:21 AM »
I've hit those numbers and a bit higher with my old 390 in a '62 wagon, even saw 20mpg on a trip to Bonneville with a good tail wind.  I had 3.00 gears in it at the time and a 'wide-ratio' (E40D) kitted C6 and a 'towing' converter.  I can hit those numbers now (no 20mpg though) with 4.11 gears, taller tires and a TKO600 with the .64 overdrive behind my warm 428.  The car is slightly more aerodynamic than a truck. 

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2019, 10:34:53 AM »
I've hit those numbers and a bit higher with my old 390 in a '62 wagon, even saw 20mpg on a trip to Bonneville with a good tail wind.  I had 3.00 gears in it at the time and a 'wide-ratio' (E40D) kitted C6 and a 'towing' converter.  I can hit those numbers now (no 20mpg though) with 4.11 gears, taller tires and a TKO600 with the .64 overdrive behind my warm 428.  The car is slightly more aerodynamic than a truck.
Awesome! Then to me, it would seem entirely possible with a "warm" 410 backed up with a T-5 and 3.08 gears?

frnkeore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2019, 11:02:11 AM »
In '63, I had a '58 Edsel, with a 345 hp, 410 MEL engine and a 2.91 rear gear. Cursing at 65 mph I could get 18 mpg. It had a Cruise a Matic and didn't lock up, of course but, we had good gas in those days. Also, it was a 4000+ lb, boxy shaped car.

 I think a T-5 is to light duty, if you plan to romp on it very much. If you can, go with the 4R trans and a 3.89 or 3.74 rear.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2019, 11:44:21 AM by frnkeore »
Frank

C6AE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2019, 11:29:52 AM »
My father had a '67 Galaxy (new) with a 390
He was a salesman and put 270k on that car. It could average 19mpg when he drove it, about 10 mpg when I drove it.
(That car would light the rear tires up in smoke.)

FrozenMerc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2019, 12:44:29 PM »
I have a '62 Merc Monterey Wagon (4800+ lbs) with a 352 FE that peaked at 375 ft-lbs of torque on the dyno and makes over 300 ft-lbs from 2500 rpms on up, and knocks down a consistent 18 mpg on the highway at 70 mph.  It is backed by a Broader built AOD (non-lockup), with the original 3.6:1 9 inch rear.

Building a 410 to build 450+ ft-lbs and get 15 mpg should be no problem.  The right cam, carb, heads and headers along with a good overdrive and proper rear axle gear will go a long ways to hitting you mileage target. 

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2019, 04:41:29 PM »
Excellent input guys. I'm pretty stoked to hear it's probably doable.

I think for the time being I'll use a C-6 since that's what's behind the 300 currently and will save on changing a bunch of parts right off the bat. I'll have to build one as I don't think I have an FE one. Have several 460 and a couple small block C-6s kicking around, though.

I'll get a hold of Brent Lykins for a cam, since he was kind enough to chime in on my other thread. Also will need to choose some heads. I have a set of the short port standard size valve heads that came off the 410 or a nice tall port set that has been reworked with CJ valves ready to bolt on that I purchased from a forum member here.
Will also need to choose intake, compression ratio, headers.....etc...

66FAIRLANE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
  • Andy
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2019, 06:00:57 PM »
This is a little story about when I first bought my Fairlane. The 390 had a Crane Fireball 294, 750vac, standard converter, C6 & 2.75 gears (it would do 110MPH in 2nd). My daily (and I know most of you guys will not know what this is) was an XE Fairmont Ghia with a fuel injected 250ci 6cyl, 5 speed manual, bone stock. My Fairlane got better fuel economy. Of course then I narrowed the LSA, put a 3500 converter, 3.89 gears amongst other things in and it was all over! I never measured the economy but it was impressive.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2019, 06:09:14 PM by 66FAIRLANE »

cammerfe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2019, 10:57:27 PM »
In the Spring of '64 I put a 3.50 gear in the rear end of my '64 Custom 427. We drove it from Metro Detroit to Sebring Florida for the 12 Hour Race. I 75 was only completed in a few areas and a lot of the trip was on 2-lane roads. There were 3 of us to switch off driving and we agreed to get something to eat when we had to stop for gas.

We averaged 11.7 MPG for the round trip, but on one tankful, while running at over 100 most of the time, we got 16. The trick was to have a light foot on the go-pedal and keep right up against the point at which the linkage would bring in the second carburetor. In the middle of the night, there were very few cars on I 75. By the way, top speed with 8.20-15 rear tires was a bit over 150. And passing gear was accomplished by downshifting the top Loader to third. It would pull to about 125. A 100 MPH downshift to third would make the hot-dog in the chevrolay next to you think twice. corvettes were fun too.

KS

The Real McCoy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2019, 05:04:14 AM »
I have reasonable success with a TKO 600 and a 3.00 gear in my 63.5 Galaxie. Engine is a 428 stroker with 2 x 4’s (Quick Fuel carbs) and full length 427 iron headers. Over this summer it has averaged 16.0 MPG with a best of 19.7, this is based on about 2600 miles. 17-18 would be the norm at 65-70.  It runs at 1800 at 60 and 2000 at 80 in overdrive. It doesn’t like overdrive below 60 for sure. Also had one 40 mile stint of all city stop and go driving, got 9.7 so not that great in town. I think it capable of getting in the 5-6 range if you drive it right too.  :)
63 1/2 Galaxie 500
428 CJ Stroker with 427 2x4 Intake, 427 Long Exhaust Manifolds, Quick Fuel Carbs and TKO 600.

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so."                            Mark Twain

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2019, 06:19:33 AM »
Wow, guys, those are some impressive numbers--and stories. :)