Author Topic: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?  (Read 1245 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TJ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2019, 09:07:36 AM »
I also think 15-16 mpg is within reach on the freeway with a 410, albeit barely in a pickup. It will be much harder to achieve if you have a heavy foot or sit much in traffic.   Probably need a stick in place of the C6 to get there.  Not sure if it was mentioned but probably can't take a C6 off a 300 I6 and bolt it to an FE. 

I get about 13mpg in an F250 with a "tame" 482, NP435 tranny, and gear vender overdrive.  Runs 2400ish rpms at 70mph.  I tow some otherwise I'd consider changing my 4.10 rear to a lower ratio.

If you don't have a cam yet, consider a roller.  Call me crazy but I believe my mpg went up about 0.5 mpg switching from Valvoline VR1 to motorcraft synthetic blend.  Having a roller cam let me make the switch.  I've done several thousand miles with each oil and that's all I can figure on the improvement in mpg.  Nothing against VR1 oil, btw; seems like good stuff and it's needed for a flat tappet.

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6359
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2019, 09:22:36 AM »
Your original question was asking for a "torque-laden" engine.  That is not going to be a 302.  With over 100 more cubic inches, the 410 is going to slaughter the 302 in low end torque.  You might consider going with a mileage-specific intake, like an Edelbrock SP2P or an Offy Dual Port, with a small four barrel carb, a mileage cam, and headers.  You would get excellent throttle response and low end torque with a combination like that, and should be able to hit your mileage goals.  That combination would probably not provide a lot of power over 3500 RPM, but I think it would meet your objectives.

Edit:  Corrected manufacturer of the Dual Port intake.  Can't believe I did that LOL!
« Last Edit: September 26, 2019, 12:29:46 PM by jayb »
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

GerryP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2019, 09:42:59 AM »
...or a Weiand Dual Port, with a small four barrel carb, a mileage cam, and headers.  You would get excellent throttle response and low end torque with a combination like that, and should be able to hit your mileage goals.  That combination would probably not provide a lot of power over 3500 RPM, but I think it would meet your objectives.

Not to pick nits, but the dual port was an Offy.  I installed them from time to time in the early '70s even on some FEs and used one myself.  Your advice is really relevant to what was going on in the US in the early and mid '70s as drivers were trying to get every bit of efficiency out of what they had in their driveway.  Back then, it wasn't really a question of what gas cost.  It was a matter of whether you could even buy any gas.  Yes, the gas lines were real and in every part of the country.

Here, we are just discussing a different form of bench racing.  After all, if you have a fuel economy concern, you wouldn't wisely start with an old pickup with an FE or a '68 Mercury Monterrey.  That might have been what you had in your driveway the early '70s but they aren't typical daily drivers today.

But, as Jay points out, you want to use the hardware that was created to address fuel economy.  Even cylinder head improvements could be considered.  Most of your gains will be with an overdrive transmission.  This is where the biggest gains came from.

By going with a larger displacement engine, you are battling pumping losses and those can't really be tuned away.  So, have fun with creeping up the mileage chart but don't become one of those hyper-miler buttheads that just block traffic trying to satisfy a neurosis.

410bruce

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2019, 10:02:33 AM »
Again, thanks guys.

GerryP--lol. No worries on the butthead blocking--no neurosis here. :)


I think what I'm going to do is, throw the 302 in there for now, since I have most of the stuff to put one together, and it will only take a set of small block motor mount perches to bolt it in. Then I can get it running with the EFI to carb swap. Then, I can take my time building the 410 how I want it and gather everything I'll need for the swap at my leisure. Hopefully swap in a 5-speed manual at the same time. Maybe even go with a Fitech EFI set-up or something similar as well.

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2019, 10:18:05 AM »
I'd say do not veer too far from Ford stock.

The way I'd do it is a zero deck 410 (or 416), C8AE-H heads with a good bowl port and cleanup, keeping port size small.    The key will be the right cam and as much compression as that cam can support.  Keep intake opening early, keep overlap to a minimum, and then add a nice dual plane, likely a Performer 390, but the stock T intake would work well.  Dial in a 600 cfm Holley, and curve the distributor, and headers and a nice dual exhaust with an H pipe I think you'd be amazed

Keeping the port fast, compression as high as it can, and minimizing overlap should clean it up nicely.

FWIW - I also see high "teens" with my 489 FE, TKO-600, 4.10s, but mine is EFI and I have a lot of timing control, certainly not mild but doesn't need much torque to pull it around either.  The problem is, it's tough to behave and once you drop the hammer, they all drink :)
---------------------------------
Ross

- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 390 cid FE, headers, SM, 750 Holley, Crane HFT cam, 4 speed.  (461 EFI almost done!)

drdano

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2019, 10:53:11 AM »
In my post above I should have mentioned when I was hitting close to 20mpg with the old 390 I was running a SMI 750 Quadrajet and did spend time dialing in the APT so it would have a nice cruise mix at highway speed without need for the secondaries to be open at all.  Current 428 has a Dean Oliver race prepped 800 Quadrajet and I've done the same APT adjustments to get the cruise mix where the motor wants it barreling down the highway. 

410bruce

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2019, 10:21:04 PM »
Okay, back to this deal.
I've pretty much decided to bypass the 5.0 and just do the 410 as I originally wanted. Picking up a World Class T5 tomorrow. Dug out an FE manual bell housing I knew I had but forgotten what I had done with it.

What would be a good budget piston to use in this engine? Cast is fine with me as it won't be a high RPM screamer.

And, I'm not going to be as concerned with fuel efficiency. Just want a good running, low RPM torque monster that's fun to drive on the street.

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2019, 08:19:33 AM »
Speedpro makes a 381NP cast piston, not a bad stocker style piston but for anything trying to be efficient,  the compression height is pretty low at 1.66 and they run super thick stock style rings.  If you cut the deck and heads with the right surface and used either a shim gasket or a Cometic it'd tighten up the quench, same if you cut the deck to 10.150 and ran a 1020 gasket.  I think the dishes are about 12cc but maybe someone esle knows exactly.  They are cheap though, which is a benefit for a budget build, 150 a set if you look around.

After that, it goes way up.  I like Racetec's Autotec line, flexibility in design and many better features, but the price goes up.  Not Diamond-level up, but still up from the Speedpros

---------------------------------
Ross

- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 390 cid FE, headers, SM, 750 Holley, Crane HFT cam, 4 speed.  (461 EFI almost done!)

Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1457
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #23 on: November 11, 2019, 09:00:13 AM »
sorry - I gave wrong data for a 410
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 09:03:04 AM by Barry_R »

410bruce

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2019, 09:29:19 AM »
Thanks Ross.
Do you happen to know the factory compression height for the 410? I would assume it's the same for a 428 but I don't know what it is either.

I understand Ford used 410 pistons in '70s pick-ups to dump the compression so conversely, could one use 390 pistons to bump the compression up in the 410?

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2019, 09:36:50 AM »
I think 1.66

The issue is, even back then, Ford didn't worry much about quench.  (3.98/2) + 6.49 rod + 1.66 = 10.140, the deck height was 10.170, that puts them .030 in the hole before a gasket, and even if they were 1.67, they'd be .020 in the hole.

Personally, if you were in the .055 quench range, I likely wouldn't even think twice about it if the compression came in where you wanted it, just be careful on cam choice, mixture and timing, but to do that with a Felpro 1020 gasket at .041, you'd need to cut the deck to 10.151, and if you went with a Blue Felpro 8554, you'd have to cut to 10.142 or so, which is a pretty good cut.

The 1020 option isn't horrible, lots of FE decks at 10.150, but I tend to try to stay at 10.160 or 10.155 when I can, just because I hate to cut more than I need to
---------------------------------
Ross

- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 390 cid FE, headers, SM, 750 Holley, Crane HFT cam, 4 speed.  (461 EFI almost done!)

410bruce

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2019, 10:04:05 AM »
I'd just as soon not have to cut on the block if I don't have to.

Guess I'll have to start saving my pennies for some good pistons.

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2019, 10:14:38 AM »
I'd just as soon not have to cut on the block if I don't have to.

Guess I'll have to start saving my pennies for some good pistons.

Don't rule out any cut, FEs are generally crooked and not always flat either.  If you are going as far as calculating quench and picking good parts, square deck it to a number to compare to, otherwise, it'll be all over the map

In the event you do go with good pistons, the best for the money IMHO are likely the Racetec Autotec line, you can pick what you want within reason, their shelf piston is a 1.67 which is a good starting point, and it comes with a much better metric ring set.  Brent can help you get a set, but if you go that route, blueprint the whole thing, chamber size, decks, cam choice, it'll be a beautiful engine if done completely

I know you are driving toward a 410, but another option is a L2291 forged piston with a 390 build.  Pretty cheap for forged, good pin height,and all they need is a light cut for a tight quench.  I have done a couple of them with a Edelbrock Performer Plus cam, combined with a vac secondary and a decent intake/headers they are sweethearts to drive, good on fuel, etc.  As crazy as it sounds, for the power per dollar, could be a very nice option.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 10:16:13 AM by My427stang »
---------------------------------
Ross

- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 390 cid FE, headers, SM, 750 Holley, Crane HFT cam, 4 speed.  (461 EFI almost done!)

410bruce

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2019, 10:33:05 AM »
Are you speaking of Brent Lykins? I'm going to have him do a cam for me so might as well get pistons from him as well.

I'm already invested in the 410 so going to stay with it.

Thanks again for the information.

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2019, 10:42:17 AM »
Are you speaking of Brent Lykins? I'm going to have him do a cam for me so might as well get pistons from him as well.

I'm already invested in the 410 so going to stay with it.

Thanks again for the information.

Yes, he will steer you right
---------------------------------
Ross

- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 390 cid FE, headers, SM, 750 Holley, Crane HFT cam, 4 speed.  (461 EFI almost done!)