I'd compare the 4.6L to the small-block 289. The 4.6 is 281 cubes... revs like a 289... and then some...

Now, compare the 289 to a 302 - enough of a difference to be noticed...

 

The whole funny part, is that there is so many engines out there, same size, built different days, so to speak, and they do different things, dont let yourself get fooled by anyone that says he gets whatever mpg, just because another guy has the same application and doesnt.

 

I guess we're not reading the same posts?????


Your Mustang numbers, while exceptional, are in no way indicative of a "SAME APPLICATION" T-Bird.

Prove to me a 302/automatic 'Bird gets 35MPG AND still is able to smoke the tires and I will buy you a steak dinner.


I have a little bit of a hard time with 30 MPG Mustang V8's....I'm raising the BS flag on the T-Bird numbers and performance.

 

DOHCmarauder, I'm with you - I think his math is wrong

 

Well i can easily prove the mustang part, as for the t bird part I can't prove anything there, just saying that some guys get different mpg with different applications and not to close your mind to it. But I do live in Saskatchewan, Canada, so anytime you want to see what a mustang does, and your out this way, let me know!

 

Are we talking about them UK Gallons? 1.200 US gallons? That just might make a little sense.

 

Krewat, thanks.


Daveee, you may have solved the mystery!!!! 20% more fuel would easily be the difference between 24MPG and 30 MPG.........


Preppy, how about daveee's theory?

 

Next question is, 1 - Have the gears been changed? If so, has the speedo been recalibrated? I changed the gears in my 97 150 and it threw off the speedo by about 15 MPH. So it looks like I am getting great fuel milage but really only getting the same if not a little worse.

 

My '88 Crown roasted 'em pretty good from the line. Once it hooked, I could pass it with my Harley golf cart (not really). It got 27-28 mpg on trips too. Anyone wanna argue with me? My '96 Crown won't roast 'em as good, but still makes itself known. It gets the same as my last Crown on trips, wanna argue with that? A Bird is lighter and sleeker than my '88 Crown, is that a farce too? Rob

 

I know that this is by far the least scientific explanation, but I have an example for you of three identical trucks with identical engines with completely different performance charicteristics. When I worked for the Delaware Dept. of Transportation, I was Forman of the Heavy Equipment shop for the North District. I was assigned a shop truck, a 1998 3/4 ton 4x4 Dodge with a 360, 4 speed O/D automatic, 4.10:1 gears, cabinet body, and an air compressor. Well maintained I might add (I always made sure of that). We had 3 trucks outfitted that way for the shop, one for the Heavy Truck Shop, and one for the Light truck shop, in addition to mine. When the NASCAR race comes to Dover, Delaware, we move a majority of our traffic control devices to Dover, and the outlining area. We towed our message boards and arrow boards to Dover in convoy, and then headed back to the N.D. yard for more units, 35 in all. Well, let me say that my (assigned) truck couldn't keep up with the others, even though we were all relatively evenly loaded, and I had to stop for gas way more than the others did. Why? My tires were properly inflated, the truck was properly maintained, and the brakes were properly adjusted. I got 9 MPG while the others got about 13.
The signboards were all the same make and model, and all weighed 2,800lbs. Of the three trucks, two were obviously superior to the third. Further, my truck was the best maintained! I would suppose then that this could also work the other way around, a car or truck where all the manufacturing tollerances stacked up favorably to produce a vehicle with superior performance compared to others of it's line. Just a thought.

 

I'll argue it...........Pics???? It may be one man's definition of "roasted 'em pretty good" may be different than another.


I guess chocking the front wheels, some oil, bald tires will do it too.


My Marauder is a sled and it would DESTROY both those vehicles stock. No roasted tires here(I wish) Don't start on the DOHC thang either. The Marauder still makes as much low end as those 180 HP wheezers, has 3.55 gears and still revs to 6K.

MPG? I'll admit to low 20's but that's cruising at 90-100 MPH.......I suppose at 55 I could get high 20's.

 

Thats one thing i never did, is seen how well my stang did cruising at 100 mph, would be interesting to compare though!

 

I have a 94 T-Bird with the 4.6L, never calculated the mpg, but its better than my 89 lincoln mark vii was with the 5.0 HO. But.. not much. Both spin the tires very well lol.

 

i get hideous mileage in my 94 cougar with a 4.6 liter, 230 miles on an 18 gallon tank. now thats 12.7 miles per gallon. I dont drive that thing like a mustang either, now there is something very wrong with this picture i should be getting 22 mpg but i dont. maybe its because i have 151,000 miles on it. It will occasionally roast the tires during a powerbrake, and thats only if it miraculously jumps over 2,000 RPM's. it wont do a whole lot in the low RPM's but it will fly like a bat outta hell when it hits 3500 RPM's.

 

thats odd... I constantly run mine up to 5500 rpm's.. well not all the time but sometimes. I always tell everyone how great the gas mileage is, for what it is. 135k on the ticker and runs like a bat outta hell. Id say I get at least 20mpg.