Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Misc. > Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 07-04-2005, 02:02 AM
rusty70f100 rusty70f100 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Iowa
Posts: 8,600
rusty70f100 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.rusty70f100 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Building a motor for mileage.

In our quest for mileage, we cover many things. Gasoline, tune up, tire pressure, fluids, all of these have an impact. But consider the average enthusiast. They want power. So when building a motor, they go with a bigger cam, among other things. Then they get bad mileage. "Oh this motor sucks," is the saying. It isn't the motor, it's what they built it for. It cant help but get bad mileage.

I'm surprised that more people aren't considering mileage when they build their motor. I know I didn't, but it still came out ok. Not great, but ok. But think of the gains that could be had if you had mileage in mind when building a motor. It'd be quite a different buildup than most performance builds you see, wouldn't it? Your compression ratio would have to be different, the cam would be different, the heads would be different, valves, headers, and so on.

You would use a smaller cam, probably smaller than stock. For an example for the FE engine, go to Crane's site and look at the 343971. 248 / 260 degree dual pattern. For the heads, you'd probably want to run just stock heads. You'd raise the compression ratio a little, to get more efficiency. Valves would be kept stock. Intake manifold would be small, like the Edelbrock Performer series. Headers with small primary tubes would provide efficiency and torque. A small carburetor (if EFI is not used) like a Holley 390cfm 4 barrel, should help efficiency. Holley fuel injection systems are available if you want to spend the money.

I dont see why we cant significantly improve on factory mileage if we're going to open up a motor. Most people say "Rebuild it stock." We can do better. I say, if you really want good mileage, invest some money and start at the source of the problem!

Just trying to get the idea out there.


Last edited by rusty70f100; 07-04-2005 at 02:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-08-2005, 11:22 PM
muscletruck7379's Avatar
muscletruck7379 muscletruck7379 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Harrisburg, NE
Posts: 2,684
muscletruck7379 has a good reputation on FTE.muscletruck7379 has a good reputation on FTE.muscletruck7379 has a good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty70f100
You would use a smaller cam, probably smaller than stock. For an example for the FE engine, go to Crane's site and look at the 343971. 248 / 260 degree dual pattern. For the heads, you'd probably want to run just stock heads. You'd raise the compression ratio a little, to get more efficiency. Valves would be kept stock. Intake manifold would be small, like the Edelbrock Performer series. Headers with small primary tubes would provide efficiency and torque. A small carburetor (if EFI is not used) like a Holley 390cfm 4 barrel, should help efficiency. Holley fuel injection systems are available if you want to spend the money.
we can make him better...we have the technology!!!

i agree, but disagree.
outside of the obvious building stuff (best bearings, lots of balancing and blueprinting) i wouldn't necesarily run factory heads, I would find the most effecient heads i could afford, for example, gt40p heads from exploders, they were concieved so that the 5.0 could do better on mpg and emmisions in its last couple years. i would go for at least a 9.5:1 comp ratio. and would go for a high torque cam, size for your application, other than that i agree with you.

its all in the details...
__________________
1973 f250 highboy 4x4
http://thelostdrifter.com/index.php/...ducing-trigger1984 full size bronco, -DIS, wide band megasquirted 300/ 8 speed
1988 f150 extended cab 4x4, mostly stock.
1984 mercury capri, 5.0 conversion, my little monster...
1961 ford falcon, all stock, in family since '68
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-08-2005, 11:31 PM
ford390gashog's Avatar
ford390gashog ford390gashog is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brentwood,CA
Posts: 14,762
ford390gashog is a name known to allford390gashog is a name known to allford390gashog is a name known to allford390gashog is a name known to allford390gashog is a name known to allford390gashog is a name known to all
that is how i built my 390. i used stock heads bumped the compression to 8.9 i am running a clevite stock cam.edelbrock intake and motorcraft 2150 carb. i pulls a nice steady vacuum of between 19 and 24. it does decent on gas,it would do better if i had a manual,but the 3.00 gears in the back keep the rpms down.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-21-2005, 09:36 PM
roger dowty roger dowty is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: western montana
Posts: 2,068
roger dowty is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.roger dowty is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Lots of folks build for mileage- I was reading about back in '77 and I'm in the middle of doing it now on a '77. Some motors are better at building for economy than others. A lot of info is on this site as well.
__________________
'77F1504x4, '75 f250crew4x4, '79 Bronco 429, '83 bronco, '72 Torino with 351cj, 70 1/2 falcon, 75 stangII. all projects, 2 on the road. One pissed off wife!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-10-2005, 01:43 PM
jimandmandy jimandmandy is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Running Springs CA
Posts: 5,228
jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.
Back in the late 1970's when fuel prices were rising due to the Iran situation, my Chevy truck needed a rebuild and I was going for mileage in addition to power. I dumped the original 250 six, which was averaging 13 mpg and picked up a junk 283 to build up for power and mileage and it worked, better power and 17 mpg. Here is what I did. This was a low cost project, so I changed as little as possible. I spent less than $500.

Ordinary valve job on the stock heads, no porting.
High compression pistons compared to early 1970's SBC stock.
Stock Rochester 2-bbl carb on stock cast iron two-plane intake.
High-lift short-duration "RV" cam and matching hydraulic lifters.
Tubular headers and true dual exhaust with Cadillac mufflers (cheap, free flowing, quiet)
Stock GM point ignition with silicone wires (due to the headers).

Good low end power and excellent cruising mileage was the result. Gearing was 3.73 with three-on-the-tree and G78-15 bias-ply tires.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-10-2005, 02:53 PM
200000+F150 200000+F150 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hendersonville, TN
Posts: 787
200000+F150 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I built a 350 for a '73 Chevelle this way when I was about 17. Stock rebuild on the shortblock. Small chamber heads from a 300hp 350(compression estimated at 9.5).
CompCams 260H (.447 lift). Stock cast iron intake/q-jet, stock exh manifolds with true duals/no cats/glass packs. HEI ignition. TH350 auto/2.73 rearend. Got consistent 18mpgs in a 4200 lb car when I kept my foot out of it, and almost all of that was city mileage. Not GREAT off the line, but pretty good, and I had the speedo pegged about an inch past the 120 mark (approx 140mph) more than once. One time with 4 passengers and both windows down. (You're only young and invincible once).
My brother also had a 55 F100 with a bone stock 2bbl 351W, FMX, 2.79 rear that got 23mpgs on the interstate on the way to shows. Very do-able these days with OD trannies. That'll let you have some decent bottom end and still high highway gearing for MPGs. Low RPM torque mods and high gearing are the ticket, although it's not just the engine. The whole package is the thing. Realize that you need to keep cruise RPM at or near the torque peak, but cruise speed low enough so that aerodynamics don't kill it.
__________________
People who say "violence never solved anything" obviously slept through history class.

94 F-150 Long Bed 300 I6/5spd.
95 F-150 Ext. Cab 300 I6/auto Crane Cam 260/272, Mild P&P Comp Steel Timing gears, Adj. FPR, heat wrapped manifolds.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-15-2005, 03:56 AM
jcp123 jcp123 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Milpitas, CA; Tyler, TX
Posts: 542
jcp123 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Back when I had my Mustang, I was considering a 302 to build. It would have had AFR165 heads, which are fairly large heads for a 302, but I decided I wanted to use a roller 5.0 block and keep a stock cam in there. With 3.5 rear end gears, 5-speed, 9.5:1 comp. and only about 2900lbs to lug around (including me), I was hoping for 25-30mpg on the open road, although that's perhaps a little optimistic.

In other words, I prefer medium-size heads with a small cam to make good all-around power while preserving gas mileage.

As it was, that 302 could hold its own. C4 tranny, 2.73 rear end, mostly stock except for a stocker 351 cam, ported heads, edelbrock RPM intake with Edelbrock 600cfm carb and Pertronix electronic ignition. At a steady 60mph it could touch 23mpg, although it normally got more like 20 on the open road.
__________________
James - Tyler, Tx.
1992 Ford Bronco EB - "The Plasticky Wonder" - R.I.P
'04 Focus SVT - Infra-Red 3-door

Real cars aren't made of plastic and computers. Unfortunately, mine is...

Last edited by jcp123; 08-15-2005 at 03:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-17-2005, 12:09 AM
pcmenten pcmenten is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,069
pcmenten is starting off with a positive reputation.
My 86 Mustang GT 5.0HO got 25-27 mpg over a 700 mile trip (three tanks of gas). heads on the 86 are very 'closed'. If I were building another 5.0 (and I will be in the next year or so), I'd use the F7TE closed chamber heads, flat-top no notch pistons, zero decked. I'd use the stock Mustang intake or the Holley SysteMax I lower intake and stock upper intake, and 1 1/2" long tube headers. Stock cam, stock SD SEFI.

I've got the parts to do this, I just need to giterdone.
__________________
Best regards,

Paul Menten
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:17 AM
roger dowty roger dowty is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: western montana
Posts: 2,068
roger dowty is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.roger dowty is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcmenten
My 86 Mustang GT 5.0HO got 25-27 mpg over a 700 mile trip (three tanks of gas). heads on the 86 are very 'closed'. If I were building another 5.0 (and I will be in the next year or so), I'd use the F7TE closed chamber heads, flat-top no notch pistons, zero decked. I'd use the stock Mustang intake or the Holley SysteMax I lower intake and stock upper intake, and 1 1/2" long tube headers. Stock cam, stock SD SEFI.

I've got the parts to do this, I just need to giterdone.
are you going to burn platonium or what with that compression. are the valves going to complain about the no notch and zero deck?
__________________
'77F1504x4, '75 f250crew4x4, '79 Bronco 429, '83 bronco, '72 Torino with 351cj, 70 1/2 falcon, 75 stangII. all projects, 2 on the road. One pissed off wife!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-18-2005, 02:10 AM
pcmenten pcmenten is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,069
pcmenten is starting off with a positive reputation.
The 86 has flat-top, no-notch pistons. Admittedly, the chambers are larger on the E6SE than on the F7TE heads, but I live at 3000 feet of elevation and can tolerate higher compression.
__________________
Best regards,

Paul Menten
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-18-2005, 08:24 PM
muscletruck7379's Avatar
muscletruck7379 muscletruck7379 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Harrisburg, NE
Posts: 2,684
muscletruck7379 has a good reputation on FTE.muscletruck7379 has a good reputation on FTE.muscletruck7379 has a good reputation on FTE.
F7TE? wasn't the only head on 302's in 97 the gt40p's on the explorer?
__________________
1973 f250 highboy 4x4
http://thelostdrifter.com/index.php/...ducing-trigger1984 full size bronco, -DIS, wide band megasquirted 300/ 8 speed
1988 f150 extended cab 4x4, mostly stock.
1984 mercury capri, 5.0 conversion, my little monster...
1961 ford falcon, all stock, in family since '68
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-25-2005, 05:25 PM
biz4two's Avatar
biz4two biz4two is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 5,248
biz4two has a great reputation on FTE.biz4two has a great reputation on FTE.biz4two has a great reputation on FTE.biz4two has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty70f100
I dont see why we cant significantly improve on factory mileage if we're going to open up a motor. Most people say "Rebuild it stock." We can do better. I say, if you really want good mileage, invest some money and start at the source of the problem!

Just trying to get the idea out there.

I agree with you rusty70f100! We can do better...and we should!

__________________

2012 F250 SD CC 156" Lariat FX4 6.2L BOSS 4x4 4.30s
2003 F250 SD SC 142" XLT FX4 V10 Auto 4x4 3.73s -- Traded
1976 F150 LWB Custom 4x4 390FE NP435 3.50s
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-25-2005, 07:27 PM
Torque1st's Avatar
Torque1st Torque1st is offline
Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,260
Torque1st is a splendid one to beholdTorque1st is a splendid one to beholdTorque1st is a splendid one to beholdTorque1st is a splendid one to beholdTorque1st is a splendid one to beholdTorque1st is a splendid one to beholdTorque1st is a splendid one to beholdTorque1st is a splendid one to behold
The main points of concern are:
-Camshaft overlap.
-Matching the engine to the vehicle/driveline to keep the RPMs down.
__________________
"Beam me up Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here..."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-05-2005, 06:25 AM
Greywolf's Avatar
Greywolf Greywolf is offline
Pestiferous Nuisance
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Drummonds, TN USA
Posts: 29,301
Greywolf has a superb reputationGreywolf has a superb reputationGreywolf has a superb reputationGreywolf has a superb reputationGreywolf has a superb reputationGreywolf has a superb reputationGreywolf has a superb reputationGreywolf has a superb reputationGreywolf has a superb reputationGreywolf has a superb reputationGreywolf has a superb reputation
Some performance mods that are typically used in racing might help. Roller lifters and rockers to reduce power losses in the valve train for example. I don't know how useful a lightened flywheel might be, but it could help some.

There was a trick I learned about formula vee engines at one point - a groove is cut around the cam gears to allow oil an escape channel so that the pressure between the gears did not result in a power loss.

Anything that reduces power losses in the engine itself.
__________________
"ANTI-HOMOGENIST"
~One who has made a deliberate choice to not blend in with everyone else...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-05-2005, 12:06 PM
ken1mod ken1mod is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 996
ken1mod is starting off with a positive reputation.
I had an experience some years ago with a chevy 454 gas hog trailer tower. The factory cam had rubbed some of the bumps off itself and the torque converter turned itself into metal puree about the same time.

Most people recommended an "RV" cam for replacement but I chose a super tiny, barely open the valves economy cam. I also chose a very low stall speed replacement converter.

The differences were amazing, fuel mileage improved but the performance of the engine under heavy load conditions greatly improved. It got more "diesel like" powerful low end torque and gorgeous pulling power with 30,000 lb trailer.

Ken
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2005, 12:06 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carb Size vs. Gas Mileage AbandonedBronco Ford Inline Six, 200, 250, 4.9L / 300 24 02-05-2011 10:20 PM
Best 390 Combo for Power and Gas Mileage dartswingerdart FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428) 3 03-22-2007 12:41 AM
302 build questions 78ford100 Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W) 8 12-12-2005 09:35 PM
Ethanol FE 352 rusty70f100 FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428) 47 10-18-2005 07:32 AM
Ethanol mileage engine idea. rusty70f100 Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage 19 03-23-2005 01:50 AM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Misc. > Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage

Tags
350, chamber, compression, gas, heads, high, mileage, modular, small, somender

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


Participate In The Forums

Create new posts and participate in discussions. It's free!

Sign Up »





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup