Dude, im located all the way up in wyoming... but I can build a box for them and ship them, also have a 4 barrel itnake manifold, but im shure it wouldent be worth trying to ship that chunk of iron anywhere

 

Yo 410 where at in Wy my home state

UF

 

Hey Kenny ! Good to see ya here and pokin around ! Happy New Years Bud !

I kind of think as I mentioned early in this post..just getting it to breath a little easier is cheap..and the best low dollar way to go.. But I'am still learnin about these motors..everyday something else suprise's me... Matter of fact I owe you an email..just been a hectic month is all... The very best to you and yours !!

 

pissant redneck mountian town of glenrock, moving back to the south when I can afford it

 

Drew, One thing I know about FEs from being around them for 40 years the the slower you turn them the better the gas milage is. @ 3000 rpms, my truck is running 82 mph., 2050 @ 55mph and it aint lugging.

Maybe if I put a 750 on it I could get 18.




John

 

so, you don't think needing to push the pedal further to accelerate into traffic burns more fuel?
and I do not recall a different top end just being a carb..... Bear's example was "heads, intake, exhaust, cam"
Having a engine built and matched to your application is more important that just one factor.

 

You have to remember my last piece of advice. With the 3.73 gear at 55 mph the motor turned just under 2700 rpm. Try running 60 mph at near 3000 rpm and you got 9 mpg. In fact anything over 2800 started loosing mpg in giant steps. The 13 mpg was with a bed canopy BTW, about 11.5 was the best it would do naked but living in the Pacific Northwest a open bed gets things wet to often and the truck was not a Kingcab, hell they only big cabs were by Dodge back then. Oh and the dist. was recurved.

 

410F
many years in Torrington still lots of family there and in Evanston.

My point is that regardless of what you do to the FE motors you will never and I repeat never get the money back through MPG improvement. You will not get more than 11 to 13 for any amount of money. But is fun to build them and to make them hungry to eat chibbies and to sound great but no matter how fast they may be, they will never pass a gas station. LOL

Russ;
Fun to lurk and not be heard but I couldn't pass this one as I have spent countless dollars chasing MPG with my 390 and the only thing that changes was the shape of my wallet.

UF

 

I have a 69 mustang, 428 cj, and on its best day it gets 13 mpg. If I get a twitch in my right foot that goes all to hell. My mustang is a hell of a lot lighter and more streamlined than any truck. Read the hand writing.

 

Big deal, I had a 1969 Torino Cobra Fastback with a ram air 428CJ, and C6 with both a 3.00 and a 4.30 rear end for it. With the ram air blocked open and the 3.00's in it it would get 13 at 70 mph. I wouldn't cruise it at 70 with the 4.30's as the motor was just about at 4000 RPM. But I didn't and don't run my trucks at 70 mph because I am more interested in the mpg (sic: money savings) that an extra hour or two at where I'm going. But again my 428CJ was a semi-race motor and not set up to MPG. A dual point no vacuum dist. and a rejetted carb (richer) did nothing to improve mpg, but the damn car was quick, in fact the only stock Mustang to ever beat it was a honest to God 427 single 4 barrel (never raced a 2X4 Mustang). The car ran 14.70 at 98 mph with the 3.00 using only 1st and 2nd. gears The 4.30's ran 13.06 at 102 mpg.

You believe what you want, I know what it did.

My second 1969 Torino Cobra notchback (but lighter by 400 pounds than the fastback and was a real race car and with a 11.5 to 1 with slightly cleaned up CJ heads, header, 4 speed close ratio toploader, 4.30's and a 406 3X2 set up and ram air ran 12.96 the first time down the track and ended up in the 12.20's at just over 120 mph after much tuning of the setup. Oh and it was quicker with the 3X2's than a 2X4 set up off a 427.

 

What is your point?? Mine is if you have cubes and old technology, stock or not, you are going to burn fuel. No way around it. My comments were not meant to compare ET's.

 

My point is these engines get a max MPG and no more. They don't really care what they are pushing around as long as you don't rev them past peak torque.

Oh and I probably know more about 428CJ's than you do.

 

I'm glad you do. I've owned this one since new, however, you the BOSS!
I guess I won't insult your intelligence any more by commenting.

 

Gee, I got both of mine in 1969, so that would make them new too. Did it with my reup bonus for my second hitch.

 

I would imagine the 1975 distributor has a slow advance curve. If you can modify the springs to get the advance in earlier (without knocking), you'll pickup some torque which should help mileage.