I've read everything I can find on FTE regarding the use of "mileage" torque converters such as the Hughes Performance Fuel Miser. However, I find very little actual experience being offered, so I'm asking: What has been your experience with that or similar converters? Do they really increase the mileage 2 - 4 MPG as advertised? What about the "feel" - do they help or hurt throttle response? Towing?

I've done the math and payout is in ~$7,000 miles at +2 MPG, so while I have the engine out, now is the time if ever.

 

Gary - I found this while looking for something else - post #5 might be a start for you anyway

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...over-a-c6.html

 

Ken - Thanks. I'll pm him so I don't highjack the thread.

But, while I have you, I've been thinking about the 2 - 4 mpg claims. That's a 15 to 30% increase in mileage in my case, which is ....... hard to believe. What are your thoughts?

Maybe I should call Hughes to see what they say. Maybe the savings range wasnt meant for a truck.

 

4 mpg gain does sound a lot - but maybe in some cases.....?

I guess city driving with a lot of stop/start/accelerate at lights would be one application that benefited a lot, particularly with a heavier vehicle. And maybe towing.

I wasn't aware of it, but my truck had a high-stall converter installed by the previous owner; eventually I changed that AOD transmission for the stock C6 & converter that are now in it.
There was a dramatic difference starting off from a stop with the C6 - positive & responsive drive at low rpm (more like a manual)......compared to having to bury your right foot to take off with the h/s converter.

With that h/s converter, the AOD was giving me a best of 15.8 mpg (non-ethanol). I don't have figures for the C6 yet, but I don't notice any difference despite it's bad reputation.
You would probably get that same drive-effect with the stock vs miser converters, & hopefully some fuel gains at higher speed driving too.

 

Literally just got off the phone w/Mitch of Hughes when your response came in. But, before I get to what he said: You get how much MPG???? With the 351W and 3.54's??? 15.8? WOW!! Tell me more about your setup, please.

I've been getting 13 on the highway at between 60 & 65 w/my 351W/C6/3.50's. That was with the Comp Cams bumpstick. Oddly enough, the mileage got worse when I installed the cam even though the old cam had 3 bad lobes. As I got to thinking about it, I was running a 6.75 cylinder engine since two of the bad lobes were intake. Kinda a red-neck 4-6-8 setup.

As for Hughes, I spoke with Mitch. He said for my application, which is little towing and more light running, I should go with either the Fuel Miser or the Tow Series converter. Either should give me between 1 & 2 MPG better mileage, and with my highway driving being flatland it should be closer to the 2 MPG increase. Further, that the "launch" might seem more responsive - much like you saw going from the high stall to stock converter, although probably less dramatic since the % change should be less.

As for the difference between those units, it is basically the stronger Sprague clutch in the Tow series. So, since I sometimes tow a tandem axle trailer with another pickup on it he thinks I might ought to go with the Tow series. The Fuel unit lists for $215 and the Tow is $269.

 

Ok, now that I've thought about it I think I know a major component toward the mileage - overdrive in the AOD. The .67 ratio makes your 3.54's essentially 2.37's. Or, to put it another way, if you turn 3,000 at 60 (which is about what I turn) you're down to 2,000 when in OD. Having a lock-up torque converter doesn't hurt, either.

I'm curious to see what mileage you get w/the C6 in there. I said "curious", but maybe should have said "very curious" as you've undone what I've thought about doing - go from a C6 to an AOD. If you drop down to 13 MPG, which is what I get, then you may have seriously altered my plans.

 

No, OD wasn't ever in the equation - I didn't use it.

The 3.54 axle / 30" tires , 100 kph (60 mph) speed limit, & the hilly area I'm in, all combined to make OD unusable. It really was only of use at 75mph or above - below that the engine was slogging at low rpm.
On the couple of occasions that I did wind it up to reasonable rpm in OD I don't think there was any fuel saving because, with the wind resistance of these trucks, you had to have the throttle open significantly more to maintain that higher speed.

The truck is in good condition with a rebuilt two barrel 2150 feedback carb & 19,000 miles since an engine rebuild, but all stock except for an RV cam. I run on 95 octane with the timing advanced (no longer computer controlled) just short of pinging.

I think the big factors with the mileage it gets are staying below 60mph, & possibly our fuel, non-ethanol is most common here. One other possibility is the small carb on it. The truck originally had a 302 & that carb is now on this engine.

I had an 88 F150 for a while, also 351w/C6. It was all stock, but EFI & gave twice the performance of my F250 - but still did 15 mpg (again, at mainly 55mph), which looked to be at the upper end of figures other owners were quoting in the U.S.
BTW - these figures are in U.S. gallons.

I'll check the mileage with my C6 & let you know for sure, Gary.
The one thing that is a difference between our trucks is engine rpm's - @ 60mph, I'm only doing around 2500.

My main priority in swapping to a C6 was to get a simple & tough transmission to replace the dying AOD; fortunately the loss of OD was a non-issue.

Having said all that I'm actually going to swap to a manual transmission soon, partly to try & gain a little free power & a couple of mpg (just for the challenge - $US6.34/USgal here right now!) but mainly because I just prefer manual, although C6's are the only automatic transmissions I've owned that haven't given me trouble.

 

I will be looking at these torque converters I notice about a 500 rpm slip with my current trans and would love to get it lowered without going and buying a od trans. how long have you users of the huges torque converter been running one? what do you dislike about it are there any qwerks with it? I am doing a wide ratio conversion on my c6 so the quicker lock up would be a benefit to me.

I took a picture of my speed and revs my speedo is dead on I run 315/75/16 tires on 4:10 ratio axles.

 

Ken - Oddly enough, even though I lived in the UK for a while I didn't even think of the Imperial gallon issue. Glad you are translating for me, although I do know how.

I understand what you are saying about having too low of RPM's hurts mileage. I've been telling my next door neighbor that ever since we put 35's on his Jeep - with a straight 6 and something like 3.08 gears. His mileage was way below 10 and acceleration was only a dream. He finally bit the bullet and had 4.10's installed. He said "I was going 60 and wasn't full throttle. It even accelerated from there! What a concept. Wish I'd done it earlier."

Ok, so it is kinda a fair comparison. That small carb may be helping, but I should have the same advantage because I'm going w/an Edelbrock 1406, which has fairly small primaries - and it is jetted a bit leaner than stock. Anyway, I'll be anxious to hear what your mileage is.

And, I did hear from ford390gashog, and here's what he said:

From a dead stop there is no more lag

MPG maybe got 1-2 mpg from it not huge

Rpms are up to 300 less on the freeway

Trans oil stays cooler

very well balanced unit and got rid of the factory POS sloppy converter SO well worth it!

huggyb1972 - I don't have the Hughes converter - yet. But, from everything people tell me I don't see anything not to like.

 

That all sounds good Gary. Do you plan on going ahead with it?

Personally, I'd favor the converter (and if necessary, rear gears) over an AOD........ but that's just me - I've become AOD adverse

I just mentioned the US/Imperial issue to avoid confusion but, yes 15.8 miles/US gal. - that was my best AOD mileage, unloaded @ around 55mph.
I'm interested to see what gain there is with a manual trans.

Meanwhile I will get an accurate mpg figure with the C6 & post it for you to compare.

 

I'm still on the fence, but both legs are on the "buy it" side. Will let you know what I decide.

 

Gary

I had a mixed-driving run today & recorded the fuel consumption as a comparison for your truck/C6.

Total of 94.3 miles.......about 85% open-road driving, 15% in town.
I didn't have any real load but, apart from the town driving, it was pretty much all broken, hilly terrain - virtually no flats at all; & I didn't try for max. mileage - just drove from A to B at around 55mph.

The overall average was 14.6mpg (US gallons), so given the above details, & the weight of my F250 (4510lbs with one full tank & no load), I would be surprised if you don't break the 16mpg mark pretty easily in your F150.

In fairness to this C6, I could have done better mileage if I had been trying to.

But based on today, the C6 is no worse on fuel than the AOD was, when not using OD.

Just thought you would be interested

P.S. - I'd love to hit 18mpg with the manual transmission!

 

Ken - That's great mileage! I did buy the Hughes Fuel Miser TC, and I'm hoping to start the head work tomorrow - mainly grinding out the bump in the exhaust port. Coupled with the torque cam and Edelbrock carb that is jetted leaner, not to mention the true dual exhaust, maybe I will get reasonable mileage. And, if not quite what I want, I have a set of 3.25 gears on the shelf to replace the 3.50's.

Anyway, glad yours is doing so well. Will still be anxious to hear what the manual tranny does.

 

Good luck with the engine work......& the mpg!

 

Ken - Thanks, but it will take me some time as I like to do things slowly and methodically. For instance, today is Day 2 on the transmission, and all I'm doing today is to powder coat the pan, bolts, and dip stick tube, and then install them.

But, that takes a bit more than it might seem. First, all the parts have to be media blasted - inc all 17 of the bolts. Then they are etched with Metal Ready, and then washed with hot water and dried w/a heat gun. After that each part gets a stainless wire hanger attached, and then off to the powder booth. However, since the pan is black, to radiate heat better, and the bolts and tube are to be "Stamped Steel", they have to go in two different runs in the booth.

From there they go to the oven, again in two batches so there's no color blending, and I wait while it heats up to 450 F. (Actually, what I do is type while waiting.) Then drop it back to 425 for 20 minutes, at which point the door is cracked open to start a controlled cool-down. Once the pan came out the bolts and tube went in, so now I'm waiting again.

But, during some of the waits I've installed the new seal on the tranny awa the drain plug in the pan - I'm tired of huge messes.

And, when I do get started on the engine, either tomorrow or Monday, I'll actually start with porting the heads and part of the time there will be to document the effort. Just today I got a pm from Anafiel reminding me about that. My question back to him was "What do you want to see in a how-to?". So, I'll put the same question to you - what do you think the FTE'ers will need to see?

Anyway, I'm enjoying doing it "my way" so it isn't quick nor fast. Just fun.