Best Fuel Efficient Engine
Posting Guru
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
From: East Flat Rock NC
Originally Posted by Haaser
Hello
What would I need for motor mounts, ECT to get a 351 windsor in there? I still like the idea of a 390 just can't justify it. Oh well.[/size]
What would I need for motor mounts, ECT to get a 351 windsor in there? I still like the idea of a 390 just can't justify it. Oh well.[/size]
2wd truck. Also if you wanted a FE you just use 352 stuff from a 65 F-100,
keep in mind better MPGs also comes from less weight FORDBOYpetes 460
will carry about 200 more pounds on the nose, and if you like to get out and
wind it up high a 351w will take more rpms!
Ive found in the past a leadfoot and big blocks dont mix well. (BOOM)!
Last edited by Pro-Street/StateTK; Dec 28, 2004 at 07:16 AM.
New User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
I have a mid 70's 300 I6 bored .30 over coupled with a C-4 automatic transmission and a 3.73 9 inch in my '66 F-100. I get decent torque, more than enough for what i do, and I get around 20+ mpg on the highway. Granted it's not a hot rod by any means, and when you get above about 60 mph your fuel economy seems to go down the tubes. All in all I'm happy with it, and I would use another 300 in a heartbeat.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 161,999
Likes: 75
From: 3rd Rock
Originally Posted by Tully
I have a mid 70's 300 I6 bored .30 over coupled with a C-4 automatic transmission and a 3.73 9 inch in my '66 F-100. I get decent torque, more than enough for what i do, and I get around 20+ mpg on the highway. Granted it's not a hot rod by any means, and when you get above about 60 mph your fuel economy seems to go down the tubes. All in all I'm happy with it, and I would use another 300 in a heartbeat.
Enjoy FTE
See you on the boards!
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0
From: Destin/Ft. Walton Beach,
Tully, I had the EXACT same setup that you are speaking of (1975 300 with single barrel Carter) in a 65 F100, and it ran great, and was tuned perfectly. The only time it ever saw 20 mpg, was when it was being towed. Or maybe down a really long hill. 
To maybe get close to that mileage, you would have to have EFI, an overdrive transmission, and some exhaust mods. I think maybe your calculations were a little off.
To maybe get close to that mileage, you would have to have EFI, an overdrive transmission, and some exhaust mods. I think maybe your calculations were a little off.
New User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Well at first thought I thought my calculations were a little off, but I doubt it. There have been times where it hasn't gotten so good, like when I wind it up and try to run 70 mph, or if I drive stop and go traffic all day. But over this weekend I topped my tank off drove a little over 100 hundred miles, around town, next time i topped my tank off it held roughly 4 gallons of gas. I guess anything is possible but I know i can drive for about 2 weeks every day on a tank of gas. YMMV and definitely does.
Junior User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: Marietta, GA USA
Just fyi -- 90 Mustang GT 5.0FI with AOD in a 66 with 3.55 gears -- I get around 20MPG highway with all the power I need as well as relaxed highway cruising. Mine is a low buck install using the Mustang factory harness and it's really not that difficult an install. I don't think you can go wrong with that combo but my guess is that your right foot will dictate mileage more than the engine/trans combo.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Its all 'bout the speed.
True
It's all about the amount of weight your foot has.
But i'm steering towards a 352 thunderbird special out of a '59 ford fairlane currently. The 300hp has me licken my chops.
But FE doesn't stand for fuel effecient unfortunatly.
That would also be a nice almost factory engine. Just out of curiosity how hard would it be to implant a 2000 5.4 liter into a 65 truck. The rarness factory would be worth the effort and when poeple ask what you have for a engine. They'd be totally suprized. Fuel economy would be existant too.
It's all about the amount of weight your foot has.
But i'm steering towards a 352 thunderbird special out of a '59 ford fairlane currently. The 300hp has me licken my chops. But FE doesn't stand for fuel effecient unfortunatly. That would also be a nice almost factory engine. Just out of curiosity how hard would it be to implant a 2000 5.4 liter into a 65 truck. The rarness factory would be worth the effort and when poeple ask what you have for a engine. They'd be totally suprized. Fuel economy would be existant too.
Postmaster
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,166
Likes: 2
From: wi
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
Fleet Owner
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 24,552
Likes: 74
From: Creedmoor, North Carolina
Chad, With enough time and money, you can power up your truck with about anything. Since that setup is computer controled, you'll likely have to bring most of the wiring & sensors over with the engine & tranny to make it work.
Keep us informed as to how it goes.
John
Keep us informed as to how it goes.
John
Junior User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: Marietta, GA USA
Pics fyi
Chad,
Take a look at my gallery if you want to see a finished product with the 5.0 and AOD. The mechanical side of the conversion is very simple and the wiring is also not too bad once you understand what you need to connect. Good luck with whatever you choose to do. These are great trucks and I get lots of comments on mine even though it's a driver, not a show truck.
Take a look at my gallery if you want to see a finished product with the 5.0 and AOD. The mechanical side of the conversion is very simple and the wiring is also not too bad once you understand what you need to connect. Good luck with whatever you choose to do. These are great trucks and I get lots of comments on mine even though it's a driver, not a show truck.
Junior User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: Marietta, GA USA
John,
Thanks -- it's been a good one. It's really been a good study in buidling a economical "driver" truck (junkyard drive train, garage paint job, etc.,) and I've put around 40K miles on it over the last 3 years and it's been super reliable and fun to boot. I've played with sellng it or fixing it up to the next level (fresh paint, A/C, drop beams, new bed floor, etc.) but mostly I just drive it.
My experience is why I'm so high on the FI small block/AOD combo since it's relatively easy to install and has exceeded my expectations on reliablity, economy and power.
Although I haven't been very active recently, I used this site extensively when assembling the truck including the instructions on how to wire up the FI, disc brake conversion, power steering, etc.. After having been "absent" for awhile it's nice to see come back and see the continued interest in these trucks.
Thanks again for the comment,
Bill
Thanks -- it's been a good one. It's really been a good study in buidling a economical "driver" truck (junkyard drive train, garage paint job, etc.,) and I've put around 40K miles on it over the last 3 years and it's been super reliable and fun to boot. I've played with sellng it or fixing it up to the next level (fresh paint, A/C, drop beams, new bed floor, etc.) but mostly I just drive it.
My experience is why I'm so high on the FI small block/AOD combo since it's relatively easy to install and has exceeded my expectations on reliablity, economy and power.
Although I haven't been very active recently, I used this site extensively when assembling the truck including the instructions on how to wire up the FI, disc brake conversion, power steering, etc.. After having been "absent" for awhile it's nice to see come back and see the continued interest in these trucks.
Thanks again for the comment,
Bill
Fleet Owner
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 24,552
Likes: 74
From: Creedmoor, North Carolina
Bill, It must be in the genes. I have a friend south of Raleigh that had a 65 5.0L/AOD. He liked it a lot, had a chance to and sold it. He started another truck but this time he put one of those souped up 4 valve Lincoln (Romeo) modular engines in it. Hot dang what a ride. I don't know if it is stronger than a 390, but he is consistantly getting 18-20 mpgs with it.
I recently bought a 92 F150, 5.0 AOD, and had to put a new engine & tranny in it. I drove on a little 185 mile trip yesterday, 1251 miles on the rebuild when I started, 99% on the 4 lane. I ran most of it in the 70-75 mph range with the engine turning 21-2300 rpm. I brought it back to the same pump and put 15.61 gallons of gas in it. If my sifferin is right that is 11.6 mpg.
I get better with my 66 FE C6 3.00 rears.
John
I recently bought a 92 F150, 5.0 AOD, and had to put a new engine & tranny in it. I drove on a little 185 mile trip yesterday, 1251 miles on the rebuild when I started, 99% on the 4 lane. I ran most of it in the 70-75 mph range with the engine turning 21-2300 rpm. I brought it back to the same pump and put 15.61 gallons of gas in it. If my sifferin is right that is 11.6 mpg.
I get better with my 66 FE C6 3.00 rears.
John
Junior User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: Marietta, GA USA
John,
I'm not a big fan of the 5.0 or 5.7 FI truck motors -- they have better bottom end torque than the HO's but that's the only benefit. They are both reliable pieces but the HO's with the good heads, roller cams, factory headers, and better intakes are much better breathing and much better HP once you get rolling. I also have a couple of friends and my own experience with the gas mileage "disappointment" in the truck engines -- I'm not sure what you can do other than the usual intake/exhaust upgrades to make it better.
I bet your buddy's truck is a blast.
I am intrigued by the new modular motors. I've had a couple of the new F-150's and the 4.6 is not a winner but the 5.4 seems a pretty good match of power and economy. With a Hypertech programmer the 5.4's are supposed to have around 300 ft-lbs of torque (around 250 stock) which should be enough for anyone. They are probably a tighter fit in these trucks since they are much wider than the old 5.0/5.7's but should work and be the next wave of popular upgrades for "drivers".
I have a line on a low mileage 5.4 drivetrain and have found a 67 stepside truck that are dying to be put together -- if there was only time!!!
Bill
I'm not a big fan of the 5.0 or 5.7 FI truck motors -- they have better bottom end torque than the HO's but that's the only benefit. They are both reliable pieces but the HO's with the good heads, roller cams, factory headers, and better intakes are much better breathing and much better HP once you get rolling. I also have a couple of friends and my own experience with the gas mileage "disappointment" in the truck engines -- I'm not sure what you can do other than the usual intake/exhaust upgrades to make it better.
I bet your buddy's truck is a blast.
I am intrigued by the new modular motors. I've had a couple of the new F-150's and the 4.6 is not a winner but the 5.4 seems a pretty good match of power and economy. With a Hypertech programmer the 5.4's are supposed to have around 300 ft-lbs of torque (around 250 stock) which should be enough for anyone. They are probably a tighter fit in these trucks since they are much wider than the old 5.0/5.7's but should work and be the next wave of popular upgrades for "drivers".
I have a line on a low mileage 5.4 drivetrain and have found a 67 stepside truck that are dying to be put together -- if there was only time!!!
Bill
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
From: Lynchburg Virginia.
A lot of good combinations have come up for this question. I guess I am stuck in the 60's, I never liked the "small " blocks. I run a 69 360 bored .060 with a 390 crank and 390/427 rods. It is balanced with 70cc heads, a Manley solid lifter cam and a stock 4v manifold with a 600 Holly. These old FE's do fine if you pay close attention to the oil supply to the crank. I run a windage tray and blocked off the gallies to the lifters. They have plenty of torque (I could use a little "less" cam to get the torque a little lower in the RPM range) but with aftermarket 3:70 gears in the rear and a junk 3speed w/od from a 76 van it gets around town pretty well, and I live in a town known for it's hills. If you don't full around with too many kids and their 4 and 6 cylinder toy trucks I can get around 10 or 11 mpg in town and up to 15 on the road. Just bought a 3/2's manifold, going to try to work out a carburator combination for it and see what that does. Hope you find what you are looking for, but don't count the old FE's out. Doug