|
how will a 223 do in a 55?
i have a 302 and a 223. i would like to use the 302 because of the better gas mileage. but i have heard that the little 223 will be overworking becuase of the weight of these trucks? let me know what you think guys. stick with a 302 or 223? looking for something to cruise and get decent mpg.
|
i mean i would like to use the 223 because of the better gas mileage.
|
Better gas mileage is a thin line.
In my '56 F100, 3.92:1 rears and 3-spd, all with the 223(rebuilt), I get about 15-17 mpg combined. I bet if you get an economy--low end torque oriented build on that 302, stick with a tiny 2-bl carb, you'd not only have a little more performance, but maybe, just maybe a little gain in mileage. My 223 does it's job, but at the end of the day(and I kick myself MERCILESSLY in the arse DAILY for this), I could have built a more economically friendly, and more predictable SBC for much less. Sad, but true; and had I known that at the time(with the limited budget I had), I would have done that, no doubt in my mind. |
I don't know about the 223 but as for the 302 I would be suprised to see much more than 13 without an overdrive transmission. My 66 Mustang with 289 w/ C4 3.25 gears w/4bbl gets about 15-16 mpg.
Paul |
^Really? Wow, that's bad. Thought those small things would do a bit better than that!
|
The 223 will move a 55 F100 along nicely. The truck is not too heavy for it. Now, if you are looking for fuel economy (no matter what engine), transmission and rear axle selection are just as important if not more. Direct drive (non-overdrive) transmissions and stock rear gears (high threes to low fours) are not too good for good fuel economy, but are good for getting a load moving. For good economy, you will want an overall final drive ratio in the upper twos to low threes. Back in the 70s I drove a 60 F100 4x4, 223, 3 speed, 3.92 gears. Long term fuel mileage was 12 to 13 mpg.
|
They are known as the "Mileage Maker 6" for a reason.
Father got on average 20-25mpg on the Hwy in his '60 F-100, depending on if he was Hauling anything or not. Balanced/Blue Printed & Ported/Polished & making it BREATH better, you'll see a Big difference in mileage as well, for the better. |
great! thanks guys. gonna use the 223 for mpg! now i need yours guys opinion. i have the chance to get a 54 f100 for a very very good price. it looks great all origional and rust free. but im no to fond of the 54 grill. if i put a 55 or 56 grill on it will the value of the truck go down? would anyone be able to tell its a 54 with a 55 grill or are the trucks the same besides grill? do not many people like 54's?
|
I don't know the difference between 54 and 55, but it is your truck so build it your way. Keep the original parts in case you ever do sell the truck.
Paul |
Originally Posted by fordmanforlife246
(Post 10051824)
great! thanks guys. gonna use the 223 for mpg! now i need yours guys opinion. i have the chance to get a 54 f100 for a very very good price. it looks great all origional and rust free. but im no to fond of the 54 grill. if i put a 55 or 56 grill on it will the value of the truck go down? would anyone be able to tell its a 54 with a 55 grill or are the trucks the same besides grill? do not many people like 54's?
|
Double post...
|
Originally Posted by Huntfamily53
(Post 10052218)
53-55 are the same body style...BUT You'll be able to tell because you will have two big holes in the lower valance unless you swap that out as well. Also, you won't be able to use a 56 grill unless you use recessed air deflectors (the panels behind the headlights) from 56 or cut or recess them yourself. Me personally, I would keep the 54 as is...they are cool enough not to mess with to have a sweet truck.
|
Originally Posted by mOROTBREATH
(Post 10048929)
Better gas mileage is a thin line.
In my '56 F100, 3.92:1 rears and 3-spd, all with the 223(rebuilt), I get about 15-17 mpg combined. I bet if you get an economy--low end torque oriented build on that 302, stick with a tiny 2-bl carb, you'd not only have a little more performance, but maybe, just maybe a little gain in mileage. My 223 does it's job, but at the end of the day(and I kick myself MERCILESSLY in the arse DAILY for this), I could have built a more economically friendly, and more predictable SBC for much less. Sad, but true; and had I known that at the time(with the limited budget I had), I would have done that, no doubt in my mind. I for one am glad that you rebuilt the 223. It shows much more character and looks way cooler. Those SBC's are a dime a dozen. |
^Very true, I must admit. To be honest people are more surprised I don't have some crazy swap....
|
Originally Posted by spurredon
(Post 10052575)
I for one am glad that you rebuilt the 223. It shows much more character and looks way cooler. Those SBC's are a dime a dozen.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands