200, 250: What's your mileage?

[Anonymous]

If you have been reading the other sections of this group, you will know that I am considering replacing a gas guzzling 428 with either a 240 or 250. But before I go through all the work (against everyone else's better judgement), I would like to know what kind of mileage a 200/240/250 can get. So if you can tell me what engine you have, what type of tranny, and what differential, and give me your mileage, I would greatly appreciate it. And if you can tell me what your car/truck weighs, that would help me too.

Thanks,

Doc

 

[MustangSix]

66 Mustang, Aussie 250 EFI Crossflow, T-5, 2.79 rear gears, roughly 2800 lbs, was getting 26-28 mpg in regular use. Drop the exact same combo into a 4200 lb Tbird and you can expect mileage to drop to high teens, low 20's. All that extra mass will take its toll.

Maybe you should consider a small turbodiesel.

 

[rbohm]

8) my fairmont weighs in around 3400lbs(it is the wagon), and it has the 200. it gets about 15-16 city and 19 hwy. it has a few issues, but it has never gotten better than 21 hwy since i have had it.

 

[ochretoe]

200 in a 74 Bronco. 4300lbs give or take a few, 4.10gears 4x4 three on the tree, my daily driver. I get 15mpg in town and 17 mpg on the highway. I'm putting a weber 32/36 and duraspark 2 one next week, hope to get a few more mpg then.
Steve

 

[HotRodLarry]

My 200 actually gets worse milage than my V-8 Camaro. The Z28 gets around 18-20 while the Ford gets around 15 -16. If I figured it out correctly. It's a good thing I'm not driving both cars right now with gas being $2.85/ gal .

 

[CZLN6]

Howdy Doc:

A '65 Falcon Ranchero, 3,000 lbs, 250 engine with an SROD 4 speed, 3.50:1 rear gear, modified log head with a direct mounted 1.08 Autolite two barrel, 2.05x70x14" tires, DS II ignition, header.

I use a circuit to get a quick and dirty mileage measure to assess changes. It is a 66 mile loop which is mostly on I15, with some easy traffic. I fill the same way, at the same station, with the same gas-drive the loop at the same speeds and refill at the same station where I started. Last test was about a year ago. it averaged out to 24.5 mpg.

My base line about 5 years ago was with the original (When I got it) 200 with the stock 3 speed, a '68 distributor and an Autolite 1101. It got 22.2.

I just recently switched carbs to a #4412 Holley 2 barrel, and need to do a camparison for mileage and acceleration, before I swap the rear end for a Maverick 8" with 3.00:1 gears.

Mileage is a composite of many variables. While this survey is interesting, your driving style will be an unaccounted for variable. Vehicle weight, engine efficiency, rolling resistance, climate, elevation, type of driving, etc.

If mileage is your goal, mucking up the 428 Bird will not likely get it. You might want to consider keeping the 'Bird as is and buying a lighter, more efficient mileage maker for everyday driving. An early Falcon or Mustang, or a Fox platform Mustang or Fairmont may be just the ticket.

Adios, David

 

[jamyers]

'62 Ranchero, I think it weighs 2500 lbs, but prolly more.

Stock 200 with a H/W 32-36 2-bbl carb, DS1/MSD6 ignition.
3-speed manual transmission
3.20 rear gears
175/80-13 tires (24 inches tall)

Pretty consistently gets 20 mpg around town and some highway. If I'm lead-footing it, then it drops to 17-18.

I'd love an overdrive, but want to keep the column shift, so instead I'm switching to 14" rims and taller tires to 'fake' a 3.00 rear ratio.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with David about putting a six in that bird. Very possibly your mileage will be horrible as the six will be pushing it's guts out just pushing that big bird around. Typically a 300 six in a F-150 used more gas than a 302 did and close to what a 360 got when used with the same tranny/ rear end combos and still didn't climb a hill with a load worth a flip. Granted with the right tranny gear combo around town and at work it was a great engine.
This why tractor trailers all have the huge engines nowadays --they figured out the little engines used more fuel, wore out quicker, and took longer to get from point a to point b. In a loaded truck a 425hp cat got better mileage than a 232hp Detroit. A 302 with a small 2 bbl or even a big block with a small 2bbl would seem the more logical choice to me--but then I ain't an automotive genius either.

 

[JackFish]

8) my fairmont weighs in around 3400lbs(it is the wagon), and it has the 200. it gets about 15-16 city and 19 hwy. it has a few issues, but it has never gotten better than 21 hwy since i have had it.

I have a wagon too, and was wondering how much better mileage I'd get with a taller tire. I think they're 185/75R14 stock size.
Any recommendations? The rear is 3.08.

 

[JackFish]

I agree with David about putting a six in that bird. Very possibly your mileage will be horrible as the six will be pushing it's guts out just pushing that big bird around.

Have to agree there. Drove around for a week carrying a mustang 8.8 axle in the back of the wagon and it was a dog.
I can imagine what it would be like with a couple more, which is what your tbird would weigh.
Of course if I wanted to save gas I'd buy this!:
http://mb.forsaleforrent.com/classified ... p?ID=81982

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with David about putting a six in that bird. Very possibly your mileage will be horrible as the six will be pushing it's guts out just pushing that big bird around. Typically a 300 six in a F-150 used more gas than a 302 did ......... A 302.....

I also agree!

The "pinnacle" of Ford gas mileage has come from the 302/5.0 EFI engines.

A 351W would get worse mileage, as well as anything smaller than 302. It's nothing to get 25 MPG from a 5.0 Mustang or 20 MPG from from a Lincoln Town Car with the same 5.0

Even my '93 Ranger with a 5.0 will get 16 MPG while pulling a loaded car hauler!! (6,000 load)

Even if you had a carbed 302 you could get close to the mileage of an EFI 5.0 engine.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info. First, the 428 is dead. I cannot get parts for it. It's design is archaic. And there are no transmissions of any significance that will match up to it. The crank in it now is a 390 so the compression is a whopping 8.3/1 (instead of 10.7/1). It is a dog in that as a 413 ci with low compression, it has very little power. When I built it I used all the performance items available: dual carb intake (talk about expensive), fully ported heads, twin 750 cfm carters, and so on. Surprisingly I could not change out the log exhaust because of the limited size of the engine compartment. When I first stepped on the gas after restoring it I almost lost control of the vehicle from the power. With a performance motor and my driving skills I figured I would be able to get 20 mpg on the highway. After all I was getting 18 with the stock 428. But not so. It seems that the things that enhance performance screw up economy, no matter how you drive. So I replaced the intake with a single carb and leaned out the carb for maximum economy. I then had no power and still had bad economy. With the performance mod I was getting 6 mpg. With the attempt at economizing the raging dragon, the mileage got to 10/14.

So I thought "Hey, put a small motor in it. With a tiny engine you are at least guaranteed good mileage when coasting, cruising, or idling. And if acceleration sucks, you can always change the rear end!" Then I got the pickup and saw how simple the 240 was. Hmm, what if I put a 240 in the T-bird. I already knew that 428 was way too much power for normal driving and I test drove a customers T-bird identical to mine except for a 302 engine and it drove OK. Granted it didn't have the overwhelming kick of a 428, but it ran very well and accelerated very nicely.

Then I found this group. And I discovered that most of you with much smaller cars and tinier motors really didn't get much better mileage than me.

I really can't see how a 200 ci engine in a car only 2/3 the weight of mine cannot get 30-40 mpg.

But I cannot deny the responses.

If no one can impress upon me 30+ mpg in a mustang 6, I will ditch the idea of a 6 in the 'bird. And if my only hope in mileage with a 302 is around 20, I'll forget a smaller motor and replace the 428 with a more modern 429 and trick it out nicely.

Doc

I am hoping that my feeble attempts at math are correct and all you mustang drivers are wrong, but ... I think not

 

[Asa]

rickwrench gets something like 35-36 highway when he's cruisin at 65MPH
you might look up some of his posts, i don't see him around much anymore

can't remember his combo, i think he's got headers, i know he has a T5, possibly a 2bbl?

 

[Asa]

When I built it I used all the performance items available: dual carb intake (talk about expensive), fully ported heads, twin 750 cfm carters, and so on.
.........................
But not so. It seems that the things that enhance performance screw up economy, no matter how you drive. So I replaced the intake with a single carb and leaned out the carb for maximum economy. I then had no power and still had bad economy.

not so
if you build an engine for performance, you'll get performance, if you build it for MPG you'll get MPG
if you build one for performance, then try to tune it for MPG you'll get neither

you can use performance tricks to get MPG out of a motor, higher compression, porting the exhaust side (but leaving the intake alone), etc etc

 

[rbohm]

8) if there is one thing i have learned in all the years i have played with cars, i have learned that its all about the combination when it comes to efficiency. i have built a 289 powered mustang with a bad combination of parts, and still got 26 mpg on the hwy, and 18 in town. the car was aggrivating to drive in day to day traffic though as the cam was wrong for the combination. if you build a car where all the parts work together in the rpm range that you normally drive in, there is no reason you cant improve both fuel economy and performance. dual quads with a long duration cam make for excellent performance, but fuel economy suffers. use a cam with less duration, and decent lift, a good dual plane intake with a smaller carb, in your case a performer intake and a 600cfm carb and use a comp cams 268h grind, and bump the compression up to around 9.5:1, and that 428, now 413, will still have the power you want, but when tuned properly will deliver much better mileage than you get now, and will likely surpasse your stock combo.

 

[Anonymous]

If you build a car where all the parts work together in the rpm range that you normally drive in, there is no reason you cant improve both fuel economy and performance.

+1

 

[jamyers]

Yup, it's all in the total combination of parts and tuning.

I'd build a pavement-ripping big engine for the big car, and look for a small, lightweight car with an economical engine to drive more regularly.

Wait a minute - I'm already doing that!!!

 

[Fred]

I have a friend with a 66 Galaxy hardtop who bought it brand new. It has a two barrel 289, automatic, all stock (the car looks like the day it rolled out of the show room). He gets 20-21 with the car, when it is tuned well. I thought it would be slow, but it has plenty of zip. You might consider something like this with an overdrive tranny in your Bird. I don't know the weight differences between the bird and Galaxy, though.

If you build for economy you have to build the whole car for economy. Engine, tranny, rear axle ratio, tire size and type, the whole shooting match. You can probably get your bird into the low 20's with a complete drive train swap and a lot of tuning, but it's all drop in the bucket compared to what a modern wind tunnel designed econobox will get. If you want a cheep old car with good gas milage, get a '65 or older bug with a 1200 cc motor and get used to driving slow.

 

[Anonymous]

My sister's first car was a 1984 Chevrolet Chevette with an Isuzu 1.8 DIESEL.

It was a 0-60 in about 50 seconds car (man, was it a slug) but it regualrly got 55-60 MPG.

 

[Russ]

66 Mustang coupe,200cid,T-5,3.20 rear, 28 mpg highway