Suprisingly Good Mileage

N

Nitroracer

Active member
I just now have run a few tanks of gas through the zephyr and I was suprised to see what kind of mileage I was getting, 19 Miles to the gallon. This was on an engine that had probably been sitting or barely used for years with a quick tune up and some higher grade gas to clean out the tank and carb of old deposits. I was expecting more in the area of 15-16mpg from such a big car and a relatively low powered engine with only a three speed trans.

On another note the 83' car got towed away just a few minutes ago freeing up the driveway again. Best part about it, didn't cost me a thing to get rid of the car. And the nissan is done being inspected and it pased so I can get that back today too.
 
cool. It tough squeezing milage out if the 6....with the lead foot and all

I got 17 last tank. gettng better...and that was with a LOT of revving and punching it
 
That's about all I've been able to get out of mine, too.

Wonder what kind of mileage we'd get with the YFA, since it would let the engine breathe a little better.

Of course, once I put a bigger carb on it, I wouldn't be able to keep my foot out of it, either.
 
yea...i get about 20-22 if i watch it...but if i drive lead foot with constant accelleration/decelleration then i can use up twice the gas or more for the distance...
 
I think we've gotten a little spoiled by some of our newer cars!

I recall driving a 65 Falcon, 289, 2bbl, that would get 13 mpg in town, maybe low 20's highway and it was considered an economy car. I got 22 mpg in a Pontiac Catalina that had a 326 2bbl on a road tip and remember thinking that was phenomenal. My 64 MGB might get 17mpg. 17mpg city in a carbed six cylinder Mustang is not too bad.

Carbed cars are not very efficient. Every touch of the gas pedal squirts fuel via the accel pump. Carbed engines suck in fuel even when coasting. There's no feedback loop to adjust the fuel mixture. Chokes might stay on far longer than needed. The list goes on because of all the compromises.

If you were to install a good EFI system, a stock 200 might easily get over 21-22 mpg city and nearly 30 highway even in a brick like an early Mustang. That's just about what my EFI Crossflow does. I think you might be able to approach that even with TBI because you could gain from losing the accel pump and the feedback.
 
I hope I made the right decision to put a Six in my 1965 Ranchero. My 1965 Comet with a 1968 302 with Edlebrock Performer Cam, Manifold and 600 cfm Carb., Dougs Headers, 3.00 open differential and an Overdrive Top Loader out of a 78 Truck was getting 23 MPG on trips from Reno, NV to the Bay Area (San Francisco). The reason I say was! Is because the Edlebrock Cam went flat about a year ago with only 14,000 miles. I do have cruise contol on this car and I would set it at 70 MPH. Two years ago, my son and I did a 65 Ranchero to be his daily driver. It had a stock rebuilt 170 six cylinder and a 7 1/4" 3.20 ratio rear end. We did put a t-5 trans from a Turbo Coupe in it. He was getting close to 21 MPG with it this way. He was always complaining about the lack of power. A couple of months ago some one gave him a 289 and a 3.00 8" rear end from a 1966 Mustang. He did a stock rebuild on the engine, installed the 8" rear end and changed the front to Granada Discs. He left the T-5 transmission in the Ranchero. He lives in the Bay Area and today he drove his Ranchero to Southern California and was getting 22+ MPG. By the way both my son and myself are fanatics for having accurate Speedometers and Odometers. My Ranchero which I have been building for 5 1/2 years and only recently started driving has a rebuilt 40 over 1978 200 six with the log modified for a 2 bbl Carb. It has an Isky 260 cam, Clifford dual out header with 2" exhaust. I have the Dura Spark Distributor with a MSD Box. The rear end is an 8" with 3.25 gears and posi. The trans is a T-5 from a Turbo Coupe. I have driven this car 150 miles since I filled the Tank and the guage is showing a 1/4 left. This is the first tank but it dosen't look too good. I do enjoy this forum, so I hope things turn out better for my six.
 
I get around 22-25 in my stock 67 fairlane, mixed driving...its a 200 with the larger 3spd manual. Actually, I do have larger 225-70-14 tires on it, so the odometer is off a little. This would mean that my milage is actually a bit higher than that. Here are some pics by the way.

http://www.cardomain.com/id/khardrunner14
 
MustangSix":11ctwz85 said:
I think we've gotten a little spoiled by some of our newer cars!

I recall driving a 65 Falcon, 289, 2bbl, that would get 13 mpg in town, maybe low 20's highway and it was considered an economy car. I got 22 mpg in a Pontiac Catalina that had a 326 2bbl on a road tip and remember thinking that was phenomenal. My 64 MGB might get 17mpg. 17mpg city in a carbed six cylinder Mustang is not too bad.

Carbed cars are not very efficient. Every touch of the gas pedal squirts fuel via the accel pump. Carbed engines suck in fuel even when coasting. There's no feedback loop to adjust the fuel mixture. Chokes might stay on far longer than needed. The list goes on because of all the compromises.

If you were to install a good EFI system, a stock 200 might easily get over 21-22 mpg city and nearly 30 highway even in a brick like an early Mustang. That's just about what my EFI Crossflow does. I think you might be able to approach that even with TBI because you could gain from losing the accel pump and the feedback.
Click to expand...

I get 19/26 from my 232 V6 T-bird w/ CFI/TBI and an AOD.. (3.27 rear end) but then again, it's an "aero-Bird".. a bit less of a brick than what you're talking about.. so that might be part of it.

My desire for EFI in whatever engine goes into this Bird is what's complicating my choice of replacement engines. I REALLY want a 200 or especially a 250 in there, but I'm unwilling to go carbed. (hood clearance is also a possible issue) So I'm probably stuck with a '99-up Mustang V6, a truck 4.2 V6, or the (currently) carbed 351W I have stored at a friend's house.. that'd be converted to SEFI if it went in. (or maybe the CFI from earlier Fox 5.0 HO Mustangs)
 
We get about 22/23mpg on the hwy. 200 w/OZ head, holley 500 cfm, 260 cam, headers, t-5, 3:25 rear with 245/50/16 rear tires.

Mike
 
MustangSix the early 1965-68 mustangs were not bricks...with a 200 I-6 they weighed in at just over 2700 lbs., with a SB V8 they weighed in at just over 2800 lbs. . I'll give you a comparison, I have a 2004 SVT Focus 3-door. It weighs in at 2770 lbs. so you can see that the early stangs were actually light cars. My 98 Mustang GT I had weighed 3450 lbs. So I hope this can show that many of the cars back then were actually lighter than cars today even though they had way more steel in them than they do now. Not trying to put anyone down, I'm just trying to keep the facts straight.

David
 
I think he's refering to the shape not the weight, aerodynamics.

;)
 
Sorry MustangSix, just misunderstood what ya meant :mrgreen: :eek:opsie: . I guess in the end all of us inliners are going for the same thing :beer:
 
I get 19 mpg with my 200 all around town, also get 30 mpg with the 96 v/6 on the highway. Just came back from weekend in Pa with the 96 at 75 to 80 mph. 66 200 is automatic, the 96 is 5 speed. Damm Yankees are winning already 1st inning over Red Socks. Now it's 2 -0
 
khardrunner14,

Nice lookin' 'Lane! There's a couple nice GT's of that vintage around here, but I've never seen a hardtop with a six. Very differant, very cool 8)

My tired 170 is getting about 14 combined city freeway- I'm hoping my new carb will help. It will be interesting to see what the 200 I just picked up will do to my mileage.

S-man
 
Just wanted to put in my wonderful mpg's....10. It's a 200, ' 69 block, '75 head, 7.5 to 1 CR, stock points, timing @ 10 BTDC, YF off of a 240 L-6, 303 3-speed, 4.10 gears spooled, and 33" BFG's. And It's Great!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top