Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40, mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry, rzcrisis, DoctorC, jamyers, Motorboy, fastpat, Silverback280, chad, drag-200stang, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, Jimmys61falcon, rjonah, Sooshi, Robert92867, Invectivus


PLEASE TEST ON http://dev.fordsix.com

<<<***PLEASE READ*** New Site Update >>>

Best fuel economy?

Moderator: Mod Squad

Which option would achieve better Fuel Economy?

4 speed t10 or toploader trans, milled head, water injection, etc
1
5%
t5 5 speed, no engine mods
19
86%
Current C4, w/engine mods(milling, injection, elec dist, 2 barrel)
2
9%
 
Total votes: 22
User avatar
jet471
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:11 am
Location: Mississippi
Contact:

Best fuel economy?

Post #1 by jet471 » Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:29 am

Hey All,
Just picked up a 62 falcon ranchero with a mustang 200. Looking to make a fuel economized, daily driver, with lightweight hauling abilities (dirtbike, lumber, everyday things). The forum is great, learned a lot already.

Thanks,

Josh
Jet47
62 ranchero, 66 model 200 ci, duraspark 2, t-5, new floorboards


User avatar
80broncoman
Global Moderator
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:49 pm
Location: The Great state of Ohio!!

Re: Best fuel economy

Post #2 by 80broncoman » Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:05 am

I voted for the T5 but now matter what you do I'd go with some kind of electronic ignition for a more powerful spark.
You don't have to spend alot on it either. look at this: http://www.gofastforless.com
OAPSE Union Member

Real men don't wear Bowties
When it come to engines If its .001 loose nobody knows, But if its .001 too tight EVERYBODY KNOWS!!
80 bronco FUV (farm utility vehicle)300 T-18 3.50s EFI head, offy C dual plenum, 500 edel carb, 1.7 roller rockers, Crane 260 cam EFI Exh

User avatar
JackFish
VIP Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada

Re: Best fuel economy

Post #3 by JackFish » Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:26 am

None will give you good mileage because you won't be able to resist putting your foot into it once you put it together. :lol:
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
Yup, I bought another one.
1996 Chevy Caprice 9C1 (3)
1999 Dodge Ram 2500

User avatar
powerband
FSP Moderator
Posts: 2059
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:45 pm
Location: Mid Hudson Valley - \H/

Re: Best fuel economy

Post #4 by powerband » Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:53 am

jet471 wrote:Hey All,
Just picked up a 62 falcon ranchero with a mustang 200. Looking to make a fuel economized, daily driver, with lightweight hauling abilities (dirtbike, lumber, everyday things). The forum is great, learned a lot already.

Thanks,

Josh


Having the right gear to apply the peak engine powerband is a prime consideration when fuel economy is a factor. T5 in a '62 has a gear for low speed regardless of load and the OD for typical modern interstate travel at peak MPG RPM's.

A '62 usually has a 3.50 oem rear. If changed to a higher ratio rear for modern driving speeds, the 3 speed manual/C4's will lose low gear torque . OD trannys are well suited for the small six.

I run an OEM 3.50 rear in a mild-modified '63 170/T5 setup in my "working" 4dr wagon.. It pulls really well even loaded in low gears , and the OD allows interstate cruising at peak usable power-RPM spread, helping keep up the MPG.

Another popular simple MPG mod is the H/W 2bbl carb. The "5200" carb has a smaller primary yielding better low speed and cruise mileage and the progressive secondary adds more power capability when needed.

Have Fun

Image <> Image<> Image <> Image
" Everything in my garage has a story ..."

User avatar
jet471
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:11 am
Location: Mississippi
Contact:

Re: Best fuel economy

Post #5 by jet471 » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:49 pm

Thanks for the link BroncoMan, great info. DIY and salvage parts are right up my alley.

Powerband, The t5 is what I really want to do and there are many articles, but I still am not sure on bellhousing.
Can I bolt a t5 to a 3 speed with an adapter plate.

Also I am going to need clutch pedal and all linkages, do you know which vehicles have similar setups.
Jet47
62 ranchero, 66 model 200 ci, duraspark 2, t-5, new floorboards


MPGmustang
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Chandler AZ

Re: Best fuel economy

Post #6 by MPGmustang » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:47 pm

jet471 wrote:Thanks for the link BroncoMan, great info. DIY and salvage parts are right up my alley.

Powerband, The t5 is what I really want to do and there are many articles, but I still am not sure on bellhousing.
Can I bolt a t5 to a 3 speed with an adapter plate.

Also I am going to need clutch pedal and all linkages, do you know which vehicles have similar setups.

yup search JY's the t5 I'd go for the 4cyl if you can't get an 8cyl t5 for less than 500. the JY would be the best place for the linkage, I'm sure more than one year used your setup on your car for manual transmission. just grab everything, even if you think you might replace it, that way you know that you have a back-up if you ahve to wait a while. currently i'm using a 67 BH it worked on my 68block and now 78block no problems.
65mustang-SOLD-200ci-t5-scarebird disks-vintage air ac-264/274 110 cam-mav 8inch 3.8 open-350cfm-CI headers
66 Bronco-SOLD-i6 170 - rust bucket never ran...
75 bronco-SOLD-v8 c4 dana 20 33's and disk brakes, locker front/rear.

User avatar
rbohm
Assistant Admin
Posts: 5723
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:00 am
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #7 by rbohm » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:35 pm

8) i also voted T5, but i would also do some engine mods as well designed for better efficiency. things like increase the compression ratio, better carb, maybe even efi, better ignition, better exhaust, etc. i am considering a transmission change myself, debating between a T5 and a C4. i am leaning towards the T5 for my falcon, as i want the overdrive.
64 falcon
66 mustang
05 grand marquis

my mind is aglow with whiriling
transient nodes of thought
careening through a cosmic vapor
of invention

User avatar
jet471
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:11 am
Location: Mississippi
Contact:

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #8 by jet471 » Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:26 am

Thanks for all the info, ya'll were very helpful.

This is my plan for now, please reply if I make no sense.

1. Last weekend I added subframe connectors (cheap and piece of mind) and welded in new floor pans, it all ready looks like a new car. I checked the cowl for rust by pouring water in it, only had a small leak, instead of going to the trouble to fix right now I am going to make a scoop for it to keep water from entering while letting some air in if needed.

2. I have a v8 t5 and am waiting on a big bell and adapter plate for the 200 ci.

3. While I have the engine out, it was making a little smoke after getting warm, I am going to re-ring it, if I it measures out, otherwise I may have to machine it and get some pistons, may put some main bearings in also. I am trying to do on a budget(floor pans and trans are tough on the pocket) so I hope to spare machine shop bills.

4. My main plan for this is daily driver emphasizing fuel economy, but I have read that some economy techniques also help torque, so why not.

5. I believe right now I will leave the head stock (no milling), so I don't have to worry about pinging and get some baseline fuel mileage numbers.

6. Future mods will be junkyard ds 2 and module or distributor improvement (using broncomans link).

7. Other technical mods that I need some extra input on are, early 170 head milled, vacuum secondary 2 barrel that I can lean out, and some water injection to keep it cool (so I can lean the fuel and advance the spark).

8. In search of the reliable water injection design, my current thoughts are a 12v water pump that I can run on variable voltage to have less to more injection. I plan on running it off the alternator after the voltage is transferred to dc from the regulator, I will need to experiment with nozzles and voltage to get the flow right, I think it will be possible with resistors and potentiometers to get a functional system based on charging output that will correlate with engine rpm.

Please respond with any technical inputs, options, or reasons.
Keep in mind 7 and 8 are future, and if I become satisfied with output and mileage I will probably refrain from adding water injection and increasing compression too much.

Jet47
Jet47
62 ranchero, 66 model 200 ci, duraspark 2, t-5, new floorboards


User avatar
David_Conwill
Registered User
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Bay City, MI

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #9 by David_Conwill » Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:45 am

I didn't vote, because I'm the "learning" rather than "giving advice" stage of the sixness, however I see we've got similar goals for our Falcons, so I'm replying to keep tabs on this thread.

If you search out some of my other threads, you can see where I've gotten similar input about making a daily driver.

-Dave
1962 Falcon DeLuxe: 250/T5/8"/Scarebird discs.

User avatar
rbohm
Assistant Admin
Posts: 5723
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:00 am
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #10 by rbohm » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:00 pm

jet471 wrote:Thanks for all the info, ya'll were very helpful.

This is my plan for now, please reply if I make no sense.

1. Last weekend I added subframe connectors (cheap and piece of mind) and welded in new floor pans, it all ready looks like a new car. I checked the cowl for rust by pouring water in it, only had a small leak, instead of going to the trouble to fix right now I am going to make a scoop for it to keep water from entering while letting some air in if needed.


instead of making a scoop, check out virginia classic mustang, or other mustang suppliers, for their inexpensive cowl seal kits. it consists of a couple of open top plastic hats that are glued in place with silicon.

2. I have a v8 t5 and am waiting on a big bell and adapter plate for the 200 ci.


3. While I have the engine out, it was making a little smoke after getting warm, I am going to re-ring it, if I it measures out, otherwise I may have to machine it and get some pistons, may put some main bearings in also. I am trying to do on a budget(floor pans and trans are tough on the pocket) so I hope to spare machine shop bills.


get a set of long flexible feeler gauges designed for measure piston to cylinder wall clearance, and check to see what the piston wall clearance is. if it is within factory specs, then just through a set of rings in. as for bearings, use some plastigage to determine what your current bearing clearances are, if they are with in factory specs again, toss in a set of bearings. my advice on bearings would be to buy two sets, one standard and one set of .001 undersize(assuming the crank has not already been ground in the past, if it has you will see the counterweights marked). the reason for the undersize set of bearings is so that you can mix and match bearings to get the best bearing clearances.

4. My main plan for this is daily driver emphasizing fuel economy, but I have read that some economy techniques also help torque, so why not.


very true, with in reason, when you improve horsepower ans torque output, you will see an increase in fuel economy. remember that these engine were underpowered even by the standards of the day.

5. I believe right now I will leave the head stock (no milling), so I don't have to worry about pinging and get some baseline fuel mileage numbers.


do some calculations before you decide not to mill the head. the best street compression ratio is about 9.5:1 for good power and fuel efficiency, and still being able to run 87 octane fuel. the falcon performance handbook has the information you need to calulate your compression ratio. you will also need to measure the volume of your combustion chamber, in cc's, in the head. also if you are going to use the now hard to find steel shim head gasket, you may not need to mill the head, but if you are going to use the now standard composite head gasket, you will lose compression as they are much thicker.

6. Future mods will be junkyard ds 2 and module or distributor improvement (using broncomans link).


reman duraspark distributors are fairly cheap so you dont have to start with a junkyard unit. on the gofastforless website they have information on how to wire a 70's chrysler ignition module to work with the duraspark distributor. add an msd blaster lll coil, and you will have a really nice reliable electronic ignition system for under $100. i advise doing it asap.

7. Other technical mods that I need some extra input on are, early 170 head milled, vacuum secondary 2 barrel that I can lean out, and some water injection to keep it cool (so I can lean the fuel and advance the spark).


i have never heard of a vacuum secondary 2 barrel carb, but there are staged two barrel weber carbs that are mechanical secondary units. they work real nice.

8. In search of the reliable water injection design, my current thoughts are a 12v water pump that I can run on variable voltage to have less to more injection. I plan on running it off the alternator after the voltage is transferred to dc from the regulator, I will need to experiment with nozzles and voltage to get the flow right, I think it will be possible with resistors and potentiometers to get a functional system based on charging output that will correlate with engine rpm.


unless you are going to run fairly high compression, over 10.5:1, there is no need for water injection, and it doesnt really do anything for fuel economy anyway. water injection is just for controlling detonation. my advice, dont waste you time with it unless you really need it. and for all the years i have built high performance engines, i have never seen the need for it.
64 falcon
66 mustang
05 grand marquis

my mind is aglow with whiriling
transient nodes of thought
careening through a cosmic vapor
of invention

User avatar
jet471
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:11 am
Location: Mississippi
Contact:

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #11 by jet471 » Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:33 pm

David, thank you for the tip, I will do a search for your other threads, good luck to you.

Rbohm, exactly what I was needing to know.

I probably made up the vacuum 2 barrel :D

Yeah I don't really want to deal with water injection, but I did want to try and cut fuel through the carb and advance the timing.

So I need to shoot for 9.5:1 compression, then just experiment with carb adjustment and advance while keeping an eye on spark plugs for a too lean condition and pinging.
Jet47
62 ranchero, 66 model 200 ci, duraspark 2, t-5, new floorboards


User avatar
rbohm
Assistant Admin
Posts: 5723
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:00 am
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #12 by rbohm » Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:32 pm

jet471 wrote:
Rbohm, exactly what I was needing to know.

I probably made up the vacuum 2 barrel :D

Yeah I don't really want to deal with water injection, but I did want to try and cut fuel through the carb and advance the timing.

So I need to shoot for 9.5:1 compression, then just experiment with carb adjustment and advance while keeping an eye on spark plugs for a too lean condition and pinging.


8) yep. i think the carb you are going to want to use will be a progressive two barrel carb off something like a 2.3L pinto engine. it has a small primary barrel and a larger secondary barrel. stay out of the secondary, and you should do real well on fuel economy.

that said, if you are willing to experiment a bit after you have this engine running like you want, you might consider using three throttle body injectors from a tempo, connect them up so they all open at the same time, and run them with a megasquit efi system that you can tune for best economy, or power, or both.
64 falcon
66 mustang
05 grand marquis

my mind is aglow with whiriling
transient nodes of thought
careening through a cosmic vapor
of invention

User avatar
woodbutcher
VIP Member
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: LaFollette Tn.

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #13 by woodbutcher » Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:45 pm

:) Wayyyyyyyy back in the day,my first car was a 1953 Studebaker Starlight Coupe.
Engine-169CI flathead 6cyl
HP -69 or 70
Torque-Unknown
Rear gears-4-11`s
Tranny- Borg-Warner three speed with electric OD.
Cast iron case,try changing one of those flat on yer back SOLO.Groan.
Carb- Carter 1bbl of some sort.
MPG was in the neighborhood of 22-24MPG.
My point is,IF POSSIBLE,go with similiar gears and maybe the 5spd OD unit.Just might suprise the socks off of ya,for mileage AND performance.
Just a thought or five.I`m open to correction.
Leo
"People never lie so much as after a hunt,during a war,or before an election".
Otto von Bismarck

User avatar
rickwrench
Registered User
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:30 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #14 by rickwrench » Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:39 pm

T5 for a 4 (or 6) cylinder + stock engine +:

Holley 1946
DSII ignition
3.00 rear
skinny tires @ 38psi

Drive like an old, old man in a hat.
Short shift.
Cruise on the highway at 62mph.
Don't haul crap around in your car you don't need.

I get 30+mpg on the highway this way.

Rick(wrench)
'62 Falcon Wagons (x2), Kellison J5, V8 Alfa GTam, Corvair Corsa:
www.rickwrench.com

CZLN6
VIP Member
Posts: 3354
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 11:07 am
Location: Idaho Falls, Id
Contact:

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #15 by CZLN6 » Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:00 pm

Howdy Josh and All:

I would choose none of the above choices if I were really interested in MPG and saving money, by not spending it. 1st off, what trans and rearend gear do you have now? As PB wrote, a '62 Roo will likely have a 3.5:1 rear gear. The '65 200 could have either a 2.77 manual three speed or a C4? What wheel tire combo are you using?

If your engine has a C4, the 3.50 rear gear is way too deep. A stock '65 200 with a C4 typically came with a 3.00 rear gear. So changing to a taller rear gear would be my first suggestion. A complete 7.25" rear out of a '65 mustang or Falcon will be dirt cheap and close to a direct bolt-in. IF you have a 2.77 three speed a 3.00 rear may be too much for good clutch life.

I'm with Rick- If you want to economize don't spend money! Optimize and maximize what you have by thoughtful tuning, and careful parts swapping and upgrading. While a DS II is a great upgrade, it will require a carb to match. Another option is to add a PetroniX Ignitor to your stock L-O-M distributor and maximize your initial advance setting along with your stock Autolite 1100 carb. this option is an easy bolt-on upgrade for about $60.00 and some good tuning.

After driving technique, gearing and tuning, the next best place to find efficiency (Equates to MPG) is in the head. When you get read to do a valve job, let's talk again.

Adios, David
co-author of the Falcon Performance Handbook
http://www.falcon6handbook.com/

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #16 by Lazy JW » Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:38 pm

woodbutcher wrote::) Wayyyyyyyy back in the day,my first car was a 1953 Studebaker Starlight Coupe.
Engine-169CI flathead 6cyl
HP -69 or 70
Torque-Unknown
Rear gears-4-11`s
Tranny- Borg-Warner three speed with electric OD.
Cast iron case,try changing one of those flat on yer back SOLO.Groan.
Carb- Carter 1bbl of some sort.
MPG was in the neighborhood of 22-24MPG.
My point is,IF POSSIBLE,go with similiar gears and maybe the 5spd OD unit.Just might suprise the socks off of ya,for mileage AND performance.
Just a thought or five.I`m open to correction.
Leo


Sweet! :D My sister had a 59 Lark with the same engine/tranny/gear combo. It got similar mileage; she sold it whilst I was away in the Marines, a heinous crime for which I have never forgiven her.

To the original poster: I agree with David, spending no money is typically the best means to save it. Tune it up, drive it VERY carefully for a while, keep ACCURATE records, and then decide what you really want. You may just be happy with what you have, or you may decide that an upgrade is in order; either way, get it running properly in the beginning is my idea of economy.
Joe
"The White OX" 1974 F-350 300-6, Stock single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18A, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, but much increase is by the strength of the ox" (Proverbs 14:4)
Image

User avatar
1967JMG
Registered User
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:17 am
Location: Orlando, Fl

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #17 by 1967JMG » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:35 pm

Had a 200 with the stock 1 barrel, t5, 3:73, and some kind of electronic ingnition for a while that got me 27 in the city... better than some hybrids! lol. BEAT THAT TOYOTA!
1967 Mustang 200- Oz 250 Head, DUI, Holley 350 cfm, Isky 262H, Hooker Headers, 40 series Flowmaster, T5z, 9" 3.70 Posi

early ford fan
Registered User
Posts: 396
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:02 pm

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #18 by early ford fan » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:50 pm

[quote="CZLN6"]Howdy Josh and All:

I would choose none of the above choices if I were really interested in MPG and saving money, by not spending it. 1st off, what trans and rearend gear do you have now? As PB wrote, a '62 Roo will likely have a 3.5:1 rear gear. The '65 200 could have either a 2.77 manual three speed or a C4? What wheel tire combo are you using?

If your engine has a C4, the 3.50 rear gear is way too deep. A stock '65 200 with a C4 typically came with a 3.00 rear gear. So changing to a taller rear gear would be my first suggestion. A complete 7.25" rear out of a '65 mustang or Falcon will be dirt cheap and close to a direct bolt-in. IF you have a 2.77 three speed a 3.00 rear may be too much for good clutch life.

that would give the best ecomony.it also will be very slow.four cylinder t5s are dirt cheep with a great first gear and overdrive to change the rear ratio from 3.50 to 2 something.

CZLN6
VIP Member
Posts: 3354
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 11:07 am
Location: Idaho Falls, Id
Contact:

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #19 by CZLN6 » Sat Aug 21, 2010 4:23 pm

Howdy Again:

EFF said, "that would give the best ecomony.it also will be very slow". A well tuned 200 in a '62 Ranchero will be surprizingly peppy. Granted a non-synchro three-speed would not add to the fun. Now a C4 with a 3.5:1 rear gear would be a heck-of-a stoplight Gran Prix mobile. The auto trans torque converter is often overlooked as a take-off aid.

Waiting for more details from Josh.

Adios, David
co-author of the Falcon Performance Handbook
http://www.falcon6handbook.com/

User avatar
jet471
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:11 am
Location: Mississippi
Contact:

Re: Best fuel economy?

Post #20 by jet471 » Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:45 pm

Hey guys, nice reading all the suggestions.

My plan was to drive the car for a while before I did anything, but after trailoring it home, lubing the cylinders, and adding a condensor and rotor, the motor fired right up and ran great.

However the same was not true for the trans, it is really slow to go in gear, and after it goes in it will jump back out. I made a weeks worth of short range drives before I decided to pull everything and weld in braces and floors.

I really agree with no money spending ideas, but a trans rebuild or swap seemed neccessary and I really liked the t5 idea.

After swapping to the t5, I will drive for a while like it is and try to tune everything I have right now.

The axle code is 2 if it is original.
Have 14 in wheels, tires are dry rotting so will change fairly soon.
Jet47
62 ranchero, 66 model 200 ci, duraspark 2, t-5, new floorboards


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: B RON CO and 16 guests