02-26-2007, 11:03 AM
|
#1
|
|
v8 powered poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 219
|
Gas Mileage
I was looking at Stangnet and saw a member who had a signature reading:
Daily driver
1964 1/2 Mustang
BFR Red
5.0 roller motor 9.5:1 comp
GT-40 Cast iron heads
RPM Performer manifold
Comp 9000 89 Series Dist
mallory hyfire III <-adjustable rev limit on tach
600 CFM Carter AFB carb
dual Flows
13.89 105mph in quarter - I know a trip huh.
How and a daily driver 32-36 on freeway.
This really impressed me, is that kinda mileage realistic and how much horsepower/torque do you think he is making?
Also, is there a reason he used the gt-40 cast iron heads instead of aluminum (minus cost difference)?
I tried to PM him with no response, and I know the 64 1/2s are a good bit lighter than the 69's but it should be able to get similar gas mileage.
Thanks in advance guys.
Last edited by 69stang; 02-26-2007 at 12:04 PM..
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 11:41 AM
|
#2
|
|
There is no spoon...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 510
|
32-36 mpg?
*sigh*
That's probably the reason you didn't get a response!
I don't know man...lemme know if you find out that this is a true story. There's only a few 4 bangers that are out there that can register that kind of mpg.
If he's swingin' that then I need to do an engine swap!
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 12:01 PM
|
#3
|
|
v8 powered poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 219
|
Yea, I don't know if its true. I have been told that with a pretty power 302 can get 22-25ish, which i know is a huge difference, but figured i'd ask if its possible.
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 12:24 PM
|
#4
|
|
Proud Mustang Owner
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 126
|
Well it says it is has a carb in it which makes that just highly unlikely. I would more likely to believe it if it was fuel injected and a nice setup. But that to would also be a long shot.
__________________
Hey I also own a stang of my own. Come see it at http://www.1969stang.com/gallery/My-Stang
Your a complete idiot if you say "Nice Impala" when your looking at a 69 Mustang Coupe. Man...that is annoying.
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 02:28 PM
|
#5
|
|
70 Grande
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 271
|
That's possible....
If it were idleing and being towed on the back of a truck. Our cars will rarely see more than 18-22 mpg
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 02:44 PM
|
#6
|
|
♫ ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ ♫
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 361
|
I could maybe see 22-26, but not 32-36. Mine as it sits gets about 17-18 without overdrive with a lightly built 355W cruising about 65. With OD my hopes are for around 20-25. Of course city driving tends to bring that down since it's not proper to leave an intersection without leaving a mark!
__________________
-Jim
1970 Mach 1.
Tubular UCA/LCA's, solid strut rods, roller perches, del-a-lum bushings, KYB's, lowered, Tremec TKO600
SOLD. It was fun!
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 02:56 AM
|
#7
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,503
|
i was able to get 24-26 on the highway with my old engine. 70 model 357w (.030 351w) flat top pistons with bone stock D0OE heads (around 10.5:1 to 10.75:1 compression) sealed power stock replacement cam advanced 4 degrees, stock dizzy with mallory unilite conversion still running stock advance curve, stock cast iron exhaust manifolds through 2.25" duals, e'brock performer intake and 600 carter carb with stock fuel pump and purolator fuel pressure regulator set at 4psi. trans was stock FMX with shift kit and stock 3.25 geared rearend with 275/50-15 rear tires (26" tall), cruise speed was 65-70 mph. i think the reason it did that good was a combination of the high compression, advanced cam timing and the fuel pressure.
i know of 3.8 turbo buick regals pulling down 30-35 mph on a regular basis but i seriously doubt that a 9.5:1 iron headed 302 is gonna pull that kinda mileage unless his speedomoter is in serious need of calibration.
__________________
69 GT coupe restomod in progress.
ERIC HATES ME BECAUSE MY CAR IS A GT AND HIS ISN'T !!!! LOL
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 06:44 AM
|
#8
|
|
Vintage Ford Mafia
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Saint Paul MN
Posts: 955
|
He couldn't pull that mileage with an 80mph tailwind.
Albeit a bit heaver, new mustangs with computer controlled, fuel injected V6 engines don't even come close to it.
I would venture to say that it would be impossible to fill that large an engine at that gear ratio and still come close to that mileage, regardless of weight.
__________________
1969 Fastback
1970 Grande Project
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 06:52 AM
|
#9
|
|
Mustang owner since 1970
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 522
|
That sounds a little too good to be true unless he’s running a double overdrive 6-speed and some seriously lazy rear axle ratio. I am running a T-5 five-speed with 3.00 rear gears. My 351C-4V engine combo is fairly stock with the exception of headers, Pertonix ignition, aluminum intake with 670 CFM Holley and I have gotten 26 mpg highway running 55-60 mph. Running 70-75 mph drops me to 22 mpg. Of course around town where fifth gear is never used, I still get 11 to 12 mpg. When my car was new with a FMX auto transmission it usually got 11-16 mpg.
__________________
My 1970 Mach
Bill Hamilton
1970 Mach 1 in white w/351C-4V and T-5 five speed
2011 Shelby GT-500 in silver w/5.4 SC and 6-speed
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|