Mark,
You are right and I do not think you are crazy. I probably should be
getting much better mileage, but just have not had time to check it out.
Heck, it runs and runs well at this point. Will definitely mess with it
later. Me personally, I think it has a great deal to do with the hi-revs
associated with the 3.96 rear end. I am more than willing to bet this will
start another but very useful thread.
Regards,
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: CoolVT@aol.com [mailto:CoolVT@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 1998 2:34 PM
To: alcon@earthlink.net; Chris.S.Mottram@ecc.com; tigers@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Fuel Efficiency
Allan,
If I go back to the 60's and think of a 273 HO with a 4 barrel I had in a
Barracuda I remember that it could get 17 MPG on the highway as long as it
wasn't horsed. I think the Barracuda must have weighed close to 500 lbs.
more
than a Tiger. I believe the horsepower was 239.
Now I've always considered Ford products as the worse of the big three for
mileage, but I would think that a mild 289 or 302 should do better than
11-12
MPG on the highway. . Am I crazy or what? Mark L.
|