tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fuel Efficiency

To: MWood24020@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fuel Efficiency
From: brockctella@juno.com
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 07:30:46 -0700
My Lincoln Mark VII got 20 in town and 25 on highway, 302 motor

On Sun, 6 Sep 1998 00:25:12 EDT MWood24020@aol.com writes:
>In a message dated 98-09-05 23:05:39 EDT, you write:
>
><< I still haven't had anyone
> explain to me why a 289 or 302 can't do better than 11-12 MPG.  Is it 
>because
> Fords are gas hogs?  >>
>Mark-
>It is not that 289-302 Fords CAN'T do better than 11-12mpg, it is that 
>the
>example cited DOESN'T. Incorrect float levels, incorrectly adjusted 
>secondary
>actuation (whether mechanical or too light of a spring in a vacumn 
>secondary),
>incorrect timing, very steep rear end gears keeping the motor buzzing 
>at
>4000rpm+ at cruising speeds etc. will all contribute to poor mileage. 
>The
>challenge is optimizing the set up so that the motor performs 
>efficiently, not
>blaming Ford as a producer of "gas hogs". The first thing I would do 
>is figure
>out what the fuel/air ratio looks like. My 302 Tiger w/3.31 gears 
>knocks off
>20mpg at moderate cruising speeds and my '89 302 Mustang (EFI) used to 
>get
>25-26mpg at freeway speeds w/3.07 gears. Heck, our '97 Explorer 302 
>will get
>16mpg towing my race car!
>Mike Wood
>B382002273
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>