Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-09-2017, 03:14 AM   #11 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 11,935

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,356
Thanked 2,863 Times in 1,827 Posts
The GM 3.8 delivered high 20's, some report low 30's in the full-size cars. Why not just tune one of those?

__________________


  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-09-2017, 03:53 AM   #12 (permalink)
Furry Furfag
 
Baltothewolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Apple Valley
Posts: 1,995

Winsight - '00 Honda Insight
90 day: 56.86 mpg (US)

Miaderp - '95 Mazda Miata
90 day: 28.53 mpg (US)
Thanks: 67
Thanked 345 Times in 270 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubby79 View Post
a 3.8l Supercharged engine would probably give you decent economy...perhaps a mild supercharger on your 5.0 would boost it's efficiency also?
Depends on the supercharger. But most of the time, no, because Amy gains are negated by the extra HP required to spin the charger.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2017, 10:40 PM   #13 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 5,515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 522 Times in 467 Posts
Are you mind-set for a V8 in the Lincoln or would you eventually also consider fitting it with a smaller engine such as a V6? Maybe that 4.2L Essex V6 and the 5-speed manual transmission out of a F-150 could be a good option for that project.

When it comes to the V8, all I'll have to say by now is: don't de-stroke it. You might already know, oversquare engines tend to be more rev-happy and compromise the low-end torque.

Anyway, since you would eventually consider to use a supercharger, maybe you could consider to match it with a longer intake valve phasing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2017, 07:34 AM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hersbird and Frank Lee
I definitely agree that for the sake of mpg, simplicity and reliability a Crown Vic, 3.8 Buick, or even a Lexus ES300 would make a far better choice. However, being a second car/project I'm looking more for a flashy premium vehicle like a Caddy, Lincoln, BMW 7, and such.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2017, 07:38 AM   #15 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Also, the supercharged 3.8 would be so awesome and look great at a car show or something. Sadly, did the research, and while a 3.8 should almost bolt up to a 1983-5 Seville, the rest of that car appears to be very specific and one off. Reading about parts availability, and meh...
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2017, 08:18 AM   #16 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
Thanks for advice about de-stroking. While one article mentions that it should increase mpg simply by cutting .4 L off the motor, it also mentions that I'd need a different cam shaft and roller rockers to match. So sounds like $1,000 in parts to save $300 in gas. Plus if I understand correctly, your saying that I'd have to rev the engine higher to compensate for lost torque, making me use more fuel and ultimately defeating the purpose.

While I'm pretty set on the car type, I'm very flexible on my engine choice as long as it's a fairly affordable and simple install process. Like right now I'm looking into the Lincoln Versailles and 82-85 Continentals as they are mud size and would shave off weight compared to a Town Car.

The 4.2 v6 sounds like a rad idea! Looks like it shares the same bell housing bolt pattern as a 302, so it would almost bolt right up! Also, wouldnt a t5 out of a mustang be a better geared trans for that or do you think the f150 truck trans would be better suited. Thanks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2017, 03:16 AM   #17 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 5,515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 522 Times in 467 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malykaii View Post
While one article mentions that it should increase mpg simply by cutting .4 L off the motor, it also mentions that I'd need a different cam shaft and roller rockers to match. So sounds like $1,000 in parts to save $300 in gas. Plus if I understand correctly, your saying that I'd have to rev the engine higher to compensate for lost torque, making me use more fuel and ultimately defeating the purpose.
Depending on the cam profile and the intake and exhaust manifolds, it might decrease the engine's tendency for going rev-happy and improve low-end torque. Otherwise, yes, you'd have to over-rev it and resort to a lower diff ratio in order to get a similar overall performance.


Quote:
The 4.2 v6 sounds like a rad idea! Looks like it shares the same bell housing bolt pattern as a 302, so it would almost bolt right up! Also, wouldnt a t5 out of a mustang be a better geared trans for that or do you think the f150 truck trans would be better suited.
Since trucks usually have a wider gear spread, it might not compromise too much the take-off when you resort to a higher rear-end ratio.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 08:45 AM   #18 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 25
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts
You probably want to look at a 90's crown vic prior to about 95. Ford somehow added about 400 lbs in 95 or so. The 93 is under 3800 lbs curb weight, similar to the t-birds of that time. If you want to go back further, the late 60's, early 70's dodge darts only weigh about 3000 lbs with a v-8 and are as roomy as todays full size( probably roomier). AS a comparison, my 1993 tracer/escort wagon weigh about 2500 lbs......cars have gottten way too heavy over the years.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 10:27 AM   #19 (permalink)
Master Novice
 
elhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SE USA - East Tennessee
Posts: 2,086

Josie - '87 Toyota Pickup
90 day: 29.48 mpg (US)

Tiptoe - '03 Honda Civic Hybrid
Team Honda
90 day: 48.9 mpg (US)

Felicia - '09 Toyota Prius Base
90 day: 48.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 346
Thanked 501 Times in 366 Posts
The aero on those things is pretty bad.

If you already have a specific car in mind that's one thing, but if you were looking for a car to make a project of, if you were willing to consider a second-gen model you might have better luck. It looks smoother in general, in addition to being the lightest generation of TCs.

Just as a blue sky crazy idea, the turbo four from the concurrent Thunderbird would fit, delivers comparable power, was available with the BW T5 manual and cuts a lot of weight out.
__________________




Take it easy
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 03:16 PM   #20 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 25
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts
the 91 - 96 crown vics seem to be the best of both worlds....newer aero (.32 CD) and lighter weight than the post 96 models ( only 3800 lbs). That's only 100 lbs heavier than the v-8 t bird and .01 CD higher (.31 vs .32). Rated around 25 highway,IIRC.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com