Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle
How are they bogus? And when did you compare a 1991 F-250 M/T w/ the 300"er to the 1985 F-150 M/T w/ the same engine?
Edit- Here's the test data btw. The 5spd/I6 49-stater pulled 28mpg over thie highway cycle and 19mpg over the city cycle. The 302 V8 pulled ~19-23mpg highway depending on options (manual versus auto, FFS versus FI), and the results seem to be in line with what you get in your F250 auto (IIRC). Course 50mph average speed isn't typical of a modern highway, but that doesn't mean a 85 F150 couldn't w/ the I6 couldn't pull 28mpg@50mph or that a F250 w/ the same engine and gearing couldn't see ~25+mpg at the same speed. It also doesn't mean a modded version couldn't see the same mileage at higher speeds. In fact, if the OP can drop the same gearing in their truck, maybe fiddle w/ the fuel system too (for some reason 49-state FFS tends to get way better mileage than early FI, especially CA spec FI), they should be able to see ~25-28mpg at speeds higher than 50mph depending on how much they can drop the Cd. And they should be able to pull it off for a lot less than fifteen grand. |
I couldn't open that link with the zip. For the '85 I6 4-sp stick I see 19 city/24 hwy. Fueleconomy.gov doesn't show a 5-speed nor any model F150 rating 28.
The old EPA numbers ('80's)
were bogus, as they were something nobody but Wayne Gjerdes and Basjoos could get. I have never heard of anyone getting anywhere near that.
All the same, I don't see a gas F150 busting through 23 without, like Dave says, going to war. I don't think 50 mph cruise will do it, I don't think gears will do it. I would be delighted if someone would prove me wrong though.
P.S. I have recorded a single 22 mpg tank (recently- no cooling fan, some other tweaks) and 2 or 3 21 mpg tanks with my 302 F150 w/3.31:1 axles... over the course of 15 years with that truck. Those were the nice long 50 mph cruises with kickin' tailwinds. Since figures like that are so few and far between and the norm is 18 or less, I consider them anomalies. Fill errors or something could have contributed too.