Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
It's often mentioned that the straight-6 when fitted to the Argentinian Falcon remained more fuel-efficient than the 2.3L Pinto OHC which had been available as an option on them for a while, but I'm not so sure about it. Since this very same engine had been quite successful in the Sierra, maybe the conservative profile of Falcon owners would render them more favorable to the absence of a timing belt in the straight-6 anyways...
|
I've owned both engines over the years. For me (pre-eco days) they got around the same mileage. But back then I drove like an idiot. The 6 was in a F150, and the 2.3's were in Rangers. Then I had a notch back mustang with a 2.3 until it broke the timing belt and self grenaded the valves into the pistons. But it was a massive POS in the most explicit meaning.... I'll get a shot of my friends '64 Falcon and throw it on here.