Ford 5.0 Efficiency Build Advice

[pugmanic]

There is a guy in Finland who engine swapped an Audi A8 (Audi's luxury barge) with a 1.2 Turbo Diesel from a VW Polo. Different take on the luxury fuel mizering

[Xist]

Originally Posted by Baltothewolf

...because Amy gains...

Sent from your iPhone?

[ALS]

Have you considered a Lincoln LS. The auto boxes are pretty weak so I'd suggest finding a manual set up for it. They came with either a 3.0L V6 (232HP) 20C-26H or a 3.9L V8 (280HP)17C-23H. The LS weighs in at 3700lb. They go for less than $5K used.

They come with a coefficient of drag of .32.

[Galane]

How about the 1980-1981 Ford 255 V8? Same stroke as the 302 but smaller bore. The intake is a valley pan design so you can lose small bolts under the runners. I assume the reason for that was an attempt to keep the intake air cooler.

One of the car magazines took a Mercury Capri (with the bubble hatch window*), applied some tweaks and tune, did some weight reduction, including plastic rectangular headlamps and got the car to run up to 185 MPH, street legal. May also have changed the differential gears.

*Compare the profile view to a Porsche 944. That rear part is practically identical curve on the bubble hatch Capri.

[mercguy1951]

My 2000 Grand Marquis had a digital dash (showed instant and average MPG). At 60-65mph it got 31+mpg. On interstate, A/C on, cruise set at 70mph it got 28 mpg.

[ocnorb]

In the early 90's I bought a '64 Mercury Comet with a 289 and Mercruiser Overdrive and my city mileage was often near 25mpg. Much lighter than a Crown Vic though.

I've owned a few 5.0l cars over the years. Mostly '89 and later EFI stuff. I put an RV cam in one out of a Mark IV, and though I wasn't going for fuel efficiency the results were almost a 50% improvement over a carbureted 302.

I would be curious how well a higher compression setup with "ski - ramp" intake porting tuned and cammed for low rpm efficiency might perform.

[Masejoer]

Originally Posted by mhayes

The Ford 5 liter can be made to get exceptional mileage. The figures you are shooting for are close to what the factory window sticker said back in the 80s when these cars were new.

I see no problem with this little combo pumping out mpgs in the low 30s.

My most fuel efficient combo on my 1988 Thunderbird was mostly factory parts.This was early 2009. (edit: had 4r70w transmission swap in 2008, so I wasn't on the AOD during this testing)

60mph average speed, stock 2.73 gears, 0.7 overdrive, rebuilt motor with 1989 Mustang cam, mass air, 1993 Cobra intake and heads, stock timing, around 9:1 compression ratio, 87 octane, electric fan, 3G alternator - 34mpg on 300 mile highway round trips. With a new mechanical fan clutch, I couldn't break 32mpg. Completely factory, I'd see about 31mpg.

I found that with mechanical fan, I saw the same fuel economy on a slight incline. Saw a 3mpg increase on the return trip/slight elevation decrease. This was A-B-A-B-A back-to-back testing highway trips to compare directly.

Now I can't break 25mpg - usually see 24. Much of that car has changed. I'd like to eventually add under-body panels and try some air diverters in front of the front wheels. I'm sure a T56 with 0.50 6th gear would drastically bring my economy back up, and could require even lower gearing in the rear since 3.55s with 0.5 OD would be lower than stock with 2.73s and 0.67.

Besides that, my around-town back then was 20mpg. Useless to compare "city" driving as heavy traffic commuting would return some pathetic 14mpg. Takes 45 minutes to go 6 miles around here.

[rjparker]

Early nineties towncar was tighter, rode great, 4.6 ohc, had rear air bags for springs, they were good when dialed in. Won Motor Trends car of the year and looked good in the Cartier trim. Lincoln sold more than Cadillac or any other luxo in those days.

[rjparker]

Or get a 56 Continental. Rarely seen.