1966 Hybrid Mustang - 65% increase in MPG's!
 

Hi Everyone - I just want to share my latest numbers. My 1966 Mustang with a nearly stock 6 cylinder engine would normally see around 17 mpg's. With the electric hybrid motor I added, I achieve 22-24 mpg's with a range of 40-80+ miles. However when I lower the range to around 20 miles, I am seeing around 28 mpg's! This is about a 65% increase! This is all with normal driving and a small 2.8 kWh battery pack (~70lbs). I am hoping to start implementing some of your all's driving tips and mods someday soon. Cheers!:D
howtobuildahybrid.com

Is the baseline really that bad? My '59 V8 with slushy 2-speed a/t Bel Air gets over 20. Hell, my 4x4 V8 pickup is doing better than that.

...don't mind Frank, he's our designated "Optimistic Greeter" to all things which may/may not have "Uni-Corn" pixi-dust about them (wink,wink).

I want it work and I think such a thing can work but come on. I have friends with a Falcon and with early Mustangs (and the Stang is a rebodied Falcon) and if they aren't all hopped up with rumpity rump cams and low gears and such, one should expect low 20's at a minimum, and mid 20's mpg if you drive sensibly.

Give the guy a break, man, he made a '66 Mustang into hybrid for crying out loud. Whether or not it breaks any fuel economy records, you gotta admit that's kinda cool. I for one am intriuged if nothing else.

ncwa -

Cool beans! I wish I had your skillz and the time to do something like this.

CarloSW2

It is cool and it is intriguing and I hope it works but geez that low baseline number is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. :rolleyes:

I know unsubstantiated reports are next to worthless but these Mustang owners report about what my Falcon/Mustang owner friends do.

FWIW: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7110759AAojJOX

I can't tell if post 1 is from real data or projected results. :confused:

Ahhh, but the above is all conjecture at this point. Shades of Zoltan a little bit... No performance data has been collected. Perhaps it has not ever been activated yet at all. One thing the above projection omits is how much less efficient the ICE gets at lower and lower percentage loading i.e. all the same arguments we went through re: Electrocharger. Toss in the inefficiency of using the ICE to charge batteries instead of roll it all down the road as well (also discussed here at EM). Also wondering if that 5 kwh is for what DOD?

Brucey might be the guy who can shed the most light on this sort of thing, as it sounds strikingly similar...

Thanks for the comments – good and questionable! I don’t mind Frank’s questions at all as there is a lot to consider. Questions/concerns help me think through all the design challenges!

To clarify to a couple of items:

1)This is real and it does run! (There is poor quality youtube video out there where you can hear the electric motor under the tuned exhaust.) The web site example is not directly for this build.

2)Frank quoted a city mpg of 17 for another Mustang. That is the same baseline number I gave. My numbers are, for the most part city but some highway. I should have qualified that this was mostly city driving. Here is another number I didn’t post: After multiple charges and running around the city with many wide open throttle stop light starts (it is hard to hold back the extra torque!) my city mpg’s were 22.

3)The batteries are charged at idle and during engine braking, but most importantly, the batteries are charged by plugging in the car – it is a plug in hybrid.

4)The original Ford 200 engines were not the most efficient engines and mine likely hasn’t been rebuilt correctly in a very very long time. A rebuilt 200, with some of the performance modifications that make it more efficient, can achieve up to 28 mpg’s. I am just not there yet.

If I can get to 30, I’ll be very excited. But for now I will take my 20’s!

I had a 66 w/ same set up 200ci 1bbl w/ auto trany(cruise-o-matic) 3speed. rear ratio is 2.89 (or something close.) back in 76 to 1984
I had the head rebuilt at 100k.
I ran clifford headers 3-2 - 1. with 2 inch pipe to a ssingle muffler, the y into the GT tips. (I just LOVED the gt tips!!!)
I also ran a gas/mpg monitor and a cruise control (had to run 67 gas pedal linkage to make the cruise work)
I got about 28mpg on the freeway at 65mph. A mumber I was pretty excited about at the time.
The headers really made a nice rumble sound.

oh, I also was running a F70/14 series tire. I know that was a size or two taller than the stock.

Mcrews-i am really impressed that you were getting 28 in your old Mustang! I've only spoken to one other person who could get 28 mph. They did it by driving 55 -65 mph and tuned the engine on the lean side. He said that he had a little trouble with the lean mixture (heat) but overall it worked well for him.

Was your's tuned lean? Also when you rebuild the head, did you oversize the valves or increase the rocker arm ratio to decrease breathing restrictions?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Also - I am running smaller tires, 195/60R14. I like the smaller tires as they seem to improve acc/breaking/handling.

I got 27 highway in my 63 Valiant on POS $10 recap bias ply tires. 170 CI slant 6 with a 3 speed column shift. Those Mustangs, Falcons, and Valiants were very light cars. The 64 Mustang was advertised at $1 a pound, 2395 pounds, $2395 new. That's not much more than the lightest new cars you can buy, and very close to the first 70 240Z.

regards
Mech

Awesome stuff. Im a stang junky so this thread caught my attention quick. Sounds like with some tweakin, tuning and driving you will see ALOT better. My 66 with 200ci motor, 272 cam, 70's big log head, QuickFuel 2 barrel carb and TE44 turbo thru a WC T5 5 speed just knocked down 30mpg on the way to Gatlinburg for the Shades of the Past show. Unfortunately, around town cruisin in bumper to bumper traffic and spoolin it up for everyone netted a measly 7mpg while we were there LOL. She's still got a ton left in the tune as well so I bet I could bump those numbers up easy. Good luck with it, keep it up and please keep us posted. OH...pics would be nice as well!

Matt

My (very)limited understanding was that the headers caused it to run lean......
Also, the re-built head was stock, but really made a huge improvement. I was able to actully squeal the tires a bit!!!
I credit the 28 mpg to 1. rebuilt head 2. header/exhaust setup 3. larger tire 4. monitor

My dream is to pick up a restored mustang and do a straight 6 with 3 carbs and a newer trany (4 speed/od). ohhenhouser made a 3 carb addapter that used 2 smaller ibbl carb as "secondarys" that only kick in at 3/4 throttle.
I would probqbly run a 250 head on the 200 block.

THe problem w/ the 6 cylindar models was the front spendels were so small, compared to the v8.

Oh, and I had lowered my front A-arm 1 inch and ran shelby spec alignment. Also ran a rear sway bay. (made all the difference in the world!)

Swap in the Granada front spindle or a V8 spindle and some disc brakes and your set. Discbrakeswap.com is a GREAT place for a swap package and incredible customer service. I LOVE my T5 swap, its from a 91GT and made the car so much more fun to drive. Im still runnin the stock rearend (miracle it hasnt grenaded) with 2.73 rear gear, would like to swap an 8.8 with 3.55s but the MPG on the highway is SOOOOO nice with this setup lol.
Matt

I have to imagine that the greatest gains would be in having a complete engine shutoff during stops and slow speeds. Some of the hypermilers who use the engine shutoff during stops/idles could probably give the best estimate for gas savings for that aspect. I'm not sure how much more could be gained by a full hybrid system.

Personally, I'd much rather convert an old 'stang to full electric. As I remember, the aerodynamics aren't great, so it would make a much better weekend/neighborhood cruiser than a highway runner anyway.

At my local Good Guys show, there's a guy that brings his '66 Mustang that he calls a "GT140T".

It caught my eye, but it's pretty unassuming on the outside, just a nice restomod:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...CN16451546.jpg

The kicker is a 300hp 2.3 Turbo (SVO motor) under the hood:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...CN16481548.jpg
He claims 30+ mpg with it.

Lots o' pics here:
Pictures by angliagasser - Photobucket

Sup Frank? I'm kind of in the same boat as you.

And I also built a hybrid for shats and gaggles.

I felt it was an excellent power increase method, but the mileage just wasn't worth it. Seriously, the car was QUICK off the line with an extra 85 ft lb of torque. Even with the added weight of the batteries. But..

On a good day, if traffic was nice, and I controlled both throttles with surgical skill.. I would see 35~38 mpg. But this was with heavy electric subsidization which I never got around to even metering since my Kill-A-Watt was stolen. 35~38 mpg is roughly what I get on the highway on a good day as well. So that seems to be my upper limit on the car (still shooting for 40 one of these days, too stupid to give up)

But the batteries were very heavy, I had a range of only a few miles before I saw degradation of power, and the system got very hot under the hood and would govern itself to less power.

Plus, with all the idling and fiddling and adjusting and idling and tinkering and idling my tank average actually reported slightly less than average mileage. It was a fun project, but I've since removed the components from the car and am rebuilding it into something else (can't decide yet, too busy with grad school.) I'm also open to selling it, but have had no acceptable offers on it.

So I'll just be sitting on some really expensive parts for the time being. And grumbling about my lame averages as I use the car only for short, cold, snowy, city trips now.

I'd still love to see more about this project though, but the website is hard to navigate and I see no actual pictures of work being done. Which to me, is the most interesting aspect of such a project.

:turtle:

Thanks for chiming in.

I saw pics of an old Mustang, and pics of electric motors, and a pic of a battery, but I never saw any pics of an old Mustang with electric motor or battery IN IT.

Probably because that would be considered ecoporn... :turtle:

I think some in here are mistaking highway and city fuel mileage.

Yeah high 20s on the highway is doable in a mustang (even a heavier v8 foxbody mustang). mid 20s in the city though? That's unheard of and highly impressive.

I think some on this board might be a little subjective simply because (in my experience, anyway) it can be easier to improve city mileage. Even without extreme hypermiling techniques, I've been able to come close to matching my city with my highway mileage, and that is with LRR tires.

http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/v...ng_page001.jpg

A very rare aftermarket bolt on kit.

Frank -

I've seen a 1st-gen Camaro that was converted to electric. Here is one :

Gadget's Electric Garage
This was done by the Hippy Motors dudes :

Welcome to Hippy Motors

CarloSW2

I wish I could get my city mileage (15) closer to my highway mpg (24) in my Bronco II 4x4. Maybe it's all the hills and short trips. Gotta admit I've been planning something similar but cheaper using a dc series motor and lead acid batteries and recharging over night.

No glitz here, but in the early 80's, I had a stone stock '65 Stang, 200 six w
3sod manual.
At a constant 55mpg., w 2 people in the car, I drove down I-5 from Portland to
Long Beach, CA.(Formula 1 race) and back; mpg was right at 30 on the nose.

I should mention though; that my car had 13 inch wheels, and sat a little low,
almost Chicano style.

A few 1st gens. really came that way. When I went to sell, a guy showed up
w his two teenaged daughters claiming he was president of the Portland
Mustang Club, and was furious at me for ruining the car by putting a Falcon/Comet
chassis to the car.

The 13's are legit, I ordered actual Mustang hubcaps for it. He wouldn't believe
me, and stormed away!

He could look at the hubcaps,but still didn't believe. I do believe they were
somewhat rare. Check your parts sources!

Anyway, I'm sure the lower stance helped the mpg. at least a little!

That's my 2 cents worth! I don't know what the diff. ratio was.

For me, it has all been due to route choices and timing lights/traffic. My car doesn't P&G so well, but at < 45 mph, I can neutral coast for fairly long distances.

In my opinion, for a hybrid option anyway, a DC motor setup would be the way to go. I couldn't see needing to go faster than 10-15 mph, and for that, the amps are going to be more important than the volts. You could probably do that with a 48-volt system, but given the weight difference, Li batteries (~16 cells) would be the way to go. I'd have to do more research, but maybe 200 lbs for the whole system?

I agree that driving style makes a big difference and it doesn't cost anything. I was actually averaging 13 mpg city but I am up to 15 which is still pretty sad. 90% of my driving is short trips in town but I only spend about $150 per month on gas so replacing the Bronco doesn't make sense since it serves my purposes and I don't have much money into it. I figure I could save one third of the fuel or about $40 per month by subsidizing it with grid power. I already have a spare dc motor, six deep cycle batteries and I can build another controller for $200. If I had to spend a couple thousand to do it it wouldn't be worth it to me. Would you believe I'm thinking of mounting the motor in place of the AC compressor (doesn't work anyway) and using a chain drive off the crankshaft? :)

my son and I have a 67 mustang (his first car)total rebuild from a POS. now a 72 250ci six He drove it to high school and only got 15mi average mpg and rr tire was always a problem along with the driveline,ready again for a rework ,have granada front disc ,98 exploder rearend/w discs and highway gearing ,subframs have been installed I might consider the electric assist If I can get the time.

Hi Everyone – thank you all for the great stories regarding your older Mustangs and cars! I have enjoyed reading them.

So I drove over to my local Classic Ford shop and I asked about proper tuning and other methods of achieving higher mpg’s. After they spent a fair amount of time, enjoying the hybrid installation, one of the gentlemen asked if I bypassed the pink wire. I’ve read about this pink “resistor” wire but I have never messed with.

So the next day, I went ahead and bypassed the pink resistor wire, raising the voltage to the coil from 8.5 to 11.8V (I must still be missing something because I don’t have the full 12.5V as measured from the battery). The mustang seemed to have more torque between 2500 and 4000 rpm and no longer has as much of a lagging feeling at the higher rpm’s.

So today I went out for a short (20 mile) highway drive at ~60 mph. Using the same pump, with the car in the same filling position, I recorded freeway mileage of 34.7mpg’s! I am sure there is error in such a short trip, but it is encouraging nonetheless!

Now I wonder what will happen to my city mpg’s of 22 (with aggressive driving)….

Oh yeah – I now have no idea what my base is without the electric motor so I guess my percentage increase is null and void.

Happy driving!

http://howtobuildahybrid.com/howtobuildahybrid_003.htm
I do not understand how this motor was installed.

Do you have a gallery or album which I'm not seeing?

I owned/drove a 1966 Mustang from 1979 to 1982. It had the 6 cyl Sprint 200 and an automatic trans. Good and bad memories of it.

ncwa: any chance you could post a thread with a description & some photos of what you've created, how you operate it, etc?

I realize you have a web site, but it's questionable etiquette at best (spam at worst) to join the forum to discuss your vehicle, and not have any information posted here about the project, other than a link.

Hope you don't mind the request. I'd love to read details of your Mustang on this site.

Maybe it is just me but that seems a bit harsh. I can get a lot more info into a website than I can a post. Please also note that I posted this one under "success story" not "DIY".

This thread has definitely been met with some negativity. I'll stop posting until I can find these etiquette rules that I seem to be missing. My mistake I guess.

I'm sorry you interpreted my request as negativity.

Unfortunately, there's a history of people whose only purpose in using this (and other) forums is to promote their own web sites, rather than to share information.

I'm sure you're not one of them.

I can tell you if your goal is to share information, you'll get a lot more interest in your project if you post a summary here.

another 66 mustang owner. I had the 200 and the rotten 3 speed on the floor. I got a maverick bellhousing and a toploader 4 speed out of a V-8, swapped the rear end for 2.80 auto gears. While it lasted it got great mileage on the freeway, right around 30 at 65~70 MPH. It was another one of those low rider mustangs. It had the worn out rear springs so I lowered the front to match :D
Then I got the bright idea of putting in a V-8 to match my transmission, and all thoughts of mileage went out the window.

video update
 

I finally made a quick video of the hybrid. This should give some info as to what I did. I might start tearing into again and I will try to post images or videos of the work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWXwA5wI2K0

just figured id add to this some as stated before these ol motors get some poor milage and i think the old log intake on these motors is the major killer i do believe.

my current 73 4 door maverick has a 250 inline in it and c4 auto 2.79 gears
stock it averaged 15-17mpg
I put some tall tires and got 10 mpg :0
added a header,tuneup,msd ignition,wideband tuned carter yf carb and a 2" free flowing exhaust,electric fan,and a electric fuel pump ,and a early timing chain
I now average 22.5 city and 26.5 freeway on 87 octane E10

(just changing the tires to a shorter set took me from 10 to 17mpg) LOL

thank you for the update vid. That clears things up for a lot of folks I am sure.

No, the biggest drawback to those is the manifolding which does not come off and carb setup. The Australian versions did, maybe that would help.

FORDSIX PERFORMANCE &bull; Index page

This sight is devoted to the Ford 200/250 IL6 and the Ford 300 IL6.

The forum sponsor offers an aluminum head specifically designed for the Ford 200/250 IL6.

I read it frequently; very informed folks over there.