Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-10-2013, 07:52 PM   #11 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 8,878

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 212
Thanked 2,920 Times in 2,279 Posts
I know some one that did a 5L TBI to 351 fuel injected and they said they would never do it again. Not because of the fact that nothing bolted up anywhere to anything but because of the electronics.

__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 09-10-2013, 09:38 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mikeyjd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 838

Matchbox - '93 Ford Festiva L
Team Ford
Last 3: 70.16 mpg (US)

Salamander - '99 Chrysler Concorde LXI
Team Dodge
90 day: 30.3 mpg (US)

Urquhart - '97 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 V6 3.4L DLX
Pickups
90 day: 25.81 mpg (US)

Smudge - '98 Toyota Tacoma
90 day: 40.65 mpg (US)

Calebro - '15 Renault Trafic 1.25 dci
90 day: 39.39 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,380
Thanked 209 Times in 155 Posts
If you are driving mostly highway, slower speeds will give you the biggest gain in mileage. I drive 55mph on 70mph limit highways traffic permitting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 09:58 PM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,018 Times in 1,302 Posts
I had a 92 for a short time. 300 six, Mazda 5 speed and a good highway gear, might have been a 3.08. With the .79 OD 5th engine revs were very low at highway speeds. On a trip to pick up a Honda CBR250 R I went over 800 miles and averaged 20 MPG at 70 MPH, but it was much worse around town. One of the problems with the 300 6 was the difference in cylinder temps in such a large engine with the cooler radiator exit water keeping some cylinders significantly cooler than the others. Mine only had 89k miles when I bought it. I think it would have been better with the V8. It may be why Ford went with the V6 in the later versions.
Sold it and bought a 97 Ranger, averaging about 32 MPG in the Ranger, 2.3 4 cyl, 5 speed, 3.45 rear, also tall geared. It's all the truck I need.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 12:00 AM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 13

Wild Willys - '63 Willys Pickup
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yeah, the 55 in a 70 thing, it ain't happening here. I am trying to get better mileage the way I drive. I'm not driving like a grandma no matter the cost.
that said, my truck is geared pretty fast. I don't have a tach but the rpms sound fairly low at 70. I think I have a tach in my shop. I might try to hook it up to see what I am at. I have the 5 spd, which is quite nice. The truck cruises along nicely. I expected better MPG with the overdrive. As for a V-8, no you are not going to be impressed with a 302. I had a 95 4x4 with auto tranny. Got 8 to 11 mpg no matter how I drove it or treated it. I think the 460 would have been at least that good and lots more power. I will try a couple things with this truck. If I can't get to at least 18-19 I won't bother wasting money trying. I am building a 74 f100 with a 3.3 turbo diesel from a mitsubishi cabover truck. That truck should get me closer to 30mpg. I am about done with these gas engines. They just aren't efficient enough. My neighbor has a 2004 dodge cummins, runs in the mid 20mpgs. So why try squeaking 18 with a 2wd 6 cyl when you can have 400hp and all the torque and also decent mpgs. with a quad cab 4x4?
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 12:02 AM   #15 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 13

Wild Willys - '63 Willys Pickup
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I do appreciate everybody offering ideas and help. If I come up with anything clever I will share it for sure!
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 01:19 PM   #16 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 732 Times in 553 Posts
So why try squeaking 18 with a 2wd 6 cyl when you can have 400hp and all the torque and also decent mpgs. with a quad cab 4x4?

Because every single repair on the Cummins-powered truck -- not to mention tires, transmissions, etc -- will be much more expensive. From initial purchase onwards in comparison to the I6-300 Ford 1/2T.

A new set of BOSCH injectors (as re-mans are wholly unacceptable) is going to run $4000. Ignore the symptoms of impending failure and there goes a $17,000 motor.

The Ford has more potential for most owners.

And, by the way, the rollover statistics for pickups should get anyones attention. There is no such thing as "safe" in a pickup at 70-mph not from any standpoint of steering, handling or braking. 58-62 mph pretty well covers the highway speed range. The benefit of higher mpg is just icing on the cake. Higher travel speeds "might" svae a little time on a trip of over 300-miles, But not otherwise (just ego and being one of the sheeple), as the numbers don't jive. Hell, you can't go 300-miles anywhere in New England anyway, so it'll never work out.

Try a better analysis of needs (truck spec vs. use), not just travel speed & mpg. A long lasting truck with low operating costs past a low purchase price is a good goal for any truck owner. FE is not a reason to change if those two are met.

.

Last edited by slowmover; 09-16-2013 at 01:24 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to slowmover For This Useful Post:
Frank Lee (10-12-2013)
Old 09-19-2013, 02:49 PM   #17 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 13

Wild Willys - '63 Willys Pickup
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
A well cared for diesel will outlast a gas engine 4 to 1. injector replacements should be rare in most diesels as long as filter changes are done and correct fuel is used. The ultra low sulfur fuel certainly isn't helping your cummins injection system. I admit the 300 gas engine is just about bullet proof. had several of them, and yes they are pretty low cost to own and operate. My issue, I do some towing. My 300, not great for it in my truck. It is geared fast. I get 16mpg, barely. Even when I drive slower. tried it. As for vehicle safety, I'm not running road races. I am hammering 70-75 on a highway. Yes, no truck is good as a car for handling, but I hardly would say that a truck is not safe either. Keep your suspension in good shape and they are just fine. And you can do a lot of performance mods to your suspension that will greatly improve handling.
My issue is this, my 300 get 16mpg. It runs at low rpm at the speeds i drive but still gets 16mpg. I had a bigger v8 Dodge truck that weighed a lot more, had 4x4 and 4 dr cab, and got better mpg. my little bare bones f150 2wd with NO frills, gets 16. Seems there is a better way. I love the 300 for its dependability. But to get worse mpg, and less performance makes me realize why they phased it out.
The big 3 must have stock in oil, thats all I can say. Japanese cars go for mpgs to improve, American car companies only go for it when they are forced. Awesome.
All this said, I just want to find a few tricks to make my lowly little truck do better. I am thinking of adding a bed cover, and a grill block. Easy tasks to do. After that I don't know. Considered lowering the truck a little but don't want to go too far down.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2013, 09:15 AM   #18 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 13

Wild Willys - '63 Willys Pickup
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I haven't done anything to the truck yet. Just tried driving it differently to see if it really makes much difference. Not much variance no matter how I drive it, rev it more, lug it more,etc. Still hanging right about 16mpg. Now to try doing something to it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2013, 10:49 PM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
2013Versa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Van Buren, Arkansas
Posts: 12

2016 Note - '16 Nissan Versa Note S
90 day: 35.19 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
way back when, I had a F-150 with the 302 and auto, my father had a F-150 with the 300 Six and same OD trans. Make sure your overdrive button works and that your tachometer drops some RPMs when you push the button. There should be a little light on the transmission shifter right by the OD button. EPA mpg for both were 14/18 and 12/17. The 302 was smoother but didn't have any more power than the 300. It wasn't a bad trade for 5% more fuel economy.

Make sure it's tuned up, new plug wires, distributor cap and plugs. Run plugs one heat range cooler. Clean the fuel injectors and get new fuel filters. Get timing set to specs. Get a tonneau or fastback bed cover. Put taller tires on it.

OR

Buy a Ranger with a 5 speed and the 2.3 four. 30 mpg on the highway easily and you can do the same things above for better MPGs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 02:34 AM   #20 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,738

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 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)

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

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,572
Thanked 3,508 Times in 2,195 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by #1fordguy View Post
As for a V-8, no you are not going to be impressed with a 302. I had a 95 4x4 with auto tranny. Got 8 to 11 mpg no matter how I drove it or treated it. I think the 460 would have been at least that good and lots more power.
As we can see, the 302-a/t-4x4 gets far more than 8-11 "no matter how it's driven". Even the 460 m/t in an F250 x-cab long box got at least 13.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com