Better MPG in an old pickup truck?

[Frank Lee]

Non turbo carb would be perfectly acceptable.

Google tells me a '59 100 should be 3000-3300 lbs. so yes this old full-sized truck weighs less than most cars on the road today.

[Sven7]

'59 is a third gen.

1954 F-100 with 223 six cyl, 3 speed, curb weight 3240 lbs with fuel.

http://www.fordforums.com/f645/1953-...weight-138183/

Honestly, a Focus engine would do fine if you could find a transmission to fit it. For carbs, possibly an early Fox body? Edit: Yep, that's the 2.3L you guys were talking about. Hook that up to a 5 speed with a tall rear end and you're golden.

A bed cover and belly pan wouldn't hurt either.

[pete c]

A carb can be very efficient, but, it takes work to stay on top of it and requires a very light foot. If he wants max FE while putting down the road at consistent speeds, a carb is fine. FI kicks it's butt because it can maintain perfect stoichiometry during WOT, whereas a carb goes too rich when you put your foot in it. Pretty much rules out P&Ging.

Wonder if it's possible to have a carb with an O2 sensor and variable jetting? I'm sure it's possible, actually. Just don't know if anyone has bothered doing it. I suppose a TBI setup makes way more sense.

[Ryland]

Originally Posted by pete c

Wonder if it's possible to have a carb with an O2 sensor and variable jetting? I'm sure it's possible, actually. Just don't know if anyone has bothered doing it. I suppose a TBI setup makes way more sense.

Honda was doing that back in the 1980's, but they also had 56 vacuum lines running around that carb to help control all the parts of it.
Fuel injection would be the best route, either that or a turbo diesel, a 1959 F100 weighs about the same as a VW jetta TDI so that might even be an option, a bit more frontal area in the truck but people also toss all kinds of stuff on the roof of some of those cars too.

[Duffman]

The key to getting good fuel economy in an old car is a manual transmission with an OD. A smaller sized engine goes a long way too. The 4.6 being contemplated is actually a decent choice.

[pete c]

Originally Posted by Ryland

Honda was doing that back in the 1980's, but they also had 56 vacuum lines running around that carb to help control all the parts of it.
Fuel injection would be the best route, either that or a turbo diesel, a 1959 F100 weighs about the same as a VW jetta TDI so that might even be an option, a bit more frontal area in the truck but people also toss all kinds of stuff on the roof of some of those cars too.

I had one of those damn things. '84 Accord. A beautiful running car till one one those 56 vac lines started acting up. After battling it on and off for a year or so, I got rid of it.

[sgtlethargic]

What's your take on this recent comment on same thread on another forum?

Easiest 'secret' to fuel mileage is long stroke. Make the fuel WORK!! Chevy 305 always did better than Ford 302. Why?? 3.48" stroke vs. 3" stroke. Less fuel (smaller chamber) did more work. Look at today's mileage champs - longer strokes, some engines are going back to undersquare (longer stroke than bore).

Next up is breathing. If you're gong to make the fuel work more, make it easier to get to work.

Odds and sods will take up most of the evening, but a good start is to look at what the OEMs are doing for better mileage. Whatever you can adapt, do so. Probably the cheapest for most hotrodders is to actually be HOT!! Run a 195º thermostat for better thermal efficiency. Thinner tires. Underchin spoiler to keep air from under the car.

[Frank Lee]

I have my doubts about whether the stroke thing is all that critical. Seems to me if it's geared for 1000-1200 f/mn piston speed (gasoline 4 stroke) that's what counts.

[ecomodded]

I would hate to taint that truck with the great but imported vw diesel, it would work well perhaps to well but it would kill the trucks personality. I 2nd the ford 300 straight six, that motor is a champ.