Ford 5.0 Efficiency Build Advice

[Frank Lee]

The GM 3.8 delivered high 20's, some report low 30's in the full-size cars. Why not just tune one of those?

[Baltothewolf]

Originally Posted by Stubby79

a 3.8l Supercharged engine would probably give you decent economy...perhaps a mild supercharger on your 5.0 would boost it's efficiency also?

Depends on the supercharger. But most of the time, no, because Amy gains are negated by the extra HP required to spin the charger.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Are you mind-set for a V8 in the Lincoln or would you eventually also consider fitting it with a smaller engine such as a V6? Maybe that 4.2L Essex V6 and the 5-speed manual transmission out of a F-150 could be a good option for that project.

When it comes to the V8, all I'll have to say by now is: don't de-stroke it. You might already know, oversquare engines tend to be more rev-happy and compromise the low-end torque.

Anyway, since you would eventually consider to use a supercharger, maybe you could consider to match it with a longer intake valve phasing.

[Malykaii]

Hersbird and Frank Lee
I definitely agree that for the sake of mpg, simplicity and reliability a Crown Vic, 3.8 Buick, or even a Lexus ES300 would make a far better choice. However, being a second car/project I'm looking more for a flashy premium vehicle like a Caddy, Lincoln, BMW 7, and such.

[Malykaii]

Also, the supercharged 3.8 would be so awesome and look great at a car show or something. Sadly, did the research, and while a 3.8 should almost bolt up to a 1983-5 Seville, the rest of that car appears to be very specific and one off. Reading about parts availability, and meh...

[Malykaii]

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
Thanks for advice about de-stroking. While one article mentions that it should increase mpg simply by cutting .4 L off the motor, it also mentions that I'd need a different cam shaft and roller rockers to match. So sounds like $1,000 in parts to save $300 in gas. Plus if I understand correctly, your saying that I'd have to rev the engine higher to compensate for lost torque, making me use more fuel and ultimately defeating the purpose.

While I'm pretty set on the car type, I'm very flexible on my engine choice as long as it's a fairly affordable and simple install process. Like right now I'm looking into the Lincoln Versailles and 82-85 Continentals as they are mud size and would shave off weight compared to a Town Car.

The 4.2 v6 sounds like a rad idea! Looks like it shares the same bell housing bolt pattern as a 302, so it would almost bolt right up! Also, wouldnt a t5 out of a mustang be a better geared trans for that or do you think the f150 truck trans would be better suited. Thanks.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Malykaii

While one article mentions that it should increase mpg simply by cutting .4 L off the motor, it also mentions that I'd need a different cam shaft and roller rockers to match. So sounds like $1,000 in parts to save $300 in gas. Plus if I understand correctly, your saying that I'd have to rev the engine higher to compensate for lost torque, making me use more fuel and ultimately defeating the purpose.

Depending on the cam profile and the intake and exhaust manifolds, it might decrease the engine's tendency for going rev-happy and improve low-end torque. Otherwise, yes, you'd have to over-rev it and resort to a lower diff ratio in order to get a similar overall performance.

The 4.2 v6 sounds like a rad idea! Looks like it shares the same bell housing bolt pattern as a 302, so it would almost bolt right up! Also, wouldnt a t5 out of a mustang be a better geared trans for that or do you think the f150 truck trans would be better suited.

Since trucks usually have a wider gear spread, it might not compromise too much the take-off when you resort to a higher rear-end ratio.

[93tracerwagon]

You probably want to look at a 90's crown vic prior to about 95. Ford somehow added about 400 lbs in 95 or so. The 93 is under 3800 lbs curb weight, similar to the t-birds of that time. If you want to go back further, the late 60's, early 70's dodge darts only weigh about 3000 lbs with a v-8 and are as roomy as todays full size( probably roomier). AS a comparison, my 1993 tracer/escort wagon weigh about 2500 lbs......cars have gottten way too heavy over the years.

[elhigh]

The aero on those things is pretty bad.

If you already have a specific car in mind that's one thing, but if you were looking for a car to make a project of, if you were willing to consider a second-gen model you might have better luck. It looks smoother in general, in addition to being the lightest generation of TCs.

Just as a blue sky crazy idea, the turbo four from the concurrent Thunderbird would fit, delivers comparable power, was available with the BW T5 manual and cuts a lot of weight out.

[93tracerwagon]

the 91 - 96 crown vics seem to be the best of both worlds....newer aero (.32 CD) and lighter weight than the post 96 models ( only 3800 lbs). That's only 100 lbs heavier than the v-8 t bird and .01 CD higher (.31 vs .32). Rated around 25 highway,IIRC.