Hi from New Zealand Mustang EcoModder

[xecute]

Wow what a forum!!!!

I was influenced hugely by a fellow Kiwi Doug McMillan, who with the help of a road closure initated by a friendly official, drove a Honda VTEC CRX at 7 Mile Road, Oamaru, establishing 148.68 mph on 19 October 1997 with only 97 cubic inches, a class record. This was pivitol in me starting with a real world road load database.His figures in a magazine inspired me to investigate how much you can do with just a bare minumum of horsepower and capacity. Him, and the late Flying Kiwi Burt Monroe..


I am a private funded engineering technician who does State Highway audit and road testing in New Zealand. I have an I6 81 3.3 Mustang Hatch, a 92 hp low efficency car with a Revised EPA US Highway/City rating in California spec C3 auto form of
City:18 MPG (U.S.)
Highway:26 MPG (U.S.)
Combine:22 MPG (U.S.).

I got it because its Left Hand drive and its low build compared to emerging tall SUV/MPV vehicles is very handy in right hand drive New Zealand when doing road asset monitoring.

I presently do 12 000 miles of state highway work, and about 4000 miles of urban/city running per annum, but I'm ramping up the road roughness side which takes me all over the South Islands 3900 miles of sealed roads. I have two test loops, a 781 mile and 524 mile journey which have the same conditions every time, except for weather. That's about 20% of the south islands sealed road network right there.

The Stang has been used for 8 months now as a lead audit vehicle after two 95 RAV4.1's and a 98 XLT 4.0 sohc Explorer.

The average cold running city figure of 10.3 US mpg in San Francisco like hills of Dunedin, open road warm running best of 17mpg at 62 mph average open road speed, but normally 53 to 73 mph due to traffic flows and grades of up to +/-12%. My overall average is therefore 13.7 mpg vs. the 22 US mpg ideal for the LA basin test.

New Zealand is a totally different kettle of fish, with coarse high friction chip seal with a soft structural number (flexible with high deflections under load), very sharp relief with overall average climbs of +4% common to audits, then -4% downgrades on return. It's rare to get dead flat conditions. Automatic transmissions, and road conditions and traffic densities on two lane undivided centre line roads make it very, very hard to practice moderation in driving.

The only engine mod at present is a 1961 170 closed chamber head with compression up only half a point to 8.9 and small runner 1.3" log head and carb base. EGR is non functional at present, secondary catalyst is no longer on the car, p.o took it off. It has a dual outlet exhaust, runs AIR and stock ignition profile, our 91 RON fuel (your US 87 AKI)

It carries my test equipment, a 16 bit Campbell Scientific data logger hooked to a Brantz distance meter and it logs road roughness and side thrust for new and existing road construction.

US mpg Figures for the G spec 170 hp 4 speed auto RAV4.1's were 16.2/28.2/22.2, and the 5 speed 205 hp Explorer was 15.2/22.6/18.9.

I need to reduce drag of the Mustang from the 0.45 it is now to about 0.22 by using Renault Vera/Ecomodder style mods, and am working on a 12.7:1 compression hike, water injection and ignition advance drop to 16 static and 28 degrees total. I have access to a stock multi point Ford EEC4 EFI system which I hope to put in soon. I have had an AOD four speed set aside for it, and I may be looking at a set of different axle gears to the 2.73 I have now.

I'm guessing with the planned compression ratio hike and 256 degree cam, the EFI unit which is okay for 140 to 185 hp, I might find other choices better. Other options are 3.08, and the Ranger 2.0 3.45, but also the Pinto/Mustang II 3.18/3.40 gears. My aim is to get those 10.3/17.0/13.7 figures up to 2.5 times what I have. If I could better the following city/highway/combine figures, I'd be laughing. With the 150hp I think I'll get, and a drag factor of 0.22. I'd do 155 mph and a 16.8 second quarter mile in third at 83 mph, so set of 3.18 gears might be optimum.

City25.8/ Hwy42.5/Combine34.2 is the goal.

Regards

x

[MetroMPG]

How did I miss this intro thread?

A belated welcome to you, xecute.

Sorry for an obvious question: with the amount of driving you do, was fuel economy not more of a priority in vehicle selection?

Clearly you enjoy the Mustang; maybe that's all that matters!

[user removed]

My Ranger has the Mazda .80 OD 5 speed and a 3.45, with the old iron 2.3 4 cylinder. Why not a turbo 2.3 with the 5 speed and 3.45. same setup if I turboed my Ranger. Look at my Ranger fuel log, close to 30 MPG (US) overall. Might save you some cash and still offer decent performance. I had a 59 350 Corvette a long time ago thathad a 3.08 and a Muncie wide ratio and got 21 average andwould do 140 in 3rd.

regards
Mech

[mcrews]

welcome!!!

I love mustngs!
Had a 1979 Mustang Indy Pace car w/ the 2.2 turbo! never cared about mpg back then...!
also several 1966 and a 1973 w 351 4bll.

[xecute]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

How did I miss this intro thread?

A belated welcome to you, xecute.

Sorry for an obvious question: with the amount of driving you do, was fuel economy not more of a priority in vehicle selection?

Clearly you enjoy the Mustang; maybe that's all that matters!

I needed something serviceable, LHD, American, able to be ecomodded. It was the only alternative to either the 98 Explorer, or a 1996 NZ market Taurus.

The average cold running city figure of 10.3 US mpg in San Francisco like hills of Dunedin, open road warm running best of 17 mpg at 62 mph average open road speed, but normally 53 to 73 mph due to traffic flows and grades of up to +/-12%. My overall average is therefore 13.7 mpg vs. the 22 US mpg ideal for the LA basin test.

New Zealand is a totally different kettle of fish, with coarse high friction chip seal with a soft structural number (flexible with high deflections under load), very sharp relief with overall average climbs of +4% common to audits, then -4% downgrades on return. It's rare to get dead flat conditions. Automatic transmissions, and road conditions and traffic densities on two lane undivided center line roads make it very, very hard to practice moderation in driving.

I've been very busy with road inspection and other work. I've used a 1.6 liter 1992 Mitsubishi Galant sedan and my dads old Camry style Front drive Central Fuel Injection Corona 1832 cc sedan, and not gotten better than US 22.4 MPG with my standard 780 mile monthly inspection on coarse chip seal with 3300 feet rises over 90 miles being the common theme. And with a tight dead line for completion, I cannot be gentle with the throttle or drop below a 50 mph average speed for 16 hours driving. Always two lane, undivided centreline, behind trucks and caper vans and tourists.

US mpg Figures for the G spec 170 hp 4 speed auto RAV4.1's were 16.2/28.2/22.2, and the 5 speed 205 hp Explorer was 15.2/22.6/18.9.

In US mpg, best 523 mile G spec 170 hp 4 speed auto RAV4.1 average was 29.3 mpg at 62 mph average. Around town, 17.7 mpg

With the XLT 98 Explorer, a fully US compliant vehicle, the best open road figure was 29.3 mpg also, but 21.65 was common open road, 16.7 mpg town.

When the bluff 3.5" wide export guard flares were removed, the 265 /70 16's replaced with 235/60 16's M&S, I got 23.35 average open road, and 17.7 us mpg around town.


The road conditions are probably like a combination of Idaho and some parts of Southern California's coastal roads. Its worse, we have two lane blacktop, and I have an audit schedule which has been the same since 2010 to date, which means I am totally time bound to cover the miles in the same time-frame, at the same average speed. There are no slip lanes, no options to reduce speed, and therefore compared to the US Highway figures, the 92 hp 3.3 six is much harder worked than the two SUV's.

I was up to 15.44 after practicing moderation, but it hurt my arrival times, with average speed dropping 10 mph over a 780 mile audit, it cost me 2 hours and 20 minutes in total, plus safety issues with traffic flow where I use video camera evidence.


Performance is a partial issue. I'm also truck driver, so its nothing for a loaded semi taking a 300 hp 50 ton weight to less than a 44 second 1/4 mile, roughly equal to a traction limited 3300HP G Class loco weighing 127 tons. Though I can't really enjoy a 20 second quarter mile car, its acceleration isn't an issue except that it won't go up a 12% grade at 60 mph without 100% throttle. My old SUV's didn't really suffer like the Mustang does, but its got very little total cdA aero drag compared to those SUV's I've used.

At least the Stang is 4 seconds faster than the best race horse over the 660 dash...

My set amount of work means my only option to reduced fuel consumption is aero and engine efficiency. The average speed won't improve much with any coast down reduction or power gain..

[elhigh]

Subscribed.

The set route and speed requirements make for a pretty good long-term A-B test. Maybe even A-B-A if you're willing to undo them for confirmation of results.

Does the 'Stang get any use outside of the road audit duty?

[xecute]

Originally Posted by elhigh

Subscribed.

The set route and speed requirements make for a pretty good long-term A-B test. Maybe even A-B-A if you're willing to undo them for confirmation of results.

Does the 'Stang get any use outside of the road audit duty?

At the moment, no. When used before, the readings did include town /urban/city stop start driving.



Its just struck me that I have access to a low speed signage control.



By running about 200 watts of low speed electrical lighting, and a small drag loss of using a light bar, I can legally run at 38 mph, the optimum for fuel consumption. As a roading inspector, I have a variety of legal means open to me








I've done it often in the past with the Exploder



In addition, I need to get militant with mpg savings. And I'm fortunate to have the means to get the 48 states CAFE Highway 28 or California 26 US mpg 55 mph reading an automatic 81 Mustang should get.

Ford Mustang Gas Mileage: 1978 – 2013 | MPGomatic | Where Gas Mileage Matters


I'm getting 17 US mpg at my 62 mph average, so I am sure I can save 53 to 65% right off by very radical lower speed hyper-mile techniques


If I demand manage the audits each Tuesday night for upwards of 8 hours, I can rework my audit schedule, and cover off have a full 719 miles at 38 mph average in 19 hours, and eliminate any over 50 mph running entirely. Based on this,

Although it varies according to car, the idealized curve below allows me to eliminate traffic flows restricting steady state speed at night.



Outside the working range, but even at 50 mph to top speed, you can get a general 'law of the machine" fuel consumption reduction by eliminating above 50 mph travel.



I'll use the standard early 1980's pre fuel injection Ford/Holden/GM flow meter (since my car is pre EFI, pre ODB1 carburetor car )


and replace the standard clock with a Crown Victoria/Mercury Marquis "Trip Minder"




I've also got an aviation throttle lean out device to dynamically change air fuel if I so desire






It was a lot easier in the OBD2 Explorer with Car Codes on line program and coms link to monitor things

http://s1215.photobucket.com/user/xe..._4080.mp4.html

So for better monitoring on a pre OBD car, I run another onboard computer to data log

[xecute]

Well, what a success! I've dropped my average speed from a nominal 62 mph with a variance to a flat 42 mph, just like in the graph.




Except in my case the 62 mph average is impossible to maintain without 52 to 72 mph variance. So my 42 mph steady state speed made everything a massive amount better, even on a slick 0.36 drag factor, 19 sq foot frontal area front driver with loping 4 speed automatic overdrive

I did a pilot check last night via the 199 mile section of my audit, and fuel consumption on my Corona has dropped like a fly in the frost, with 22.4 US mpg going at 62 now becoming 32.3 US mpg 42 mph, a great 44% improvement. Safer, legal, and fun.

Aimed with this knowledge, I've gone an done some research on historical Mustang 3.3 mpg figures.

In a seven page 1967 article, found this http://www.classicinlines.com/HA1.asp, According to Ak Millers July 1967 Hot Rod article, with a 3 speed manual Mustang with a 38.5% power boost over stock via extra basic idle timing, better 1.687" throttle 1-bbl F100 carb, and proper tubing headers, and dual exhast, it would give...

All This and Economy Too

About this time, our local hot rod club was having an annual economy run and we decided to enter the little Mustang six -not knowing what it would do. Since we had changed the exhaust and carburetor, we were ready to accept almost any figure. Much to our delight, the Mustang registered 35.9 miles per gallon per 200 miles of Southern California coastline. Now before you call me a liar, let me explain that 50 pounds of air was used in the tires (for low rolling resistance), and coasting was allowed whenever possible. The overall average speed was 45 miles per hour and the gas tanks were sealed. The nearest competitor registered 27 mpg. The cars were all carefully inspected for obvious infractions such as added gas tanks. etc., and when the final results were in, The Mustang was able to keep its reputation as an economy winner while performing with 90 hp (at the rear wheels), compared to the 65 hp it started life with. From Untitled Document

So with these baby steps, I'm into getting 36 mpg in that 200 mile run down here. I can do it!

I'll also have the uprated compression, carb and cam upgrades phased in over time

[MetroMPG]

Nice find, that reference to the old Mustang economy run!

[xecute]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Nice find, that reference to the old Mustang economy run!

The old US econo run stuff is great...all my learning is from the great Australian Total Economy Run in the late 70's, early 80's, and a lot of very good stuff from David Vizards Car Craft stuff. Having had a mate with a 351 C, a 350 Chev, and my own SOHC Pinto engined Cortinas like his 1972 2 door 1600 Cortina GT, his 2000 cc Pinto, and his Mini Clubman, I've been around the block with all his theory and real world calc's.

The Total Economy run data was very advanced. It gave 62 to 68 mph economy figures, and explained that even the best automatic transmissions gave a 15% loss of fuel economy. They used the Grand Prix Efficiency Index to calculate very accurate 62 mph Imperial MPG figures.


In 1977 and 1980, Wheels Magazine in Australia did two high speed Sydney to Perth runs

In 1977, a big 3750 pound Falcon GS 4.9 with 4 speed SR manual, a high compression 9.4:1 4-bbl 302 Cleveland used to get 10.6 US mpg at 80 mph average on a 2640 mile Sydney to Perth cruise from a 207 hp powerplant.

In 1981, a 2450 pound Alfa Romeo Alfetta 2.0 liter twin DCOE carbed 5 speed. It got 13.6 mpg at 83.5 mph over the same distance. But those roads weren't US fine cement, and there were tired drivers trying to foresee wombat, wallaby, kangaroo and bull hits.


Despite the road load changes, it shows you just how a 28% fuel saving at 3.5 mph more required a 253% capacity drop, a 65.3% weight drop, and a 23.8% drop in cdA.