Fuel economy

Mustang Australia

Author Topic: Fuel economy  (Read 16099 times)

Offline shaunp

  • GT 500
  • *********
  • Posts: 8496
  • Location: Brisbane
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2018, 09:28:58 pm »
Quick Fuel Technology Q750

Ah ok  Vac or DP

Offline JadeMach1

  • Thoroughbred
  • **
  • Posts: 191
  • Location: Melbourne
  • Car: H code Mach1
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #51 on: November 08, 2018, 09:39:36 pm »

Offline shaunp

  • GT 500
  • *********
  • Posts: 8496
  • Location: Brisbane
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #52 on: November 08, 2018, 09:42:26 pm »
OK QFs can be a bit fat depending on the engine spec, you could try dropping the jets 2 sizes as well

Offline JadeMach1

  • Thoroughbred
  • **
  • Posts: 191
  • Location: Melbourne
  • Car: H code Mach1
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #53 on: November 08, 2018, 09:46:48 pm »
Will put the car on dyno when the l change the jets.

Hoping to do that next week

Offline shaunp

  • GT 500
  • *********
  • Posts: 8496
  • Location: Brisbane
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #54 on: November 08, 2018, 09:51:17 pm »
Will put the car on dyno when the l change the jets.

Hoping to do that next week
Yeah you can try it on the road though I do it often Whats the engine spec?

Offline JadeMach1

  • Thoroughbred
  • **
  • Posts: 191
  • Location: Melbourne
  • Car: H code Mach1
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #55 on: November 08, 2018, 09:58:09 pm »
351 Windsor
Strokes to 393 and 20 thou over
RACING ROLLER ROCKERS
FORD RACING ALLOY HEADS # M-6049-X305
FORD RACING CAMSHAFT # M-6250-Z303
PC7000 PERFORMANCE DISTRIBUTOR
EDELBROCK  MANIFOLD


Offline shaunp

  • GT 500
  • *********
  • Posts: 8496
  • Location: Brisbane
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #56 on: November 08, 2018, 10:31:39 pm »
Ok that's right carb for that engine, it quite conservative, with small heads and small cam. It should be quite torquey down low to the mid range.

  Those heads are really too small for a 393, they are more a 302 head and they wont move a whole lot of air with the small valves and ports. mild 393 really wants 185-195 cc inlet port minimum,and a 2.02 inlet 1.6 exhaust.  Likewise its not big cam and an older design. I'd say it has plenty of Vacuum as a result of spec, so it maybe pulling some fuel through the jets as a result of this, the less vac you have the more jet you need etc. In real terms for 393 this should be ok on fuel given the spec. Depending on the compression it may take more timing which also help with fuel.

 393/408 I'd normally run 800-850, carb and a cam 235/245 with around 600 thou lift,  minimum 195cc inlet heads, and that will want to fall over around 6500, I'd run a minimum 185cc head on 347/351 for example. The gas speed gets too fast on small port heads, the ports go sonic and choke. 393 would be happy on the street with a 195-205 cc inlet port head.

Offline barnett468

  • Cobra
  • *********
  • Posts: 7174
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #57 on: November 09, 2018, 02:00:13 am »
As stated in my first post the key words “city” and “highway” it would be reasonable to expect a difference in consupution due to driving environment.

You are correct, I see that I simply got my numbers backwards as scedd pointed out so I modified my reply to him.

 
Key change to carburettor small capacity accelerator pump 35cc and secondary adjusted engine appears to run smoother. ie engine was running rich on acceleration underload in top gear (symptom blowing smoke on application of accelerator) This symptom appears to have stopped (l consider that a win)

Will assess economy return over the weekend on highway drive to compare with my initial highway figures of 21 litres on the same highway, Still trying to work out if the fuel consumption is normal or excessive noting highway driving will give a fair comparison of the changes that have been made. (Less variables) I am not expecting a massive change just try to ensure that the car work as efficient as possible.

The changes you made can not make any difference in steady throttle driving at any speed.

« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 02:03:44 am by barnett468 »

Offline barnett468

  • Cobra
  • *********
  • Posts: 7174
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #58 on: November 09, 2018, 02:09:28 am »
Will put the car on dyno when the l change the jets.

Take some jets with you so they can get the AFR close. They can also set the initial timing and the timing curve and vacuum advance (if you have one) for optimal performance if they know how and/or are willing to. This will take a bit of additional time which will cost more, however, it is an area that is often overlooked by most people and it can have a significant affect on both power and mileage.

Also, when jetted properly, an engine that runs at 200 degrees will get better mileage than one that runs at 180.

Higher air pressure in the tires will reduce rolling resistance and increase mileage, but obviously the pressure needs to remain within a safe limit that won't significantly reduce the tires performance etc.

In general, the thinner the oil, the better the mileage will be.




« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 02:19:44 am by barnett468 »

Offline barnett468

  • Cobra
  • *********
  • Posts: 7174
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #59 on: November 09, 2018, 02:21:13 am »
351 Windsor
Strokes to 393 and 20 thou over
RACING ROLLER ROCKERS
FORD RACING ALLOY HEADS # M-6049-X305
FORD RACING CAMSHAFT # M-6250-Z303
PC7000 PERFORMANCE DISTRIBUTOR
EDELBROCK  MANIFOLD

What ratio rockers?

What style of edelbrock intake?

What exhaust system?

Offline scedd1

  • Worked
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
  • Location: Sunshine Coast QLD
  • Name: Steve
  • Car: 68 Coupe - Frankenstang
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #60 on: November 09, 2018, 04:00:51 pm »
12 per 100 , shit I would have tow a caravan for the Ranger to use that. It sits just under 10 in the city and gets as low a 6.8 on the Hwy unloaded. My old man reckons his averages 13 towing his off road van mixed on and off road.

Being an unrepentant hoon, im quite happy with 12. I got 8.5-9 for the first 1000kms, then the Fortuner scored a lift kit, mud tyres, steel bullbar, front and back winches, drawers, recovery gear, roof rack and a second battery.
So it now goes 2.9 ton everyday and most of my trips are very long distance at too high a speed out west.
Because of the 265/60-18 Kumho's, it doesnt want to lock up the converter over 110 anymore, so when they flash the new software next service, that might help pull it down.
either way, i still love this truck and the taxpayer is picking up the diesel bill anyway. Thanks guys  :lmao:
.  ____________
./____________ \.
 ( ]]] _ _ O _ _ [[[ )
\_ o _ _____ _ o _/
 |___|            |___|

Offline GLENN 70

  • GT 500
  • *********
  • Posts: 8620
  • Location: Gold Coast .
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #61 on: November 09, 2018, 07:55:20 pm »
Without an AFR meter who knows what's going on . A Dyno doesn't always get the best results for street or hwy driving .  You don't want it too lean or too rich ,just right 😂

Offline JadeMach1

  • Thoroughbred
  • **
  • Posts: 191
  • Location: Melbourne
  • Car: H code Mach1
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #62 on: November 12, 2018, 07:33:05 am »
Some feedback from the weekend car fuel economy for the weekend:

17.5 lts per 100km highway (travelled 620 km)
24.8 lts per 100 km country roads/urban driving (travelled 86 km)

These returns are better then what I expected and now are looking forward to putting down some km over the summer break Melbourne to Sydney via the coast.

I would like to thank the PM messages sent to me on tuning and carburettor setting as this was a great help.

Offline lukep6470

  • Worked
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #63 on: November 12, 2018, 11:43:11 am »
You could tune it on the HW like we did in the good old days.  Put some lead in the fuel and see if the exhaust goes grey  :bolt:

Offline fredm666

  • Worked
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
  • hoping for the best but expecting the worst
  • Location: Perth/Pilbara/Sydney
  • Name: federico
  • Car: 64.5 D-code - 55 Cusso
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #64 on: February 11, 2022, 12:20:06 am »
Re-opening an old topic…

I recently did 85 miles or 136.76km with 24 litres of fuel, which is 5.7km/L or 17.5L/100km.
All miles done in town (Perth) on a stock ‘64 coupe with stock 289, edelbrock carbi and almost new headers/exhaust.
Do you guys get something similar?

Also, at the moment I’m running on 98 ron petrol and considering a “downgrade” to 95. Is a stock 289 able to run on 95 petrol without issues?
Thanks
fred

Offline AussiePhil

  • Worked
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
  • Location: Bathurst, NSW
  • Name: Phil
  • Car: 68 Coupe
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #65 on: February 11, 2022, 04:12:50 am »
Hey Fred,
Looking at these old posts is confusing. The fuel prices then were dear also.
We did have a good run 12ish months ago but the fuel prices are back up there!
That does sound high for a stockish 289 in a light car.
I know nothing about carburettors, is it to big for the engine or need jetting.
Was the traffic slow, lights etc.
Sounds like it may need a tune.
Yeah, I’d definitely go to 95 fuel.
17.5l/100km is only 16 imperial mpg, that’s the way you used to talk on old cars, that’s pretty bad.
But in the old days when we’d get 20mpg or better and the traffic was way better!
I waited for three green lights the other day to get through a known bad intersection! Some people are so inconsiderate of others behind them. If the light turns green and every car in the line moves there is no chain reaction, my pet hate!
Nothing to do with cars, my bike runs better on 95 I reckon, I think because they claim it produces so much power they resort to saying you must use 98, On the best day, best tune maybe?
Hope you get it sorted.
Cheers Phil.

PS, On a another matter of traffic my Son and family moved from Arncliffe in the City (real heavy traffic) to Bathurst.
First off they said there’s no traffic in Bathurst, now you should here them whinge about Bathurst traffic!
There are known bottlenecks you need to avoid at all costs!
« Last Edit: February 11, 2022, 04:22:44 am by AussiePhil »
If you've never buggered anything you've never done anything!
But if you've buggered a lot maybe you're not very good at it!

Two for one is good but four for two is better!

Offline Clubman7

  • Worked
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
  • Cruising.
  • Location: Mornington Peninsula
  • Name: Brett
  • Car: 1966 coupe, 2016 GT.
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #66 on: February 11, 2022, 07:04:43 pm »
Reading a couple of road tests on the 65 Mustang they were getting between 16 and 26 litres per 100 k’s.
16 to 9 mpg.
Scary figures these days but back then fuel was cheap.

Offline 66april

  • P Plates
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • I'm new here
  • Location: Sydney
  • Name: April
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2022, 08:25:58 pm »
I'm going through roughly 20litres per 100kms mostly highway driving 289 c4 straight pipes. I put 95petrol in as I find I get alot of soot coming out of the exhaust with 98
« Last Edit: February 11, 2022, 08:29:07 pm by 66april »

Offline fredm666

  • Worked
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
  • hoping for the best but expecting the worst
  • Location: Perth/Pilbara/Sydney
  • Name: federico
  • Car: 64.5 D-code - 55 Cusso
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #68 on: February 11, 2022, 09:27:55 pm »
Hey Fred,
Looking at these old posts is confusing. The fuel prices then were dear also.
We did have a good run 12ish months ago but the fuel prices are back up there!
That does sound high for a stockish 289 in a light car.
I know nothing about carburettors, is it to big for the engine or need jetting.
Was the traffic slow, lights etc.
Sounds like it may need a tune.
Yeah, I’d definitely go to 95 fuel.
17.5l/100km is only 16 imperial mpg, that’s the way you used to talk on old cars, that’s pretty bad.
But in the old days when we’d get 20mpg or better and the traffic was way better!
I waited for three green lights the other day to get through a known bad intersection! Some people are so inconsiderate of others behind them. If the light turns green and every car in the line moves there is no chain reaction, my pet hate!
Nothing to do with cars, my bike runs better on 95 I reckon, I think because they claim it produces so much power they resort to saying you must use 98, On the best day, best tune maybe?
Hope you get it sorted.
Cheers Phil.

PS, On a another matter of traffic my Son and family moved from Arncliffe in the City (real heavy traffic) to Bathurst.
First off they said there’s no traffic in Bathurst, now you should here them whinge about Bathurst traffic!
There are known bottlenecks you need to avoid at all costs!

Traffic is just city traffic with lights, car parks and very slow drivers. Perth is not bad to drive around, comparing to Sydney, so 13.5mpg here is not incredibly high for a 58 years old V8.
Car will have a tune next month and fuel consumption is not the reason, but maybe we will see some improvement in that regard.
I will also try the 95 and see how the car goes.
Thanks
fred

Offline fredm666

  • Worked
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
  • hoping for the best but expecting the worst
  • Location: Perth/Pilbara/Sydney
  • Name: federico
  • Car: 64.5 D-code - 55 Cusso
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #69 on: February 11, 2022, 09:36:44 pm »
I'm going through roughly 20litres per 100kms mostly highway driving 289 c4 straight pipes. I put 95petrol in as I find I get alot of soot coming out of the exhaust with 98

Reading a couple of road tests on the 65 Mustang they were getting between 16 and 26 litres per 100 k’s.
16 to 9 mpg.
Scary figures these days but back then fuel was cheap.

It seems a Ferrari 458 has a fuel consumption of 14mpg combined; this car engine is a 4.5L 8cyl.
Not far from our Mustang.
fred

Offline AussiePhil

  • Worked
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
  • Location: Bathurst, NSW
  • Name: Phil
  • Car: 68 Coupe
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #70 on: February 12, 2022, 06:47:29 am »
Hey Fred,
I find if they’re only being used for a run here and there on weekends and occasionally up the street through the week it’s very hard to get a true indication of fuel economy.
As long as you’re happy with it, that’s the main point.
It’s so great to see older cars on the roads now.
I watched a YouTube video called “Melbourne 1975” what great watch!
I grew up in the country and didn’t see too many flash cars.
Cheers Phil.
If you've never buggered anything you've never done anything!
But if you've buggered a lot maybe you're not very good at it!

Two for one is good but four for two is better!

Offline fredm666

  • Worked
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
  • hoping for the best but expecting the worst
  • Location: Perth/Pilbara/Sydney
  • Name: federico
  • Car: 64.5 D-code - 55 Cusso
Re: Fuel economy
« Reply #71 on: February 13, 2022, 06:46:44 pm »
Hey Fred,
I find if they’re only being used for a run here and there on weekends and occasionally up the street through the week it’s very hard to get a true indication of fuel economy.
As long as you’re happy with it, that’s the main point.
It’s so great to see older cars on the roads now.
I watched a YouTube video called “Melbourne 1975” what great watch!
I grew up in the country and didn’t see too many flash cars.
Cheers Phil.

Not being my primary car I’m not worried about the fuel consumption, mine was just a curiosity to see how others are doing in that regard.
And yes, it is very good to see old cars around.
fred