Thread: Cost-effective, high-mpg combo for SBC in 1500?

Tweet

Starting point:

1996 half-ton pickup extended-cab fleetside 4wd auto & air

It's decent on gas so far, but I want 25+ mpg highway (28+ would be even better). I want to preserve sort of a medium off-road capability (nothing overly extreme, but not completely wimpy, either).

----------------

Eventually (maybe 40-50k miles from now), I will want to lift it & put larger tires on for mainly cosmetic reasons; if I could keep 20+ mpg with tires in the 33"-37" range (haven't yet decided), I'd probably be quite happy.

----------------

Any ideas for such a combo? I figure aluminum heads are just about mandatory, as is higher compression for thermal efficiency -- but there are different combustion chamber shapes and all sorts of other things to consider.

Anybody with real experience in this area, feel free to share your combo unless its a secret: this is going to be a slow build, with incremental gains, but I need to plan the whole thing before I get started. I don't want to open the engine, do a mod, button everything back up and then have to get another set of gaskets 6 months down the road.

Thanks for all the helpful info!

go to two wheel drive with a 4 cylinder----------

I thought swapping-in a 4-banger might seem a little too hairy for the purists. I really want to keep the 4WD. Really, really. But I also want better fuel economy if I can get it without breaking the bank to get there.

If I went with a 4-cylinder, I kinda like the idea of swapping-in an LHU from a 2012 Buick Regal GS -- supposedly, it's the same basic engine as was in the RWD Solstice and Sky, but I dunno what has been changed to make it a FWD solution in the Buick. Would it be a simple bolt-out the 350, bolt-in the 2.0 (using the wiring harness from the Regal, at least for the ECU)?

look---the aero of a 96 pickup won't allow you to get 25-28 mpg even coasting down Pikes Peak

It can't be that much worse than the aero of the 88 F150 4x4 one of my Guard buddies had; it was powered by a very healthy 302 (199 dyno'd whp) and it got 27-29 mpg between fillups throughout the 4 years I knew firsthand (when I borrowed it to move) and secondhand (the owner's account) of its operation. Of course, all that is with the drivetrain in the 2WD configuration, but still ....

I've got a 2002 Expedition and the best I've ever seen is 18MPG - I have no idea how someone pulls 29MPG from an 88 F150 - maybe there's a secret formula in the fuel in your neck-of-the-woods!

I would think to get a 50% increase over advertised highway MPG one would certainly need aluminum heads, and an aluminum engine, all aluminum frame, titanium drive train, all carbon fiber body and 22" true magnesium wheels with 45" tires with good JATO setup..

If anyone helps you get 28MPG out of your rig, let's talk about some patents and big buck opportunity!!

Good Luck!
Glenn

Funny. We were both stationed in central MS between 1987 and 1993; I was bragging on my 1989 SHO:

32 mpg (cruise set @ 75) between fillups; best mpg (observed only twice) was 36 between fillups, using regular unleaded and the OE tires. 142 mph top speed (76 seconds per 3 miles); 28.3 mpg on a 388-mile round-trip made with 5 en-route stops in 4:05 (during which I discovered my cruise wouldn't set any higher than 125). Best 1/4-mile on the OE Goodyear Eagles was 14.30 @ 97.5 mph.

At 10k miles, I changed tires to Kelly Chargers, which lowered my top speed to 135 and cut my mpg to 28 -- but they GREATLY enhanced adhesion. With the Kellys, my best 1/4-mile was 13.86 @ 101.0 mph. Lateral acceleration was similarly improved, but with less warning at the absolute limit than the Goodyears gave (which was OK, because I was a pretty good wheel man). Even with the Kellys, I got better combined overall fuel economy than the EPA highway rating for my SHO -- so I bragged on it.

One day at the base, a guy from across the hall visited my shop while I told my latest results. He said his pickup got 28 mpg all the time; I said that's pretty decent for a Ranger, and he said it's an F150, and it's 4-wheel drive. I thought he was full of crap, and I said so. A group of us went on a trip later that year; he took his pickup. We cruised about 75-80 (almost all Interstate), and we all stopped together for refueling. I don't recall his exact number, but I saw the pump at each stop (I was gonna burst his balloon), and his overall fuel economy was well north of 27. Considering the loads and the speeds, it seemed amazing he wasn't getting a lot better than 28 at 65-70 mph.

About a year later, I upgraded my habitation, and I tried making the move during my off-duty time using just my car. I had a pal that worked at U-Haul, and he was going to "cut me a deal" on a truck to move my furniture, but the guy with the F150 said I could borrow his truck (he saw how I cared for my car). It was a little awkward, but I agreed -- and WOW was I ever glad I did! The truck my "pal" had intended that I should rent was their largest in-city gas-burner: it got about 4 mpg for my best friend's dad when he rented it to move his family. The F150 got between 28.0 and 28.5 with me driving.

[EDITED: I had the other details correct, but originally referred to the event by the wrong name.] That guy and I ended up being pals; we went on a trip to Louisiana to watch the NHRA Cajun Nationals; he had tickets, I bought the gas -- and his truck got a solid 29.0-something (very barely over 29) mpg on that trip -- basically unloaded, and speeds within about +/- 5 mph from the posted limit.

With 199 dyno hp (his claim; I had no reason to doubt him, especially after he proved the fuel economy claim) at the wheels, I knew it wasn't 100-percent factory stock, but it wasn't radically altered, either. Pop the hood, and it looked (as far as I could tell) pretty much like it had just rolled off the assembly line.

On long trips, my dad's 1997 Town Car got 32 mpg between fillups with the cruise set at 80; it got 28 mpg between fillups in normal city/highway driving. His 2003 Town Car L (Cartier) gets 28.0-28.3 mpg between fillups with the cruise set at 65, and better than 24 mpg between fillups when driven aggressively.

On the other hand, I had a 1993 Crown Victoria LX with the sport package, handling package, leathered-out, etc.; its "210 hp" engine was exceedingly anemic, it had a 110-mph top speed (at which it was VERY aero-light), and its best fuel economy was barely over 16 mpg between fillups (it usually got between 12 and 14 mpg, and if I romped on it, my mpg fell to 8). I put a 150-shot on it, and that helped acceleration a little, but a 20-pound bottle was good for just over 2 passes -- YIKES!

I seriously doubt if anything Ford F..................50ty ever got even close to 15mpg.The Power Stroke we had got 18 mpg all the time.Load on it or not highway or city.

The facts are 4 x 4 cost money in gas mileage.Then add 30's in tires dump another 3 to 4 miles per gallon.Kiss the bumper if you get close with that at 10 to 12 mpg.

I was on a trip with a close friend in a F250.We went from Roch to Buffalo,NY and at that point filled up.We drove from Buffalo to Cleveland,Ohio where it needed to be refilled.I spoke to my friend and said his father has owned Ford trucks all his life and all of them are notorious for really bad gas mileage.And this trip I was on was yrs ago when gas as really cheap.

That is the real street facts..................

Wireflight

First off--NHRA Gatornationals are in Gainesville, Fl

Secondly----appears from you numbers that you where using new math back then , but since they did away with it and went back to real numbers that your fuel milage has suffered

wireflight, I'm with Jerry on your math skills, they seem to be a little off. I assume when you were bragging about the numbers for your 1989 SHO, you were referring to a Ford Taurus SHO. I owned a '93 Taurus SHO (first year for an automatic trans) for 10 years, damn nice car even if it did have a Yamaha built engine. My SHO must have been the new and improved version compared to yours, mine required premium octane unleaded. The only numbers that you quoted above that I could match would be the top speed, I did bury the 140 MPH speedo needle a couple of times but never had a desire to run the ¼ mile for a time slip.

BTW, if you really want a SBC that meets the requirements you've laid out, try dropping an LSx engine in.

Mike

Really??? an F 150 4 X 4 with a 302 that got better mileage then the EPA rating of an F- 150 4 X 4 with a 6 cylinder???

1988 FORD - F150 PICKUP 4WD

City MPG: 13 Highway MPG: 18 Combined MPG: 15 Today's cost to drive 15,000 miles: $3591

Year: 1988
Make: FORD
Model: F150 PICKUP 4WD
Vehicle Class: STANDARD PICKUP TRUCKS 4WD
Engine Size: 4.9 liters
Number of Cylinders: 6
Transmission: M5
Drive System: 4WD
Fuel Type: REGULAR
Release Date: 870816

EPA Official City MPG: 15
City MPG (2008 computation method): 13
City MPG (before adjustments): 17
EPA Official Highway MPG: 19
Highway MPG (2008 computation method): 18
Highway MPG (before adjustments): 24
EPA Official Combined MPG: 17
Combined MPG (2008 computation method): 15
Combined MPG (before adjustments): 20

Annual Fuel Cost in US Dollars: $ 882 *
* Cost is based on driving 15,000 miles per year and uses the 1988 gas price of $1.00 per gallon and the EPA Official Combined MPG of 17 mpg.

I can get 28 MPG with my P.U. if I hit the reset button just before the stop sign.

Glad to see I was not the only one wondering about these numbers... Had me really concerned about Ol' Gray, my '90 F150 2WD 5.0 AOD that gets 15mpg on a very good day.

Again
Proof that they walk among us. !!!!!!!!!!!!!