Ford 3.0 in a 240? Just Thinkin

[lummert]

Originally Posted by OldCarNewTricks

A MPG B23 build would be interesting! With lesser reciprocating weight, as you say, alongside some newer technology, I.E. better 4 nozzle injectors with a better ECM that gets rid of the primitive LH/Chrysler system, and I expect it wouldn't be bad at all. That, and lesser unsprung weight, and that would be one efficient brick (theoretically).

Yeah, I feel that so many ratings are just too good to be true. Unless one was willing to hack a FWD setup into a 240, I doubt they are capable of 30+ MPGs. On gas, that is. Diesel seems like it may be a good option for these cars. The Ford 16v non turbo 2.3L engines dont actually get much better fuel mileage in a similar weight Ranger than our 240s. So I'm guessing, that, yes, the EPA did something with the 2.3 ecoboost estimates.

The 6.0 LS that I am building up for my 86 IROC, is a 10.7 CR, and will likely out do both my Ranger and 242 in MPG easy. It's NA, but the LS platform is so efficient.

I'm running white GEN III 4 hole injectors at 2.5 Bar in my 88 765 with B230FT. All I can say is 20 mpg average is better than 16.

[Broke4speed]

Besides aerodynamics, the biggest change you can do to your car to get better mileage is...lighten the foot. Changing driving style will net you massive gains, relatively. Do the limit (or a few less so you never have to kick the cruise off and pass someone), accelerate slowly from a stop, and generally be the driver everyone hates. It works very well, can confirm.

[DNAsEqUeNcE]

I have strangely found that I can get 40 MPG out of a 7.5:1 vw/audi BUB (vr6) engine (massive cams, dual VVT, 72mm turbo, 1300cc injectors). i had to work much harder for that on a DI 2.0 accord with smaller turbo to get 37 MPG. the DI accord had 5 psi of boost at cruise, Vtec enabled during cruise, and an open throttle to reduce pumping losses. i suppose with the correct choice of tuning theory and components you can do well with either.

[dbarton]

Originally Posted by DNAsEqUeNcE

I have strangely found that I can get 40 MPG out of a 7.5:1 vw/audi BUB (vr6) engine (massive cams, dual VVT, 72mm turbo, 1300cc injectors). i had to work much harder for that on a DI 2.0 accord with smaller turbo to get 37 MPG. the DI accord had 5 psi of boost at cruise, Vtec enabled during cruise, and an open throttle to reduce pumping losses. i suppose with the correct choice of tuning theory and components you can do well with either.

Makes me picture a car that's a 12 inch tall wedge shape with almost no drag coefficient. I'm really curious what the air/fuel ratio is at cruise.
Dave B

[OldCarNewTricks]

I didn't know the Taurus SHO existed. That's pretty cool actually!

I actually ordered a set of the updated yellow body injectors from a member on here. It will update it to the 4 hole nozzles, so I'll have to see how my engine reacts to that.

As for my driving style, most of the time I drive pretty conservatively. Usually always in the +/- 5 of the posted speed. (Except when I want to rip down the rural roads I live by).

It seems that among the things already listed, I would agree that the tuning really plays one of the largest parts in the equation. Most manufacturers create a very general table that works and reacts well to different weather and elevations in different areas, I think. So, if one were to really fine tune an engine more specifically for the area they drive in, then the result would be a bit of gained efficiency, is that correct?

Dave, so basically a SAAB LOL

[OldCarNewTricks]

Building on that idea, if I were to +T my motor, and keep the boost relatively low, and the tune was spot on, would one technically be able to get pretty close or even match an N/A's MPG, but with plenty of power on the side?

I doubt anyone would +T and be able to keep the foot off the pedal haha..

[John242Ti]

Originally Posted by OldCarNewTricks

A MPG B23 build would be interesting! With lesser reciprocating weight, as you say, alongside some newer technology, I.E. better 4 nozzle injectors with a better ECM that gets rid of the primitive LH/Chrysler system, and I expect it wouldn't be bad at all. That, and lesser unsprung weight, and that would be one efficient brick (theoretically).

Yeah, I feel that so many ratings are just too good to be true. Unless one was willing to hack a FWD setup into a 240, I doubt they are capable of 30+ MPGs. On gas, that is. Diesel seems like it may be a good option for these cars. The Ford 16v non turbo 2.3L engines dont actually get much better fuel mileage in a similar weight Ranger than our 240s. So I'm guessing, that, yes, the EPA did something with the 2.3 ecoboost estimates.

The 6.0 LS that I am building up for my 86 IROC, is a 10.7 CR, and will likely out do both my Ranger and 242 in MPG easy. It's NA, but the LS platform is so efficient.

Done the ~30 mpg stuff on a stock 240 many times... Requires non-ethanol gas and a manual tranny (although, sometimes the Aw70 cars will get up there if you don't drive them hard - got 29 mpg out of a 1992 245 with the Aw70 on a roadtrip to Portland and back - drove it at 60-70 mph). If you keep the speed around 60-65 and use cruise, the car will easily get 30-32 mpg on a B23F or B230F car with a M46 or a M47. Heck, I got 27.118 mpg out of a stock K-cammed B23E in a 1981 242. Set the cruise to 64 mph and let it go. K-Jet basic fuel injection.

[kyote]

Originally Posted by John242Ti

Done the ~30 mpg stuff on a stock 240 many times... Requires non-ethanol gas and a manual tranny (although, sometimes the Aw70 cars will get up there if you don't drive them hard - got 29 mpg out of a 1992 245 with the Aw70 on a roadtrip to Portland and back - drove it at 60-70 mph). If you keep the speed around 60-65 and use cruise, the car will easily get 30-32 mpg on a B23F or B230F car with a M46 or a M47. Heck, I got 27.118 mpg out of a stock K-cammed B23E in a 1981 242. Set the cruise to 64 mph and let it go. K-Jet basic fuel injection.

Do you think that a B21 would perform better MPG wise?

[mikep]

Originally Posted by OldCarNewTricks

I didn't know the Taurus SHO existed. That's pretty cool actually!

I tried giving one away here, after a year I sent it to the scrap yard. It had all sorts of go-fast stuff on it.

[John242Ti]

Originally Posted by kyote

Do you think that a B21 would perform better MPG wise?

With the right gearing, sure. I'd probably go from a 3.91 to a 3.54 to maximize gas mileage without making said B21F anemic. K-Jet is very efficient, provided the airflow sensor plate position doesn't change. I regularly got 25-26 mpg in mixed driving out of my '81 242 when it had its original B21F in it. Interestingly enough, same mileage I've received out of cars equipped with a B21FT and a M46. As long as you aren't frequently getting into boost, they can be surprisingly efficient.


With LH-Jet, A B23F/M46 equipped '84 245GL we owned, running a 3.73 rear axle (originally an Aw70 car), regularly did 28-29 mpg. Our '85 245DL, with its B230F/M46 and 3.31 rear axle, was a little higher, peaking out at 32 mpg, but usually being around 29-30 mpg. The autotragic LH-Jet 240s we had were usually around 24-25 mpg, but, as mentioned in my previous post, on the highway, would hit 29 mpg fairly easily.

[OldCarNewTricks]

Originally Posted by John242Ti

With the right gearing, sure. I'd probably go from a 3.91 to a 3.54 to maximize gas mileage without making said B21F anemic. K-Jet is very efficient, provided the airflow sensor plate position doesn't change. I regularly got 25-26 mpg in mixed driving out of my '81 242 when it had its original B21F in it. Interestingly enough, same mileage I've received out of cars equipped with a B21FT and a M46. As long as you aren't frequently getting into boost, they can be surprisingly efficient.


With LH-Jet, A B23F/M46 equipped '84 245GL we owned, running a 3.73 rear axle (originally an Aw70 car), regularly did 28-29 mpg. Our '85 245DL, with its B230F/M46 and 3.31 rear axle, was a little higher, peaking out at 32 mpg, but usually being around 29-30 mpg. The autotragic LH-Jet 240s we had were usually around 24-25 mpg, but, as mentioned in my previous post, on the highway, would hit 29 mpg fairly easily.

Just curious, you keep referring to the auto offered as the autotragic. Is it just the AW70/71 that bugs you? Aside from a couple small issues, the AW was okay for me. My car is auto swapped by the previous owner to me, and its OK.

Given the traffic in OR I don't mind sticking with an auto. I do wish that there was an electronic controlled trans I could slap on the back of my B23F, like a 4l60e or something. Except a 60E would take away more power than the AW I bet LOL.

[mikezohsix]

Since we've diverged into a MPG discussion, we had a 1995 Saab 9000 turbo 5 spd that got 32+ mpg at 75-80 mph, on a mix of highway and very fast back roads. As a hoot, I did a 550 mile round trip to upstate NY on a tank of gas. Google is telling me tank size was 17.4 gallons, the light had just turned on when I was getting near home, so conservatively I used 16 gallon. 34 mpg.
Car was in light boost at cruise which I figured improved the volumetric efficiency.

[HiSPL]

Originally Posted by mikep

I tried giving one away here, after a year I sent it to the scrap yard. It had all sorts of go-fast stuff on it.

Never has a car been so cool and so dissapointing at the same time....