fuel efficient 289?

kingleodiorio · May 1, 2011

Im 23 years old, and I just bought my first classic mustang (289 coup). Im really interested in fuel efficient upgrades and mods, with out sacrificing a lot of power. Of course i understand that more fuel=more power, but gas mileage and carbon emissions are important to me in a philosophical sense. Im just wondering if any other members share my interest in improved technology and what type of mods really work.

2+2GT · May 1, 2011

My A code 289 4V/4-speed got 21 mpg highway. Just what is your plan? A stock 289 with a T5 or AOD would probably get mid-20's.

As for the "carbon", the CO2, a naturally occurring substance (which you are exhaling now), Air Force One probably emits more of it in an hour that your cars will in your whole life.

Realmongo · May 1, 2011

You can always go the fuel injected route.

hipo_p51 · May 1, 2011

I get approx. 200 miles to a tank. The word Classic Mustang has no room for fuel efficient upgrades. I am not trying to be rude here. But if you are looking for efficiency with a small carbon foot print, you have the Wrong car.

Realmongo · May 1, 2011

What have you got for a power train right now?

2+2GT · May 1, 2011

hipo_p51 said:
I get approx. 200 miles to a tank. The word Classic Mustang has no room for fuel efficient upgrades. I am not trying to be rude here. But if you are looking for efficiency with a small carbon foot print, you have the Wrong car.

Interesting, you're getting 12.5 mpg. My 289HP does better than that on a bad day.

I just gave him two alternative for fuel efficiency, a manual or automatic overdrive. Careful tuning, including recurving the distributor, and installing a Pertronix I module, could get a stone-stock 289 2V up to around 20 mpg. Port-matching the exhaust might get you one or two more. Yeah, 289/302 exhaust ports suck that bad.

Hack · May 1, 2011

Compared to a new car, you can burn as much gas as you want in your 40+ year old car and not be concerned with carbon emissions. You are recycling and reusing something that was built a long time ago. A modern, fuel-efficient car took enough energy to build that it will never catch up to you.

How many years will it take you to burn $10,000 - $20,000 worth of gas? Trust me, if you drive a classic you are way ahead of those snobs in crap Prius' or whatever with thousands of dollars of batteries in the trunk that will need replacing in a few years.

The best way to get good gas mileage without spending much is good tune up parts and drive slowly. No quick acceleration and don't drive over 45. ENJOY!

rbohm · May 1, 2011

hipo_p51 said:
I get approx. 200 miles to a tank. The word Classic Mustang has no room for fuel efficient upgrades. I am not trying to be rude here. But if you are looking for efficiency with a small carbon foot print, you have the Wrong car.

rubbish. my mustang, after a rebuild and with the wrong cam choice, would turn in 18 city and 25 highway. with the right combination there is no reason that a V8 stang cant make 250-300hp and still turn in decent fuel economy.

the first thing you want to do is select a proper cam for your build. decide exactly what you want from your engine, for instance if you want a daily driver, then you want a cam that works best in the 1000-5000 rpm range. since you also want to improve fuel economy, you want a cam with more lift and a moderate amount of duration and valve overlap. something like a cam that has .460-.480 valve lift, and a duration of about 210 degrees at .050 lift. you also want a 110 degree lobe separation angle as well.

next you want a compression ratio between 9.5 and 10:1. you also want small port heads to keep airflow velocity up, something like the afr165 or windsor jr heads.

for an intake a standard edelbrock performer or weiand action plus intake will do just fine, you dont need anything more than that.

if you are going to use a carburetor, then stick with the edelbrock 500cfm carb or the autolite 4100(480 cfm 1.08 model).

run a small tube tri-y header, and 2 1/4" dual exhaust.

if you want to run something more than say a 3.00 or 3.25 rear gear, then you want an overdrive transmission. my mustang used the stock 2.80 gear to get the mileage numbers i got.

this combination, properly driven and tuned, should net you about 18-20 in the city, and 25-28 on the highway.

DukeGnarley · May 1, 2011

If you want much more than 20-25 mpg, than a 45 year old carburated pushrod v-8 pushing a car with the aerodynamics of a slightly chiseled brick down the road probably isn't the best place to start. what are you getting now?

like everyone else said, just make sure it's tuned right and you should be doing ok.

2+2GT · May 1, 2011

Hack said:
Compared to a new car, you can burn as much gas as you want in your 40+ year old car and not be concerned with carbon emissions. You are recycling and reusing something that was built a long time ago. A modern, fuel-efficient car took enough energy to build that it will never catch up to you.

How many years will it take you to burn $10,000 - $20,000 worth of gas? Trust me, if you drive a classic you are way ahead of those snobs in crap Prius' or whatever with thousands of dollars of batteries in the trunk that will need replacing in a few years.

The best way to get good gas mileage without spending much is good tune up parts and drive slowly. No quick acceleration and don't drive over 45. ENJOY!

Top Gear ran a V8 BMW M3 against a Prius. Now, this was a speed run, on the track, the Prius running at "speed", with the M3 loafing along at the same rate. In other words, real life commuting.

The Prius got 17.2 mpg, and the 414 hp 4L V8 M3 got 19.4 mpg. Clarkson also mentions the massive environmental damage caused by the manufacture of the Prius. (For instance, the strip mining of Canada for the batteries has created an area so dead NASA tests Mars rovers there.)

YouTube - Prius More Enviromentally Damaging Than BMW M3

Part of the problem is the Prius weighs more than a 1965 Mustang. Heck, the Prius weighs more than a 1971 Mustang.

coolblue65 · May 1, 2011

My suggestion to you is to first have an overdrive transmission, have an electronic ignition like a petronix or better, next make sure your carb has a good tune-up, and that includes make sure the carb is tuned to the proper idle settings, Air/fuel fixture,etc, along with fresh plugs and wires, and clean filters....and lastly keep your foot out of it.

I have a well built 347 running a mighty demon carb that has mechanical secondaries, and I can get mid 20's mpg's on the hwy cruising at 70-75 mph. I don't typically measure mpg when i am driving locally as I enjoy hearing the engine at high rpms...but if I kept my foot out of it I am confident it would be 17-18mpg.

hipo_p51 · May 2, 2011

Realmongo said:
What have you got for a power train right now?

rbohm said:
rubbish. my mustang, after a rebuild and with the wrong cam choice, would turn in 18 city and 25 highway. with the right combination there is no reason that a V8 stang cant make 250-300hp and still turn in decent fuel economy.

I am making about 400 hp (not sure what it is to the wheels). This thing is a revving machine. I enjoy running around town in third at 3800-4000 RPM (wide range toploader), it sounds sweet. This is why I get 200 miles to the gallon. Even if I tamed i down a bit, the mileage improvement would not be that much better. This motor was buillt to suck gas.

Sacramento6 · May 2, 2011

Over-drive, electronic ignition, and fuel injection. Never underestimate the effect of the "driver" modification. Your driving habits are the biggest thing to effect fuel economy.

Hack · May 2, 2011

2+2GT said:
Top Gear ran a V8 BMW M3 against a Prius. Now, this was a speed run, on the track, the Prius running at "speed", with the M3 loafing along at the same rate. In other words, real life commuting.

The Prius got 17.2 mpg, and the 414 hp 4L V8 M3 got 19.4 mpg. Clarkson also mentions the massive environmental damage caused by the manufacture of the Prius. (For instance, the strip mining of Canada for the batteries has created an area so dead NASA tests Mars rovers there.)

YouTube - Prius More Enviromentally Damaging Than BMW M3

Part of the problem is the Prius weighs more than a 1965 Mustang. Heck, the Prius weighs more than a 1971 Mustang.

I saw that episode. Loved it. The guys on Top Gear really have their heads straight on this issue.

Now - I fully support freedom and people's choice to buy whatever car they want. However, considering that anyone who bought a Prius took money out of my pocket - that is WRONG.

zookeeper · May 2, 2011

My '68 fastback with a 2bbl/C4 got 21 mpg stone stock. Oddly enough, that's exactly what my stone stock '88 GT gets. Not being a jerk, but Hipo P51 couldn't be more wrong if he tried on this one. Yes, if you put too big of a cam, too low a gear ratio and too big a carb and then drive it on the street at 3800 rpm's common sense will tell you mileage will suffer. As for the 400 hp? Sure it does. I've seen waaaay to many "400 hp" cars on a chassis dyno making 220 or so hp to think anyone's seat of the pants dyno is accurate. Hey, my wife's stock, '69 427 Corvette gets 17 mpg with ease, and I'd bet it would lay waste to most small block Mustangs (including mine) in a straight line so don't think carbed motors can't make good power as well as deliver great mileage. Choose your parts wisely and you can have it all from an old car.

hipo_p51 · May 3, 2011

zookeeper said:
My '68 fastback with a 2bbl/C4 got 21 mpg stone stock. Oddly enough, that's exactly what my stone stock '88 GT gets. Not being a jerk, but Hipo P51 couldn't be more wrong if he tried on this one. Yes, if you put too big of a cam, too low a gear ratio and too big a carb and then drive it on the street at 3800 rpm's common sense will tell you mileage will suffer. As for the 400 hp? Sure it does. I've seen waaaay to many "400 hp" cars on a chassis dyno making 220 or so hp to think anyone's seat of the pants dyno is accurate. Hey, my wife's stock, '69 427 Corvette gets 17 mpg with ease, and I'd bet it would lay waste to most small block Mustangs (including mine) in a straight line so don't think carbed motors can't make good power as well as deliver great mileage. Choose your parts wisely and you can have it all from an old car.

Well it does. When built it produced about 400hp at 6400rpm and about 380 ft/lbs of torque at ~4000rpm (per the dyno it ran on after the shop built it) And maybe that 200 m.p.tank, might be 220. I fill it up when its well under a 1/4. My point was most mustangs that are restored/modified these days have no fuel effiency planned into the project. Most people ask these days, do these headers fit on my stroked 351 or what do i have to do to put a 289 in a 6 cyl car? Generally fuel efficiency is never a consideration when running a "carbed motor". I was simply giving an example. Take the info for whats worth. These cars are for having fun. The fun factor in my car is through the ceiling.

zookeeper · May 4, 2011

That may well be what you meant, but what you said is, "The word Classic Mustang has no room for fuel efficient upgrades", which is ridiculous. IN this day of $5 a gallon gas, it only makes sense to try to do what you can to get better mileage. Not much fun in watching your vintage Mustang collect dust because it's too impractical to drive due to parts breakage and poor mileage.

hipo_p51 · May 4, 2011

When i think fuel efficient, i see my honda. When i look at a Classic Mustang, i know it will take two tanks of gas to get me where my honda can take me. Everyone has an opinion, right. But if you own a classic mustang and its a daily driver, i assume its paid for and there are no monthly payments. At that point spending 10-20 bucks more a week is far cheaper than a 300 or more a month new efficient car payment. Or you can spend your cash on buying a brand new induction system for your Mustang and maybe get 5 more miles to the gallon. Now your driving your beloved Stang with some cast iron manifold and an autolite 2 bbl carb sitting where your favorite choice of brand aluminum manifold with chrome plated 4 bbl carb now collecting dust on a dark shelf in your garage. Not a pretty picture, gas price or not. What would your Mustang say to you, if it could. Food for thought.

2+2GT · May 4, 2011

hipo_p51 said:
When i think fuel efficient, i see my honda. When i look at a Classic Mustang, i know it will take two tanks of gas to get me where my honda can take me.

You could always install a 1970 gas tank.

gregski · May 4, 2011

Hack said:
How many years will it take you to burn $10,000 - $20,000 worth of gas?

lets' see...

$4.00 per gallon x 16 gallon tank = $64 per tank

$64 x 52 weeks in a year = $3,328 per year

$10,000 \ $3,328 = 3 years

at 15 mpg that puts it at 12,480 miles per year (that's as average as it gets)

fuel efficient 289?

kingleodiorio

New Member

2+2GT

Realmongo

I prefer to be called "Evil Genius"

hipo_p51

Member

Realmongo

I prefer to be called "Evil Genius"

2+2GT

Hack

rbohm

DukeGnarley

Member

2+2GT

coolblue65

hipo_p51

Member

Sacramento6

New Member

Hack

zookeeper

hipo_p51

Member

zookeeper

hipo_p51

Member

2+2GT

gregski

Active Member

Similar threads

fuel efficient 289?

New Member

I prefer to be called "Evil Genius"

Member

I prefer to be called "Evil Genius"

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency