• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Just got 34mpg...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 93 teal terror
  • Start date Start date Mar 13, 2004
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

93 teal terror

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2001
971
62
69
Durham N.C.
Mar 13, 2004
#1
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #1
after getting an AFPR that worked right, I set the fuel pressure at 39 vac off and 32 vac on with the timing at 12 degrees on 87 octane. It usually takes almost half a tank to get back to school and tonight it only took 1/4. So I checked the MPG and its getting 34!!! It used to get around 22-25 on the highway. It runs better than ever with no early signs of detonation but Im going to keep checking. Air/Fuel on dyno before AFPR was around 11.5 or so. With gas as expensive as it is this is great I was doing 65-80 the whole way with 2:73's.
 

willys1

Active Member
Dec 2, 2003
1,004
1
36
New Jersey
Mar 13, 2004
#2
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #2
LOL,,,come on now,,34???
 

IMissMy93Fox

New Member
Mar 9, 2004
143
0
0
Mar 13, 2004
#3
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #3
Hell yeah thats awesome. With mine I used less gas driving from Orlando to Winterhaven than my roomate did in his Civic... doubt I hit 34 though.
 

93 teal terror

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2001
971
62
69
Durham N.C.
Mar 13, 2004
#4
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #4
lol...yup I wouldnt believe it either if I didnt just do it myself. Keep in mind though this wasnt a full tank. Went 126 miles on 3.7 gallons....comes out to 34.054mpg
 

BlownStangGT

REPEAT
Founding Member
Jan 22, 2002
3,860
6
58
Lancaster, PA
Mar 13, 2004
#5
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #5
i have hit 30+ with 2.73's driving from sc to pa before
 

BlownStangGT

REPEAT
Founding Member
Jan 22, 2002
3,860
6
58
Lancaster, PA
Mar 13, 2004
#6
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #6
93 teal terror said:
lol...yup I wouldnt believe it either if I didnt just do it myself. Keep in mind though this wasnt a full tank. Went 126 miles on 3.7 gallons....comes out to 34.054mpg
Click to expand...

hm....my schools around 120 miles from my house...I never tryed to see what for gas milage I get, maybe I should get a afpr and set it like urs and maybe ill get some better...normally i get like 20+ street driving haha
 

willys1

Active Member
Dec 2, 2003
1,004
1
36
New Jersey
Mar 13, 2004
#7
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #7
No offense,but I think your gas gauge is stuck
 

Ray III

New Member
Feb 10, 2004
586
0
0
fixin Boomhower's John Deere in Troy, NY
Mar 13, 2004
#8
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #8
guess you don't have to buy a prius after all.

I have read claims of 34mpg with a 350 horse LS1 and 26mpg with some 700hp carbed ford... so it's perfectly believable. Neglecting the friction a larger engine makes, it takes the same amount of fuel to make the same amount of power so with the right tune and driving style you should get pretty close to as good mileage as any import beater.
 
D

Da pony

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
11
0
0
Mar 13, 2004
#9
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #9
The only way I got 27 mpg was using steady 55-60 mph, with 2.73.
 
D

Da pony

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
11
0
0
Mar 13, 2004
#10
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #10
Ray III said:
I have read claims of 34mpg with a 350 horse.
Click to expand...

I've read that too. The guy then pointed out it was his on-board computer that told him the 34 mpg. He didn't even bother to pick up a calculator to confirm it.
 
S

StreetStang37

Founding Member
Apr 23, 2001
451
0
0
San Jose, CA
Mar 13, 2004
#11
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #11
i actually get better mileage doin 85-90 (23mpg) than 65-70 (18-19mpg). btw this is w/3.73's along with all my other mods as well.
 

Matt90GT

Founding Member
May 6, 2001
3,055
0
0
Oregon
Mar 13, 2004
#12
  • Mar 13, 2004
  • #12
so you can drive 523.6 miles before the tank is dry? (15.4 x 34)

Keep driving. Bet you dont make 300.
 

93 teal terror

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2001
971
62
69
Durham N.C.
Mar 14, 2004
#13
  • Mar 14, 2004
  • #13
Matt90GT said:
so you can drive 523.6 miles before the tank is dry? (15.4 x 34)

Keep driving. Bet you dont make 300.
Click to expand...
Would love to but unfortunatly dont have anywhere to go thats 500 miles away on the highway. But I will check it again when i get home. I know it sounds kinda high but unless my trip is off I dont see how it can be wrong. I used to get around 280-300 a tank on highway driving and this was when it was running really rich. ~11.5 air/fuel ratio. Thats around 21-23mpg. Now it runs 10 times better and I didnt use near the gas I normally would. It only cost $5.50 to fill up after going 126 miles. Im not trying to prove anything here, cause i have no reason to make this up....just excited about what i found
 

five_o_stang

New Member
Jan 8, 2004
92
0
0
Georgia
Mar 14, 2004
#14
  • Mar 14, 2004
  • #14
hehe.....my question is why in the world are ya'll are still runnin 2.73s.....hehe...just teasin....
 

93 teal terror

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2001
971
62
69
Durham N.C.
Mar 14, 2004
#15
  • Mar 14, 2004
  • #15
five_o_stang said:
hehe.....my question is why in the world are ya'll are still runnin 2.73s.....hehe...just teasin....
Click to expand...
lol....good question
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Mar 14, 2004
#16
  • Mar 14, 2004
  • #16
The best I ever managed was about 26mpg driving from my house to Sylmar, about 60 miles all freeway @ 70mph. That was all on a stock longblock. Since I put the new engine in its been probably 16-18, but it s not totally broken in yet.
 

Michael Yount

Mustang Master
Apr 10, 2002
9,039
6
79
Charlotte, NC
Mar 14, 2004
#17
  • Mar 14, 2004
  • #17
Hey there Ray! You said "Neglecting the friction a larger engine makes, it takes the same amount of fuel to make the same amount of power so with the right tune and driving style you should get pretty close to as good mileage as any import beater."

Unfortunately, it's not so simple. There are many other variables besides engine friction that impact steady-state (Interstate cruising) fuel economy. One area that directly impacts engine efficiency is compression ratio. All things being equal, higher compression ratio makes for a more efficient package - that is, the same power level can be generated with less fuel used. Many newer vehicles are running much higher compression ratios as we've gotten better at managing resulting higher NOx output and detonation. State of tune is also a big issue - all things equal, a car running with a richer a/f will consume more fuel under the same conditions than a vehicle running a leaner a/f. Rolling resistance is another small contributor - most of the smaller imports have much smaller tires which create less rolling resistance than the tires on our cars. Of course, if you're going net-uphill (from the beach to the mountains), the car's weight is contributing factor. But the biggest potential difference between older Stangs (and my car) and newer "import beaters" is aerodynamics. Those are a function of drag coefficient and frontal area. Any newer import is gonna have a lower drag coefficient, and most of them are physically smaller and have much less frontal area than our cars. Just a few differences off the top of my head - much more involved than engine friction.

93teal - great one-time measurement; however, keep measuring, I think you'll find you got an anomoly. First, a/f on the dyno is measured at wide open throttle where the computer is in open loop. That is, it's not using the feedback from the O2 sensors; it's using tabular data to determine how much fuel to inject, and the computer is designed to run a bit rich then because it's a safer condition for the engine. At a steady state cruise, before and after the afpr install, the car's in closed loop and it's using the O2 sensor feedback to run much leaner than at wide open throttle. So installing the new regulator and then concluding that you're leaner at cruise is like comparing apples and oranges. You were leaner at cruise than at wide open throttle before too - you just don't have any cruise a/f data to look at. Second, when you make a fuel pressure change, you can impact a/f ratio for some period of time. But the ecu in our cars has learning adaptive strategies. If a component is malfunctioning, the computer will "learn" based on data from the sensors (O2's in particular) and it will make and store changes that will allow it to adapt to new conditions. So, if your stock regulator was allowing too high a pressure, over time (relatively short period of time) the computer would trim the pulse-times of the injectors to make the system inject the correct amount of fuel even at the higher pressure so it's getting O2 readings within the realm of what it expects. And if it couldn't make a big enough adjustment to account for that, it would set off error codes and (usually) a check engine light to let the driver know something had malfunctioned in a way that it couldn't adjust for any longer. So, your new afpr might've leaned things out for a bit, but as soon as the computer adjusted for the new pressures, it would be controlling mixture to the same levels it did before.

I do believe a real 34 mpg is possible for a short run in car like yours - but only if EXTREME driving measures were taken; drafting when possible (heavy traffic running at speed makes a 3-4 mpg difference), coasting down hills, limiting speed, etc. I'd bet there were multiple things at work that stacked in your favor in terms of the calculation. A pump that allowed complete filling of the tank when you started out, combined with a pump that wouldn't let you fill completely when you topped off can make a huge difference in the calculation. Most cars can be anywhere from 1 to 2 gallons shy of full, and the fuel gauge still reads full. If the pump cut off early leaving you say 1 gallon shy of full, but you thought you were full based on your gauge, your mileage would've been about 26 mpg. If you've had a tire size change - to a shorter tire - then your odometer is telling you you're going further than you actually are. And then there is potential speedo error. However, those last two items were at work when you were calculating your mileage before too. Keep checking and let us know how the mileage looks over the long term. I'd guess that over the long run, you'll find your mileage calculations won't be that 'exciting'.
 

93 teal terror

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2001
971
62
69
Durham N.C.
Mar 14, 2004
#18
  • Mar 14, 2004
  • #18
Im not just using the air/fuel ratio from a dyno to conclude that its running leaner, Im also using the fact that I had it inspected before and after the AFPR and before my hydrocarbons were almost 400ppm, now they dropped to below 200ppm and will probably continue to drop due to the fact that I had it inspected right after and didnt allow any of the fuel or fuel vapors that had been dumped in the cats to burn off. The first time the guy tested it, it didnt pass but he let it idle some more and tried it and it passed. Im not sure what rpm they test HC's at, I think its either at idle or 2000 rpm, but this gives a better representation that the car is in fact leaner. As for the learning curve, my car has run rich for over a year and no check engine light. It didnt learn to lower the fuel pressure and I doubt it will learn to raise the pressure. The fuel pressure is mechanically controlled not electronically. Thats like telling someone who puts a big blower on the car not to change the fuel pressure that the computer will change it for ya.

As for filling up, I always fill it up till it starts to come out of the overflow tube when I check MPG. Dont know if thats the best way or not but thats how I do it. I didnt drive "EXTREMELY" and I hate to be behind other cars so I wasnt drafting. Part of the trip, about 35 miles, was at 80mph, the rest was at 65-75 usually around 70.
 

93 teal terror

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2001
971
62
69
Durham N.C.
Mar 14, 2004
#19
  • Mar 14, 2004
  • #19
I will continue checking though and let you know how it does, Im also going to be checking for detonation b/c I think 12btdc may be a little too much
 

Michael Yount

Mustang Master
Apr 10, 2002
9,039
6
79
Charlotte, NC
Mar 14, 2004
#20
  • Mar 14, 2004
  • #20
93teal - re-read my post. I didn't say the computer alters fuel pressure. I said it shortens the pulse width - it tells the injector to open for a shorter time to compensate if fuel pressure's high causing richer mixture's that the O2's are sensing.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Progress Thread Progress Thread- From6to8's 95 GT/Saleen Supercharged 331 install
  • from6to8
  • Mar 22, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
24
Views
721
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 6, 2026
from6to8
Fuel Fuel Pump Rewire, New Fuel Lines, and Installation of New Fuel Pump Hanger with AN6 Connections
  • AeroCoupe
  • Mar 12, 2023
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
33
Views
12K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Apr 16, 2023
AeroCoupe
Planned Cross Country Run - 65 Fastback
  • Smokinstang65
  • Aug 17, 2021
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
4K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 27, 2022
Baron von K 289
B
1996-1998 4.6L SOHC Engine Harness Connector C210 Pinout
  • rx79gez8gundam
  • Mar 28, 2020
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
3
Views
11K
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Aug 19, 2022
Hot Stang
G
Engine 1986 5.0 over heating
  • Greg bailey
  • Jun 30, 2019
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
16
Views
8K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 25, 2019
08GT500
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?