MPG after 289 upgrades

I could use some advice from this group...I have a 68 with a 2 barrel
289 that was rebuilt last year that gets about 11 miles per gallon.
I'm soon going to be commuting 360 miles a week, and would like to get
better mileage given that gas costs about $3.20 a gallon where I live.
I know that I can get better mileage by switching to a 4 barrel and not
driving like a maniac, but am not sure how other modfications would
effect things. Would dual exhaust make the engine more efficient and
lead to better MPG, or would it make things worse? What about different
camshaft or heads? Any advice would be appreciated.

thanks,

ashwin

wrote:
> I could use some advice from this group...I have a 68 with a 2 barrel
> 289 that was rebuilt last year that gets about 11 miles per gallon.
> I'm soon going to be commuting 360 miles a week, and would like to get
> better mileage given that gas costs about $3.20 a gallon where I live.
> I know that I can get better mileage by switching to a 4 barrel and not
> driving like a maniac, but am not sure how other modfications would
> effect things. Would dual exhaust make the engine more efficient and
> lead to better MPG, or would it make things worse? What about different
> camshaft or heads? Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> thanks,
>
> ashwin
>

Buy a 30 mpg '96 - '99 Taurus commuter car for about $1,000.

Rob

> wrote:

>I could use some advice from this group...I have a 68 with a 2 barrel
> 289 that was rebuilt last year that gets about 11 miles per gallon.
> I'm soon going to be commuting 360 miles a week, and would like to get
> better mileage given that gas costs about $3.20 a gallon where I live.
> I know that I can get better mileage by switching to a 4 barrel and not
> driving like a maniac, but am not sure how other modfications would
> effect things. Would dual exhaust make the engine more efficient and
> lead to better MPG, or would it make things worse? What about different
> camshaft or heads? Any advice would be appreciated.

There has got to be something seriously wrong there. Even the 400 ci smog motor
in my old Torino could manage 15 mpg in mixed driving. On the highway I've never
gotten worse than 25 with any of my 302's (carb'd or injected). You should be
able to get well over 20 without any problem.

(*>

"Hawk" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote:
>
>>I could use some advice from this group...I have a 68 with a 2 barrel
>> 289 that was rebuilt last year that gets about 11 miles per gallon.
>> I'm soon going to be commuting 360 miles a week, and would like to get
>> better mileage given that gas costs about $3.20 a gallon where I live.
>> I know that I can get better mileage by switching to a 4 barrel and not
>> driving like a maniac, but am not sure how other modfications would
>> effect things. Would dual exhaust make the engine more efficient and
>> lead to better MPG, or would it make things worse? What about different
>> camshaft or heads? Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> There has got to be something seriously wrong there. Even the 400 ci smog
> motor in my old Torino could manage 15 mpg in mixed driving. On the
> highway I've never gotten worse than 25 with any of my 302's (carb'd or
> injected). You should be able to get well over 20 without any problem.
>
> (*>
I believe you need to look closer at your current ride. 11 MPG is way low
unless your running a slipping automatic with 4:56 gears. running 3:55 in my
stang with a 2bbl I averaged around 21mpg when I was in sales-lots of hiway-
and around 16 in town.

around here (southwest Florida) you get a mid 90's Lincoln continental for
under $2K at that is a 20 mpg car with all the toys. Smaller car such as the
Taurus are a little pricier around $2500. but mileage is around 23MPG

wrote in news:1149838460.879647.103050
@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> I could use some advice from this group...I have a 68 with a 2 barrel
> 289 that was rebuilt last year that gets about 11 miles per gallon.
> I'm soon going to be commuting 360 miles a week, and would like to get
> better mileage given that gas costs about $3.20 a gallon where I live.
> I know that I can get better mileage by switching to a 4 barrel and not
> driving like a maniac, but am not sure how other modfications would
> effect things. Would dual exhaust make the engine more efficient and
> lead to better MPG, or would it make things worse? What about different
> camshaft or heads? Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> thanks,
>
> ashwin
>

Something is either badly wrong with your 289, or your driving habits.

My 65 289 4bbl 4sp gets 14.5 mpg commuting to work on city streets with
lots of hills. I use a light foot.

G

On 9 Jun 2006 00:34:20 -0700, wrote:

>I could use some advice from this group...I have a 68 with a 2 barrel
>289 that was rebuilt last year that gets about 11 miles per gallon.
>I'm soon going to be commuting 360 miles a week, and would like to get
>better mileage given that gas costs about $3.20 a gallon where I live.
>I know that I can get better mileage by switching to a 4 barrel and not
>driving like a maniac, but am not sure how other modfications would
>effect things. Would dual exhaust make the engine more efficient and
>lead to better MPG, or would it make things worse? What about different
>camshaft or heads? Any advice would be appreciated.
>
>thanks,
>
>ashwin

You could get a cheap beater $500 to $1000. My 87 Escort w.std was
$500 and it pushes around 30mpg-and it needs work. When it dies, I can
toss it to a salvage yard and get another. Insurance is dirt cheap,
too. So, what I've saved spending the $500 over the 5 years I have had
it, adds up.

My 65 FB has a new rebuilt engine, but the odometer isn't working yet,
so I don't know what the mpg is, but if I had to guess, the 302 4V
with the C4 and trac-lok is getting a lot closer to 17 around town,
and I'm hoping for somewhere around 23 highway. UNLESS I put my foot
in it. :0) Then I pay the price for having all that fun.

As for yours, what transmission are you running? With what gears?
An AOD would be better for distances. Fuel injection would also be a
plus, but the cost is pretty steep for an aftermarket like
Edelbrock's.
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg

Thus spake in news:1149838460.879647.103050
@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> I could use some advice from this group...I have a 68 with a 2 barrel
> 289 that was rebuilt last year that gets about 11 miles per gallon.
> I'm soon going to be commuting 360 miles a week, and would like to get
> better mileage given that gas costs about $3.20 a gallon where I live.
> I know that I can get better mileage by switching to a 4 barrel and not
> driving like a maniac, but am not sure how other modfications would
> effect things. Would dual exhaust make the engine more efficient and
> lead to better MPG, or would it make things worse? What about different
> camshaft or heads? Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> thanks,
>
> ashwin
>

Wow, that's some low gas mileage! I know the '68 is heavier, but my '65
averaged 21 MPG in rural driving with a mild cam, 4-barrel carb, 4-speed
manual and 3.00:1 rear. I think the worst mileage it ever got when I was
running it hard was 16 MPG.

I do remember that you could get better mileage with a 4-V carb, possibly
because its jets were smaller than the bores of the 2-V (thirty years
later, I could be mistaken about the reason). You could get even better
mileage if you also installed a mechanical secondary kit on the 4-V
(which I did), which used adjustable, mechanical linkage to open up the
secondaries instead of the usual vacuum linkage. The mechanical secondary
kit was an aftermarket item -- don't know if it's still available --
which improved both mileage and performance.
--
Jim

I suggest that you check your engine running temperature and thermostat if
it's running too cold.While it's unusual for an old 289 to run cold you may
have a good cooling system. Running at too low a temperature would affect
your gas mileage.Also check for optimum ignition timing.
Ken
66 289 cnv
67 390 cpe Don't even ask the gas mileage.

"Jim J" > wrote in message
. 125.201...
> Thus spake in news:1149838460.879647.103050
> @c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I could use some advice from this group...I have a 68 with a 2 barrel
>> 289 that was rebuilt last year that gets about 11 miles per gallon.
>> I'm soon going to be commuting 360 miles a week, and would like to get
>> better mileage given that gas costs about $3.20 a gallon where I live.
>> I know that I can get better mileage by switching to a 4 barrel and not
>> driving like a maniac, but am not sure how other modfications would
>> effect things. Would dual exhaust make the engine more efficient and
>> lead to better MPG, or would it make things worse? What about different
>> camshaft or heads? Any advice would be appreciated.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> ashwin
>>
>
> Wow, that's some low gas mileage! I know the '68 is heavier, but my '65
> averaged 21 MPG in rural driving with a mild cam, 4-barrel carb, 4-speed
> manual and 3.00:1 rear. I think the worst mileage it ever got when I was
> running it hard was 16 MPG.
>
> I do remember that you could get better mileage with a 4-V carb, possibly
> because its jets were smaller than the bores of the 2-V (thirty years
> later, I could be mistaken about the reason). You could get even better
> mileage if you also installed a mechanical secondary kit on the 4-V
> (which I did), which used adjustable, mechanical linkage to open up the
> secondaries instead of the usual vacuum linkage. The mechanical secondary
> kit was an aftermarket item -- don't know if it's still available --
> which improved both mileage and performance.
> --
> Jim
>

thanks for the all of the replies...I think I am going to take the car
in to a mustang shop other than the one that I had do the rebuild and
have them check on the work of the first guys in terms of how they set
up the timing and everything else that has been suggested here before
getting involved in other upgrades. Buying another car for my commute
is out of the question, since I live in san francisco and have no place
to park it...getting rid of the mustang is out of the question as well
since my dad is the original owner of the car.

-ashwin

Keng2 wrote:
> I suggest that you check your engine running temperature and thermostat if
> it's running too cold.While it's unusual for an old 289 to run cold you may
> have a good cooling system. Running at too low a temperature would affect
> your gas mileage.Also check for optimum ignition timing.
> Ken
> 66 289 cnv
> 67 390 cpe Don't even ask the gas mileage.
>
> "Jim J" > wrote in message
> . 125.201...
> > Thus spake in news:1149838460.879647.103050
> > @c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> I could use some advice from this group...I have a 68 with a 2 barrel
> >> 289 that was rebuilt last year that gets about 11 miles per gallon.
> >> I'm soon going to be commuting 360 miles a week, and would like to get
> >> better mileage given that gas costs about $3.20 a gallon where I live.
> >> I know that I can get better mileage by switching to a 4 barrel and not
> >> driving like a maniac, but am not sure how other modfications would
> >> effect things. Would dual exhaust make the engine more efficient and
> >> lead to better MPG, or would it make things worse? What about different
> >> camshaft or heads? Any advice would be appreciated.
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >>
> >> ashwin
> >>
> >
> > Wow, that's some low gas mileage! I know the '68 is heavier, but my '65
> > averaged 21 MPG in rural driving with a mild cam, 4-barrel carb, 4-speed
> > manual and 3.00:1 rear. I think the worst mileage it ever got when I was
> > running it hard was 16 MPG.
> >
> > I do remember that you could get better mileage with a 4-V carb, possibly
> > because its jets were smaller than the bores of the 2-V (thirty years
> > later, I could be mistaken about the reason). You could get even better
> > mileage if you also installed a mechanical secondary kit on the 4-V
> > (which I did), which used adjustable, mechanical linkage to open up the
> > secondaries instead of the usual vacuum linkage. The mechanical secondary
> > kit was an aftermarket item -- don't know if it's still available --
> > which improved both mileage and performance.
> > --
> > Jim
> >