PiNg PiNg PiNg Laurie S

Kate said to ask you... are you running a 351W? If so what kind of
mileage are you getting? Trying to decide between the original (289 A
Code) or swap to the 351W. Mucho appreciation for any help.
Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Spike wrote:
> Kate said to ask you... are you running a 351W? If so what kind of
> mileage are you getting? Trying to decide between the original (289 A
> Code) or swap to the 351W. Mucho appreciation for any help.
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

All things being equal, (and when are the every really?) the 351 tends
to get a few 1-5 miles per gallon less then the 302 (no first hand
experience with the 289). I have had different 302's get between 10 and
22 miles per gallon.

But what one gets really is a poor indicator of what another will get...

I had an 82 4x4 Bronco that got 16 MPG with a 302. I changed only the
engine, put in a completely stock rebuilt (Ford re-manufactured) long
block, same ignition, exhaust, carb and intake and the same bronco went
from 16 MPG to 12 MPG. :-( That really sucked.

Gonna have to keep my foot out of it.... that's for sure. I am adding
electronic ignition, underdrives, and cruise control for the open
road. Every little bit helps. I got 26 on the road with my 5.7L EFI
Firebird, and 21 around town if I was careful. Mostly around 18.

Guy one street over has about a 67 Cougar with a 351 or 390 which he
rarely takes out.

Guess that's what the Escort is for.... I have to fill the tank about
once every month or so.... 30+ mpg.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:35:27 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> Kate said to ask you... are you running a 351W? If so what kind of
>> mileage are you getting? Trying to decide between the original (289 A
>> Code) or swap to the 351W. Mucho appreciation for any help.
>> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>
>All things being equal, (and when are the every really?) the 351 tends
>to get a few 1-5 miles per gallon less then the 302 (no first hand
>experience with the 289). I have had different 302's get between 10 and
>22 miles per gallon.
>
>But what one gets really is a poor indicator of what another will get...
>
>I had an 82 4x4 Bronco that got 16 MPG with a 302. I changed only the
>engine, put in a completely stock rebuilt (Ford re-manufactured) long
>block, same ignition, exhaust, carb and intake and the same bronco went
>from 16 MPG to 12 MPG. :-( That really sucked.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Uh huh...
you can lie to THEM...

I know better Spikie m' man!


"Spike" > wrote in message
...
| Gonna have to keep my foot out of it.... that's for sure. I am adding
| electronic ignition, underdrives, and cruise control for the open
| road. Every little bit helps. I got 26 on the road with my 5.7L EFI
| Firebird, and 21 around town if I was careful. Mostly around 18.
|
| Guy one street over has about a 67 Cougar with a 351 or 390 which he
| rarely takes out.
|
| Guess that's what the Escort is for.... I have to fill the tank about
| once every month or so.... 30+ mpg.
|
| On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:35:27 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:
|
| >Spike wrote:
| >> Kate said to ask you... are you running a 351W? If so what kind of
| >> mileage are you getting? Trying to decide between the original (289 A
| >> Code) or swap to the 351W. Mucho appreciation for any help.
| >> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| >> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| >> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| >> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| >> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
| >
| >All things being equal, (and when are the every really?) the 351 tends
| >to get a few 1-5 miles per gallon less then the 302 (no first hand
| >experience with the 289). I have had different 302's get between 10 and
| >22 miles per gallon.
| >
| >But what one gets really is a poor indicator of what another will get...
| >
| >I had an 82 4x4 Bronco that got 16 MPG with a 302. I changed only the
| >engine, put in a completely stock rebuilt (Ford re-manufactured) long
| >block, same ignition, exhaust, carb and intake and the same bronco went
| >from 16 MPG to 12 MPG. :-( That really sucked.
|
| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Spike wrote:
> Kate said to ask you... are you running a 351W? If so what kind of
> mileage are you getting? Trying to decide between the original (289 A
> Code) or swap to the 351W. Mucho appreciation for any help.

Laurie's 68 fastback has a 390. She doesn't drive it much, because of
AZ emissions laws.

> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16


--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

Thanks. I somehow had a feeling she'd have the 390 rather than the
351W.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:39:01 GMT, Wound Up > wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> Kate said to ask you... are you running a 351W? If so what kind of
>> mileage are you getting? Trying to decide between the original (289 A
>> Code) or swap to the 351W. Mucho appreciation for any help.
>
>Laurie's 68 fastback has a 390. She doesn't drive it much, because of
>AZ emissions laws.
>
>> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

No prob... see, I am useful for something

Check upcoming issues of M&F for details if you so desire - this FE
restomod (trailer queen) beauty is named "Trouble".

Spike wrote:
> Thanks. I somehow had a feeling she'd have the 390 rather than the
> 351W.
>
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:39:01 GMT, Wound Up > wrote:
>
>
>>Spike wrote:
>>
>>>Kate said to ask you... are you running a 351W? If so what kind of
>>>mileage are you getting? Trying to decide between the original (289 A
>>>Code) or swap to the 351W. Mucho appreciation for any help.
>>
>>Laurie's 68 fastback has a 390. She doesn't drive it much, because of
>>AZ emissions laws.
>>
>>
>>>Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>>>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>>>Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>>>w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>>
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16


--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

Well. of course you are.... I think the dog ate *my* paperweight....
LOL

Speaking of Mustang and Fords. I just got my latest copy and it's all
"late model".... I have haven't had a chance to see if it was just a
special issue or what. Didn't see a darn thing in it that I could use
for a 65.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:15:24 GMT, Wound Up > wrote:

>No prob... see, I am useful for something
>
>Check upcoming issues of M&F for details if you so desire - this FE
>restomod (trailer queen) beauty is named "Trouble".
>
>Spike wrote:
>> Thanks. I somehow had a feeling she'd have the 390 rather than the
>> 351W.
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:39:01 GMT, Wound Up > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kate said to ask you... are you running a 351W? If so what kind of
>>>>mileage are you getting? Trying to decide between the original (289 A
>>>>Code) or swap to the 351W. Mucho appreciation for any help.
>>>
>>>Laurie's 68 fastback has a 390. She doesn't drive it much, because of
>>>AZ emissions laws.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>>>>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>>>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>>>>Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>>>>w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>>>
>>
>> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Yeah, yeah... (grin)...

I actually haven't gotten M&F for about 6 mo., but she said her car
would be featured in upcoming months. I saw her car Trouble in that
mag. before I ever subbed to the BB group. I only get MM now (sorry,
Laurie)... gotta renew. I had a subscription from 96-04. Stacks on my
shelf. That mag. did get my restomod blood pumping when I got my first car.

As I recall, Jim Smart officially took over as Editor for the Mar.
edition, and some changes were in the works. I don't believe they were
planning at all to stop covering the restomod / 65-73 "scene". Maybe
Mar. was the "transition issue" or something...

Spike wrote:
> Well. of course you are.... I think the dog ate *my* paperweight....
> LOL
>
> Speaking of Mustang and Fords. I just got my latest copy and it's all
> "late model".... I have haven't had a chance to see if it was just a
> special issue or what. Didn't see a darn thing in it that I could use
> for a 65.
>
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:15:24 GMT, Wound Up > wrote:
>
>
>>No prob... see, I am useful for something
>>
>>Check upcoming issues of M&F for details if you so desire - this FE
>>restomod (trailer queen) beauty is named "Trouble".
>>
>>Spike wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks. I somehow had a feeling she'd have the 390 rather than the
>>>351W.
>>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:39:01 GMT, Wound Up > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Kate said to ask you... are you running a 351W? If so what kind of
>>>>>mileage are you getting? Trying to decide between the original (289 A
>>>>>Code) or swap to the 351W. Mucho appreciation for any help.
>>>>
>>>>Laurie's 68 fastback has a 390. She doesn't drive it much, because of
>>>>AZ emissions laws.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>>>>>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>>>>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>>>>>Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>>>>>w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>>>>
>>>Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>>>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>>>Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>>>w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>>
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16


--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> Kate said to ask you... are you running a 351W? If so what kind of
> mileage are you getting? Trying to decide between the original (289 A
> Code) or swap to the 351W. Mucho appreciation for any help.
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16


I have a 390 in the fastback, and it's been tweaked a bit to say the least.
LOL I've only driven about 2 miles so I can't figure the mileage yet. I'm
guessing it will be 9-10 mpg considering my heavy foot.

--------
Laurie S.
Thunder Snake #7