If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ping vs knock | picaza | Mazda | 1 | September 1st 04 01:04 AM |