Is a turbo mandatory for fuel economy?

[nelstomlinson]

``... if you are serious about economy being a major goal just buy a good simple F150 300 I6 ...''

A friend did that 30 years ago. He was getting almost 20mpg on a 30 mile commute. Really that's not much better than my F350s get in similar driving today. His was an early '70s 2wd with a carb and a three on the tree, so if you started with a 5 speed 2wd from the early '90s you might do a little better. You could probably do it cheaper than building a turbo IDI F350.

 

[FordGuy100]

I've actually heard that EFI 5.0's with the AOD's and 3.55's can cruise in the low 20's for the lighter trucks

 

[Sidewinded_idi]

For what it’s worth my 92 idi with the 7.3 and banks sidewinder kit did great empty. I hauled a car to la and averaged 17mpg. When I installed the 4.10 rear ended if I kept my speed to 55 I would get 22-23 consistently.

 

[david85]

I've actually heard that EFI 5.0's with the AOD's and 3.55's can cruise in the low 20's for the lighter trucks

I heard the opposite. 302s can be ok when not loaded heavy (fox body cars) but in a truck? usually 13-17 is the best they can get. My F150 never got higher than 12-13 MPG running LPG. If we add another 20% to be generous, that only works out to about 16 MPG. And that was in conditions where overdrive was locked out and cruising was at 50-55 MPH. Peak torque is around 2400 for a stocker of that era, so lugging it down to 2000 didn't help. That truck would still pass 80 MPH empty in overdrive, but any kind of headwind, big breakfast, or bug splatter on the windshield would slow it down.

The 351 has power, while the 300 has economy. The 302 has neither. I'm not a fan of the 302 .

 

[FordGuy100]

I heard the opposite. 302s can be ok when not loaded heavy (fox body cars) but in a truck? usually 13-17 is the best they can get. My F150 never got higher than 12-13 MPG running LPG. If we add another 20% to be generous, that only works out to about 16 MPG. And that was in conditions where overdrive was locked out and cruising was at 50-55 MPH. Peak torque is around 2400 for a stocker of that era, so lugging it down to 2000 didn't help. That truck would still pass 80 MPH empty in overdrive, but any kind of headwind, big breakfast, or bug splatter on the windshield would slow it down.

The 351 has power, while the 300 has economy. The 302 has neither. I'm not a fan of the 302 .

I'm only spouting what I've read on the internets and we all know how reliable those can be

 

[Kiwif150]

By using English imperial gallons i can , if the stars are aligned , my right foot is not twitchy and at 100 km/h cruise get 22mpg out of mine ..... that's with me using the hho system too.

 

[david85]

I'm only spouting what I've read on the internets and we all know how reliable those can be

hehe, same here. Although owning one 302 power truck in my whole life doesn't exactly make me an expert either. Maybe with a better cam, headers, etc there are some improvements to be found. Could be I just hate them because the grass is always greener. I've toyed with a 300 swap, 351 swap, heck I'd even be tempted to do a 390FE swap (adapter plate required). And then you get Agnem and his son building a 7.3IDI f150...decisions...decisions...

 

[chillman88]

And then you get Agnem and his son building a 7.3IDI f150...decisions...decisions...

I just want a turbo 6.9 bronco lol

 

[austin92]

I have an all stock 96 f150, 302 5 speed 4x4 3.55s and it’s lucky to get half the fuel mileage of my idi


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[david85]

Even when you factor in revised numbers to reflect more realistic EPA testing methods, the trucks from 1980-1984 probably had the highest MPG numbers of the OBS legacy platform (80-96). Power went up from the late 80s to mid 90s, but economy went down.

I will say that for what it was, the 302 was an ok engine. Smooth, quiet and most of its torque was available by 2000 RPM. If you needed more, you could still wind it out past 4000 RPM without any worries.

Perfect engine for a Ranger!

 

[DarkDownDeep]

Thanks guys. You all convinced me to buy a 6.2

 

[chillman88]

Thanks guys. You all convinced me to buy a 6.2

Ouch lol!

Quite frankly I have always been a GM guy. I was doing the research before buying one and the simplest conclusion I came to was the 6.2/6.5 is better for miles per gallon and the 6.9/7.3 was better for hauling.

I bought this pig to haul, and she does a decent job of it, all while getting respectable mileage.

I still would like to have a K5 with a 6.2, but that'd be for pleasure/commute not hauling.

Facts seem to say that the 6.2/6.5 are decent if TAKEN CARE OF, kinda like most things. People put 200k miles on them without touching them and wonder why they have issues....

Whatever you end up with, I hope you enjoy it!

 

[79jasper]

When setup right, the 6.2/6.5 are pushing Cummins territory.
For whatever reason, still seem to get better mileage than the 6.9/7.3. I want to say they typically had higher gearing + better trans options. And I think lighter truck period.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Trevtron]

Thanks guys. You all convinced me to buy a 6.2

https://www.oilburners.net/threads/6-9-vs-6-2-vs-6-5.58514/

Good luck with whichever route you feel is best

 

[79jasper]

https://www.oilburners.net/threads/6-9-vs-6-2-vs-6-5.58514/

Good luck with whichever route you feel is best

Otoh, they were also in hmmwv's and cucv's, etc and stood up to quite a bit of thrashing.
I mean, not like I'm biased or anything. [emoji57][emoji48]

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk