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!
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 >Spike wrote:
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 225/50ZR16Uh huh... you can lie to THEM...
I know better Spikie m' man!
| >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
Laurie's 68 fastback has a 390. She doesn't drive it much, because of AZ emissions laws.
Thanks. I somehow had a feeling she'd have the 390 rather than the
351W.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 225/50ZR16No prob... see, I am useful for something :)
Check upcom> Thanks. I somehow had a feeling she'd have the 390 rather than the > 351W.
Well. of course you are.... I think the dog ate *my* paperweight.... LOL
Speak>No prob... see, I am useful for something :)
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 225/50ZR16Yeah, 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. editi> Well. of course you are.... I think the dog ate *my* paperweight.... > LOL
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
Actually, I can't drive it much yet as I don't have the vacuum line on to allow it to shift to third. So, I'm limited to slower jaunts around the block for now. Soon.....
---------- Laurie S. Thunder Snake #7
There's still plenty of vintage stuff in Mustang & Fords. My fastback was in two articles in the March issue, and two in Mustang Monthly. Jim currently is the editor, but is having great difficulty in getting cooperation from the support staff. March is a transition issue, but it looks like the transition is going to take some more issues yet.
---------- Laurie S. Thunder Snake #7
The March issue was about 4 times as thick as usual and I didn't see anything (aside from ads and even the majority of those were later model) in the 60's era. I don't mind a mix but I need my classic fix. : )
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
Well, the two articles on my fastback show installing inner fender trim and
69-70 sports mirrors. You're sure it's M&F and MM&FF? I didn't notice any increase in size of the March issue.--------- Laurie S. Thunder Snake #7
I think Spike's hitting the sauce. Both the Jan and March issues are
98 pages, and the March M&F is full of classics and the Pure Stock Drags we were talking about a couple days ago.
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 225/50ZR16Laurie, You still have some photos posted don't you?
Yes, my website is still up, although I need to do some updating.
------------- Laurie S. Thunder Snake #7
I was at that show, and did not see your car.. dang it!
| >
| > Laurie, You still have some photos posted don't you? | >
| >
| | Yes, my website is still up, although I need to do some updating. |
I was parked at the far corner right up by the track, about as far from the hotel bus shuttle stop as possible. Great viewing for the races, long walk to get home. LOL
-------------- Laurie S. Thunder Snake #7
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required