Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie? - Page 3 - Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum
 1Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-15-2014, 04:22 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Douglas, Ga
Posts: 1,065
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

Soooooo
David, tell me more about your 25mpg big block Ford.

1976 F100 390/c6
1963.5 Galaxie 446FE/c6
DeepRoots is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-15-2014, 07:41 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Harpers Ferry, WV
Posts: 529
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PSIG View Post
Having said all that, there must be recognized a direct relationship between efficiency and power. If you add more air and fuel (say, port your heads), you get more power through increased flow efficiency. Sure, but no marked increase in mpg, even if you tuned for it. But, if you also increase the efficiency of burning the fuel by X% (perhaps aftermarket heads with a better combustion chamber or improved ignition timing), and still pass the same amount through it, your power also increases X% as well, just from fuel efficiency. Or, your mpg increases. Or both. If you are designing (or just tuning) to only capture one of those, you're wasting the benefits of the other, and you are not achieving maximum performance.

So, maybe your grief is $8.80 race gas. But, if you could go twice as far on the same amount of fuel, that would be equivalent to $4.40/gal. Would that be an acceptable answer, or would 400hp and $4/gal be better for you? 425hp and 20 on the highway sounds better to me than 425 and 12 or 375 and 20. Then again, 600hp (400hp + 200hp N2O or boost) and 20 is even better. That's the way I see it.

David
You are making some great arguments here. Definitely worth exploring.

63 G code BoxTop 4spd
63 1/2 Z code 5 spd
Death Touch is offline  
post #33 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-17-2014, 06:41 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Douglas, Ga
Posts: 1,065
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

*still patiently waiting for his ignorance to be ripped off by PSIG like an old bandage*

PSIG/David,
You mentioned that you have experience in this, that you have tuned for both fuel economy and power. When Rich Browne asks about the build you yourself referenced you danced around answering it.... When i asked the same thing, this thread went dead.

I'd just like to know, since you said you've done this, what your secret to success was? what was the build? what kind of economy were you getting?

Not being combative, just want to be educated by someone that claims to have more knowledge than me on this subject....

1976 F100 390/c6
1963.5 Galaxie 446FE/c6
DeepRoots is offline  
 
post #34 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-17-2014, 03:46 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA area
Posts: 10,299
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

I wasn't dancing around the subject. The point was not the build, but maximizing efficiency for all purposes, no matter what the build. If we instead look at the build design to first set options for reaching the design goals, then we talk about how we would design the build and why. But, we do not have any parameters yet. To suggest a build that does not address specific goals would mislead some into just taking that build for themselves, and getting bad results because the build was not to their goals, in their car, with their budget, or their skills, with their requirements in-mind. See what I mean?

Obviously a build design for a 2600-pound 5-second BBF would be different than one for a 4400-pound 8-second car, even though they both need similar power numbers. Now, let's complicate that by adding mileage requirements, unknown weight, gearing, tires, driving style, parasitic losses, and no performance requirements, etc. 350hp and 25 mpg or 600 hp and 18 mpg? Or maybe it's a max effort, and we want 800 hp and 25 mpg in our unknown car to reach unknown performance goals. So, we don't know if all he needs is a rebuild with carefully selected parts and mods to the pistons, heads, cam, intake, exhaust, ignition, fueling, tires, body, etc. Or, maybe it's major changes to everything and state-of-the-art multi-fuel injection with eight crank-triggered multi-spark coils, water injection, 6 or 8-speeds, carbon fiber body panels, or whatever.

I hope you don't think I'm avoiding the issue, but in reality I am avoiding a lot of work of making an imaginary example package that meets nobody's goals. If we are to take the time and effort to really plan a realistic package, I'd like to do the work for something that will actually be done, and has a reasonable chance for success. Call me selfish if you like, but making that kind of effort just for kicks is not in my cards today.

Examples? 1970 Fairlane 429, WR toploader, 3.70 gears, 28" tires, 3450#, head and intake work, mild performance cam, custom ignition curving and carb tweaking, no dyno, no track, 21.6 average highway mpg. City mileage unknown because he's heavy-footed. 1973 Mustang 460, C6, GVOD, 3.50 gears, 27" tires, extensive mods from low-tension rings to filled and worked heads, custom tuned exhaust, etc. Full electronic ignition and closed-loop fuel injection, dual AFR, EGTs, etc. 4250 pounds, dyno and street tuned, 487hp/543tq, (corrected) and instant ECM data feedback of 26.3 mpg at 65mph sustained and level cruise. I've already given other examples, including generic ones like my stock 3/4 ton truck that now saves $900 a year in fuel with slightly increased power.

If I were to design a generic build trying to balance cost with performances, it would have changes all over the car, and the engine start with a D9TE-BB block, D4U 429 crank, extensive blueprinting, precision specified machine work, a month flowing runners, HE pistons for highest efficiency and best hot strength, to handle boost to provide 650-800hp and 25+ mpg (depending on the chassis to start with). A big part of it would be staged injection, dual-fuel EFI with fully programmed distributorless ignition with features such as fuel-cutoff on decel, electronic wastegate control, full trans and lockup control, peak cylinder pressure crank angle detection, etc.

Possibly less expensive (though far more intensive) than your serious stroker build, offering equivalent average power, and much higher mpg to boot. However, this then begs the question of why? Is this the best route to meet the goals? Possibly and probably not, and there are many other options available, many less expensive or more efficient or both. Again, we need goals.

Hey - if you have cake, eat all you can get. Does that answer your question(s)?

David

Below is a simple dual-fuel injection plate I made from a carb spacer. This one has four injectors to feed over 300hp of additional methanol during high power and/or boost. The engine runs on 87 octane granny gas the rest of the time. The staged fuel addition is progressive, seamless, and automatic:
Ddepascal likes this.

-=≡ If it was easy everyone would do it ≡=-
[size=1]HotShotsJava.com Hot Shots Java Coffeehouse, Poulsbo ,WA fair trade and 100% organic. Voted best espresso and coffee![/size]
PSIG is offline  
post #35 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-17-2014, 06:42 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Harpers Ferry, WV
Posts: 529
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

I guess WILBBURRRRR will have to supply more information about what he
wants/expects from the BB Galaxie he wishes to build before PSIG can
make any recommendations.

63 G code BoxTop 4spd
63 1/2 Z code 5 spd
Death Touch is offline  
post #36 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-17-2014, 08:05 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 89
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Touch View Post
I guess WILBBURRRRR will have to supply more information about what he
wants/expects from the BB Galaxie he wishes to build before PSIG can
make any recommendations.
From Bad Ass Cars.com - good quote:

"If an engine has 500 cubes, it is obviously going to burn more fuel than an engine with 300 cubes. The 500” engine will also make more power and get worse gas mileage...Again... in almost ANY scenario, if you want to make power, there's no replacement for displacement!

Internal combustion can ONLY take place within a VERY narrow air/fuel ratio, between about 8:1 and 16:1. 8:1 being barely able to run because it is way too rich, and 16:1 would causes misses (lean missing) because it is way too lean ([plus would be really hot temperature wise). Ideally some place between 12:1 and 14:1 are best for performance engines. They “say” 14.7:1 is “optimal”, but that does NOT ring true with performance engines because you need a richer mixture to keep the burn cooler.

So in a nutshell, it is obvious why more displacement makes more power and why when trying to MAKE power the old saying rings so true; “There’s no replacement for displacement!”. This is why guys that THINK smaller engines or high winding little engines make more power, when in fact, they don’t compared to a larger displacement engine, which is why we see so many strokers these days. They simply make much more power because they are capable of taking-in more air and burning more fuel.

Making power isn’t brain surgery. It’s a simple matter of being able to burn more fuel to raise cylinder pressure. More cylinder pressure pushes down on the piston harder, which in turn rotates the crank faster and harder and = more power. It’s that simple."

So you want mileage? Smaller displacement. Horsepower? Bigger displacement

Last edited by Rich Browne; 09-17-2014 at 08:15 PM.
Rich Browne is offline  
post #37 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-18-2014, 04:03 AM
Registered User
 
ford4v429's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 3,336
Garage
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Browne View Post
From Bad Ass Cars.com - good quote:

"If an engine has 500 cubes, it is obviously going to burn more fuel than an engine with 300 cubes. The 500” engine will also make more power and get worse gas mileage...Again... in almost ANY scenario, if you want to make power, there's no replacement for displacement!

Internal combustion can ONLY take place within a VERY narrow air/fuel ratio, between about 8:1 and 16:1. 8:1 being barely able to run because it is way too rich, and 16:1 would causes misses (lean missing) because it is way too lean ([plus would be really hot temperature wise). Ideally some place between 12:1 and 14:1 are best for performance engines. They “say” 14.7:1 is “optimal”, but that does NOT ring true with performance engines because you need a richer mixture to keep the burn cooler.

So in a nutshell, it is obvious why more displacement makes more power and why when trying to MAKE power the old saying rings so true; “There’s no replacement for displacement!”. This is why guys that THINK smaller engines or high winding little engines make more power, when in fact, they don’t compared to a larger displacement engine, which is why we see so many strokers these days. They simply make much more power because they are capable of taking-in more air and burning more fuel.

Making power isn’t brain surgery. It’s a simple matter of being able to burn more fuel to raise cylinder pressure. More cylinder pressure pushes down on the piston harder, which in turn rotates the crank faster and harder and = more power. It’s that simple."

So you want mileage? Smaller displacement. Horsepower? Bigger displacement
I dunno... a ounce of fuel burned in a minute should produce X horsepower minus frictional/thermal losses right?
if a double sized engine puts out X hp at less RPM than the smaller motor, which one will suffer the higher frictional loss and which one will lose more heat?

I think in the end work is work, so geared optimally, theoretically big or small *could* put out similar mpg numbers, with a nudge towards the bigger/lower rpm motor having extra time to complete the burn and less oil churning. roller cam, coated pistons, rubber seals instead of rope, low tension rings, tighter bearing clearances on thinner oil- all the things 'modern' engines come with encourage free spinning... try turning over a old rope seal/standard ring/flat tappet bigblock by hand- probably 3~4 times the drag of a newer motor... optimize that, optimize the gearing(and low overlap cam to keep it efficient at highway cruise rpm- even if at 900 rpm) and i think it could work, possibly even slightly better...again , ' i think'

all we need is a umpteen speed(or at least very wide ratio) transmission with a 2~2.5 overdrive, so we can both lumber along for mpg and still get her up to 5000 rpm easily for fun...

what I'd love to see: a direct injection setup with built in spark to fit in existing spark plug holes... sounds impossible i know, but if only...DI is the way of the future...then too, it might be hard to start a 15:1 bigblock... might need diesel starting hardware

CONFIDENCE: that feeling you get just before you realize the mess you got yourself into...
Saving a 65 Galaxie
1969 Mustang project pics
ford4v429 is offline  
post #38 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-18-2014, 06:23 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Iowa, USA.
Posts: 293
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

rich browne:
"So in a nutshell, it is obvious why more displacement makes more power and why when trying to MAKE power the old saying rings so true; “There’s no replacement for displacement!”. This is why guys that THINK smaller engines or high winding little engines make more power, when in fact, they don’t compared to a larger displacement engine, which is why we see so many strokers these days. They simply make much more power because they are capable of taking-in more air and burning more fuel."


if wilburrr will give me permission i'd like to get semi-related kinda off topic for a minute.
i am in the process of building a stroked 460 block. i'm happy with the engine regardless becuase it is what i want but.. i hear/read a lot of talk about the new mustangs and challengers etc with their 700 or 800 horsepower not to mention power adders getting up to 1000hp. so are these smaller displacement engines really badass and making my 600hp 521 look like a straight 6? i don't really care becuase i can't get 400hp to the road anyway (i'm not cutting my rear qaurters and not tubbing either) and i'm shooting for mainly original looking under the hood. just thought i'd ask it's been bugging me.
mileage? i'm hopeing for 12 mpg.

Last edited by lcm5914; 09-18-2014 at 06:35 PM.
lcm5914 is offline  
post #39 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-18-2014, 09:05 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 89
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lcm5914 View Post
so are these smaller displacement engines really badass and making my 600hp 521 look like a straight 6?...just thought i'd ask it's been bugging me.
mileage? i'm hopeing for 12 mpg.
Like I said before - I have a 550 HP CTS-V with a 6 speed manual - it really shows what a brute my 550 or so HP FE, 5 speed, Galaxie truly is. The Caddy is fast and handles really well - I have serious problems getting it hooked up with the electronics turned off.

I like driving both cars because they are so different.

Amazing what 50 years has done. Oh, ya, when the Caddy breaks I can't fix it. (I'm on my third rear end) There's no way - absolutely no way that the caddy will still be on the road in twenty years - the Galaxie, in contrast, will still be cruzin' and getting' thumbs up when it's seventy - the caddy will be just a picture....
Rich Browne is offline  
post #40 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014, 08:25 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Smyrna TN
Posts: 235
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

This thread has gone on for too long. It should have ended with one post with the word: No.
How this all relates to the OP's '64 Falcon with a 260 I don't know...

Last edited by rendus; 09-19-2014 at 08:29 AM.
rendus is offline  
post #41 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014, 08:28 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 89
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rendus View Post
This thread has gone on for too long. It should have ended with in one post with the word: No.
Best post - EVER!!
Rich Browne is offline  
post #42 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014, 09:05 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 46
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

Here's a suggestion. Go to the following forum and register. Talk about 25mpg with a BBF. Try not to go blind when you read the responses from the engine builders that hang out there........... 460 Ford Forum
Here's a good bet of indifference for would be mileage misers that run a BBF. I stand a better chance getting 25 mpg from my 06 F350 6.0 diesel running a 600hp SCT tune on an engine that has cat delete, egr delete and straight exhaust than any car sporting a BBF FORD motor. Truck gets 15 mpg on avg. It weighs 7000 lbs............... None of this is related to BBF but it seems to go with the flow of this thread................ Good one Rendus.........
Forddaddy1 is offline  
post #43 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014, 12:52 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA area
Posts: 10,299
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

I think this is a great conversation, and not at all off-track from the OP's question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rendus View Post
This thread has gone on for too long. It should have ended with one post with the word: No.
But, the proof is otherwise, so how could you say "no"? Some folks are asking how and why it can be done. That's what we are doing now, and it's not a hijack of the OP's original question, but a follow-on for facts, info and sharing ideas. The length of the thread is not concerning, except for some taking space to say it's impossible, while others are actually doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rendus View Post
How this all relates to the OP's '64 Falcon with a 260 I don't know...
You need to re-read the OP's original post. It is about a Galaxie, a 390/429/460, and mileage to go with power. There is nothing about a Falcon or a 260. Perhaps you replied to the wrong thread by mistake? If not, you are trolling.
--------------
So, now that I've replied and back in the thread, I'd like to suggest some directed thought to stay on-subject. The question will be "Why?". Rather than write a book about combustion efficiency, or dual-purpose operations, let's just take a simple set of comparisons. The engine discussed does not matter for this, so let's take a generic one that everyone is very familiar with - the 302/5.0L. We have four comparative engines:
  1. Stock 1974 145 SAE net hp
  2. Stock 1994 215 SAE net hp
  3. Street/strip 400 SAE gross hp typical 'hot rod' build
  4. Street/strip 600 SAE gross hp EFI/turbo/SC/N2O/etc.
We all know of many examples of each. They are all exactly the same displacement. But, both the power and mileage is drastically different between them. These can be divided into examples of both efficient and powerful, so let's take the first two. The power of engine #2 is 48% higher than engine #1, and yet it's mileage is also ~70% better! The question is WHY?

Engine 4 has 50% more power than #3, yet is more likely to have better mileage, similar to #2. WHY?

So, we have four engines of identical static displacement, that spread 265% in raw power (after corrections) and 70% or more in mileage. If we apply the same principles to four big engines, the results can again be similar in relative comparison. Which engine is yours designed, built, and tuned like, and why? If building a big block for a Galaxie like the OP is considering, which build would yours be most like, and why?

This is all just for thought. I'm still searching for some answers myself from a previous post, so answers are welcome. If you don't care about all this you have made your choice or have no interest, and that's fine, but - then please don't post.

David

-=≡ If it was easy everyone would do it ≡=-
[size=1]HotShotsJava.com Hot Shots Java Coffeehouse, Poulsbo ,WA fair trade and 100% organic. Voted best espresso and coffee![/size]
PSIG is offline  
post #44 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014, 02:29 PM
Registered User
 
ford4v429's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 3,336
Garage
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

Excellent analogy David. eager to see what all shows up here

CONFIDENCE: that feeling you get just before you realize the mess you got yourself into...
Saving a 65 Galaxie
1969 Mustang project pics
ford4v429 is offline  
post #45 of 47 (permalink) Old 09-19-2014, 06:46 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Smyrna TN
Posts: 235
Re: Fuel economy from a BIG BLOCK Ford Galaxie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PSIG View Post
You need to re-read the OP's original post. It is about a Galaxie, a 390/429/460, and mileage to go with power. There is nothing about a Falcon or a 260. Perhaps you replied to the wrong thread by mistake? If not, you are trolling.
The OP doesn't even own a Galaxie or a big block so the point is moot.

And did we really need two threads on it?

But by all means keep typing...

Last edited by rendus; 09-19-2014 at 06:50 PM.
rendus is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ford galaxie big block swap question rayj Galaxie Pages 2 05-20-2014 05:18 PM
Fuel economy... what's yours? Washernozzle Falcon Pages 9 01-06-2008 12:16 AM
Big Block Ford help ccso640 All Ford Techboard 21 10-29-2004 09:24 PM
Anyone use a big block fuel pump in a small block? mc All Ford Techboard 4 04-21-2003 02:34 AM
Block prep for "557 BIG BLOCK FORD" Milodon 4 bolt caps or 2 bolt with main girdle? DynoTom All Ford Techboard 8 08-05-2002 02:23 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome