Ok, at first I was thinking a 3.0 V6 (pulled from ranger) would make a great pinto motor. And it would, but it would be a lot of modification, plus I like carbs and you'd be losing that. The thing is, I'd like to be able to get 30 (or close) on the interstate cruising 65-75mph. Here is my idea:
2.3 pinto (swap if necessary)
new carb
5spd tranny from mustang
3.73 rear gears w/ 205/60/14 tires
From my calculations, the car should be around 2700rpm @ 75mph in 5th gear.
Now here are my questions:
Where can I get a new carb for a 2.3? I know you can rebuild the old ones, but newer carbs are inherently more efficient.
Will the 5spd from the 2.3 mustang bolt in ok?
Do you think this should yield 30mpg or so highway?
I don't know with a carb or not. I can put you onto a carb rebuild shop here in California that can still rebuild the carbs right. I see new Weber replacment units still popping up all over the place it seems. You will get better mileage with an auto. Going to a 70 or a 75 series tire will improve mileage. If you're stuck on a 5 speed you will need to go through all the 5 speed build codes and pick one and find it since they did not all come with the same final gear. Finding one for a 2.3 would be better I think. Anything you can do to the motor to help it breathe and get rid of the exhaust easier will improve mileage also.
Jake
The 2.3 is what I was talking about. Why would an auto get better mileage? And why would a 70/75 series tire be better than something else?
In my experience, better mileage is had with skinny tires (IE 165-175 as opposed to 205 or bigger) run at higher pressure. Also, I don't think I've ever really heard of an auto getting better gas mileage than a stick. Unless we are talking about a stick w/o over driver compared to an auto w/ overdrive. But the 5spd in those stangs have a .69 5th gear. Like I said, it'd be around 2.7k RPM at 75mph. Heck, my 5spd escort revs a tick higher than that at 75mph.
IMHO: A stock N/A 2.3 will not like fifth gear and keeping the car rolling at that speed doing 2700rpm. I think you will be shifting to 4th a lot.
There are EFI turbo Pintos out there that get close to those MPG #'s, and do well cruising at that RPM. I have 3.40's in mine, get better than 25 MPG (with my foot in it all the time), and it does fine.
Typically a carb will not get you better milage than EFI, nor will most A/T's over M/T's.
You can try to match up tranny gears, rear gears, and tire size to get the full ratio's you are looking for.
There have been a few posts about MPG increases in Pintos (and other cars). IF you are doing these mods STRICTLY for the MPG, you need to keep in mind what your COST RECOVERY will be (how many miles do you need to drive it to start saving money?).
Example: If it cost you 3k to do the updates, and you get 30MPG VS 20MPG out of the car:
10K miles at 20MPG = 500 Gallons @ $3.50 a gallon = $1750.
10K miles at 30MPG = 334 Gallons @ $3.50 a gallon = $1167.
It would save $583. every 10K miles driven so one would need to drive the car over 50K miles to off-set a 3K investment.
I did not say don't do it, just look at the #'s, and decide what is right for you.
Bill
I'm not so much doing it to save money so much as to lessen my impact on the environment. I might do 4.10s in the rear, that would equal out to 3k at 75mph, which was about the same as my 1994 escort did (88hp, 2400lbs) and it did fine in fifth gear.
I don't see it costing more than $500 for the carb (I've seen new ones as low as $300), $50-$250 for gears and the tires etc I was going to get anyway. So I'd be looking at a min of $350 and a max of $750. In a year, two years max I'd get back my "investment." That is assuming I can get 30mpg out of a carb. I really like carbs, computers are over rated. Keep in mind this is coming from a New Media major, I deal with computers every day. Macs, Windows, Linux (mostly slackware and ubuntu) and also I've dealt with computers in cars, what a pain.
**edit**
btw, I just found out that gremlins get about 30mpg highway with a 3.3 I6 motor. They must have been carbed back in 71.
If it is environmental 'costs' you are looking at, then you need to go deeper into how much emissions the car will put out. A low emission emitting car at 20MPG might not pollute as much has a high emissions car at 30MPG. IMHO, A, EFI would be MUCH better to do that job (thats why they are in cars).
Bill.
ADDED: My (HEAVY) Buick Ultra Supercharged EFI 3.8 V6 will get me 30MPG highway on long trips.
Oh I know FI is way better for MPG/efficiency. If I go FI I will probably still go with a vulcan 3.0 V6 which gives an auto taurus 30mpg highway, so it should give a 5spd pinto at least that. But I was looking into carbs to keep in old school, and also I just hate dealing with computers/sensors all over the place.
I think that with a good running 2.3 mated to a mustang 5spd, 4.10 gears, 175/65/14 tires, header, K&N (or similar) filter and an upgraded ignition I should be getting around 30mpg highway, 24 city. This is assuming a non station wagon pinto btw. All of that should cost me $1000 or so by my figuring. And it'd be well worth it if I could get it to all work out.
I was basically wondering what the highest mpg anyone gets in a carb'd pinto.
Alright, Now I'm thinking this is totally possible. If you look here: http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=812&scid=77 it says a 75 pinto (2600lbs) got 26mpg and a 1981 escort (2100lbs) got 33mpg. The escort was still carb'd at that point. I'm thinking that one of the lighter years of pintos (71-73) could easily get 30mpg with a 5spd tranny so it has OD, and a modern ignition. I think even the heavier years, 74-80, could do 30 mpg with the mods I've been talking about. Definetly worth a shot to me. I've always considered 30mpg my "baseline" gas mileage for highway mpg in a small car. My 94 tracer got 32 regular driving and 36-40 highway, and my ZX2 gets 27 regular, 30-33 highway. If I could almost match those numbers for my 2001 ZX2 in a 70s carb'd pinto, that would be wicked cool!
Quote from: joecool85 on August 01, 2006, 11:30:20 AM
...why would a 70/75 series tire be better than something else?
In my experience, better mileage is had with skinny tires (IE 165-175 as opposed to 205 or bigger) run at higher pressure.
That # on the tire is not the really the width, that is the size. Narrow tires like 75's or 80's will tend to give you better mileage over 70's, 65's,...... Taller and skinny would be better for milage alone.
Higher pressures (over inflation) can reduce rolling resistance of the tire and give better mileage too, but sometimes at a cost of tire life and safe handling of the vehicle.
Keep us posted on how the MAX MPG project goes.
Bill
First, right now this is theory, I don't own a pinto yet.
Second, the way tire sizing works in P-metric sizing (IE - 175/65/14) is width in mm, aspect ratio, then rim size.
So a 175/65/14 is 175mm wide, 113.75mm tall off the rim (175 x 0.65) and goes on a 14" rim. Old school tire sizing is like current floatation sizing. IE - 33" x 10.5" - 15" which would be a 33" tall tire that is 10.5" wide on a 15" rim.
Right. But a 165/65/14 has more rolling resistence than a 165/75/14. The less resistence on the road the easy the motor runs the car down the steet. Also I should have clarified that a auto with an overdrive will get better average fuel economy city and street combined than a manual. Shifting is more consistent and usually down at peak effciency if all things are working correctly. You could never shift in the same place every time no matter how good you think you are. Also depending on the model Pinto you are thinking about getting it will have a pressure ratio and a wind resistence. I am pretty sure Bill is right and that a 2.3 does not have the horsepower to maintain 75 mph at that RPM. A fuel injection motor will probably be able to do it but not a carb motor.
Jake
When I was running in the x-car division at my local track we had to run street tires that were 65 or narrower. I ran 195 65 14's on my car. I would find used ones of different brands and models with tread widths ranging from 5.25" to 7". They all seemed to be much closer in height.
If you are looking for mileage I would think any '80' tire would do better than a '65' with all else equal.
Bill
Read this guys: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tire2.htm
That just says what I just told you. A 60 series tire puts more face on the ground than a 75 series tire. A 60 series as more rolling resistence. Just another reason why Bonneville cars don't run 40 series tires.
Jake
Jake, I agree, there are trade-offs. The only thing about a m/t is you don't loose power through the tranny and t/c, but with a lock-up t/c and highway driving...
Bill
I know what those #'s are supposed to mean; same thing with the EPA milage estimates.
Bill
Regardless, this thread wasn't about tires so much as gas mileage. So, do you think that 30mpg is possible in a pinto? Thats the big question here.
Bill,
Right on the money. That's why i said average between city and freeway. Given a AOD versus a manual 5 speed. Autos generally come out with the better MPG numbers.
Jake
Yes, depending.
Bill
Quote from: joecool85 on August 01, 2006, 04:11:35 PM
Regardless, this thread wasn't about tires so much as gas mileage. So, do you think that 30mpg is possible in a pinto? Thats the big question here.
Yes. But your original post had variables in it. That is what we are discussing. I think 30 MPG is possible in a Kenworth. Until you start talking about specifics.
Jake
Jake keep in mind that most a/t's are heavyer, and mileage would depend an a bunch of other factors. (like we are talking about)
Bill
Quote from: Gaslight on August 01, 2006, 04:11:58 PM
Bill,
Right on the money. That's why i said average between city and freeway. Given a AOD versus a manual 5 speed. Autos generally come out with the better MPG numbers.
Jake
Then explain to me why an auto 94 escort gets an average of 28mpg, and a 5spd identical to it gets 34 average? And the same goes for pretty much every car and truck I've ever seen. The reason is, in a manual transmission, there is less drivetrain loss. Thats the same reason why on a dyno if you have a 5spd and an auto of the same car, the 5spd will put more power down to the wheels.
Bill,
You're right. That is were consistency comes in and the auto will win everytime. Also on the freeway the AOD will lockup and you get a 1:1 the same as a 5 speed anyways. If you look at the window stickers in two identical new cars with the only real exception being the transmission and auto will have a better average between city and highway.
Jake
He just said it was possible, and to that I agree.
There are too many variables that would need to be consitered.
Bill
ADDED: Now I see exactly what he is talking about, the difference between city and highway. Yes, I agree with Jake, it is POSSIBLE.
Quote from: joecool85 on August 01, 2006, 04:17:14 PM
Then explain to me why an auto 94 escort gets an average of 28mpg, and a 5spd identical to it gets 34 average? And the same goes for pretty much every car and truck I've ever seen. The reason is, in a manual transmission, there is less drivetrain loss. Thats the same reason why on a dyno if you have a 5spd and an auto of the same car, the 5spd will put more power down to the wheels.
I can't. And your wrong about the dyno. I race, build cars. There are a lot of factors that go into one car dyno'ing more than another. I have never seen two identical cars with the only difference being the transmission dyno together but I have seen cars close to each dyno way different numbers. Where did you get the mileage figures for the Escort that shows this difference?
Jake
My family own 2 1994 escorts, the only difference being tranny. Also, I have seen MANY stock escort ZX2 dynos, and the manual tranny ones always have at least 6 more hp than autos. They are 130hp at the crank btw.
I was doing some thinking, and like I said, the 88hp escort we had did fine in 5th gear which was 3k @ 75mph, the same this pinto would be. The escort had a 1.9 CVH motor with 88hp, 108tq. I checked and the 2.3 is rated at 88hp 118tq for the pintos. The same hp, 10 more tq, and they weigh about the same. I see no reason why it wouldn't be fine. Now, it won't be any speed demon, but it should be totally driveable.
I hope you can make some sense out of this mumbo jumbo i wrote. the reason why your 1.9 liter escort will do 75 mph at 3k and the 2.3 won't is all where the motor makes it torque and horse power,or at least where it really starts coming on strong. you could take a jap car motor that doesn't redline till 8,000 but only starts really making torque at 5000 rpm or a Buick 455 that has 510 lbs of torque at around 1900 rpm. you have to be able to match the speed you want somewhere in the torque curve.bottom line is the 1.9 probably has a broader torque curve then a pinto motor.
Ok, that makes sense. Anyone have a dyno plot from a pinto so I can see where I'm aiming for?
So, this seems to be the list I'm looking at:
5spd mustang tranny
4.10 gears
header and freeflowing exhaust system
K&N air filter
rebuilt or new carb
roller cam out of ranger
upgraded ignition (no points/condensors, high output coil, silicone wires etc)
This should bring the car up to around 30-32 on the highway by my estimates, as well as 105-110hp.
I'm thinking raising the compression ratio to 9.5 (like the later 2.3s have) might be a good idea as well. Maybe give a tick more hp, a little better mpg, and also be able to run E85.
The more I'm thinking, the more I think that maybe something between 8.7 and 9.2 would be a better compression if I'm keeping it carb'd.
are you sure you want 4:10's in the rear end? they are awfully low considering you most likley won't run any tire over 28" tall. I got 4:11's in my 1976 chevy K-10 spinning 35's and it'll rip most cars out of the hole and still do 65-70mph fairly easily down the highway.I just think you might want something a little tamer in the rear end and are you sure you can even get 4:10's for pinto carrier. you might have to upgrade to a 8.8 or an early bronco 9 inch.just my two cents
You can get 4.56 in an 8" rear. And 4.10 would be great for a 5spd mustang tranny, they have a 0.69 5th gear.
Did some calculations and if the 4spd manual tranny is a 1:1 in 4th gear, then 3.08 gears would have the same overall ratio on the interstate. Anyone know the gearing in the manual trannies?
Quote from: joecool85 on August 04, 2006, 01:03:35 PM
...a 5spd mustang tranny, they have a 0.69 5th gear.
Would that be one from a 2.3, 3.8 (?) or a 5.0 car? You do know that they are not a direct interchange, right? (the t-5 bells will interchange, but the trannys are different)
Bill
I was pretty sure that was from a 2.3, but I'm not 100% sure. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I bet that the 5 speed alone will get you there; I had a 78 cruising wagon 4 speed that got 28-30 mpg. It had a 2.3 with the feedback carb (Calif. Emissions) Had an electronic/vacuum unit that would lean the mixture according to an oxygen sensor at cruising speed. However, that mpg was before they changed us over to oxygenated fuel. Probably would be 5-10% less now... How about one of those Holley EFI units- do they still make them?
I don't think the fancy ignition will help much. At highway speed the stock Duraspark works fine- I mean, if you light the charge reliably, you are good- can't ignite it again.
Also might help a bit to see if you can get some weight out of the car somehow.
Just some thoughts...
mike
Thanks for the suggestions. Good to know that 30 mpg should be pretty easy. I'd really like to keep it carb'd. I know EFI should get 30mpg with no mods, probably mid to high 30s with some work, but I like carbs, there is a certain magic to it. It looks like the 2.3 might be around 9:1 stock so I wouldn't need to change the compression ratio.
Quote from: lugnut on August 04, 2006, 04:55:06 PM
I bet that the 5 speed alone will get you there; I had a 78 cruising wagon 4 speed that got 28-30 mpg.
I think I know why you have better mpg than some of the other 2.3 guys. From 77-80 the 2.3 had 9:1 compression, before that it was 8.6:1 :o
Well, I've decided that I'm going to hold out on getting a pinto till I can find a 77-78 that I like, since those are my fav years. I think with this list:
5spd mustang tranny
4.10 gears
header and freeflowing exhaust system
K&N air filter
rebuilt or new carb
roller cam out of ranger
upgraded ignition (high output coil, silicone wires etc)
Electric radiator fan
I should be looking at about 110hp/130tq and 32mpg highway, 28mpg regular driving (for me that is 45mph backroads and stuff.)
Ive made a maximum of 27.2 MPG out my stock 76 pinto at 80 MPH. it has a 2.3 with a rebuilt carb (rebuilt by me and i really dont know what im doing) with the EGR wiped out, a 4 speed (no overdrive) 3.00 Gears and 185-75-13 tires. The engine has a burnt valve in cylinder number three due to an intake leak it had right there. I assume that was the problem anyways, it makes sence to me. 30 mpg should be easily acheivable. i beleive the sales ads for a pinto said they were rated at 34 miles per gallon.
Really? 34...wow. If I could do mid 30s, like 34-35 on the interstate, I would be totally ecstatic!
If Pintoguy got 27 at 80 MPH, I am sure he could get something in the range of 32 or better at 65 MPH. Wow, 80 MPH in a Pinto...never had 3.00 gears, but man, you had to be way into the secondaries at that speed! LOL
Dave
Quote from: joecool85 on August 06, 2006, 07:10:19 AM
I think I know why you have better mpg than some of the other 2.3 guys. From 77-80 the 2.3 had 9:1 compression, before that it was 8.6:1 :o
Thats good to know. I can also add that I had a 1974 Wagon w/ 2.3 and 4 speed that could barely reach 20 mpg. It was my first car after school, and it was 2 years old and had around 15k miles when I got it. When I got tired of the loan payments, I sold it and got a 65 Mustang 289 Auto that managed to get 16 mpg!
Quote from: Original74 on August 09, 2006, 07:24:01 AM
If Pintoguy got 27 at 80 MPH, I am sure he could get something in the range of 32 or better at 65 MPH. Wow, 80 MPH in a Pinto...never had 3.00 gears, but man, you had to be way into the secondaries at that speed! LOL
Dave
Nope that was after a fresh tune up, on my way to kansas city a year ago. I drove 272 miles and put 10 gallons in the car to fill it up. It had awesome power, it ran like a striped butt ape. Too bad that only lasted about a week then it was back to its old self again. I dont know what was up with that but i only got into the secondarys twice that trip. Bear in mind 3.00s with a small tire like that is really equal to a lower ratio in comparison to a truck or something. I was turning some 3400 RPM. Now then that the newness has worn off the tuneup i recently made 25 at speeds varying between 65 and 75, and several stops along the trip and many hills. Not as much power either.
Quote from: lugnut on August 09, 2006, 05:05:15 PM
Thats good to know. I can also add that I had a 1974 Wagon w/ 2.3 and 4 speed that could barely reach 20 mpg. It was my first car after school, and it was 2 years old and had around 15k miles when I got it. When I got tired of the loan payments, I sold it and got a 65 Mustang 289 Auto that managed to get 16 mpg!
According to chiltons, the 74 2.3 made the most horsepower (102@5200) on 8.4 compression, while 75 was behind it at 97@4400 also with 8.4:1 compression. The 76-77 was 92@5000 with 9.0:1 Compression, and the 78-80 was dragging butt with 88hp@4800 and 9.0:1 Compression.
So 76 is 9:1 compression, good to know. Now...according to http://pintopage.fordpinto.com/ the compression on the 74-75 was 8.6, not 8.4 I guess it doesn't matter too much as I'm more interested in the 77-78, maybe a 76.
Its really hard to say what the actual compression is.....its possible it could be none of the above. All depends on pistons, heads (chambers) etc. one or two tenths of a point i dont think matters too much anyways.
8.4 to 8.6 might not make a huge difference, but going to 9.0 does. For one, its the lowest compression you can run E85 effectively, and for two it is one of the better mpg CRs as well as an ok performance CR.
Yeah id like to have about 9.5:1 Compression. Wonder what it would take to make that. Might take some pricey pistons and they might not be exactly 9.5......which would probably require higher octane. with 9.5 you could get by with 87 or 89 octane, barly, but you could. Beyond that who knows. This kind of makes me worry that the 74 wagon im about to buy may not make the best milage in the world. Maybe i should consider putting a new head on my 76 engine and dropping it in my 74. And putting the 74 engine in the 76. Since it wont get driven too much i dont think.
The fuel injected ranger has 9.5:1 and runs fine on 87 octane. My sister has an escort with 9.4:1 that runs fine on 87, again, fuel injected. As far as I know, carbs/fuel injection doesn't matter when figuring out what you want for compression, but I could be wrong. I do however know that you can run up to 10:1 on 87 octane as long as you keep your car tuned well (timing etc). Also, to get 9.5 you could probably just grab some newer 2.3 internals from a junkyard for cheap.
that would be nice
:text_yb_lol:
Hmmmm...Glad to see I`m not the only one....guess I could take the 2.0 out of my `74 and put it in my `71 Van...I dunno...maybe shave the head`s first...and then Dyno it...no...no...put the 302 out of the van in the `73 ...I`m sooooo confused....
My old '70 wagon is barely getting over 20 mpg. I'd just like to bump it up to 25 or so. I'll probably move the timing up 3 or 4 degrees. Anything else?
I'm not going to screw around with it tooooo much because I'm going to drop a turbo 2.3 in it this winter.
A 70 Pinto wagon? Must be a typo.
I'd do a compression test first, both wet and dry.
There isn't much you can do without tearing down the engine, if the compression is low across all cylinders on a high mileage engine, for example.
I and some people that I personally know have used RESTORE (look in auto parts stores and WalMart s/b under $8 for a 4, or under $10 for 6 cyl engine) with some fairly decent results to improve compression somewhat and to reduce oil usage, but I've not personally seen a big increase in fuel mileage. (But then again none of my engines on which i've used it have been down much on all or most cylinders either.)
If you're barely getting 20 now, don't expect miracles from the engine, but changing HOW you drive and doing a lot of little things like emptying the car of extra weight, keeping the tires highly but properly inflated, checking for dragging brakes, changing the air filter, doing a decent tune up and running a more fuel efficient engine oil can together have a significant effect on your mileage.
Bumping the timing a few degrees isn't going to make much of a change in terms of fuel ecomomy, UNLESS it is considerably off from where it is SUPPOSED to be, for whatever reason. If the engine timing is now running where it should be, it WILL DEFINITELY increase the combustion chamber temperature, so if you decide to do that, you will be increasing the odds of getting a burnt exhaust valve if the engine is already using too much oil through the valve guides.
I meant '79 wagon.
The '80 Pony that I had way back when got MPG in the high twenties. Even got 31 or 32 MPG on the interstate to St. Louis and back. I know the wagon has a bit of a disadvantage with an automatic.
Anyway, the distributer was advanced at seven degrees before a dialed it up to 20. The previous carburetor was running a bit rich too.
I'm thinking about doing the old time thing of setting the timing by ear where you advance it until the engine runs the best and then retard it slightly until it starts to bog.
The wagon also weighs considerably more. I wouldn't expect to, easily, get better than 25-26mpg. There are a lot of good things listed in this thread for mpg gains though. First, like already stated, check your tire pressure. Do an oil change, new air filter, tune your carb, new fuel filter (do this before tuning the carb), and use an electric fan for the rad instead of the mechanical one that comes on it.
An easy way to raise compresson is to mill the head.You can take 60 thou off a 2.0 and still use a cam with a 470 lift without problems,This raises the comp ratio 1 full point.However the motor is not a no interference motor any more so don't break a timing belt.The same applys to the 2.3 but the cam has a lower max lift than the 2.0.I have 90 thou milled from my 2.3 with a 60 thou increase in the piston eyebrows.