Station Wagons, Power, and Fuel Economy

I've got to repair my Fairmont wagon.




It looked like this before the November 2012 fender-bender:


Roller Paint Thread for any one interested:
http://www.stationwagonforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=711

It had a 302 V8 when I bought it in 1997, in Mexico, until the engine started telling me it was gonna go real soon, in 2006.

I got another Fairmont sedan, recommended by my favourite Ford dealer, because they had rebuilt the engine and transmission, a few months before I asked the dealership's owner (a good friend - he sold me my new 1981 Fairmont Futura wagon, in November 1980).



The engine is a 200 CI (3.3L) I6, with a good Automatic transmission. Only had about 3,000 miles on it when I bought it in 2006, and came onto this Forum. Took me almost 2 years to restore the wagon, and I drove it locally in city traffic until November 2012 (4 years). I might have added another 3,000 low-speed miles).

The engine is fine. The fuel mileage sucks (14 to 16 MPG on a Canadian Gallon) 10 to 12 on a US gallon. I've tweaked that carb, rebuilt it, tweaked it again, improving the smoothness, but not the MPG.

So... I got to thinking, "What if I went to a Turbo 2.3L Turbo engine?" I've spent a lot of time cruising the Ford Turbo sites, and even the high-powered SVO owners mention that they don't like the low torque at city speeds.

So I'm looking at my SIX again. HandyAndy knows a ton about changing the intake manifold to a 2BBL, using a 250CI ford six intake manifold and carb. I'll be picking his brain too.

The 302V8 had factory HP at 145 HP.I'd like to get my 85 HP six up to that or a little better - maybe 175 HP, and keep the bottom end torque. I want an all day highway cruiser at near 20 to 25 MPG, and 18-20 MPG in the city. The little 1 BBL Holley 1100 carb must work for oil companies, and I want it to know that it too can be replaced with something better.

I n\know the 1983 and 1984 engines had an EFI system, and I'd do that if it meant better MPG. Not crazy about it, but WTF!

I also want to change the transmission to at least a 4-speed standard trans. My wife's a great driver, but she WILL NOT drive a 'slush-o-matic', as she calls it. She's never driven our car, since 1997 (Mexican gals are stubborn, as well as passionate.)

I figured I'd post this, since we've got a lot of mid-size wagon folks with smaller engines.

 

That six should do much better than that. Something is wrong I say.

mike

 

Some historical 200 CI, info:
http://www.ford-trucks.com/article/idx/14/507/article/The_Inline_Six_200_Ford_Engine.html

Yeah. I was cruising for some optional carb setups. One that got my attention is a Tri-carb setup, bolt-on Offenhauser/Holley, with 3 single barrel holly carbs. At city speeds it runs on the middle one, until you floor it, then the next two help adjust your neckbone into the wayback!

http://www.summitracing.com/int/parts/ofy-5205/overview/make/ford

The carbs are Holly 1904s or 1908s.

These articles goe into details:
http://www.mustangmonthly.com/techa...six_cylinder_mustang_performance/viewall.html

http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/engine/5283_building_six_cylinder_engine/

http://www.mustangmonthly.com/techa...der_tuning_and_performance_guide/viewall.html#

http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Ford_144-250_inline_6_High_performance_building

This guy compares some 2 BBL adapters, but he also suggests that it might be cheaper to machine one to get the right carb positioning for the stock linkage cable to the gas pedal:
http://home.centurytel.net/fordfan/Falcon/HW Conversion.html

I've already got the Duraspark II ignition and distributor, and a full Mustang gauge dash, and vacuum gauge. No compression issues, good fuel pump (stock).

I like the tip I find about using the I4 High Swirl Pistons too, to improve the compression ratio to 9.2:1, from 8:1.
http://classicinlines.com/proddetail.asp?prod=SLP-200-CPF

I think what I'll start with is getting my carb rebuilt by a professional, and going from there.

 

If I had a fox body wagon the first thing I would do is start gathering parts to swap in a 3.8 SC engine in. I used to get an honest 30-31mpg on straight highway driving in my '95. That was with a manual trans and 2.73 gears. Your car has the aerodynamics of a brick compared to mine, but it is also several hundred pounds lighter. You'd get later model multipoint fuel injection, plenty of power and low end torque, and good mileage. Should be a direct swap since the 3.8 was available in the later fox cars.

 

On a US gallon??? Wow!

 

Drop in a 302/AOD, and you will beat your mileage goal by a HUGE margin. My 78 Thunderbird with a 351M/FMX did a solid 28 mpg on the highway, and all that was changed from stock was the exhaust. In the lighter car, the 302 will do you very well, and the AOD will drop the revs like you would not believe. You will do well over 30 mpg with it. After all, the 89 Mustang LX with the 302/AOD was rated at 28 highway, and that was with performance gearing.

 

You might be right, because mine had the stock C4 auto, and it drank gas like a drunk on Bourbon Street (been there, saw that!)

But this 3.3L six is still under warranty, from the rebuild, as is the tranny. I wonder if I could get a bell housing to strap in an AOD... Hmmm...

 

My 1949 Ford had a 302 and overdrive C-4. It got around 26-28MPG. Edelbrock 600 carb.
Factory stock....not!
And I was drunk on Bourbon Street. (been there, did that!)

 

I was there with the whole family in 1971, and again in 1973, and once more as a Microsoft developer/contractor in 1994. The first trip, we lucked out being at Pete Fountain's Club, when Herb Alpert came in at about 2:00 AM, and all the big names came there to jam. Wow! The best! The second time, my college pal got into the sauce, and I poured him back in my souped up Corvair Greenbrier pickup, and drove us back to a hotel. The 3rd time, I had my own room at the Westin, in the March rainstorms, facing the Mississipi. It rained so hard, I could barely see the other hotel tower, and I saw the ships zigzagging to crawl up to the port. Next morning, bright sunshine! So I strolled down to a restaurant on the docks, and had alligator bacon and eggs. Not bad, but not high on my pallette menu.

I'd go again just to show my wife that old hotel with the river-run ceiling fan system. Heard the story about the "Little man, so spic and span, where were you when the shiat hit the fan!" The little Maitre'd had to be in his 80s when I met him with my drunk buddy.

He told it straight-faced, while we were bent over ROTFLOFAsses OFF! And with that Louisiana twang, it made it that much funnier. I think it was the Larochelle Hotel or some French name starting will "L".

 

Bear in mind that is straight highway mileage with a 5 speed and tall gears. That is also 215hp/315tq stock. I don't have a whole lot of experience with the AOD. My '93 with the AOD didn't do nearly as well, but that car was beat when I got it and I didn't spend much time worrying about mileage.

Of course you could just follow the 351W with Edelbrock carb, dual exhaust, and an AOD and get 50mpg undocumented.

 

My 79 Thunderbird with the 302 and C-4 regularly did 800 km on a tank, and the tank was 80 litres. That is a bit better than 28 mpg. Actually, BOTH of my 79s did that. Again, all that was not stock was the exhaust. If your wagon was drinking fuel, something was way out of whack, starting with the timing and followed by the carburetor! 9.5 l/100 km is pretty good for a 2 ton tank without overdrive.

 

IIRC My 1980 Fairmont 4 door with the straight six and 3 spd auto was dependably in the 20s MPG wise and it was a beater with no improvements at all. Of course when I lost third gear in the tranny the mileage dropped quite a bit. I wish that I had the money back then to rebuild the tranny as I would dearly love to have that car back.

mike

 

I thought it was a 78 with a 351 and a solid 30MPG as mentioned in post #13?

http://www.stationwagonforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23803&highlight=40mpg+351&page=2

I'd go with a 400 Ford in the Fairmont, apparently 40MPG in a 1978 Mercury Grand Marquis sedan could be obtainable, so......
undocumented and never will be.


But I guess all is possible, depending on "how" you you do the math...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJS8GszWJuQ

 

Tedy, I have had 2 78 Thunderbirds, both 351M, and 2 different 79 Thunderbiirds, both 302s.

 

Stormin Norman, Best Wishes fixing up your fairmont wagon. It sure looked nice before the fender bender. I'm curious how you are going to fix the roof/ driver side pillar. In the photos they looked compromised and bent. Wayne

SavedURI :Show URL
SavedURI :Hide URL
http://www.stationwagonforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=286142​