N/A 2.3 gas mlieage?

[Maverick69]

I am new here. just to introduce myself, I have several Ford Mavericks. Before you jump all over me for this being a Mustang site, I come from a long line of Mustang owners, my grandfather owns about 16 classic Mustangs includeing two factory 428 CJ Mach 1's, a '69 and '70 Boss 302, a '70 Boss 429, a '71 Boss 351, and a 68 1/2 factory 428 Mustang GT just to name a few of the more valuable ones. My dad drives a '95 GT daily and had an '84 GT before that.

I recently bought a rare '69 1/2 Maverick with no drivetrain. I am considering putting a N/A EFI 2.3 with 5 speed in it. Most guys go with the run of the mill 5.0 in these cars, but I want to do something a little diffrent (and something with better economy). I already have a rough notchback 'stang to donate the drivetrain.

This car will be a daily driver. Mavericks, especially the early ones, weigh less then most Mustangs. I am intrested in what kind of gas mileage you guys are getting out of your stock N/A fuel injected 2.3's? Everyone keeps telling me I need to slap a Turbo on it, but I understand that requires a fair amount of work includeing swapping the pistons and stuff. And I'm not 100% sure a Turbo will clear the passenger side shock tower in the smaller Maverick. I may end up attempting a Turbo at a later date.

Thanks.

 

[Shinlee]

i get 30 with ac, and 35 without ac, for highway driving, and thats on a 92 2.3 dual plug

 

[65ShelbyClone]

Mavericks, especially the early ones, weigh less then most Mustangs.

Unless you drive mostly city/stop'n'go, weight has only a minimal bearing on overall economy when the difference is just a couple hundred pounds. I get 24-25mpg out of my SVO, but the engine is tired and the engine harness is really ratted out. I have no idea what condition the sensors are in either.

 

[Maverick69]

My driving is about 50/50 city/hwy. I drive about 80 miles a day on the interstate. I am usualy stuck in traffic for about 20-30 of those 80 miles. Then theres the around town driving in the evening to get supper and what not.

30 mpg would totally awesome! I am getting about 19 city/25 hwy out of tired 250 straight 6 that's in my current daily driven '72 Maverick (car in my avatar).

What transmission and rear gear are you guys running?

Thanks.

 

[SMOKEDYA]

i get 30 with ac, and 35 without ac, for highway driving, and thats on a 92 2.3 dual plug

What! no way? I get 24.5 with no A/C ? Something must be up with mine then? I put 13.5 gallons in mine and it read over full then when it got gas it was on 318 miles. BTW that math is correct right? peace




john

 

[realtripp]

I have a 1990 2.3 Turbo

-T-5 transmission
-3.73 rear gears

I went to Indiana this summer and with my car loaded down with about 1000 worth of people and gear I got about 30 miles per gallon.

 

[Shinlee]

92 2.3 n/a

auto a4ld
3.73 gears ( comes stock on the 4 bangers )

i just have a good tune on my car, and i take car of it too.

 

[Shawneebear93]

Well performance isn't very impressive in the N/A motors, unless you want to REALLY be different and REALLY drop a pretty penny into the car-that's why everyone suggests the turbo motor. I get 20 city and 30 highway MPG with the T-5 5-speed and stock 3.45 rear gears.

 

[Maverick69]

Not really too concerned about performance. I can't see it being any slower then the 215,000 mile straight 6 and slipping C4 transmission that's in my car now. If the thing can do at least 70 down the interstate, and keep up with traffic around town, I'll be a happy camper.

If I get it together and the performance is just absolutely unbearable, I can always just rebuild the 6 cylinder, stick a T5 behind it and call it a day.

 

[Shawneebear93]

Not really too concerned about performance. I can't see it being any slower then the 215,000 mile straight 6 and slipping C4 transmission that's in my car now. If the thing can do at least 70 down the interstate, and keep up with traffic around town, I'll be a happy camper.

Yea, it'll do.

 

[lonchair]

I get 27-28 on the freeway out of my 85.5 SVO.

You are gonna get almost identical milage out of a N/A or tUrbo 2.3 on the freeway as long as you keep the rpms under 3K. Over 3K, the turbo is gonna drop in milage, but not that much.

 

[65ShelbyClone]

You are gonna get almost identical milage out of a N/A or tUrbo 2.3 on the freeway as long as you keep the rpms under 3K. Over 3K, the turbo is gonna drop in milage, but not that much.

And in the case of at least my '84, staying below 3000rpm means keeping it under 70mph. However, at such a small throttle angle, the turbo won't be boosting if all you're doing is maintaining a steady 70mph on flat ground.

If I get it together and the performance is just absolutely unbearable, I can always just rebuild the 6 cylinder, stick a T5 behind it and call it a day.

That's not real far from what I was going to recommend. I think it would be easier to get a smaller 200 inch six and put a T-5 behind it. If you wanted to go to the trouble, you could also rebuild and fuel inject the 250 you have. The 250 has individual intake runners, right? I'm not up to speed on I-6s yet.

 

[Maverick69]

No, it would actually be alot harder and more expensive to put a T5 behind a 200. The 200 shares the bell housing patter with the 170 and 144. The 250 uses the same bell housing as a 302/351. A T5 from a 5.0 'stang is completely bolt up to a 250 using a 0 balance SBF flywheel that can be had from Ford Racing, and a stock clutch for the 'stang.

The head on the 170/200/250 are all log type intakes and the head is interchageable between all the engines. The intake is cast as part of the head and not removeable. The 200 revs more, the 250 makes more torque. I have ran both engines in my '72 Maverick.

I actually have a couple of spare low mileage 250's in storage. But, I also have this 2.3/5 speed drivetrain sitting around. As it gets cooler out, the fuel injection makes me want to try it that much more. Then there is just the "cool" factor. There was never an american made Maverick with a 2.3. They did make them in Brazil.

 

[65ShelbyClone]

No, it would actually be alot harder and more expensive to put a T5 behind a 200. The 200 shares the bell housing patter with the 170 and 144. The 250 uses the same bell housing as a 302/351. A T5 from a 5.0 'stang is completely bolt up to a 250 using a 0 balance SBF flywheel that can be had from Ford Racing, and a stock clutch for the 'stang.

I actually started thinking about that after I posted. I was wondering "Oh wait, do those have a smallblock bell pattern?" Now I know that the 250 has a funky cylinder head like the others, too. There's still the 300ci..... I just wasn't familiar with any standard bolt-in engine mounts to put a 2.3 into a Maverick/Mustang.

Side draft Webers or even four motorcycle carbs wouldn't be too hard for a 2.3, but you also have a whole EFI donor car. That is a huge benefit when doing an EFI swap since you not only have everything you need, but can also see where it all goes and hooks up. Since a 200/T5 won't be any easier, I think an EFI 2.3/T5 is a good idea for an economy Maverick.

BTW, we'd never get on your case for having a Maverick. Same with Falcons. The earlier Mustang is a Falcon under the sheetmetal and the Maverick is a Mustang under there. The Fox3 started life as a '78 Fairmont! It's "All in the Family" at this point......except the Pinto II, eh, I mean Mustang II.

 

[Slow92LX]

if you decide to put in an SVO or Turbo Coupe motor, ive seen people with 400+rwhp cars get 27mpg

 

[Biffmeistro]

Also, if you're worried about it fitting under the hood, if a 5.0 can fit under there, a 2.3T should be able to. And it's not as much work as that if you can grab a 2.3T motor from something like a TurboCoupe, SVO or TurboGT.

 

[snake109]

i get about 25mpg with 50/50 driving and a 5spd

 

[blwn331]

All Highway and I get 31mph out of my 89 notch 2.3. 22 or less out of my 85.5 svo but, boost is fun...