Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Topic: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again) (Read 2582 times) previous topic - next topic

Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

September 24, 2005, 11:32:36 PM

I'll try to abbreviate this somewhat. Sorry if it gets a little rambling at times or goes long anyway.

OK, so the first thread was about trying to make heavier Fox bodies more fuel efficient. Now it's the other side of the coin. How about slapping together a lighter Fox body with a decent performing engine and trans for fuel efficiency?

I'm thinking about something like a 4-door Fairmont/Zephyr as an efficient work/carpool car.. but obviously its stock engine choices will be totally underwhelming. I have my reasons for asking about going with another Fox body.. I'll leave that for another post if needed. I'm thinking semi-wacky: (vs. your standard 5.0 swap) like stroked EFI 2.3T, or '99-up Mustang 3.8, maybe also stroked. (it would prob. get a slushbox so it could be driven by anyone else in the house if I couldn't drive home for some reason.. but I'd try to go with a newer slushbox, like a 4R70W behind the '99 3.8 for example.. vs. ye olde C3/4/5/whatever) If I did it, it would be another car I would attempt to hang onto for the long haul.. so this isn't a case of buying it, building it, and selling it a year later for a huge loss.

Is there only so much we can squeeze out of the Fox platform, or is this the kind of project that could save me from going down the path that skirts dangerously close to the rice fields..? I'd like to have something at least as fun as my Mark, without being a barn-burner. Most of you know by now that I have no interest in racing anyone, just enjoying what I drive. I'd like it to be a Fox body because I'm a fan of the platform.. and I'd also like to try to be fuel efficient in the process. (within reason.. no chasing after mythical "200 mpg carbs" or whatever nonsense of the week they're peddling)

If you had the patience to read through this one, thanks.. there was a ton of shiznit I had to stop myself from including.. that and I'm exhausted.. so this one probably came out far more fractured than usual. If more stuff needs clarifying, (like the whys and whats and all that) I'll try it tomorrow when I'm a bit less foggy between the ears.

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #1 – September 24, 2005, 11:38:34 PM

BTW.. if I don't try to build a lighter and more efficient Fox body-based car, it's either try to track down an Escort similar to my last one, or whip up an import that moves decently but looks nothing like a ricer. I'd like to stick to Foxes, if at all possible.. at least at this point. The Escort was not comfortable for my bad back, and I'm guessing any other compact is going to be the same. At least with another Fox body like a Fairmont, maybe I could try to swap in seats from one of the more luxurious Foxes.

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #2 – September 25, 2005, 12:58:55 AM

you think too much.

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #3 – September 25, 2005, 09:33:27 AM

I think a two door Fairmont or Zephyr would be an excellent, light car to work with (I know you said four door, but

). With a 2.3t swap you'd prolly get 35MPG+ - if a 3800 pound TC can do 30, a 2800 pound Futura or Z7 should easily get 35. You'd also get pretty good performance from a 190 horse (or more) 2.3 turbo.

You say you want to go with a slushbox - I know the auto TC was downgraded to 145 horses because of the weaknesses in the A4LD, but if you got an A4LD from a later (late 80's, early 90's) 4.0 2WD Ranger or Aerostar it should be a little beefier than the TC/4cyl one. With a few custom tweaks you should be able to overcome the factory automatic TC's reduced power easily enough - a Gillis valve would allow more boost than the auto TC's computer normally would, and if you were to use, say, a T3 instead of the 87-88's IHI even more horses would be available.

Of course, as with anything, you'll save by lightening the car and lessening aerodynamic drag. Physics is physics. Don't bother with an 8.8" rear when a 7.5" is more than up to the task of anything a 2.3 could throw at it, especially in a lightweight 'Mont. A tubular K-member up front will shave off some precious pounds. A basic four speaker AM/FM CD system weighs a whole lot less than a full multi-amp, subwoofer system. Strip out any frivolous insulation or sound deadening - if you want a luxury cruiser drive the Lincoln.

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #4 – September 25, 2005, 09:51:06 AM

That definitely sounds like the way to go, make it light as hell, build a 2.3L turbo motor and you should be set. However, TC's weigh more like 3200lbs so you could still get better mileage if you stipped a Fairmont/Zephyr down to under 3000lbs. I disagree on the point about leaving the 7.5" rear in it. If swapping to a 2.3L TC set-up, why leave the spindly little 7.5" rear in it when Ford decided it would be prudent to put the 8.8" in the TC's. Those 7.5's are rather wimpy...mine was on the brink of falling apart with only 100k on the clock and 96k of it was behind an SO engine that never saw abrupt throttle inputs or revved past 3500.

Stock 8.8 from an AOD stang ought to do the trick, posi and 2.73's should be perfect for what could be a fairly light car.

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #5 – September 25, 2005, 10:25:09 AM

According to this site, (no idea of the accuracy of the info) Fairmonts are already under 3000 lbs.:

http://www.yonderway.com/sleepers/foxspecs.shtml

1982 Ford Fairmont 4dr. 2664

(yes, 4-door.. it's likely 2 other people would be riding with me to work, soon.. don't need my aunt and my fiance figuring out every day who gets to climb through to the back seat. Also, a 4-door would be even less noticeable to punk kids looking for people to show off to/race with.. which is something I don't want to be bothered with)

I left off mention of transmissions w/ the 2.3T thing mainly because I have little to no knowledge about the TC's A4LD and alternatives to it. The 4.0 Ranger one is a possibility. How much more can it handle? I'm not looking for outrageous.. maybe in the neighborhood of 150 at the rear wheels. I mentioned stroked because A) I figured it was likely any 2.3T I found might be due for a rebuild, and B) I thought I remembered you guys saying something about being able to use the 2.5 crank.

As for the rear end: If I found an 8.8" that suited the application, I'd probably use it.. but if whatever F/Z I found still had a rear end in decent condition, I think I'd just run it until it dropped. Could always drive the Mark to work again for a few days or weeks in a situation like that. And now that I'm working again, I'll probably be using some of that money to pay for some roadside service package like AAA or Allstate or the one Sam's offers.

Lightening work is possible, but I'm not too concerned about it. F/Zs are already pretty light compared to my Mark. Sound deadeners can mostly stay. (already not going to have as much as the Lincoln, I'm guessing) As for stereos, my most ambitious stereo plan ever (for me) is to add 2 speakers and an amp for them to the 4-speaker setup in my Mark, and replace the factory speakers with new ones.. so suffice to say a head unit plus four new speakers would be fine in the F/Z. Tubular suspension components, etc.? Maybe.. but it isn't much of a priority. Going with a F/Z and a 2.3T is already pretty light as it is.

At any rate, yes I do think too much. :p

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #6 – September 25, 2005, 10:48:42 PM

Well if you lower it and put all tubular suspension goods and take a little weight out where you can, it would be the ultimate dual purpose vehicle....35+mpg during the week...wicked light and balanced auto cross car during the weekends...lol.

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #7 – September 25, 2005, 10:52:13 PM

I don't race, and I generally don't like lowered vehicles. Don't like how they look, plus it would be slightly more difficult for me to get in and out of with my bad back.. especially as time goes on and it keeps fusing.

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #8 – September 25, 2005, 11:51:56 PM

Ford has already done it

...I'm pretty sure in 79 and 80 they produced a number of 2.3 Blowthru cars...have seen one somewhere here on the putor and in real life. A guy up in Cecil county...Gary Sempers...had one he was giving away with a parts car. Hope this link works http://natomessageboard.com/Forum1/HTML/008973.html can't find the pictures

...tried doing a google search but too many to look thru tonight... I know it's been done with a little work...an "English" Ford or Sunbeam Alpine would be nice with a 2.3 Turbo...

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #9 – September 25, 2005, 11:59:53 PM

Most 2.3T's, unless they have been completely abused and mistreated, will go on forever. Most can get buy with new valve seals and gaskets and leaving the long-block untouched, esp if you're just looking for just marginally higher than stock power. Even if you "need" to rebuilld them, most require little more than a deglazing of the cylinder walls for a re-ring.

For a "daily-driver" type, a stroker with upped compression and reasonable boost would be better suited to around town duties as the added torque (al slight as the advantage may be) would help get the car moving and improve the in town mileage. Regardless of how long the legs can get on the interstate, they tend to suffer around town. Mostly in-town would yield me just under 20 mpg, but I have seen as high as 32-33 mpg on extended highway stretches on a mostly stock 2.3T set-up. My next 2.3T set-up is going to be more of a "driver" type set-up with possibly an increase in stroke. I'm planning on upping the comp to at least 9.5:1, using a DP head and tightening up the quench area by cutting the block a touch to get what I want. Using either DIS or EDIS will allow for hotter spark as well. There are guys running 2.3TDPDIS set-ups (one a 2.5, the other a 2.3) with decent results. I think they are both using EEC-Tuners and one has converted to Mass Air as well. My route would probably be the MegaSquirt.

I would think if you wnet the 2.3T route and increased your off-boost torque and put it in a lighter platform you would see respectable mileage numbers, but still they would be lop-sided between city/hwy, but still improved. I wouldn't expect any more than 33-35 mpg hwy though.

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #10 – September 26, 2005, 01:41:12 PM

OK, let's say I go with a stroked EFI 2.3T, rebuilt before going in.. with an intended use of about 90% city driving. A few questions:

1) Assuming I go the stroked-to-2.5 route.. now I know they're expensive to deal with, but would it be worth it to try to get a good set of forged pistons from someone like E$$linger? If I do, is there anything else I should "splurge" on? (E$$linger or otherwise)

2) So you're basically saying it would be a good idea to shoot for a CR in the 9:1 to 9.5:1 (for example) range and less boost, vs. 8:1-ish CR and more boost? Sorry if questions like this sound stupid, but I've never driven a forced-induction car before, let alone owned one and/or tried to build one.

3) If I'm doing this up for mainly city driving, and go with the 2WD Ranger A4LD, what should I be looking for as far as rear-end gearing? I'm guessing I'll stick to a 7.5", and just find another whole 7.5" rear end if it's not the gearing I want/need.

4) Would the K-member from my '86 V6 T-bird work for the 2.3T swap into a F/Z? I'm thinking if I find an I6 4-door F/Z, that car will be the donor for the K-member for the 300 I6 project.. which means whatever car gets the 300 will have a V6/V8 K-member to donate.

5) Does it look like you'll be doing another batch of 2.3 motor mounts within the next year? If so, and if I find a good F/Z to work with, I may need to add myself to the list for your next batch.

6) Should there be any problems swapping in LSC or T-bird seats into a F/Z? No idea if they'll have the power seat harness.. but if I part out my '88 LSC, the seats could find their way into a F/Z.

And yes, again, it does sound silly at present to be thinking about doing this on $160 a week.. but I'm already considering my options about increasing to full time. I'll probably pick up a fourth work day in a couple weeks, and then a couple weeks after that look to go full time. Should get a raise in 90 days, too. Trying to decide now whether I want to work up to 5 days/8 hrs. each, or 4 days/10 hrs. each and have an extra day for my body to recover. (and an extra day for working on stuff like this.. heh)

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #11 – September 26, 2005, 02:13:42 PM

1. Well, I haven't done all the research on the 2.5 stuff myself to be able to give you good answers. It's going to obvioulsy cost you more to go that route. The route I was looking at (from an idea from another guy I know) is a "short rod" 2.5. Basically uses the 2.5 crank, the 2.3 rods and custom pistons. I think that's all still a $700-800 proposition by the time you buy the 2.5 crank (stocker), the main journal spacers and the pistons. I don't remember off-hand it reason behind it...but I liked it and was looking to possibly persue that route myself.

2. If you're looking for max power, low CR and high boost is the way to go. If you're looking for a more rounded vehicle at the expense of ultimate power, than yeah, upping the static CR and running a bit lower boost is the way to go. I know guys running 9.5+ on a couple of their driver 2.5T "driver" set-ups.

3. I would think the "std" 3.45's would be sufficient for a 2.3 with an A4LD behind it. Any lower, and I think you'd be hurting yourself around town.

4. The 86 Tbird K-member should work, but it's one of the oddballs in regards to the motor mounts.

5. My motor mount plans are to try and start keeping a couple sets of each of my styles "in stock". I'm going to work towards that after I get this latest batch out the door and get a couple of the other "prototypes" mocked up (3 or 4 other styles to look at). I should have some available if/when you'd need them.

6. The seats themselves shouldn't be a problem, but the rails would not work as the F/Z's have the same seat mounting pattern as the Mustangs, which is different from the T/C/L's. I imagine some F/Z's (or even the Fox LTD's) came with power seats, and you could possibly find a source for tracks if Mustang ones do not work. You'll most likely have to run your own power wiring.

The big thing about the engine would be the management. Stepping "outside" the box requires some sort of tunability. Also, using the later DP head and DIS stuff requires other timing adjustments as they are "fast burn", and usually require you to dial back your base timing a bit, esp on the turbo ECUs to avoid detonation. The need for less static timing (when the DP head and DP set-up is used) is kind of a good thing though and can improve the efficiency a bit.

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #12 – September 26, 2005, 02:44:42 PM

im at work so hears a link to the pix, http://www.rareads.com/scans1/29501.jpg its an add for a turbo Fairmont. it posts 23city and 38highway

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #13 – September 26, 2005, 02:45:49 PM

1) Do you recall whether or not there was a lot of clearancing work involved on the short-rod 2.5 approach? Also, was the rod ratio found to be acceptable?

2) Yeah, well-rounded does it for me. As I said before, I think I'd be happy if this was just in the neighborhood of 150 hp at the rear wheels. Wasn't the drivetrain hp loss for a slushbox-equipped vehicle something like 20-25%? (just hope the Ranger A4LD is up to that)

3) Standard to a TC, you mean? Not sure what a F/Z comes with.. and I know I have nothing in the front yard numerically higher than 3.27s.

4) Can always find another donor car if nothing else. What about the '88 LSC's K-member? Is that as oddball as the '86 Tbird V6?

5) Sounds good. All depends on when I move to full-time and when I can find a good F/Z to work with. I've seen a few running around town, but I think they're mostly 2-doors. I think the longest time might be spent trying to find the car itself. I found one F/Z forum a couple days ago, but they hadn't had a For Sale post since '03.. and maybe 1-2 posts this year. I suppose I could put a Wanted.. post over at Ford-Fox and just keep hitting the 'Traders. Once I find one, I'll probably jump in on whatever you're doing with mounts at the time, whether I'm ready to use them or not. If I'm not ready, it ain't gonna hurt 'em to sit for a bit.

6) OK, well are there any Fox Mustang seats that are worth pursuing, for someone who needs something a little more comfortable than whatever I'm likely to find in the F/Z? I don't *have* to have power seats, necessarily. What I have to have are seats that aren't going to make things much worse for me with this back problem.

Looks like I need to spend a big chunk of time reading up over at Turboford. (and any other places you guys might suggest) I'm really not that familiar with the Lima after 1980 or so. Had a 2.3 N/A in the '78 Pinto I drove to high school.. and swapped a 2.3 N/A from a donor Fairmont into my '80 Capri.. but that's the last time I dealt with one.. and certainly I've never dealt with a turbo one before. I'd prefer to go with newer stuff.. EFI and all that. I'm sure many would argue that a carbed setup would be easier.. (I have no idea) but I don't have a problem with the increased learning curve and increased effort, especially if it made a better and more efficient setup all around.

Man, if only this place had been around like 15 years ago.. back when I worked at the junkyard.. could get them to throw a donor car onto the flatbed and drop it off in my yard, and pick it up when I was done.. heh.

Re: Fox Fuel Efficiency, part 2 (long post again)

Reply #14 – September 26, 2005, 02:57:47 PM

Quote from: Manson

im at work so hears a link to the pix, http://www.rareads.com/scans1/29501.jpg its an add for a turbo Fairmont. it posts 23city and 38highway

Those are the kind of numbers I'd like to see. I wonder, though, how a little more modern setup would work in its place. EFI, all the stuff Chuck mentioned like the DP head and DIS, overdrive, etc.

I recently looked into new car fuel efficiency.. thought I might have to go back to a courier job or something like that.. and I really wasn't impressed with the mileage ratings for the new shiznit. I think maybe 2 non-hybrid cars got anywhere near 40 mpg highway. (one of them being the Toyota Echo.. meh) My old '94 Escort got better mileage (32/39) than just about everything on the market now. Might as well try to make something myself and see what happens.