Octane Increasing octane above what an engine needs is unnecessary, expensive, and can be a bad thing. Higher octane gas burns slower. That is how it avoids detonation. Because it burns slower, using higher-than-needed octane gas will create more carbon in the combustion chambers. When this happens, that engine will need higher rated gas all the time ... octane creates its own need. When I first put the 351 in my Comet, it had nice shiny chambers, and with the slightly lumpy cam I have in there, it would bleed off enough cylinder pressure that I could get away with 87 octane at less than half-throttle. I would put 89 in it to go bracket-racing. 15,000 miles later, it was a little dirtied up in there and now it wants 89 all the time. Still ... I don't think I have ever put 93 in there. The way gas prices are going, it is making me rethink that I want to shoot for 10:1 compression with the next set of pistons. 9:1 could mean a whole grade of gas lower. Makes a bit of a case for a cam that is one size bigger too ...
for a v6 swap, would one out of an explorer work? or are they the same as the ranger v6 talked about?
Paul talked about moth balls in the gas tank...have you ever smelled moth balls ? IF SO ,............how did you spread their tiny legs.....?
I keep looking at the 4.0L V6 in our new Mustang, thinking that it would go into my old Suzuki Sidekick and be a blast!!! .... I would need a little less than the 4.86 gears in the 'zuki,... maybe ... hoo-woo ...
I put a 231 Buick V6 in a Toyota pickup one time, used the Saginaw four speed behind it and kept the 4.11 Toyota rearend. It was quick, and pulled like a tractor, and still had decent top speed and mileage, about 17-18 IIRC.
Gas Mileage What kind of carburetor do you have? I have an Edelbrock 1405 manual choke (switched out the old 2-bbl) in my Maverick (302). It came tuned for performance. I was disappointed that I was getting 12 mpg with it, when the stock carb was getting 16. Just by switching out the rods, and not the jets, I was able to go from 12 mpg to 19 mpg. It's a 5-minute changeover. Changing the jets would help as well. I haven't noticed much of a power difference. I'm sure if I tuned up the engine a little more I would be in the 20-25 mpg range. I also should note that I could get away with a lot less power, but it's just not that much fun. My old '66 Comet would get 28 mpg on an I-6 200. That's nothing to sneeze at. My Toyota Camry doesn't do that much better, and neither did my Honda Accord. I felt like I had plenty of power, too, especially for as big a car as that was (although not as much as the 302). You might also want to do some math to figure out just what it's worth to you. If you use your car as a daily driver, and rack up the average 12,000 miles/year, even at $4.50/gallon the difference between increasing your mileage from 25 to 30 mpg (good luck) will only save you $360/year - which is about 5 hours of labor and no parts. Put it all in perspective and see where it shakes out. For me, switching out my 302 to a 200 would certainly not be worth it - especially since it's my 2nd (read: fun) car. I don't rack up that many miles. I would suggest that you consider moving closer to your work and walking. Now don't laugh - that's how I chose my house, and for good reason. It pays off in a number of ways. Every morning, I pay $0. Works on the round-trip, too. BTW, 12,000/25mpg = 480 gallons x $4.50 = $2,160. Do that for three years, and you can buy yourself a nice used Toyota Camry, with cash.
And then there is the real world, where a 460 dosen't get the same mileage as an OHC I4, regardless if the vehicles they are in are completely identical in every other way.
The frictional losses of a 460 would require a different rear gear but you could get the same mileage. You just have to keep the 460 at a lower rpm to make up for the internal friction and take advantage of the higher torque.
Possible, but reality says no.. You'd have to have overdrive and a very high gear. I'm not arguing with you on the possibility of it, just the feasibility
The 4.0 is based on the ranger 4.0, if you get one you want the second gen. That one uses a SOHC setup and it is alot more efficent.
