Fuel Economy for a 347 stroker vs 302?? - Vintage Mustang Forums
Vintage Mustang Forum
HomeForumGalleryClassifiedsAbout UsAdvertiseContact Us
» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Go Back   Vintage Mustang Forums > General Discussion > Vintage Mustang Forum
Vintage-Mustang.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-07-2005, 09:43 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Posts: 196
Default

OK, may seam odd, but stroking my 5.0L (to a 347) won't cost me any weight (vs using a 351w), Has anyone here compared fuel economy between a stroked 302 and a regular 302?
Maybe the improved lowend torque may help city economy?

Pete
__________________
71 Mustang Convertible
5.0L EFI & 5 Spd
Green on Ginger
Torque Thrust D's
PROY is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-07-2005, 10:42 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Garner NC
Posts: 4,638
Default

You're barking up the wrong tree my friend. More cubes = more gas/stroke = less economy. you want economy, get a 6.
__________________
Formerly of the Permanently Addicted...
Let it be known that I do not street race or condone that sort of thing
- unless the 'b@stard deserves it.
Someone takes his pants off and the rafters knock
Rock is dead they say
Long Live Rock!
67 conv. 289 4spd(mine), 67 coupe 289 Export(swmbo's)

ylexot is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-07-2005, 10:46 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston (Kingwood), Texas
Posts: 1,844
Send a message via AIM to Ronstang1966 Send a message via Yahoo to Ronstang1966
Default

If you are concerned about economy then you shouldn't be playing with strokers in the first place.
__________________
I am the member formally known as RonK.

1957 T-Bird
1966 Shelby G.T.350H
1966 Mustang Fastback Restomod under construction
Ronstang1966 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-07-2005, 11:15 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
mstngjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,845
Default

Quote:
..Fuel economy...347 stroker...
Oxymoron.
__________________
2007 HD Softail Custom
mstngjoe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-07-2005, 11:18 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
jbsteven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: houston texas
Posts: 1,009
Default

I get 8 mpg on my 347.
__________________
68.5 CJ Fastback (cover car for John's Mustang 2006 catalog), 68 GT/CS 390 auto, 68 Coupe (cover car for John's Mustang 2005 Summer catalog), 66 Restomod hotrod 347, AOD, NOS, Currie and coil overs, 2003 Ferrari 575M F1, 2000 Ferrari 360 Modena, 2003 CL600 Mercedes V-12 twin turbo 540 HP/590 lbs. ft. 1 of 437 made worldwide
jbsteven is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-07-2005, 11:21 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
sosADAMsos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Whittier, CA
Posts: 902
Default

i was actually wondering the same thing. i would love to have a 347, but seeing as its my daily driver i dont think i can do 8mpg. ill stick with my 12.
__________________
'65 Fastback
sosADAMsos is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-07-2005, 11:39 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
johnpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Roseville, California
Posts: 25,242
Default

A LOT depends on the transmission (got over-drive?), rear gears and the way you drive it.

I get 20mpg freeway in my '66 and run 14.1 quarters. I haven't gotten enough miles to check it yet, but I'm sure my 408 in the '69 gets better than 12 *LOL*.
__________________
VMF Jedi Knight who's spirit will be with us forever.
johnpro is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-08-2005, 01:33 AM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
sosADAMsos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Whittier, CA
Posts: 902
Default

:no:
__________________
'65 Fastback
sosADAMsos is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-08-2005, 01:39 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
LMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: where Im standing
Posts: 5,067
Default

if you are worried about economy, you don't want a stroker.
LMan is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-08-2005, 07:07 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
2bav8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 4,092
Default

With 4.11s, a .68 5th gear I get 16 MPG with a 347.
IMO, reducing the 4.11s to 3.50 gears and swapping out my Vic Jr. intake for a Weiand Stealth would easily get me another 2-4 MPG on the freeway.
Not bad IMO for a reasonably stout stroker motor :winkgrin:
__________________
http://members.cox.net/2bav8photo/sigphotovmf2.jpg
1966 Coupe build for SCCA Autocross
347 V8 - Tremec TKO - ORP Suspension
www.geocities.com/2bav8
2bav8 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-08-2005, 10:23 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Posts: 196
Default

I expected alot of 'if you want economy why thing stroker...."
I don't need huge power, but if I am rebuiding my 92 5.0L motor, would it hurt alot in the economy departent if I stroked it. 331 might be a good alternative.
I have T5 5 Speed, and with my 92 EFI fuel economy is much better than the old carb 302, AND I have alot more torque and HP.
YES if you want output you have to have input, but driven conservatively (which is difficult) can good fuel economy be maintained with an efi stroker?
Other than the 14mpg 400hp 4:10 gears race cars does anybody have mild street driven (highway fuel economy numbers for a stoked 5.0L)?
Thanks for the lively input
Pete
__________________
71 Mustang Convertible
5.0L EFI & 5 Spd
Green on Ginger
Torque Thrust D's
PROY is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-08-2005, 11:17 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
buening's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Stinky Town, IL
Posts: 8,580
Default

I don't think it will affect it as much as people think. All mentioned above (trans, rear gears, etc) will affect it as well as cam selection. I lost around 5 mpg just with my cam swap and it isn't too radical. I know people that get close to 30mpg in their 5.0 EFI cars. Stroking it may dump a few mpg down the drain, but it all depends on the other factors mentioned or if you go with all stock components (less the strocker kit).
__________________
70 Mach 1 - 351w/T-56
70 SportsRoof - 302/C4
05 F150 FX4
06 BMW 530xi

T56 Conversion
DIY Ron Morris-like Motor Mounts
DIY Engine Crossmember
DIY Camber Eccentric Eliminator Plates
buening is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-08-2005, 12:14 PM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DrStang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 2,100
Default

Quote:
Thanks for the lively input
Pete
Well put
__________________
"A good friend will help you move. A great friend will help you move a dead body"

1965 A-Code Fastback
Built, September 14, 1964 (San Jose)
Viper red, White/red interior
TCP R&P, G Bar rear 4 link/w shockwaves
Global West Upper/Lower/Strut Rods
Ride-Tech Air ride
4 wheel Cobra disc brakes/Hydroboost
363 Stroker/Paxton Supercharger
Mass-Flo EFI
Owned since 1983
DrStang is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.