 |
|
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
||||||
| Modular 4.6L Tech For all your 1996-2005+ 2V, 3V, and 4V modular motor needs. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-08-2006, 05:07 PM
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
official youngest member!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 983
  |
Gas mods
i know im gona get a crap load of "dont get a stang if ya want good gas mialage"
but what are some mods that will help gas mileage and tell me if it helps perf. as well note: dont mention gears , i just want to talk about other stuff.
__________________
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 05:29 PM
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Always Detailin'
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 3,556
|
Drive like an old grandma
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 05:31 PM
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Posts: n/a
|
k&n intake... exhaust... agood tune... high octane...
basicly remove any restrictions the ford put on the stock engine |
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 05:36 PM
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Always Detailin'
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 3,556
|
I've definately lost MPG with my full exhaust set up
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 05:39 PM
|
#5 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
i have never seen it do the opposite on any car ever... you shouldnt have lost mpg... that sounds weird to me |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 05:40 PM
|
#6 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 05:42 PM
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Always Detailin'
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 3,556
|
Well those taillights have been off now for a month, lol. Still bad MPG
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 05:46 PM
|
#8 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 05:48 PM
|
#9 (permalink) |
|
Always Detailin'
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 3,556
|
87 on stock tune which is what I had used before i installed the exhaust. I still run 87 sometimes and it's worst than it was before exhaust.
I use 93 in summer but I cant compare that cuz i never used it before my exhaust |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 05:50 PM
|
#10 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 05:52 PM
|
#11 (permalink) |
|
Always Detailin'
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 3,556
|
I would... but with my tune I got my shifts real firm since I'm auto and I dont wanna have firm shifts and hanging in gears with snow on the ground. I'm about to put back on my summer wheels and that tune in about a month
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 06:28 PM
|
#12 (permalink) |
|
official youngest member!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 983
|
would it be cheaper overall to get better mileage with a higher octane than lower mileage on lower octane?
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 07:14 PM
|
#13 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 1,788
|
Quote:
If you are on stock tune with no power adder you should use 87 octane. 93 will only cost more. If you have boost or a tune then you need 93 octane. For better MPG the only things you can really do is: Full Exhast, K&N FIPK Intake, Steeda Underdrive Pulleys, Run more air pressure in your tires, Run thinner motor oil, Remove weight, Lose weight FATTY.....:loser: But I have all that done and my MPG isnt ALL THAT much better than stock. But every dollar counts!
__________________
2003 DSG GT 5-speed Hellion 62mm and Flowmaster catback..... My bonestock 2v engine had been through 2 years of NX 100 shot, 3 years running 8-12lbs vortech s-trim, got into boost daily while racing on the weekends, had 157,000 miles on it, and was running like new |
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:21 PM
|
#14 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
i noticed a good 3-4 MPG increase on 93 over the 87... however... i dont have the same CPU watever ya call it rigamaro... the 94's didnt have quite so many restrictions... but 93 you will notice... the only way to find out is try it... but intake and exhaust def help yer MPG |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:23 PM
|
#15 (permalink) |
|
Always Detailin'
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 3,556
|
Yea, Just wandering maybe your car responds different than the later models???
I don't notice a difference with 93 gas on stock tune. |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:24 PM
|
#16 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 10,243
|
"dont get a V8 stang if ya want good gas mialage"
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:27 PM
|
#17 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
IN FACT... my 5.0 get better MPG than quite a few late mdel v6's... not just stangs |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:28 PM
|
#18 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 10,243
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:29 PM
|
#19 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
but like i said bfore,... the only way to find out is to fill an empty tank with some 93... my results are def worth the extra $.20 |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:33 PM
|
#20 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
ya know... i've always wondered... if ford used the same displacement except the made the bore larger and the stroke shorter... how much better would our cars run? the shorter stroke would allow the engine to rev higher... i mean... that why them street bikes and formula 1 cars rev so high... Ya think our cars would put out more hp? |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:36 PM
|
#21 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 10,243
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:38 PM
|
#22 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:40 PM
|
#23 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 10,243
|
Theres no point going past 6200 in all honesty. most people shift before 6200 anyways while racing, especially with stock gearing. My rev limiter is at 6500.
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:42 PM
|
#24 (permalink) | |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
i dont shift past 5200... i can actually feel it slow down after that |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 09:47 PM
|
#25 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: GERMANLAND
Posts: 2,385
|
buy a beater to save gas.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
