Register now to get rid of these ads!

Radical Gas Miser Ford Windsor Small-Block

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by troym, Mar 14, 2013.

  1. troym
    Joined: Jul 31, 2011
    Posts: 14

    troym
    Member
    from Idaho

    I've been doing a bit of research on the ford small-block windsor v-8 family, and thought I might toss a build idea out.

    First, I read that the windsors are a bit more compact than the chevy small block.

    I prefer the front distributor, though that is a matter of prefference.

    As I understand, the family evolved as follows:

    220 cid for ~ 1 1/2 years, ~ 1961.

    260 cid appeared shortly afterwards, larger bore.

    5-6 years later, 289 cid, bigger bore yet.

    mid 70's, 302 cid by stroking the 289, same pistons, shorter rods.

    81-82, the infamous 255 cid SMOG engine; de-bored 302.

    My personal goals for my considered build is for a verry small (displacement), long rod:stroke ratio, small (or stock) valves (for intake velocity/low-end torque, and a VERY MILD Turbo-charge (~3 psi boost) on a draw-through carburetor.

    I've been thinking that if I start with the un-loved 255, and de-stroke it using a 289 crank & rods, while retaining the 255 pistons & block, that I would have a 244 cid that would rev a bit higher than stock, and have a bit more longevity due to the slightly longer rods, while maintaining the stock compression ratio.

    One local ford mechanic tells me that the parts would interchange, though he thinks that I would be dissapointed. He also tells me that a 302 in a light ~2400# car can get ~ 24-26 mpg, carbureted.

    I'm considering this build as an expereiment to see just how much fuel economy I can get out of a V-8 (I usually avoid V-8 automatics like the plague). I would like to test some of the mild (and not-quite-as-mild) methods to see if I can reach 30 mpg or better with an 8.

    I'm getting a bit sick of my daily driver 4 bangers which seem to get ~17 mpg in town, and ~ 24 mpg on the road.

    The traditional mileage features as I understand them are:

    small displacement
    balanced
    smaller valves/intake runners/carb venturi (intake velocity)
    hotter thermostat
    taller gears
    overdrive transmission (std prefered)
    low-restriction exhaust
    mild cam, low lift, mild durration
    tight valve-gear/chain
    high static compression; select cam for high dynamic compression or early intake valve close

    Some of the more extreme methods I want to test are:

    Vapor-Phase Carburetion (using vacuum draw-off of fumes)
    Fuel Pre-Heating (coolant) (~220 deg)
    Fuel Pre-Heating (Exhaust) (~ 375 deg)
    Smokey Yunik-Style Draw-Through carb'd 'adiabatic' turbo ('homogenizer')



    So, in a nutshell, I am wanting to

    A.) De-Stroke a 255 cid to 244 cid.

    B.) Turbocharge the resulting stockish ~ 8.4:1 (i'd prefer ~ 9.5:1-~10:1) 244 cid with a Draw-Through Carbureted, Non-Intercooled, pre-heated (coolant) air-fuel charge, and apply the charge to the engine @ ~ 1-3 psi boost.

    C.) Drive this as a daily driver in a small pick-up, or street rod (ie, 27 T truck)

    and, hopefully, see if I can get REAL fuel economy.

    I'd be tikled pink if the 200 mpg urban legends have something to them, though I'm aiming a little lower.

    Any Thoughts, Experience, Advice?
     
  2. kracker36
    Joined: Jan 21, 2012
    Posts: 761

    kracker36
    Member

    Dont do it. Just because the cubic inches is smaller doesnt automatically mean that MPG will be better. Build a 302 or 289 and you will be happier. I have a 260, 289, and 302. I love the small block Ford engines, but doing what you mentioned will not be something that I would recommend. The longer rod has nothing to do with longevity. The rod ratio stuff is basically meaningless. The 255 piston isnt common either. If you want to do something different , run a 289 crank modified to fit a 1 piece rear main roller block.

    BTW, do a little research and find that the 221, 260, 289, and 302 are not Windsor engines. They were built in the Cleveland plant. Only the 351 is a Windsor. Lots of misinformation on this topic.
     
  3. JEM
    Joined: Feb 6, 2007
    Posts: 1,040

    JEM
    Member

    Personally, and this isn't necessarily based on trying to optimize for fuel economy...but...

    Were I trying to do what you're trying to do, I'd build a 302 with a reasonably high CR, cleaned-up small-port heads, a T5 or maybe a 4R70W (and if I wanted a real development project I'd look for a 5- or 6-speed auto that'd work with a decently-configurable aftermarket controller, but in no case less than four gears in the box) with a production 3.8 V6 torque converter (check the proper balance on everything), fairly tall rearend gears...

    (...and I'd run EFI and EDIS, but I shouldn't say that around here...)


     
  4. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 23,752

    Deuces

    Some 302's were also henchoed in Mexico....
     

  5. Ruggie
    Joined: Sep 23, 2011
    Posts: 131

    Ruggie
    Member


    Got 302 windsor and cleveland engines in Australia.
     
  6. Rattle Trap
    Joined: May 11, 2012
    Posts: 358

    Rattle Trap
    Member

    I had a OT 302 roller motor that got 26 mpg. It was stock right down to the 4bbl carb and double roller timing chain, Roller cam. Ford made them this way for a few years in the 80s.
     
  7. Sounds like an interesting experiment...Since it's your "Dime & Time" go for it....Keeps us posted on the results...You might be on to something....or...
    At least you'll learn what will and what wont work...
    IMHO, thats the core of Hotrodding...
    Stan
     
  8. Ole don
    Joined: Dec 16, 2005
    Posts: 2,915

    Ole don
    Member

    Most of the very high mileage new cars have 10 or 11 to one compression, and EFI. EFI can be made to do many things.
     
  9. Mike51Merc
    Joined: Dec 5, 2008
    Posts: 3,856

    Mike51Merc
    Member

    A fuel economy challenge on a Hot Rod forum? Heresy!
     
  10. Don's Hot Rods
    Joined: Oct 7, 2005
    Posts: 8,319

    Don's Hot Rods
    Member
    from florida

    My experience has been that sbf engines seem to like gas a little more than comparable sbc engines. Not sure why that is, but I have never been able to squeeze the same gas mileage out of one that I got from Chevy motors. I know someone will refute that, but even mild ones I have used in projects were not as good mieagewise as the Chevy motors I used.

    But, the secret to good gas mileage are high rear end gears (or overdrive) and a computer and fuel injection. But since most of us want to run carburetors, something in the 500 cfm area on a good dual plane intake will be helpful.

    Don
     
  11. Rusty O'Toole
    Joined: Sep 17, 2006
    Posts: 9,657

    Rusty O'Toole
    Member

    Make it easy on yourself, start with a 302 and adjust the rear axle ratio accordingly. By revving the engine slower, you have basically the same effect as smaller displacement and lower friction.

    The Smokey Yunick adiabatic engine was the invention of a retired GM carburetor expert. He may be alive, if he is he is very old, but may be able to help you if you can find him. From what I have been able to find out the adiabatic engine worked great if everything was perfect. But he was running everything so hot, if something went wrong you could burn up your motor in an eye blink. He also told a friend he was using special jet engine lube for motor oil, that cost $98 a quart in the early 80s.

    Another idea that has been forgotten is the Chrysler Lean Burn system from the seventies. Chrysler engineers found out, you can run an engine on an 18:1 mixture, instead of the conventional 14:1, if you advance the timing to 52 degrees. So they made a trick carburetor with adjustable main jet, and a distributor with 2 pickups. The engine would start and warm up on 14:1 then go over to 18:1 on a steady cruise. For extra power it would go back to 14:1 if you tramped on the gas.

    They were getting a 25% to 30% increase in hiway mileage.

    All this was controlled by a primitive computer and a solenoid valve in the carburetor. Today it would be a cinch to do the same thing with a Megasquirt fuel injection/ignition computer.

    Apparently the reason they discontinued it was that it produced increased NOX emissions and as emissions rules tightened up, it had to go.
     
  12. kracker36
    Joined: Jan 21, 2012
    Posts: 761

    kracker36
    Member

    Deuces, I have one of those blocks in my drag car. It has the heavier main caps like the HiPo 289.
     
  13. troym
    Joined: Jul 31, 2011
    Posts: 14

    troym
    Member
    from Idaho

    Thanks for the replies. As to the designation 'windsor', I am referring to the block family. some 'windsors' were indeed made @ the cleveland plant, but were still the same casting as the windsor plant.

    As for the long rod, as I understand it, the rod:stroke ratio
    affects a couple of thingsL

    Piston side-loading (longer rod:stroke ratio) is less side-load on the piston,
    thus less wear on the piston skirt, and less 'egging' of the cylinder bore

    and, secondly,

    increases piston dwell @ TDC, something minor, but specifically specified in Smokey Yunik's patent. The patent calls for LOTS of piston dwell @ within ~ 0.001" of TDC (~ 13 degrees), which translates into ~ 6.5 deg BTDC to ~6.5 deg ATDC.

    I know of at least two people hereabouts that think the 289 is a better engine, and revs happier than the 302. A matter of opinion, that.

    Potential host vehicles would be a 1983 RX-7 (3.9 rear axle, 13" Tires), or a custom T pickup rod replica, (~3.5 ratio, 14" tires).

    If I decided to go this route, I'd find a complete 255 running core, and refresh it. While it was appart, I'd simply swap the 255 crank for the 289 crank, and the corresponding rods. Then, put it all back together.

    I am under the impression that this is doable with stock, off-the-shelf parts (or parts caniballized from a junkyard engine core).

    fyi, I should also be able to put the 289 back together as a 302, by using the the 255 rods & light 255 3" stroke crankshaft. :)

    Two gasket, ring & bearing sets, time, and two engines.

    Just my thoughts ...

    I also hear that you can install the exhaust manifold/headers up-side-down (for turbo set-up) - is this true?
     
  14. V8 Bob
    Joined: Feb 6, 2007
    Posts: 2,966

    V8 Bob
    ALLIANCE MEMBER




    No biggie, but some of your research is incorrect.

    The 221" came out in '62, for the new Fairlane.

    The 260" did follow shortly after, and was also the first Cobra engine, with a 260hp option.

    The 289" came out mid '63.

    The 302" came out in early/mid '68.
     
  15. Moedog07
    Joined: Apr 11, 2011
    Posts: 506

    Moedog07
    Member

    Use a 302 roller block and heads from an Explorer. Small cam, small carb, free flowing exhaust, 5 speed trans, rearend gear around 3.00 or 3.08, & you're getting 25 mph easy.
     
  16. Since he is using a later block it's not a big deal, but if some unknowing soul does a search it is probably good to add the change from a 5 bolt to a six bolt bellhousing bolt pattern, which if memory serves right happened some time in 1965?
     
  17. hoop98
    Joined: Jan 23, 2013
    Posts: 1,362

    hoop98
    Member
    from Texas

    You haven't mentioned friction reduction.

    You will definitely want the thinnest ring pack, piston coatings, 0 weight oil, roller cam bearings, roller lifters, roller rockers.

    Also the fastest burn chamber to complement the longer rod.

    Swirl intake port.

    very tight squish

    With a 2.87 stroke, and a 5.4 rod you would have a 1.88 R/S ratio.

    1.8 Rod Journals

    Narrow bearings



    Since power isn't a big concern you could experiment with a late intake closing (Atkinson Cycle) and 12 - 13 - 1 compression.

    The 2100 Autolite with Annular Discharge in a 1.02, 1.01, or .98 venturi.

    Tuning will require a wide band o2 setup.

    As low (numerically) gear as will fit.

    Wide ratio O/D.

    Synthetic everything.

    High fuel mileage tires.

    Electric fan.

    Hoop
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2013
  18. Green Rodz
    Joined: Jan 30, 2011
    Posts: 493

    Green Rodz
    Member

    Boy, am I glad someone else brought this up so I didn't have to.
    I'm trying to do sorta basically the same thing on my wifes Kustom, But I'm looking strictly for mileage, so I haven't thought about a turbo, etc.

    This weekend, I'm picking up a 260 motor out of a comet, complete.
    I'm ultimately going to do a swap in my 64 Galaxie Kustom, and I've been researching transmissions and their issues. I've gotten soo much conflicting info on this it's just amazing.
    The car has now a 390 with a cruise-o-matic with AC and power steering.
    My goal is to get 26 mpg or higher. Not sure of all the details on how that's going to happen, but that's the goal.

    There is a long-term goal to this project, but I'll explain that in more detail as it progresses.
     
  19. George
    Joined: Jan 1, 2005
    Posts: 7,723

    George
    Member

    '64 is 5 bolt, '65 is 6 bolt...except for the '64 Mustangs witch were vinned as '65s.
     
  20. V8 Bob
    Joined: Feb 6, 2007
    Posts: 2,966

    V8 Bob
    ALLIANCE MEMBER


    My information shows the change was made in August of '64, which would be early '65 production.
     
  21. Green Rodz
    Joined: Jan 30, 2011
    Posts: 493

    Green Rodz
    Member

    Is 26 possible with a 2.50 or 2.60 gear then?
     
  22. George
    Joined: Jan 1, 2005
    Posts: 7,723

    George
    Member

    milage can be tricky. I got better milage in a '69 Charger withn 383/727/3.23s vs a '69 Plym S/W with 318/904/2.76s. With a T bucket or RX-7 you won't have much weight working against you. Windsors are Ws regardless of where made. You wonder what a 90s roller motor with 289 crank & rods in it would do.
     
  23. Green Rodz
    Joined: Jan 30, 2011
    Posts: 493

    Green Rodz
    Member

    Now I'm wondering if I should just skip the 260 and maybe do a early 90's 302 roller motor.
    Is EFI going to be a wiring NIGHTMARE as well?
     
  24. hoop98
    Joined: Jan 23, 2013
    Posts: 1,362

    hoop98
    Member
    from Texas

    Steady state hiway 70 MPH yes, seriously good tuning.
     
  25. George
    Joined: Jan 1, 2005
    Posts: 7,723

    George
    Member

    In the late 70s Ford made S/W with 351W/C-4/2.25s. Don't remember the MPG being anything outstanding, but once again a heavy s/w.
     
  26. are we talking mainly highway use or around-town? I would imagine the differences in drag coefficient between an RX-7 and a T-pickup would come into play quite a bit as speeds increase. Could make quite a difference in mileage if peak efficiency is your endgame.
     
  27. treb11
    Joined: Jan 21, 2006
    Posts: 3,947

    treb11
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I have always wanted to try Total Seal gapless rings in a mileage motor. less combustion leak by than through regular rings
     
  28. onetrickpony
    Joined: Sep 21, 2010
    Posts: 753

    onetrickpony
    Member
    from Texas

    So far as your exhaust manifold question goes, you can turn them around and point the exit to the front but you cannot turn them upside down without cutting off a major chunk of the port. The bolt holes are not in the center of the ports. I found this out when building a 302 Pinto back in the 80's.

    I don't have a picture handy but you can Goolge the gasket and see what I mean.
     
  29. 59 brook
    Joined: Jun 12, 2005
    Posts: 1,016

    59 brook
    Member

    my o/t 1990 saleen mustang had a 5.0 roller motor and a vortech a trim blower. with a t-5 and a 3.73 it would do 21-22 mpg on the highway consistently . with a newer 6 speed,higher rear gear ,less weight, and a efi tune set for economy rather then power ,i would think that is easily do able
     
  30. The wiring is technical and tedious if you convert a factory harness to stand alone. I did this with my 65 ranchero. There are alot of nice kits available. If you need any info or contacts Pm me and I can help you out. I don't want to get into here as EFI usually isn't considered to be Hamb friendly.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.