40 mpg in 04 V8. What are you getting out of yours?
- Thread starter 1nastyls
- Start date
svt98t
Active LVC Member
Dude, thats a true ram air intake.
I think it was just a GT. My father has one of each and he drives both about the same.
Last edited:
Here is your 40 MPG car!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxDEg_ObfSU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
2006 Lincoln LS in Cashmere Tri-Coat Metallic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxDEg_ObfSU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
2006 Lincoln LS in Cashmere Tri-Coat Metallic.
1LoudLS
Dedicated LVC Member
Telco
Dedicated LVC Member
Call Clifford on the Cheeto Effect, would make a great anti-theft device. Insert Cheeto, car can't be stolen. Remove Cheeto, drive away with snack in hand.
Ranchero50
Well-Known LVC Member
Those O2's were not wide band. I saw the changes mostly during throttle and airflow transitions. I could also change the idle richness by rotating the MAF. It was cheaper than a tune.
Ranchero50
Well-Known LVC Member
OK, so this is the bf, to the guy with the "c.a.I", that's not a cold air intake, that's a stock air box with a solid elbow. I have been the one so far to make a true c.a.I. to the one that asked me about the dimensions, I'm working on the patent first before I give out dimensions, don't need anyone stealing my idea
Bottom of air box is open to the fenderwell...
Sadly it takes two to argue so I'm just going to troll you like the rest of the guys. I have a strange feeling there was a reason you were picked on my other ricers...
Telco
Dedicated LVC Member
Hey, you might go investigate Megasquirt for your goal. With them you can build a custom programmable computer to run the engine and you can set up a lean cruise mode that might get you over 30MPG, might even hit that 40MPG because the Megasquirt would allow you to run 18-20 to 1 on the fuel/air mix. You'd have timing retarded to fight detonation and would need an EGT monitor on both sides to allow the computer to richen the mix if it starts running too hot.
Also, if you can shorten the stroke and lengthen the rod length, you can increase compression which will boost power out of a given amount of fuel. If you can find it on the net, look up "The 350 GM Should Have Built" where it goes into using a 400 small block with a 327 crank to get 350 cubes. They also use Ford 2.25 inch connecting rods and ran 11:1 compression. Using this they were able to use 87 octane, and did not have to retard timing at all. The only difference between 87 and 93 in the engine was it made more power off 93 octane. I don't know what combo of parts you can use in a Ford engine to accomplish similar results, but if there is a parts combo that would let you increase rod length then you'd be able to increase power which would make it easier for the engine to pull the car. And, when it's easier for the engine to pull, in theory it should be able to do so with less fuel.
Suck Ass Forum Runner on the Droid. I will fix that.
So, is this trying to say that the K&N FIPK is really not good? I was thinking of buying one. I really don't trust the test because I know there is more to it than just putting on an intake. I would bet its kind of like tuning ports on loud speakers.
Upstairs Chris
Dedicated LVC Member
If it the K&N intake made no power improvements, it would be worth the money for the noise it generates alone.
0.02
0.02
jmtiseo
The Peanut Gallery
+1 We need to squeeze every wee bit out of it that we can.
Also, you would think that the heavily educated and experienced individuals on this site, and more importantly and specifically FoMoCo and its engineers would have found a way to squeeze 40mpgs out of the LS. You realize 40mpg out performs the technology and advancements that the company puts out today with less displacement and reduced vehicle weight? Literally, check out the Ford website and see what the Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, and CMax are rocking. All vehicles that weigh less than the LS, have less displacement, are 10 years newer, and still are not achieving 40 mpgs on gas alone. Please, do yourself a favor, and admit that the readings you're currently getting are incorrect before you make an ass out of yourself.
Not normally like this but as of late, I'm sick of having to read, listen, watch, etc. the stupidity that people believe in.
Rodewaryer
Dedicated LVC Member
Didn't really have time to review all the posts but considering my 05 V8 has NEVER bettered 25 (on a flat level no wind long leg between Phx and LA and really trying to make better numbers), I find 40 (15mpg better...really?) 'just' a tad hard to believe. I had a hell of a time reaching that in both my Fiesta and my Cmax. I topped 40 once in the Cmax, downhill with a tailwind (literally) coming out of the mountains around Techachapi Ca and east past Edwards AFB. Haven't hit 40 again in over 9,000 miles but you're getting 40 in an old V8 LS. OK.
I am not looking at the 40 MPG average. I am looking for 32-35 highway. I know it can be done. There are too many variables in urban driving. We have to look at it a different way. The engine is doing a great job already. Leave it alone. Aero is the answer. I studied aerodynamics for years. I have a degree in Aviation Science. I have 1423 TT CFII(single), MEI Type(KA 350, Saab 340). Those were two of the most efficient birds of their time. Trust me when I tell you, there is much more to it than the engine. In WWII, the Mustang was one of the fastest fighters of the war. It only har 1475 hp standard and by the end of the war it had gotten up to near 1800 hp. The Germans were flying with 2300 hp FW-190 D-9s and they still couldn't match the performance. With all of that speed the Mustang had, it could trim out and take the bombers into Germany and "Back" with enough fuel to play around strafing targets on the way home. That had nothing to do with the engine because the Spitfires were using the same engine. It was the wings that made the difference. Aero is the key.
I will leave you with a question.
Of all cars that we know that get poor fuel economy, what do they have in common? We will exclude the Corvette for this one.
I will leave you with a question.
Of all cars that we know that get poor fuel economy, what do they have in common? We will exclude the Corvette for this one.
RigsLS
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2012
- Messages
- 7,756
- Reaction score
- 532
Honestly, when you're at the pumps dumping your hard earned money in the tank, you bitch about the price of fuel these days, reset the trip and hit the pedal, see ya next time (couple of day) I could care less, just put more fuel in it. it's not going to do 40 and anything lower then 23 is a bitch, all well .... such is life, suck it up and open wallet.
TWICE (in 1993) I got 50mpg in a '92 Civic. That was with the cruise set at ~67mph and mostly level freeway. That was between northern San Diego county and LAX with only about 15 miles of the 315 miles non-freeway. The A/C was off and windows up. I did the calculations by hand so know they were right. I only achieved this twice; most of the time the mpg was in the upper 30's. We had a 1977 Plymouth Arrow that got consistently in the low 30's!
All the additives in today's fuel really kills performance.
All the additives in today's fuel really kills performance.
Ranchero50
Well-Known LVC Member
My '68 Fairlane 500 fastback, 289 C4 with 2.79 gears manages 23 MPG if I keep it under 60mph.