Engine Swap Economy?

Occupant: I don't know about there, but 351 equipped Panthers here used the 2 BBL VV carburetor, so did not have a kick down cable at all. They used a kick down rod from the linkage to the transmission. It works something lovely with the Edelbrock carbs. The only difference is that you have to move the bushed connector at the transmission end of the rod. With the VV carb, it sits in the middle of the adjustment range. With the Edlebrock you have to move it to the outside end, almost all the way. Since it is only one simple bolt it is a snap to do. The advantage of the rod is that it cannot stretch. Very simple to tweak as need be, as well.

 

I was referring to police package cars with the AOD transmission. But if the 2-barrel 351W cars from Canada (or the few 81-82 351's sold here in the US that were non-police package cars) could have AOD transmissions then yes, that rod would be MUCH preferable to any sort of cable. I like the kickdown rod on my FMX, one little $14 kit and I had all I needed to hook it up to the Edelbrock linkage.

 

I don't remember the exact year, but Ford did switch from the tv (throttle valve) rod to a cable. My '91 351W has a tv cable for AOD controls. The cable isn't bad to deal with. I'm running the stock cable setup with a Holley four barrel with a mild modification to the linkage.

 

You consider using turbo?

look at what modern manufacturers are doing in their vehicles. Cubic inches are down, but the number of cars with turbo is going up.

It seems like they are undersizing engines for cars, and then making up the difference with turbo.

Get the guys that are trying to sell you Fuel injection to tell you exactly how much your MPGs will improve...

My solution would be to undersize the engine, install turbo, put in a better transmission (something with overdrive), and to try to shave weight off of the wagon anyway you can.

 

Turbos are nothing but a pain in the backside in a heavy car. They work well in the new cars, partly because of computer controls, but more importantly, with the way the cars are certified for emission and fuel consumption compliance. In the real world, they suck! Turbo lag is a nuisance. Also, you HAVE to lower compression, so the off the line performance suffers. I also don't know of many turbo charged cars with engines that have gone 500,000 miles and more, but certainly know of PLENTY of good old North American V-8s that have. The trick to real world economy is plenty of torque, way low down, and then gearing it so the cruising engine speed is slightly below the torque peak. My 89 with the tow package cruised about 1,800 r.p.m., and the torque peak was at 2,200. That beast regularly used 7 litres per 100 kms, or about 38 miles to the Imperial gallon, and was still doing so at just shy of 200,000 miles when it got totaled.

 

The thing with a turbo (at least on the cars I've read about) is that it's for intermittent use only. So you can only use it to get short bursts of extra power. If you try to use it to tow or haul or whatever, you'll burn it up. They specifially rate turbo cars as having ZERO towing capacity. At least the ones I read about anyway. With a bigger engine you can have that extra power all the time if you want with no worries.

Agreed about having lots of low end torque, but gearing it so you can run low RPMs for cruising. When I swapped my 2.8 engine for a 3.1 (same engine but longer stroke and considerably more low end torque, even runs off the same chip) I picked up a couple more MPG even with the added displacement. The same holds true for my other cars which are basically identical except the difference being either a 2.8 or 3.1.