Point me in the right location

No tech discussion, please

Moderator: FORDification

Post Reply
Asillymick
New Member
New Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:21 am
Location: OKC

Point me in the right location

Post by Asillymick »

I have a 67 Ranger with a 3 spd and a I-6, I have a 302 w/AOD that I would like to put in for better highway drivability and gas mileage. I have done motor swaps on other vehicles in the past but I just want to be sure I am not forgetting or overlooking anything. A bit more info- manual drums all around long bed. I also at some point plan to install power disc's in front but that is not pressing as the drums work fine. Once I get the feed back on what to think about I will then move to whichever forum is the best one to be in for this conversion.
I think the suspension should be fine as the weight difference is not extreme, so am I missing something?

Thanks ya'll
User avatar
mnkeeking
New Member
New Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Behind the wall, San Diego, CA

Re: Point me in the right location

Post by mnkeeking »

Howdy!
My experience is mainly with 460s and C6s. If I understand your question, you want to improve fuel economy in your '67 F100 Ranger that currently has an I6/3 speed manual tranny. If your main goal is MPG I doubt you will do any better with a 302. From what others have claimed on this site, the I6 and manual tranny does much better on fuel economy than any other combo if you're tuning for MPG. IIRC, guys are saying they get upwards of 15 MPG with an I6, which I can believe as I'm struggling to approach 10 MPG in my '68 F100 with a 460.
Take care,
Joe
'68 F100 Flareside 460/C6
Asillymick
New Member
New Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:21 am
Location: OKC

Re: Point me in the right location

Post by Asillymick »

I might be off on my figures but my 54 Sedan with a 302/AOD combo got me from OKC to the Oklahoma Arkansas border before I needed to gas up and that was with a 4.11 rear end. So I am hoping that with an AOD and 302 setup I should be able to get better highway mpg's. Pretty sure this rear end is not a 4.11 as it can run at 70 on the highway, just when I do I will eat up 3/4 of a tank making a 100 round trip. That is fairly sad IMO.
User avatar
Mancar1
100% FORDified!
100% FORDified!
Posts: 5390
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:13 am
Location: USS Gramps Garage (DD-727) Tehama County, Northern Ca.

Re: Point me in the right location

Post by Mancar1 »

I have had both eng in Ford 1/2 tons. If u r after MPG stick with the 6. Just my :2cents:
May your sails stay full, and your knots not slip. Unless a slip knot.
Once I thought I was wrong, but I was wrong.
Life is a banquet, and every days a feast.
68 F-250 CS 390 C-6 P/S A/C front disc. 2nd owner.
2016 GMC Terrain Denali 301 HP V-6 AWD.
2009 Silverado Crew Cab, V-8, 4X4.
DD-727
DD-806
AE-35
LSD-39
AS-41
AR-8
Whateverman
Blue Oval Guru
Blue Oval Guru
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:45 pm
Location: Comox Valley B.C. Canada

Re: Point me in the right location

Post by Whateverman »

:2cents: i had to do some metric conversion stuff but it looks like i get about 15-17 mpg with my 5.0/c4 and 3.50 gears (combined city and highway) ...having overdrive is going to be better for fuel economy (and a v8 sounds better than a 6cyl )go for it
- still got my first first car 20+yrs later : 69 f100 sorta kinda pretending its a Mercury M100 w/a 70 f350 sport custom cab (factory buckets) 67 grille with 69 ranger cooneyes 68 merc box and hood,some supercool fiberglass fenders i scored way back when, 76 f150 disc brake frontend..currently running a 90 5.0HO 4bbl/c4 auto & 3.50 posi...originally a 360/c6 f100 Ranger with dealer added towpack (incl. kelsey hays trailer brake),boxside toolbox,behind the seat stowage & belly tank...only original parts left on 'er are the frame,rear end,rear springs,and rear bumper...
Post Reply