|10-12-2008 11:30 AM|
Back in the days I had a '66 Econoline van. Basic 200 cu. in six, manual everything, and of course the aerodynamics of a rather large brick.
Drove it from Mississippi to California circa 1969 and returned about a year later.
Stuffed with everything I owned (actually not a heckuva lot, but many tools and other heavy items), it knocked out highway mileage of 20+. Never really checked it around town, as we're talking gas prices at that time of about 3 gallons for a buck and small change. (Yeah, don't we all just wish!)
Looking back over a long and checkered history of vehicles I've owned, it seems the majority of them have been inline sixes, and a couple straight 8s. Not a conscious decision on my part, just seemed to work out that way.
If it were me, I'd think about building up the six. The majority of them (excepting the 144ci, I think?) have a bulletproof bottom end with a rousing SEVEN main bearings!
Horsepower-wise, the stumbling block would be the cylinder head design. Still, the stock head/integral manifold can be worked with to some extent. If major horsepower is your goal, there are crossflow heads available (off an Australian version of the engine if I remember correctly) on up to an aftermarket 12-port aluminum head. Quite a few goodies available for the engines.
If nothing else, you'd have something different! Guess I never liked to run with the herd.
Good luck with your project!
Retro in Mississippi
|10-12-2008 09:37 AM|
My son has a 67 Mustang with a 200 and stick in it and it gets 20.3 MPG and I have a student with a 77 Maverick with a 250 in it and he gets 21 MPG so if it were me I would drive it. They do make good racecars but the engine compartment gets small with anything but a 6 or 302 based engine. A 351W will fit but they get tight on the exhaust. We had one with a 347 in it with a true 10.5 that ran 10.20s on the motor with Cal Tracks and a decent shock on the back. No need for a big tire if the car works.
|10-11-2008 11:20 PM|
Theres a guy in MI goes by 'HillBilly' racing one of those. Serious business. Had a buddy had a '76 that got upgraded to a 302 with the goods. The Grabber was an example of such a thing.
'Nother dude has one with a dual quad tunnel ram, local yocal. Pretty nice and STOUT.
Oh too, that Maverick thing, it's as wore out as Amy Winehouse.
|10-11-2008 10:47 PM|
|10-11-2008 10:29 PM|
Don't expect wonders from the old inline 6. The compression is low and the chambers are pretty old-school, so efficiency is very poor by today's standards. A modern-headed 302 would probably get better mileage than the old 6 if done right.
But, a Maverick is a well-kept secret. They're not a very stiff chassis, but some careful tubing and subframe connecting can really help, and their best attribute is that they're pretty light. I had a 74 that I was going to put a Subaru STI driveline in. Everyone told me that the turbo 4 would be a terrible match for the heavy Maverick, but little did they know that they weighed almost exactly the same. Even the stock wheezer 302 in mine was remarkably quick. My plan was to do big fender flares, slam it, and do it trans-am style for road racing.
Build yourself a 400-hp 302 and just try to get traction without tubs
|10-11-2008 10:02 PM|
miles per gallon would ford inline get
I found a mavrick I thinking about buying and making a race car out of I've seen the body from the road, but I don't know what kind of engine is in it, but the guy said It was a inline 6 and I'am hoping theres a 250 in it.So if gets good gas mpg I might just use it as a daily driver, I know mavrick came with a 170, 200, 250.