7EC

Doesn't work for me - I have a fleet of ancient Mustang convertibles. One was a 200 "six", and I foolishly converted it to a 289 V8. I drive the same (like an old grandmother). The six got a steady 24 mpg; the V8 gets 14.

Same with my Cub - I ran a 65 Continental for decades - 2150 cruise. 4.1 gph, I could depend on it. Now I have a C-85 Stroker - it is closer to 4.7 gph, with the same prop at the same rpm. No mixture control, so I cannot blame it on that. And as you know, the Cub cruises at 75 practically no matter what you do.
 
Bob Turner said:
Doesn't work for me - I have a fleet of ancient Mustang convertibles. One was a 200 "six", and I foolishly converted it to a 289 V8. I drive the same (like an old grandmother). The six got a steady 24 mpg; the V8 gets 14.

Same with my Cub - I ran a 65 Continental for decades - 2150 cruise. 4.1 gph, I could depend on it. Now I have a C-85 Stroker - it is closer to 4.7 gph, with the same prop at the same rpm. No mixture control, so I cannot blame it on that. And as you know, the Cub cruises at 75 practically no matter what you do.
Click to expand...

I had a 64 1/2 with the straight 6. 170 CI and 101 hp if I recall correctly. I bought it in 1982, got it back to being mechanically reliable and intended to restore it (it had the typical rusted wheel wells and seat pans). However, college intervened and I left it with my dad for storage when I went off to ERA-U. I added him to the title so he could keep it in license, and then he sold it on me and tried to claim it had been his.
 
One of mine is a 64 1/2. It came as a V8 4-speed. The other is a '66, converted so my fleet would use common parts. Had a six cyl. Fastback, too - wish I had kept it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top