The 200 in the falcon gets excellent mileage, I've driven 400 miles on a single tank before. Which averages out to 25 MPG. And most of that was city driving with crappy(and expensive here in Cali) 87 octane/10% ethanol. Only has a duraspark upgrade, K&N filter and dual exhaust. Everything else is bone stock, no AC no PS. C4 tranny, Rear end is 2.79 with 235/70R15 tires.
When I had the 250 in my mav, the best I ever got was around 19 or 20 mpg. I made a trip down to monroe and back, around 175 miles and got 18.37 mpg with the 302 in it. I have the stock 2.79 gears in it. I was hoping to do a little better but it could maybe use a little more tuning.
I changed from a 2.79 gear to a 3.00 and it helped my mpg along with a little more spank in the gitty-up-n-go department. The only reason I can figure out how or why is I'm not bogging the engine and it doesn't have to work as hard to get rolling or to pick up speed.
I average about 24-26 mpg with my 200 / 3 speed manual / 3:00 gears / no A/C or power steering. Only thing that isn't stock is the pertronix. I do have a P185 radial tire so rolling resistance is minimal. Anybody getting bad mileage, I would 1st suggest doing a compression test. Bad compression on even 1 cylinder can really reduce efficiency.
man I feel bad for you guys. My 72 with the 200 got 20 mpg and that was still bone stock except for consumable parts. And, it was estimated the odometer had rolled over at least twice.
I'd put a t5 in it and run non ethanol gas (if you can find it). The few 250s I've had used more gas than a v8, the little 200s do much better. My '75 gets 23-25, it's bone stock w/ a 3spd manual and 2.79 gears. Only bad part is I think my Escort station wagon is probably faster....
that's a good question.. with 30+ mpg seeming highly unlikely from a low compression motor like these. Of course.. I would guess that a lighter car with a tiny carb and tall gears help more than a bit once you get rolling along though.
no one actually cared what they were supposed to get when new probably. But I would think 20mpg was probably the average when new.
Lets add to the confusion i drove the car yesterday pure freeway and averaged with the math at 31.5 mpg ran 70-75 the whole way car used less fuel then my 4 cyl cavalier on the same trip. Im starting to feel its a gearing issue more then anything now it does lug around pretty bad in town.
