Also, total cost involved is a determinate of what you want to do. That same set up in a mileage build may still have reduced friction and increased power, but only have an extra 2 lb ft and 2 hp. Sure, roller cams may provide less friction across the rpm range and at peak power are worth an extra 12 lb ft and 10 hp. It is just that the return is greatly diminished. This will be much more efficient than spinning the engine slower just to keep the rpm down.Įverything that applies to performance engine building applies to mileage engine building. So you want to have the maximum amount of torque at the smallest possible throttle opening regardless of rpm, within reason. To cruise down the highway only takes 50-60 horsepower. I also agree that you don't want to spin the engine to low. If the price spread gets greater than that, then E-85 becomes more economical from a financial stand point. In my flex fuel vehicle, 04 Suburban, it is a wash cost wise when gas is $2.95 and E-85 is $2.35. But, total cost involved may also be a factor. Yes, going to E-85 will cost you in mileage as it takes 30% more alcohol to make the same power as gasoline, so your burning more of it. This means small duration cam to keep the sweet spot low and as much compression as your local gas supply will allow. To get the engine working efficiently and loaded up on torque, you need as much cylinder pressure as possible. Can you get a stock air cleaner for a 4 barrel Cordoba maybe and use the fresh air pipe and route it somehow on the Cuda to grap cool outside air for it? If you ran an old Edlebrock performer intake don't they have the correct choke well for a Thermoquad? Does reducing oil windage offer any mileage? Just some more thoughts. I know the KB Hyper pistons are almost 100 grams lighter than a stock piston so you'll shake some weight there too. Man with an overdrive you could get that thing to idle at highway speeds. What about 2.4 rear gears like in the late model 8 1/4. If you need a good stock set you can have the stock rods from my 67 318. Would a later model roller cam 318 be a better start evan though its got the extra cubic inch to feed? Thinking this because I wonder does the roller cam's reduced friction offer anything in the way of mileage benifit? I take it cast cranks are lighter than the stock forged 273 unit? Run the 273 full floater rods they should be lighter than the later model versions I believe. The E-85 would be going the wrong way to try and get better fuel mileage right? From what I read thats the way I understand it. Havent decided on that one yet, the other choice would be pump 93 octane. One more thing, I may bump the comp up a bunch and run it on e-85. The goal would be ultimate miledge and any HP it can make without sacrificeing MPG would just be a nice bonus. It currently has a 318 low comp open chamber headed 2bbl and gets 22mpg high way and 18 intown. I have TTI headers for the car any how so that should help.Īny one has any suggestions feel free to throw in your And also the mag rockers 1.6 ratio will help the lift a hair to help it make a little bit of power any how. The cam needs to be the shortest duration I can find to build tons of vaccume. I think the heads will fit with no bore notches if I turn the valves to 1.88 diameter(the seat on these heads are way in from the edge of the valve) The one side will be shrouded but that should help swirl everything up. Heres what I was thinking,ģ18 2bbl cam or shorter duration if some one knows one, mabey even custom. I have a 273 sitting out back seasoning and thought it would be fun to build it to get the best possible gas miledge and slide it in the 68 cuda for a while.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |