Smallblock efficiency or How to have your cake and eat it too

-

RAMM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
2,463
Reaction score
3,053
Location
Ontario, Canada
This question seems to be coming up a lot more frequently probably due to ever rising fuel prices as well as being spoiled by modern muscle cars/trucks with their big HP/Fuel efficiency.

Now obviously electronic engine management along with variable valve timing, active intake manifolds, multiple displacement (MDS) and 8/9/10-100 speed transmissions aren't going to apply here, we are after all on an A-body forum in Small Block Tech. So here goes:

What if I told you an LA engine that was carb'd , solid flat tappet, vac distributor going down the highway @ 2800-3200 rpm could make 450-500HP and still knock down 18-20 mpg?

Don't believe me? Don't care, stop reading.

The key is understanding where (RPM) and why an engine is at its most efficiency. Modern cars are all about low RPM @ cruise but gear your overcammed LA this way and the engine will not be "happy". Happy = Efficiency

Do not build anything larger in displacement than required. Do not build anything with high internal friction. There is a reason almost ALL auto manufacturers have landed on the 340-370 cube displacement for best balance between HP AND MPG. Think about it. Why did GM debut the LS @ 346 ci? Mopar the G3 @ 346 ci? Its for a reason and by design it was NO accident. Moving on.

With old school iron we don't have all the electronic wizardry to work with so we must consider the entire driveline. I will outline what I believe and know to work.

1. Manual transmission is a big part in this. Why? With a 5 or 6 spd you will maintain acceleration (Fun) with no slip like an auto. A modern light synthetic oil in the box also helps to the end means of efficiency. Besides REAL musclecars have 3 pedals and I stand by that.

1.(b) Yes I mentioned the 5spd or 6 spd which obviously have OD gearing. Do not fall into the trap of under gearing the rearend with say 3.55's and a .50 OD gear. This will suck if you have any kind of cam duration. Instead you need to select a box with a relatively tall first gear so that it is useable with a 3.73-4.10 rear gear. If you don't you will have a first gear that is useable for about 10 feet which sucks.

Told you this would be longwinded-lol

2. Get your car low enough to reduce resistance and also get a proper alignment for the love of god.

Basically everything we can do to reduce rolling resistance helps. We all know this.

Moving on to the engine.

It takes about 60-80 hp to keep most cars such as an A-body rolling down the highway at highway speeds. Why build anything much bigger than what will get the job done?

So to make this even more convoluted here's what I would do and why I see it this way:

Build a true 340 with modern machining and extreme attention to detail and you will be rewarded handsomely. The awesome rod ratio is really part of the secret here. Use 6.2" rods and pick up a little more efficiency. Build the engine and gear the car to go down the highway as close to peak torque within reason. Here's where I'm going to ruffle some feathers because most would have you believe that low rpm is where its at. It is and it isn't, depends on the camshaft big time here.

So 340 block .030-.04" honed with plates, zero deck or slight positive straight and true. Stock stroke 3.31, with counterweights massaged and profiled-nitride it --less friction this way. Have your fave cranks shop turn the rods and mains .030-.040 under if the bearings are available. Heck do like I did in my 354 inch G3 and go Honda journals on the rods if you are serious.
Order a piston like a Mahle with their unbeatable 1mm/1mm/2mm ring pack<<This is another must IMO.

Gotta run , I will be back for Part 2. J.Rob
 
You have the impression that we are all stupid. Not the case.
:wtf:
 
But what if we do all city driving, no highway? For me highway mileage never happens in LA lol.
 
Very interested In this topic. Love efficiency.

I agree that all the new stuff is 340-370ci for a reason. However, those displacements are matched to the vehicle weight and towing capacity. Much heavier than our a-bodies.

I think efficiency lies where having an engine that has less displacement so it drinks less on the highway to produce that 50-80 hp but can wind up high under a turbo to get 0-60 times. This is where direct injection, vvt, active intake controls, supercharging, etc come in. This is why so many performance cars that our in our weight range are 4 cylinder and turbo.
 
Very interested In this topic. Love efficiency.

I agree that all the new stuff is 340-370ci for a reason. However, those displacements are matched to the vehicle weight and towing capacity. Much heavier than our a-bodies.

I think efficiency lies where having an engine that has less displacement so it drinks less on the highway to produce that 50-80 hp but can wind up high under a turbo to get 0-60 times. This is where direct injection, vvt, active intake controls, supercharging, etc come in. This is why so many performance cars that our in our weight range are 4 cylinder and turbo.

Speaking of turbos.... the new rage seems to be 2.0 direct injected turbo 4s... But Acuras new RDX with this engine doesnt seem to be getting any better mpg than the MDX with 3.5 naturally aspirated V6 despite it weighing 400 lbs less... or so my customers are reporting..
 
You have the impression that we are all stupid. Not the case.
:wtf:

Not sure where youre coming from but I talk to people who want their engine built almost everyday and they have no clue about this stuff. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious to you, feel free to stop following along. J.Rob
 
Very interested In this topic. Love efficiency.

I agree that all the new stuff is 340-370ci for a reason. However, those displacements are matched to the vehicle weight and towing capacity. Much heavier than our a-bodies.

I think efficiency lies where having an engine that has less displacement so it drinks less on the highway to produce that 50-80 hp but can wind up high under a turbo to get 0-60 times. This is where direct injection, vvt, active intake controls, supercharging, etc come in. This is why so many performance cars that our in our weight range are 4 cylinder and turbo.

I agree with everything you said but that is getting off topic. This thread is more about what we can do with our old antiquated V8 architecture wihin reason. J.Rob
 
I was being facetious and took my suggestion to the extreme--lol. Good compromise with your A body though. J.Rob
Lol dude really though I want to get my small block to get some good city mileage!
 
So we can still address some things in the shortblock to help us in our quest. Things like the aforementioned 6.200" rod length go along ways to reducing rod angularity which in turn lessens piston thrust loading and also helps stabilise the rings which also helps sealing. Obviously you need a custom piston for the comp height or you need to take some stroke out of the crank which would also help efficiency with the reduced displacement. Get a really good line hone while youre there. I recommend narrowing the main bearings a little too. Use a standard volume oil pump here and shoot for 30-40 psi @ cruise rpm. Oil control is also worth some power and thus efficiency, a nice crank scraper can and should help. I'm also a believer in the PTFE coated cam bearings from Dura-Bond, the cam always seems to spin so nice with them. I 'll compose more on the cam in the next post. J.Rob
 
I agree with everything you said but that is getting off topic. This thread is more about what we can do with our old antiquated V8 architecture wihin reason. J.Rob

I’m biased from being at altitude.

I think you’re right on track then. Isn’t the most efficient a subject engine will be is when it produces the maximum amount of torque at x rpm at wot?
 
Let's talk about the camshaft. Here we don't necessarily need to pull WAY back on cam timing and run a little weenie cam. After all we are talking about a musclecar and in this case a 340. I know a solid FT cam up to 250 @ .050" with .560" lift on a 112 LSA can pull down a solid 19MPG if the carb and ignition are spot on. I would use EDM lifters here as well. You cannot beat a solid flat tappet for stone axe reliability /cost/performance. A word about solid rollers here as I know some of you would choose them. I would not as I do not trust them in MY engine that I am going to drive hundreds of KM's in single 3-4hr trips. I will gladly give up the 20-25 hp a roller might give me in exchange for not trashing my engine and leaving me on the side of the road at some point. So. what about hydraulic rollers you say? Well they aren't going to give me the RPM capability of a solid and this 340 will easily make power past their limits of about 6700. Besides I hate hydraulics in a muscle car. J.Rob
 
The heads should be something like an EQ Magnum with no more than a 2.02 intake valve size. The heads don't have have to be iron but I happen to believe the iron head CAN be more efficient than aluminum because of thermal efficiency. You have less energy in BTU's escaping the combustion chamber where you want them to expand the Nitrogen in the air/fuel charge. Polish the chambers and port them to get whatever flow is required to hit your HP goal. If I wanted 500HP I would shoot for 240-250 cfm. Keep the port small and fast. Make sure your static comp ratio is somewhere around 10.5-10.7 and target 190-200 cranking compression<<<This is important. Yes it will be important to be on your tune but that comes later and is the fun part. J.Rob
 
Hmmm... Subscribed.
I'll add my 2 cents.
I have a roller-cammed (1990) 360 that i've rebuilt with 9.7-ish compression. Lunati voodoo cam. With MSD 6A as well.
The absolute best mileage I got when I used the 650 AVS was 17.5-17.7mpg hwy, 12-ish city.
Then I stuck on the 750 Street Demon, HWY mileage dropped ever-so-slightly to around 16.9 with about 17.3 being best.
But the city mileage with S/Demon is what I call... meh. best is 10mpg with 8-9 mpg avg mostly. But it's so much more fun!
I have an A999 converted to non-lockup with 3.21 rear gears. (yeah I know, if I kept the lock-up the mileage would've been better)
To me the biggest mileage factors is tuning (I used AFR gauge) and RPM's.
I used to own a 1988 Dodge ram W150 with 4.10 gears and 33 inch tires. 360/A727 4X4, on hwy at 65mph running about 3200 RPM I got 11 mpg. I think the barn-like aerodynamics and being about 4800lb has alot to do with it. (I still miss that truck ~RIP)

*Edit: BTW I'm at 4500 ft elevation, I definitely have to run 91 octane premium at the minimum
 
Last edited:
Good topic.

I run a 11.3:1cr 360ci every day in my '73 Dart. 0.030" overbore. Propane fueled.
318 '302' heads, CompCams XE256h, converted to solid, KB-pistons w/balanced crank assembly.
A518-OD (no LU), 3.55:1 gear ratio in a 8-3/4" rear axle.
MegaSquirt ECU controlling ignition only for now. Spent months tuning to come up with a curve that works nicely for the engine.

The car doesn't get even near the mileage I had hoped for... 11-12mpg, mixed highway+street.
Highway only driving barely gets 13mpg.
I'm mostly blaming the A518 currently, and its most likely unmatched mid '60s stock stall convertor currently in the mix.
 
-
Back
Top