The Secret is in the Slant!
- Thread starter slantsixdan
- Start date
-
That's great.
6pakattack
Well-Known Member
Wait 'till they see how mine turns out !!!
Rice Nuker
Let the Coal Roll!
Cool to see old advertisements about state of the art technology.
.
.
slantsixdan
=..=
The \6 intake was substantially better than other makers' intakes in terms of mixture distribution and flow.
Not sure what you mean by "prevalent". A 2bbl intake was available starting in about '65 for marine applications, in '67 for export applications, and in '77 for US/Canada.
That was the most common.
On which, now?
Rice Nuker
Let the Coal Roll!
"On which, now?"
Dan,
I don't know.
I retract my rambling statement about haus power.
.
Dan,
I don't know.
I retract my rambling statement about haus power.
.
cjh
Well-Known Member
In Australia, we never got the alloy intake, all were cast iron....and the 2 bbl version was reasonably common in 1968 and later.
72Dodge
Well-Known Member
.15 * x = 4
solve for x
------------
Gas was under 27 cents per gallon when that ad printed (1960).
solve for x
------------
Gas was under 27 cents per gallon when that ad printed (1960).
goldfish65
Well-Known Member
That's so cool. As far as the horsepower part I remember my Dad taking our new '66 Valiant out on the open highway and saying 'this car is a bomb!' I had never heard that expression before.
According to the Consumer Price Index at: http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=.25&year1=1960&year2=2012
$0.25 (a gallon 0f gas in 1960) should cost $1.92 in 2012.
All I heard about, growing up in the 1950s, was how unbelieveably RICH the Texas oil men were... and they got that way when gas was selling for twenty-five cents a gallon.
WTF happened?
I just filled up on the cheap stuff for $3.69, here in Conway, AR.
Let's see; that's a price increase of 1,476 percent!
If those guys were rich at .25/gallon, what must life be like for them, now????
I'm in the wrong business...:angry3:
slantsixdan
=..=
No, it's a price increase of 92%. You have to compare like-year dollars; comparing $3.69 (today's money) to $0.25 (1960 money) is not the right way to do it.
According to information on the Daily Markets website, a gallon of gasoline manufactured and sold in the United States by Exxon Mobil in the last quarter of 2010 earned apx. two cents. They made less than 8 cents net on every dollar of revenue earned, not a hell of a lot considering the investment and risk.
The state of Arkansas removed 40.3 cents from your pocket for every gallon you bought there and the Obama federal bureaucracy made off with 18.4 of that. To earn that revenue government entities do not invest one single cent in production and distribution and that amount is in addition to the costs the various government departments charge to oversee and regulate.
Just be glad you're not buying it in California or New York. As you might expect, those states grab the most out their motorist's wallet at 47.7 + 18.4 fed = 66.1 cents in California, and 47.2 + 18.4 fed = 65.6 in New York.
The state of Arkansas removed 40.3 cents from your pocket for every gallon you bought there and the Obama federal bureaucracy made off with 18.4 of that. To earn that revenue government entities do not invest one single cent in production and distribution and that amount is in addition to the costs the various government departments charge to oversee and regulate.
Just be glad you're not buying it in California or New York. As you might expect, those states grab the most out their motorist's wallet at 47.7 + 18.4 fed = 66.1 cents in California, and 47.2 + 18.4 fed = 65.6 in New York.
I fail to understand how that works. What are the parameters that give you a "today's money" to work with? How do you go about getting the figures to ascertain exactly what "today's money" really IS, compared with a dollar in 1960.
But then, I never was any good at math... that part is obvious. LOL!
Thanks for any info.:violent1:
Well, that's 65 cents for the government and 8 cents for the oil companies.
I don't think the cost of refining as gallon of gasoline has increased a lot during that 50 years. Who is getting the other $3.00 gallon???
SOMEBODY is getting it, right? I don't think that money just disappears...
Help me out here...
rayer:
BillGrissom
Well-Known Member
In an MBA economics class we learned that the main problem with inflation is that it causes old geezers to rant about what a dollar bought in their day. As Dan says, only a fool would compare 1960's dollars with today's, and yes we can convert them based on things like how many hours of work required to buy ____.
I recall reading that gasoline was expensive in the early 1960's, comparable to today's prices. That is why Detroit came out with the Valiant, Comet, Nova and the following pony and fish cars, plus VW's and small Japanese cars started being imported in quantity. Indeed, gas was also expensive at earlier times. It sure wasn't cheap in the 1910's and 20's when they metered it in glass bottles.
I recall reading that gasoline was expensive in the early 1960's, comparable to today's prices. That is why Detroit came out with the Valiant, Comet, Nova and the following pony and fish cars, plus VW's and small Japanese cars started being imported in quantity. Indeed, gas was also expensive at earlier times. It sure wasn't cheap in the 1910's and 20's when they metered it in glass bottles.
slantsixdan
=..=
Also there's another factor to consider: We can't get a gallon of gasoline for $1.92 (1960 price in today's dollars) but we also can't get a gallon of 1960 gasoline. We get a gallon of 2012 gasoline which is vastly better in every respect except one (adulteration with alcohol due to the corn lobby having bought more congressmen and-women than you or I did). So that needs to be considered when comparing how things used to be vs. how they are now. The real unit price of gasoline is higher, but we spend less on spark plugs, we spend less on periodic manual decarboning of combustion chambers, etc.
Well, that's 65 cents for the government and 8 cents for the oil companies.
I don't think the cost of refining as gallon of gasoline has increased a lot during that 50 years. Who is getting the other $3.00 gallon???
SOMEBODY is getting it, right? I don't think that money just disappears...
Help me out here...
At todays price for a barrel of crude, if you divide the number of gallons you get out of a barrel it equals out to $2.65 per gallon. The rest of the cost is refining, transporting, storage, and retailing.
Exxon Mobil made less than TWO CENTS per GALLON of gasoline SOLD and just under EIGHT CENTS net on each DOLLAR of revenue EARNED. That eight cents profit is what the company has to reinvest to grow, and is what pays the dividends for the stockholders, and interest on the bonds of the bondholders.
I remember the cost of regular gasoline in 1960 as being around .24 to .26 a gallon. In the fall of 1959 I drove accross the country with my father to his father's funeral in Texas. We found a "gas war" going on in New Mexico and west Texas. We actually bought gas in eastern New Mexico for 17.9 a gallon on both legs of the trip.
When I clicked on my spell checker, the first thing it tried to tell me was Dedman should be spelled Deadpan. Does it know something the rest of us don't?
Dan,
When they took the lead out of gasoline, they deprived it of its anti-knock capabilities and the compression ratios of new engines IMMEDIATELY went in the tank, because of it.
This did nothing good for gas mileage, OR power. The 1968 340's were 10.5:1. The '71's were 10.3:1. The 1972's (mandated to run on unleaded fuel) were dropped to 8.5:1, I believe. I have read that when they were building the prototype 1949 Oldsmobile "Rocket" V8s, they ran several at 12:1. That exercise was predicated on the assumption that high-octane fuel would be universally-available... way back then!
Octane ratings plunged with the advent of unleaded fuel, and have never recovered.
Technology from the auto manufacturers has applied one band-aid after another for forty years, finally resulting in complete engine redesigns with expensive, but effective, systems such as computerized fuel mangment, active phasing of cam timing, fast-burn combustion chambers, knock-sensor dictated spark advance, and probably incantations from a witch doctor swinging a dead chicken around.
I am a layman, certainly no engineer, but I well remember when Sunoco 260, Esso Golden Extra and D-X "purple" gasoline, with "Boron"... (at a whopping 36-cents a gallon) were ALL over 100 octane.
I am aware of the research/motor octane "average" figure we get at the pump, nowadays, but I don't think that method would do much to reduce the original "100+octane" gas that was an everyday option in 1956, to anywhere near the numbers we see on the pump, today.
That being said, I don't know enough about gasoline to begin to understand what you mean when you say, " We get a gallon of 2012 gasoline which is vastly better in every respect except one (adulteration with alcohol due to the corn lobby having bought more congressmen and-women than you or I did)."
How is it better? Does something in it build a cushion on the valve seats like leaded fuel did, or will I have to take my 1964 slant six head and have hardened seats installed so they will last awhile? $$$$$$$ Is it better, in that I can actually run 15 pounds of boost in my turbocharged slant six without fear of detonation, as I could have with the earlier fuel? Or will I need some octane booster, severely retarded timing, an alcohol injector, and an intercooler to hopefully stave off detonation from this 93-octane "mouse milk" (which is as good as it gets, around here.) I don't think so.
I don't see any kind of a significant improvement in currently available gasoline, compared with the gas I could buy when I was a youngster.
What REALLY frosted me, was that they took the lead out of gasoline (causing mileage to plummet, along with compression ratios) at the exact same time there was a (manufactured) "gas shortage," which did nothing but exacerbate the problerm. Timing is everything in this bidness...
Geeze, you gotta love this government.
Has anybody reading this ever heard of a person or persons dying (or, even getting sick) from automobile exhaust fumes containing lead? I have never heard of a single case, before the ban, or after.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
slantsixdan
=..=
Tetraethyl lead was an effective and cheap octane booster, but it was not the only one, and the initial lack of a high-octane unleaded fuel in the '72-'79 timeframe was mostly a result of oil company marketing decisions based purely on sales volume and profit margin -- which I say not to slam the oil companies, just as a statement of fact; they devoted their limited pump space to the products that would sell in the greatest volume. Amoco sold a high-octane unleaded gasoline as a specialty product in some Eastern states as far back as the late 1950s; there was no lack of knowledge of how to make it, there just wasn't demand at the pump for awhile.
More generally, remember there were a bunch of things going on all at the same time in the first half of the 1970s. It wasn't just the lead coming out of gasoline, it was also the new and rapidly tightening exhaust emission regulations, it was also the change from SAE Gross to SAE Net horsepower which made any given engine produce a lower number, it was also the change from gasoline pump octane labelling stating the RON to stating the AKI, which gives a number substantially below RON for fuel of any given knock resistance.
The difference is not small, it's large. For years, starting in the mid-late '50s, the standard octane rating of regular gas at sea level was 90 to 91. A 91-RON fuel will usually have an AKI of 87. Look around you…what's the octane of regular unleaded? It's 87! Likewise, the 91-93 octane premium unleaded is equivalent to about 97-99 RON. So the numbers really have not changed much at all. As for the "Super 100++" types of claims made back in the '50s, keep in mind octane regulations were a great deal looser as were truth-in-advertising laws at that time. But even if some of those fuels were in fact of 100+ actual RON, you can still get that kind of fuel today. It's not at every gas station, but a lot of Sunoco stations and some others have an extra-high-octane super premium (94 AKI, about 101-103 RON), and unleaded racing fuel is also available.
Gas mileage and performance was the pits for awhile there in the '70s to early '80s as automakers worked on figuring out how to clean up the exhaust effectively and with minimal detriment to fuel economy or performance and cheaply, all at the same time. They eventually figured it out; witness the cars we have today with 10:1 or higher compression, zero ping on common pump gasoline, perfect driveability, and clean exhaust. But for the first decade or so of serious emission control, they were playing catch-up bigtime, prevented by antitrust-paranoid legislators from forming an industry consortium to figure it out together. Read "Iaccoca"; each company had to do its own R&D independently of any other company (AMC got a special exemption to buy emission control technology from other automakers). So it took longer and cost more than it otherwise would have.
And yes, it really did need to happen. The air first in major cities and then in minor ones really was filthy -- dangerously so -- in the '60s. Now, fifty-one years after the very first emission control device (PCV valve) first hit the roads in California, we have a whole lot more people driving a whole lot more cars a whole lot more miles…but the air is a whole hell of a lot cleaner. That would be a freakin' miracle except it's not. It's the result of a whole lot of very smart, talented men and women putting their brains to work on the problem.
The catalytic converter, often blamed for killing car performance in '75, in fact did the opposite. The '74s were detuned with retarded timing and lean jetting and high-dose EGR on the jagged edge of where the engine would even run (poorly, and with lousy driveability, performance, and economy) just to squeak past the 1974 Federal emissions type approval tests so they could be offered for sale. And "squeak" is exactly what they did; there would not have been any way of meeting the '75 standards without an effective catalytic converter. Once that was developed (just in time; read this interesting article), it gave back a lot of room to jet the carburetor and calibrate the spark timing for driveability, economy and performance again and let the catalyst clean up the resultant dirtier exhaust. Sure, there were some dumb early catalytic converter designs (GM's restrictive pellet-type units, Ford's half-system, etc.) but that all got figured out pretty fast, too.
No. That need has been obsolete for decades. Virtually everything on the road has hard valves and seats, and those few left that don't, will get them at next rebuild.
No, they'll last quite awhile on unleaded fuel in anything like stock-type service. If the exhaust valve seats go away sometime in the future, you have hard seats put in as part of the rebuild. It's routine and inexpensive; any machine shop competent and equipped to do a head rebuild at all would have to be competent and equipped to put in hard seats. Total non-issue. Obviously if you're running the motor harder than normal driving, that day will come sooner.
Tell me more about the (street) fuel you were burning, and when, in your turbocharged 15-pounds-of-boost slant-6 without detonation. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I would like more details, please.
I don't remember which well-respected engineer (maybe from Ford?) said it, but it was something like "From today's perspective, we designed and configured engines back then almost to run in spite of the lead in the gas!". Obviously that's not quite true (he said "almost") because there was the exhaust valve/seat issue, but the hard-seat cure was well known back then, hard seats being used routinely in engines running on propane, natural gas, etc. Lead was a cheap and effective octane booster, but it substantially worsened the fuel in other real ways.
There's a lot I don't see because I don't know what to look at/for, so I wouldn't recognize it on sight, y'dig? I am not an expert in motor fuels and emissions and such, but I do know a fair good bit about the subject -- enough to read and understand studies and news and technical documents on the subject. And one of the things I understand from having read and understood a lot of that kind of material on this subject is that while it was a rough ride in the beginning, in retrospect moving to unleaded has done only good things for the health and lifespan of vehicle engines. Leaded fuel craps up the combustion chambers and ports, because the scavengers don't burn cleanly, and without the scavengers the lead itself would accumulate in there and really ruin things. Spark plug life tripled with unleaded instead of leaded gasoline. Oil contamination likewise is much slower and less severe when the engine's running on unleaded instead of leaded. Also, exhaust system lifespan is much greater with unleaded than with leaded.
Actually...yes! There's been an enormous amount of brainpower and careful observation and study applied to that question, all over the world, for quite a lot of years now. The exhaust from vehicles burning leaded fuel is really and extremely destructive to the health of actual, real people in three main ways:
1. Because leaded fuel means no catalytic converter, the exhaust contains much higher concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides, all three of which are well known and shown, in concentrations well below those that existed in major American cities when all cars burned leaded fuel, to make healthy people sick and sick people sicker and sicker people dead sooner.
2. The lead itself accumulates progressively in humans. It is a neurotoxin and it causes and worsens a long and ugly list of very real diseases and other bad physical and mental health conditions. Many of these conditions used to be considered normal parts of life and advancing age, but then they took lead out of gasoline and the rates started going down and the age of onset started getting older.
3. The lead is toxic to the brain development of children, before and after they are born. Specifically, it degrades their ability to learn and it greatly increases their tendency towards violence and crime. The effect is not small, and once scientists caught a hint of what might be going on and took a long look, the data produced a graph of the decreasing crime-and-violence rate of particular age groups, which tracks damn near exactly with the graph of decreasing ambient lead levels, which tracks damn near exactly with the graph of the phaseout of lead from gasoline.
The data's published and easily available. It looks to me like very well done science, done without bias, and with conclusions repeatedly confirmed over the years and around the world. We owners and drivers of obsolete cars have to adapt to a world that caters for recent-model vehicles. Generally the adaptations are small and easy, and it is a small price to pay because absolutely everybody benefits enormously in length and quality of life from unleaded rather than leaded gasoline. It really, really is better this way than the way we used to do it.
More generally, remember there were a bunch of things going on all at the same time in the first half of the 1970s. It wasn't just the lead coming out of gasoline, it was also the new and rapidly tightening exhaust emission regulations, it was also the change from SAE Gross to SAE Net horsepower which made any given engine produce a lower number, it was also the change from gasoline pump octane labelling stating the RON to stating the AKI, which gives a number substantially below RON for fuel of any given knock resistance.
The difference is not small, it's large. For years, starting in the mid-late '50s, the standard octane rating of regular gas at sea level was 90 to 91. A 91-RON fuel will usually have an AKI of 87. Look around you…what's the octane of regular unleaded? It's 87! Likewise, the 91-93 octane premium unleaded is equivalent to about 97-99 RON. So the numbers really have not changed much at all. As for the "Super 100++" types of claims made back in the '50s, keep in mind octane regulations were a great deal looser as were truth-in-advertising laws at that time. But even if some of those fuels were in fact of 100+ actual RON, you can still get that kind of fuel today. It's not at every gas station, but a lot of Sunoco stations and some others have an extra-high-octane super premium (94 AKI, about 101-103 RON), and unleaded racing fuel is also available.
Gas mileage and performance was the pits for awhile there in the '70s to early '80s as automakers worked on figuring out how to clean up the exhaust effectively and with minimal detriment to fuel economy or performance and cheaply, all at the same time. They eventually figured it out; witness the cars we have today with 10:1 or higher compression, zero ping on common pump gasoline, perfect driveability, and clean exhaust. But for the first decade or so of serious emission control, they were playing catch-up bigtime, prevented by antitrust-paranoid legislators from forming an industry consortium to figure it out together. Read "Iaccoca"; each company had to do its own R&D independently of any other company (AMC got a special exemption to buy emission control technology from other automakers). So it took longer and cost more than it otherwise would have.
And yes, it really did need to happen. The air first in major cities and then in minor ones really was filthy -- dangerously so -- in the '60s. Now, fifty-one years after the very first emission control device (PCV valve) first hit the roads in California, we have a whole lot more people driving a whole lot more cars a whole lot more miles…but the air is a whole hell of a lot cleaner. That would be a freakin' miracle except it's not. It's the result of a whole lot of very smart, talented men and women putting their brains to work on the problem.
The catalytic converter, often blamed for killing car performance in '75, in fact did the opposite. The '74s were detuned with retarded timing and lean jetting and high-dose EGR on the jagged edge of where the engine would even run (poorly, and with lousy driveability, performance, and economy) just to squeak past the 1974 Federal emissions type approval tests so they could be offered for sale. And "squeak" is exactly what they did; there would not have been any way of meeting the '75 standards without an effective catalytic converter. Once that was developed (just in time; read this interesting article), it gave back a lot of room to jet the carburetor and calibrate the spark timing for driveability, economy and performance again and let the catalyst clean up the resultant dirtier exhaust. Sure, there were some dumb early catalytic converter designs (GM's restrictive pellet-type units, Ford's half-system, etc.) but that all got figured out pretty fast, too.
No. That need has been obsolete for decades. Virtually everything on the road has hard valves and seats, and those few left that don't, will get them at next rebuild.
No, they'll last quite awhile on unleaded fuel in anything like stock-type service. If the exhaust valve seats go away sometime in the future, you have hard seats put in as part of the rebuild. It's routine and inexpensive; any machine shop competent and equipped to do a head rebuild at all would have to be competent and equipped to put in hard seats. Total non-issue. Obviously if you're running the motor harder than normal driving, that day will come sooner.
Tell me more about the (street) fuel you were burning, and when, in your turbocharged 15-pounds-of-boost slant-6 without detonation. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I would like more details, please.
I don't remember which well-respected engineer (maybe from Ford?) said it, but it was something like "From today's perspective, we designed and configured engines back then almost to run in spite of the lead in the gas!". Obviously that's not quite true (he said "almost") because there was the exhaust valve/seat issue, but the hard-seat cure was well known back then, hard seats being used routinely in engines running on propane, natural gas, etc. Lead was a cheap and effective octane booster, but it substantially worsened the fuel in other real ways.
There's a lot I don't see because I don't know what to look at/for, so I wouldn't recognize it on sight, y'dig? I am not an expert in motor fuels and emissions and such, but I do know a fair good bit about the subject -- enough to read and understand studies and news and technical documents on the subject. And one of the things I understand from having read and understood a lot of that kind of material on this subject is that while it was a rough ride in the beginning, in retrospect moving to unleaded has done only good things for the health and lifespan of vehicle engines. Leaded fuel craps up the combustion chambers and ports, because the scavengers don't burn cleanly, and without the scavengers the lead itself would accumulate in there and really ruin things. Spark plug life tripled with unleaded instead of leaded gasoline. Oil contamination likewise is much slower and less severe when the engine's running on unleaded instead of leaded. Also, exhaust system lifespan is much greater with unleaded than with leaded.
Actually...yes! There's been an enormous amount of brainpower and careful observation and study applied to that question, all over the world, for quite a lot of years now. The exhaust from vehicles burning leaded fuel is really and extremely destructive to the health of actual, real people in three main ways:
1. Because leaded fuel means no catalytic converter, the exhaust contains much higher concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides, all three of which are well known and shown, in concentrations well below those that existed in major American cities when all cars burned leaded fuel, to make healthy people sick and sick people sicker and sicker people dead sooner.
2. The lead itself accumulates progressively in humans. It is a neurotoxin and it causes and worsens a long and ugly list of very real diseases and other bad physical and mental health conditions. Many of these conditions used to be considered normal parts of life and advancing age, but then they took lead out of gasoline and the rates started going down and the age of onset started getting older.
3. The lead is toxic to the brain development of children, before and after they are born. Specifically, it degrades their ability to learn and it greatly increases their tendency towards violence and crime. The effect is not small, and once scientists caught a hint of what might be going on and took a long look, the data produced a graph of the decreasing crime-and-violence rate of particular age groups, which tracks damn near exactly with the graph of decreasing ambient lead levels, which tracks damn near exactly with the graph of the phaseout of lead from gasoline.
The data's published and easily available. It looks to me like very well done science, done without bias, and with conclusions repeatedly confirmed over the years and around the world. We owners and drivers of obsolete cars have to adapt to a world that caters for recent-model vehicles. Generally the adaptations are small and easy, and it is a small price to pay because absolutely everybody benefits enormously in length and quality of life from unleaded rather than leaded gasoline. It really, really is better this way than the way we used to do it.
I had a number of things wrong, and you corrected them. Thanks for that! I knew I could count on you for the straight scoop.
I appreciate it.
I, of course, had no turbocharged slant six back when leaded fuel was available; that was just a hypothetical question. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Sunoco doesn't operate in Arkansas, so the high-octane blends of which you speak are not available here. I would love to switch my turbo motor over to E-85 for the alleged octane content, but all I hear is how inconsistent the octane really is, because of errors in manufacturing. The ratio of alcohol to gasolline apparently varies greatly, from batch-to-batch. That may work OK in a 2012-model year "flex-fuel" vehicle which has an onboard computer to deal with octane variations and varied mixture requirements, but my series 4150 blow-thru Holley doesen't embody that flexibility; it is what it is.
So, E-85 is not an option for me.
It's all crutches and band-aids, to ward off the ol' demon, detonation.
Please pass the tetraethyl lead...rayer:rayer:rayer:rayer:
I appreciate it.
I, of course, had no turbocharged slant six back when leaded fuel was available; that was just a hypothetical question. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Sunoco doesn't operate in Arkansas, so the high-octane blends of which you speak are not available here. I would love to switch my turbo motor over to E-85 for the alleged octane content, but all I hear is how inconsistent the octane really is, because of errors in manufacturing. The ratio of alcohol to gasolline apparently varies greatly, from batch-to-batch. That may work OK in a 2012-model year "flex-fuel" vehicle which has an onboard computer to deal with octane variations and varied mixture requirements, but my series 4150 blow-thru Holley doesen't embody that flexibility; it is what it is.
So, E-85 is not an option for me.
It's all crutches and band-aids, to ward off the ol' demon, detonation.
Please pass the tetraethyl lead...
rayer:rayer:rayer:rayer:
I just remembered this:
When I moved to California in 1980, California had no vehicle (smog) inspection program. None...
I purchased a year-old, 1980 Ford Fairmont from a car rental agency (HERTZ) that came equipped with a 200 cubic inch inline six.
It was tuned to factory specs, had 28,000 miles on it and took a leisurely 17 seconds to run 0-60-mph.
I did a couple of things (replaced the cataytic converter with a J.C. Whitney "test pipe," disabled the egr valve, and bumped the ignition timing up a few degrees. I'm pretty sure that's al I did.
The results were dramatic.
The 0-60 time dropped from 17 seconds to 12, and the engine was a lot more responsive. That's a decrease of 30-percent in the 0-60 time.
I felt like Don Garlits.
Two years later, California enacted smog control testing, and I had to put all that stuff back to "stock," but, for awhile, there was Camelot. :blob:
When I moved to California in 1980, California had no vehicle (smog) inspection program. None...
I purchased a year-old, 1980 Ford Fairmont from a car rental agency (HERTZ) that came equipped with a 200 cubic inch inline six.
It was tuned to factory specs, had 28,000 miles on it and took a leisurely 17 seconds to run 0-60-mph.
I did a couple of things (replaced the cataytic converter with a J.C. Whitney "test pipe," disabled the egr valve, and bumped the ignition timing up a few degrees. I'm pretty sure that's al I did.
The results were dramatic.
The 0-60 time dropped from 17 seconds to 12, and the engine was a lot more responsive. That's a decrease of 30-percent in the 0-60 time.
I felt like Don Garlits.
Two years later, California enacted smog control testing, and I had to put all that stuff back to "stock," but, for awhile, there was Camelot. :blob:
sleeper-oem
Well-Known Member
I love these old adds the commercials where great too.
/6 Matt
30 Degrees Crooked
This has become a very informative and further more interesting thread!
I want more!!! :happy1:
I want more!!! :happy1:
GaryS
Well-Known Member
A friend who spent over forty years in the refining business says regulation is the biggest expense in producing gasoline. Not just all the EPA, OSHA and state requirements, but the need to create and control dozens of different blends for different parts of the country, and to comply with blend regulations that change with the seasons.
The Three Affiliated Tribes have been trying to build a new refinery on their reservation in North Dakota, and have been slogging through the permitting process for about ten years. Millions have been spent, and they just recently broke ground. That expense, and actual construction costs, will have to be amortized for years to come.
A huge part of the cost of crude also goes to transportation. Bakken crude is some of the best sweet, light crude in the world, but the similar Brent crude pays roughly thirty percent more at the wellhead. Just like ethenol has been forced upon us, we are forced into using rail transportation to move much of North Dakota's oil, instead of more efficient pipelines. A certain unnamed billionaire, whose holdings happen to include a lot of rail tank cars, is said to have used his influence to delay the construction of a major pipeline between ND and a crude oil distribution center in Cushing OK.
Ever increasing taxes at all levels of production have also been a huge contributor to the hidden cost of gas as it moves from the ground to the pump.
The Three Affiliated Tribes have been trying to build a new refinery on their reservation in North Dakota, and have been slogging through the permitting process for about ten years. Millions have been spent, and they just recently broke ground. That expense, and actual construction costs, will have to be amortized for years to come.
A huge part of the cost of crude also goes to transportation. Bakken crude is some of the best sweet, light crude in the world, but the similar Brent crude pays roughly thirty percent more at the wellhead. Just like ethenol has been forced upon us, we are forced into using rail transportation to move much of North Dakota's oil, instead of more efficient pipelines. A certain unnamed billionaire, whose holdings happen to include a lot of rail tank cars, is said to have used his influence to delay the construction of a major pipeline between ND and a crude oil distribution center in Cushing OK.
Ever increasing taxes at all levels of production have also been a huge contributor to the hidden cost of gas as it moves from the ground to the pump.
-
