318 MAX fuel economy builds?

-
Just my two cents, but I would just hit the easy button and run a set of magnum heads. Closed chamber, port velocity, hardened seats, and flow is already baked in for what you are trying to do. Have a good valve job done and run them.
My thought here is the Mag ports are 360 size and my manifold is 318 size Edelbrock performer. I don't want to run the larger intake manifolds as I want to keep the velocity in the manifold high but not restrictive. Are the factory rockers on the Magnum engines adjustible?
 
The magnum heads port window are a closer match to the regular performer intake size than the LA 318 or LA 360 heads. Both are in between the 318 and 360 size ports.

The stock magnum rockers are not adjustable, but adjustable ones are not terribly expensive since a/m chevy rockers will work by installing a screw in conversion rocker stud in the magnum head.
 
The magnum heads port window are a closer match to the regular performer intake size than the LA 318 or LA 360 heads. Both are in between the 318 and 360 size ports.

The stock magnum rockers are not adjustable, but adjustable ones are not terribly expensive since a/m chevy rockers will work by installing a screw in conversion rocker stud in the magnum head.
That's good information. Thank you!
 
Maybe if they didn't castrate the 360s with dished pistons, huge combustion chambers and abysmal CR maybe I could feel better about 360s in general.

I am so tired of the 318 bashing, around here.

(my own experience anyway) I've had better service out of 318s over 360s. Also in my experience a 360 is more likely to be caked with sludge when the valve covers are pulled than in a 318. I don't know why that is. Just MY experience with them.
I've seen cars with big blocks easily out do 360s if mileage is a concern.
Ive also had Dakotas with 3.9s and otherwise identical Dakota's with 318s and the 318 was more likely to drive past the gas station than the 3.9.

I knew a guy a few years ago who had (sorry GM content) a 70 3/4 ton truck with a 292 inline 6. He's had this truck for years. Always complaining about mpg, no matter what he did with it. He got the hair brained idea to put a 455 in it out of an Olds wagon and was quite surprised mileage actually got better.... same rear end, same tire size.
So yes a bigger engine can mean better mileage and more power as well....
I've been driving since 83 and have NEVER owned anything but Chrysler products in my life. And not interested in starting to buy something different now. But if a vehicle came along that I otherwise liked, was in reasonably good shape but it had a 360 in it vs some other choice I wouldn't let that keep me from buying, but they're not my 1st choice.
 
Yes, but my head porting book was published in 2011, not 40 years ago. I appreciate you thinking of me though. Just for reference, here's mine:
Amazon product ASIN 1534919570
I was set to graduate HS in 1985 and my Diesel shop teacher was a drag racer. He said if I took diesel I could rebuild my first 440 at school. He taught me to port heads and I got a book on porting from him and a pocket dyno. I will look for both this weekend in my shop. I'm halfway through my read now and nothing I have read so far is changing my initial build plans. Great book, Thanks!!!
 
The magnum heads port window are a closer match to the regular performer intake size than the LA 318 or LA 360 heads. Both are in between the 318 and 360 size ports.

The stock magnum rockers are not adjustable, but adjustable ones are not terribly expensive since a/m chevy rockers will work by installing a screw in conversion rocker stud in the magnum head.
I actually have a set of magnum heads but I gave the block to a friend and I already lined up a set of 920 heads for my project. I'll get them cleaned up and have the 11/32 guides installed and have my seats opened and nitrate treated. Then I'll get started implementing info from the book into my heads. My next thing is which size valves do I use? Will the chevy 1.84 intake valves fit? Then 1.60 exh?
 
Yes, but my head porting book was published in 2011, not 40 years ago. I appreciate you thinking of me though. Just for reference, here's mine:
Amazon product ASIN 1534919570
Hey! Just got your book. Haven’t opened up a page yet as I’m busy as heck, so the delay is warranted because I like to read in peace without interruptions! Can’t stand picking up and putting a book down a hundred times.
 
I haven't gotten 20 with my 273 or my Teen 2 barrel but I can get 18-19 pretty steady. I run a 3.23 gear and 255-60 15 tires. I have a LD4B and a AVS2 for the 318 that I might put on one of these years. I might be able to get a little more performance and not sacrifice highway mileage.
I still think the key to good mileage is to keep the cruise rpm below 2000 for a stock engine.
 
Here are a couple pics for the carb guys to disect. One of these boosters is a drop leg one is a annular discharge from a 1906 and the other two come from the off road versions which are different and they claim are as close to FI as you can get. I have a 1916 on my car. #1 1406 #2 1906 #3 1916 #4 1913 800 cfm.

What are peoples thoughts and experience on these different booster methods?

3251406_L1450_ac46ee24-59de-4e45-be6f-90f4b1f69b9b.jpg


1906_edelbrock-vergaser-thunder-series-avs-2-650cfm-1906-elektr-choke_5.png


915d83dd-9169-41fd-986d-1d2ceb8d3c1e.__CR270,96,960,960_PT0_SX300_V1___.jpg


7D2B8350-1D07-4004-96C6-7CD53773FB4D.jpeg
 
What Ignition was used?
Factory Magnum. All the parts are high-end, like a cap and rotor with brass terminals, Accel coil, etc, but nothing exotic.

Car runs awesome, almost too good actually. With the EFI and computer controlled OD transmission the drivetrain doesn't really have a vintage car personality anymore.
 
Factory Magnum. All the parts are high-end, like a cap and rotor with brass terminals, Accel coil, etc, but nothing exotic.

Car runs awesome, almost too good actually. With the EFI and computer controlled OD transmission the drivetrain doesn't really have a vintage car personality anymore.
What is involved to get the computer transmission connected and controlled in a vintage car? I got an A-500 with the lever kick down and will control it with fully adj pressure switches and vacuum kick downs for both the od and the lock up so they drop individually rather than losing both simultaneously like some are hooked up.
 
@Dmopower I have found that the ratio’s in the “2’s” will get the 20+MPG. The 3.23’s even with large tires get close but I haven’t seen a cigar from them yet. Probably so with and OD!
I’m waiting on autopar3000’s reply as I’d like to know as well. Though I’m sure it’s answered in the Magnum swap section. I have an older Hyd A-500 for use later.

The OEM FI is hard to beat on many fronts. But I think it looses against a carb in that the intake charge is cooler with the fuel running down the runners and as long as it is well atomized and running lean, you’ll get the mileage.

The straight, down leg and annular boost are all capable of delivering good mileage but it’s at a mostly closed throttle. @AJ/FormS was saying earlier, barely having the throttle cracked open is where cruise needs to happen for the carb which is crazy hard if the car needs rpm to stay at speed.

The annular booster has a nice response when the throttle is opened up as much to activate it. This is much more throttle opening than you want and anytime. At least in a mileage search.

I’ve run the straight and annular boosters. I don’t remember if I had a down leg Holley. The Carters are so far down the crab throat though not in the barrel itself, it’s like a catch 22 if it’s a down leg or not. LMAO

Autopar3000, I tried a MSD on my Dakota for an edge in mileage. That’s all it delivered. If the best you have gotten is 19.6, I hesitate to suggest a MSD, but it could put you over the edge. Open up the plug gap until there is an issue. I routinely used a .055 gap in my ‘03 V6 Dakota.

I did edge 20 on rare occasions. But it was not the norm. Like you, a solid 19 was the best it got on an otherwise dead stock truck. The weight was in the mid 4K.

I’d also live without the old car engine feel for a V8 OEM FI drivetrain. It’s worth it IMO.
 
Rumblefish360. What are your thoughts on the Power aid 1" 4 hole spacer?

AIR-100-701.jpg
 
Last edited:
Long post, but ideas for better fuel economy-
1) Ignition system upgrades:
- The late '80s engines would already have a breakerless ignition.
- As for distributor cap, use only brass terminal versions. Both Blue Streak and NAPA's Belden brands offer brass terminal distributor caps. Use the rotor for the cap.
- Make sure the coil is robust. Older coils may not output sufficient energy for an effective spark.
- If you choose an aftermarket coil, be sure you either use a ceramic resistor, or choose a coil with dwell requirements compatible with the factory coil and ignition module. Too much dwell will burn out a high performance coil, while insufficient dwell will deliver a milk-toast spark.
- Pulstar Plugs pack a more powerful punch than standard plugs. They incorporate a mild "Peaking Cap" that delivers a significantly more intense spark (Home - Pulstar Spark Plugs).
- Peaking Caps are relatively small capacitance capacitors (I've tested 150 pF upwards of 1000 pF) rated at a substantially high voltage (don't even think about using anything rated at less than 20 kV). 150-320 pF should be ample. They are placed in parallel to a NON-RESISTOR spark plug. Typical resistor plugs won't see any difference in the spark intensity. One lead of the cap goes to the ignition wire-to-plug connection (or COP-to-plug connection), and the other lead goes to ground.
- NGK, Champion, Autolite, Bosch, etc versions of "non-resistor" spark plugs still have about 1k ohms of resistance, while their normal resistor plugs have about 10k ohms. Brisk non-resistor plugs start at about 210 ohms (measured) for their "cheapies" down to less than 1 ohm for their Silver Aircraft No-Outer-Electrode plugs.
- Typical ignition wires have between 1k and 1.2k ohms per foot. An old hot-rod trick was to use solid core wires. Resistive wires were adopted due to AM radio interference from solid core wires. Modern computer controlled engines cannot run with solid core wires, as the EMF/RFI scrambles sensor signals rendering the ECU useless.... Granatelli discovered a way to use solid core wires in modern engines by incorporating an EMF/RFI suppression ferrite ring. The Granatelli wires are blue, but they also sell the same technology under the MPG Plus brand with a green jacket.
- Platinum makes for an excellent catalyst, but by nature lowers the voltage threshold requirement to initiate a spark jump to the point where substantially less fuel is ignited. The same can be said for other catalyst metals like iridium and probably ruthenium. Old fashioned copper core plugs with inconel electrodes deliver a higher spark intensity. The benefit of catalyst (platinum/iridium) electrodes is their ability to last 200k miles.
- Assuming your coil is capable, increasing spark gap will increase spark intensity. Some hot-rodders would jam a square of toilet paper into the distributor cap coil terminal to increase overall secondary ignition gap/resistance, which yielded a higher intensity spark.
- A much more thorough explanation can be found at https://www.ecoceptor.com/MPGenie/ignition
2) Engine Considerations:
- First and foremost is the engine must be in good working condition. Cracked or worn rings that leak could never deliver the desired results. If a compression test delivers consistent healthy results, then move forward with confidence. If not, you may be spinning your wheels chasing an elusive and unobtainable goal.
- As the dynamic compression ratio is increased, the flame propagation rate is increased as well. This helps convert more of the chemical energy in the fuel to kinetic energy at the flywheel (in dyno terms, it's BSFC; in other words, better fuel economy); within the tolerance of the fuel (more shortly).
- The inverse of addition is subtraction. The inverse of multiplication is division. The inverse of the compression ratio is the expansion ratio. Increased static compression equals greater expansion ratio. George Arlington Moor pioneered a process of using a 16:1 static compression ratio with a custom camshaft profile that extended the intake lobe closing event to half way up on the compression stroke. The dynamic compression ratio was a tolerable 8:1, but the expansion ratio was an advantageous 16:1 (look at how much more efficient diesel engines are with their 22:1 compression ratios versus gas engines with 9:1). Furthermore, this process would draw in an atomized air/fuel charge, swirl it around in a hot cylinder, vaporize some of the atomized fuel, then regurgitate some of it back into the intake plenum making it available for the next cylinder in the firing order as a more combustible mix. Mike Brown created a kit for popular Chrysler 360, Ford 302, and Chevy 350 engines back in the 1980's that included pistons and camshaft that utilized Moore's concept. The Toyota Prius uses the Atkins Cycle in their engines, similar to what Moore developed.
- The engine has many parasites; oil pump, water pump, windage, valve springs, friction, etc. If a stock oil pump keeps the engine alive, a high volume/pressure pump only creates additional parasites. If you only intend to rev the engine to 3800 RPM, high pressure valve springs only act as additional parasites. If the oil pump-to-block passages couldn't pass as identical twins, there will be flow restrictions increasing parasitic losses. You may want to port match oil/coolant passages. Casting flash that would cause flow restrictions in an intake or exhaust port could also cause restrictions in oil/coolant passages as well. This costs energy consumption.
- 30+ years ago I built a 360 using 318 cam, 318 open chamber heads (because the 302's weren't out yet), 318 intake & carb, and 318 exhaust manifolds. It was a 0.030" overbore using 1971 flat top pistons (no dish). As I recall, it ended up with a 10.8:1 static compression ratio. It was installed in a 1974 W-150 pick-up. It got 23-24 MPG HWY, and could pull a house on 87 octane fuel (quote from the truck owner).
3) Cylinder heads:
- Higher port velocities = higher efficiencies (BSFC). This has been extensively covered by the likes of David Vizard, Larry Widmer-TheOldOne, and numerous others. It isn't just port size, but eliminating dead zones where fuel can fall out of suspension.
- Abnormal protrusions can capture liquid fuel droplets and condense them into a small stream. Casting flash and machining marks can cost performance & economy. Simply smoothing a port can enhance both. Pay special attention to the valve guide areas, as well as the bowl transitions.
- Way back in the 1950's, OEMs found the benefits of "squish pads", where the piston almost smacks into a flat surface in the cylinder head. Look at early BB and 273 heads. For NOx emissions reasons, they abandoned the squish pad for open chamber heads from the mid 1960's till the late 1980's. The topic of 318 "302" heads (swirl port) involves not only higher compression -- tolerant to low octane fuel, but also reduced emissions (with the added benefit of better fuel economy and usable power). They have the venerable "squish pad".
- In the combustion chamber, sharp edges are your enemy. Look up "The Coanda Effect". Rounding sharp edges in the combustion chamber will allow the flame front to flow from one zone to another with less effort, promoting better flame propagation.
- Spend some time on "www.TheOldOne.com" to see how Larry Widmer built a minuscule 1.8 liter Honda engine, 13:1 static compression, 30# turbo boost, on 93 octane pump gas, and made over 500 HP, and got over 80 MPG!!!
- Intake port textures are critical. It has been known for several decades. Rough textures promote an exaggerated boundary layer. This forces the flow of air/fuel towards the center of the port, keeps the charge excited, and velocities high. Much discussion has been exchanged on using 40 or even 30 grit sanding rolls on intake ports to create a rough texture. There are also threads discussing using bent-bit chatter to create scallops in the surface. I personally developed what I called Powre Lynz that put "screw threads" into the intake port. The benefits are a variable boundary layer that responds positively to engine demands, better fuel suspension in the charge, and it will better vaporize fuel droplets that fall out of suspension and reintroduce them into the intake charge stream. Many CNC head porters now (thanks to me introducing David Vizard to my Powre Lynz) use a small ball bit and course resolution to create "ocean waves" in the intake ports.
ports1.jpg

- You NEVER want a larger port from one component to lead into a smaller port in another component. The entire flow path includes the carburetor to intake manifold, to cylinder head intake port, to exhaust port, to exhaust manifold, to exhaust pipe path. Using a spread bore carb on a square bore intake creates unwanted obstruction. Using a 360/340 intake manifold with 318/273 heads creates unwanted obstruction. In the cylinder head, make sure the exhaust port in the combustion chamber is unshrouded (matched to the cylinder bore). Ideally, the intake manifold ports should be exactly the same dimensions as the ports in the cylinder head (as the "port" is continuous from manifold to head). The same for exhaust ports. The compromise when porting is to make the leading part port 1-2 mm smaller then the receiving part. In other words, the intake manifold port is 1-2 mm smaller than the port in the cylinder head. This prevents manifold alignment issues from creating unwanted port mismatch turbulence.
4) Induction-
- The concept is wet versus dry flow. Carburetors and TBI systems flow the entire intake tract wet -- air and fuel. Port fuel induction systems flow mostly dry, but still a portion of the tract wet. GDI flows only air, where the fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber. Since the discussion is about a late '80s carbureted 318, the topic of focus is on wet flow throughout the entire intake tract.
- Many inventions/patents have focused on putting a screen or other "diffuser" under the carb to break larger fuel droplets into smaller droplets. I experimented with stainless screens with varying spacing, and different approach angles. My test bed was a '70 Duster with a 225 I custom built. It had a Super-6 2-bbl intake manifold. Using carb screens, I was able to squeak out 29.4 MPG best (well over my 18 MPG baseline). Later I found the Power Plate which was a 1" aluminum spacer that mounted between the carb and intake. It featured tapered cones under the carb bores with a 20 pitch screw thread. The body was heated with engine coolant. To install it, I had to remove my carb screen. Needless to say, I went from a best of 29~ MPG to 44.7 MPG!! Normal driving was still in the mid- to high-30 MPG range.
powerplate1.jpg


powerplate2.jpg

[Wow, long post. Should quit for now.]
 
Long post, but ideas for better fuel economy-
1) Ignition system upgrades:
- The late '80s engines would already have a breakerless ignition.
- As for distributor cap, use only brass terminal versions. Both Blue Streak and NAPA's Belden brands offer brass terminal distributor caps. Use the rotor for the cap.
- Make sure the coil is robust. Older coils may not output sufficient energy for an effective spark.
- If you choose an aftermarket coil, be sure you either use a ceramic resistor, or choose a coil with dwell requirements compatible with the factory coil and ignition module. Too much dwell will burn out a high performance coil, while insufficient dwell will deliver a milk-toast spark.
- Pulstar Plugs pack a more powerful punch than standard plugs. They incorporate a mild "Peaking Cap" that delivers a significantly more intense spark (Home - Pulstar Spark Plugs).
- Peaking Caps are relatively small capacitance capacitors (I've tested 150 pF upwards of 1000 pF) rated at a substantially high voltage (don't even think about using anything rated at less than 20 kV). 150-320 pF should be ample. They are placed in parallel to a NON-RESISTOR spark plug. Typical resistor plugs won't see any difference in the spark intensity. One lead of the cap goes to the ignition wire-to-plug connection (or COP-to-plug connection), and the other lead goes to ground.
- NGK, Champion, Autolite, Bosch, etc versions of "non-resistor" spark plugs still have about 1k ohms of resistance, while their normal resistor plugs have about 10k ohms. Brisk non-resistor plugs start at about 210 ohms (measured) for their "cheapies" down to less than 1 ohm for their Silver Aircraft No-Outer-Electrode plugs.
- Typical ignition wires have between 1k and 1.2k ohms per foot. An old hot-rod trick was to use solid core wires. Resistive wires were adopted due to AM radio interference from solid core wires. Modern computer controlled engines cannot run with solid core wires, as the EMF/RFI scrambles sensor signals rendering the ECU useless.... Granatelli discovered a way to use solid core wires in modern engines by incorporating an EMF/RFI suppression ferrite ring. The Granatelli wires are blue, but they also sell the same technology under the MPG Plus brand with a green jacket.
- Platinum makes for an excellent catalyst, but by nature lowers the voltage threshold requirement to initiate a spark jump to the point where substantially less fuel is ignited. The same can be said for other catalyst metals like iridium and probably ruthenium. Old fashioned copper core plugs with inconel electrodes deliver a higher spark intensity. The benefit of catalyst (platinum/iridium) electrodes is their ability to last 200k miles.
- Assuming your coil is capable, increasing spark gap will increase spark intensity. Some hot-rodders would jam a square of toilet paper into the distributor cap coil terminal to increase overall secondary ignition gap/resistance, which yielded a higher intensity spark.
- A much more thorough explanation can be found at https://www.ecoceptor.com/MPGenie/ignition
2) Engine Considerations:
- First and foremost is the engine must be in good working condition. Cracked or worn rings that leak could never deliver the desired results. If a compression test delivers consistent healthy results, then move forward with confidence. If not, you may be spinning your wheels chasing an elusive and unobtainable goal.
- As the dynamic compression ratio is increased, the flame propagation rate is increased as well. This helps convert more of the chemical energy in the fuel to kinetic energy at the flywheel (in dyno terms, it's BSFC; in other words, better fuel economy); within the tolerance of the fuel (more shortly).
- The inverse of addition is subtraction. The inverse of multiplication is division. The inverse of the compression ratio is the expansion ratio. Increased static compression equals greater expansion ratio. George Arlington Moor pioneered a process of using a 16:1 static compression ratio with a custom camshaft profile that extended the intake lobe closing event to half way up on the compression stroke. The dynamic compression ratio was a tolerable 8:1, but the expansion ratio was an advantageous 16:1 (look at how much more efficient diesel engines are with their 22:1 compression ratios versus gas engines with 9:1). Furthermore, this process would draw in an atomized air/fuel charge, swirl it around in a hot cylinder, vaporize some of the atomized fuel, then regurgitate some of it back into the intake plenum making it available for the next cylinder in the firing order as a more combustible mix. Mike Brown created a kit for popular Chrysler 360, Ford 302, and Chevy 350 engines back in the 1980's that included pistons and camshaft that utilized Moore's concept. The Toyota Prius uses the Atkins Cycle in their engines, similar to what Moore developed.
- The engine has many parasites; oil pump, water pump, windage, valve springs, friction, etc. If a stock oil pump keeps the engine alive, a high volume/pressure pump only creates additional parasites. If you only intend to rev the engine to 3800 RPM, high pressure valve springs only act as additional parasites. If the oil pump-to-block passages couldn't pass as identical twins, there will be flow restrictions increasing parasitic losses. You may want to port match oil/coolant passages. Casting flash that would cause flow restrictions in an intake or exhaust port could also cause restrictions in oil/coolant passages as well. This costs energy consumption.
- 30+ years ago I built a 360 using 318 cam, 318 open chamber heads (because the 302's weren't out yet), 318 intake & carb, and 318 exhaust manifolds. It was a 0.030" overbore using 1971 flat top pistons (no dish). As I recall, it ended up with a 10.8:1 static compression ratio. It was installed in a 1974 W-150 pick-up. It got 23-24 MPG HWY, and could pull a house on 87 octane fuel (quote from the truck owner).
3) Cylinder heads:
- Higher port velocities = higher efficiencies (BSFC). This has been extensively covered by the likes of David Vizard, Larry Widmer-TheOldOne, and numerous others. It isn't just port size, but eliminating dead zones where fuel can fall out of suspension.
- Abnormal protrusions can capture liquid fuel droplets and condense them into a small stream. Casting flash and machining marks can cost performance & economy. Simply smoothing a port can enhance both. Pay special attention to the valve guide areas, as well as the bowl transitions.
- Way back in the 1950's, OEMs found the benefits of "squish pads", where the piston almost smacks into a flat surface in the cylinder head. Look at early BB and 273 heads. For NOx emissions reasons, they abandoned the squish pad for open chamber heads from the mid 1960's till the late 1980's. The topic of 318 "302" heads (swirl port) involves not only higher compression -- tolerant to low octane fuel, but also reduced emissions (with the added benefit of better fuel economy and usable power). They have the venerable "squish pad".
- In the combustion chamber, sharp edges are your enemy. Look up "The Coanda Effect". Rounding sharp edges in the combustion chamber will allow the flame front to flow from one zone to another with less effort, promoting better flame propagation.
- Spend some time on "www.TheOldOne.com" to see how Larry Widmer built a minuscule 1.8 liter Honda engine, 13:1 static compression, 30# turbo boost, on 93 octane pump gas, and made over 500 HP, and got over 80 MPG!!!
- Intake port textures are critical. It has been known for several decades. Rough textures promote an exaggerated boundary layer. This forces the flow of air/fuel towards the center of the port, keeps the charge excited, and velocities high. Much discussion has been exchanged on using 40 or even 30 grit sanding rolls on intake ports to create a rough texture. There are also threads discussing using bent-bit chatter to create scallops in the surface. I personally developed what I called Powre Lynz that put "screw threads" into the intake port. The benefits are a variable boundary layer that responds positively to engine demands, better fuel suspension in the charge, and it will better vaporize fuel droplets that fall out of suspension and reintroduce them into the intake charge stream. Many CNC head porters now (thanks to me introducing David Vizard to my Powre Lynz) use a small ball bit and course resolution to create "ocean waves" in the intake ports.
View attachment 1716017513
- You NEVER want a larger port from one component to lead into a smaller port in another component. The entire flow path includes the carburetor to intake manifold, to cylinder head intake port, to exhaust port, to exhaust manifold, to exhaust pipe path. Using a spread bore carb on a square bore intake creates unwanted obstruction. Using a 360/340 intake manifold with 318/273 heads creates unwanted obstruction. In the cylinder head, make sure the exhaust port in the combustion chamber is unshrouded (matched to the cylinder bore). Ideally, the intake manifold ports should be exactly the same dimensions as the ports in the cylinder head (as the "port" is continuous from manifold to head). The same for exhaust ports. The compromise when porting is to make the leading part port 1-2 mm smaller then the receiving part. In other words, the intake manifold port is 1-2 mm smaller than the port in the cylinder head. This prevents manifold alignment issues from creating unwanted port mismatch turbulence.
4) Induction-
- The concept is wet versus dry flow. Carburetors and TBI systems flow the entire intake tract wet -- air and fuel. Port fuel induction systems flow mostly dry, but still a portion of the tract wet. GDI flows only air, where the fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber. Since the discussion is about a late '80s carbureted 318, the topic of focus is on wet flow throughout the entire intake tract.
- Many inventions/patents have focused on putting a screen or other "diffuser" under the carb to break larger fuel droplets into smaller droplets. I experimented with stainless screens with varying spacing, and different approach angles. My test bed was a '70 Duster with a 225 I custom built. It had a Super-6 2-bbl intake manifold. Using carb screens, I was able to squeak out 29.4 MPG best (well over my 18 MPG baseline). Later I found the Power Plate which was a 1" aluminum spacer that mounted between the carb and intake. It featured tapered cones under the carb bores with a 20 pitch screw thread. The body was heated with engine coolant. To install it, I had to remove my carb screen. Needless to say, I went from a best of 29~ MPG to 44.7 MPG!! Normal driving was still in the mid- to high-30 MPG range.
View attachment 1716017514

View attachment 1716017515
[Wow, long post. Should quit for now.]
One AJ is enough around here. lol
 
Is that a compliment??
Neither that or an insult. I was simply commenting on the lengthy post. AJ already does tons of them. I'm just too lazy to read them. The information though is much appreciated, regardless. It was tongue in cheek.
 
Rumblefish360. What are your thoughts on the Power aid 1" 4 hole spacer?

I have not used one. I read there claims. The thought process is interesting. But in most every case concerning spacers, I say try it and find out because you really don’t know if it works. When I say that, it falls into my most mentioned statement, “combo dependent.”

What I have learned for my combos over the years is sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t and I’m left scratching my head as to why. Sure, I can say a 4 hole spacer added torque and an open added top end HP, but this in general knowledge is known and works most of the time. It’s when it doesn’t.

Inside the intake manifold is utter chaos. Even though the cylinder firing order is constant. A single plane is the craziest and the bigger the plenum, the wilder it gets. But there out of the mileage manifolds IMO.

On the dual plane, things are more predictable and directional. We all get how the runners are divided up for that 180* firing order and each side gets turned on and off on the drawing of air and fuel from the carburetor. That said, considering the goal, the question of the picture spacer being better or not than a standard 4 hole spacer is something I can not predict.

Now on to read mpgmikes reply.
 
One AJ is enough around here. lol
But this is not a repetitive post.
It’s too much for them to get their heads around all that info. You need to dumb it down.
IMO, it’s length of post. Or at least for myself it is. I have to take breaks from reading a computer screen. Lack of paragraphs and punctuation are the hardest posts to read.
Neither that or an insult. I was simply commenting on the lengthy post. AJ already does tons of them. I'm just too lazy to read them. The information though is much appreciated, regardless. It was tongue in cheek.
Ha ha ha, I got the humor.
 
@mpgmike

Whew! Big read indeed! But well worth the first half I got through. A quick reply and I’m back to read. If I don’t make a mention now, I might forget it later LOL.

Earlier in the thread I was not all for the smaller 302 head on top of the 360 because I could t see the port in my head. I did have a set, but never got to know it.

For me, it was/is the shape of the intake port & how well it will effectively flow the air and more so the fuel. As cast. If the head is ported, then everything is out the window and depends on the porters abilities and end qualities of the cylinder head.

Not knowing this and thinking more on a level that most people will try this kind of project with as cast parts and a lean wallet. Just simply doing the best they can with what they got and not being able to afford much.

(Coffee break and back to your post.)
 
I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around this with just a heated carb spacer.

I went from a best of 29~ MPG to 44.7 MPG!! Normal driving was still in the mid- to high-30 MPG range.

Still, getting extreme gas mileage out of a /6 is great. The intake manifold is a hard thing to get right much less great for mileage endeavors. The best two ports being the center, the worst and honestly horrific port are the outside runners. The /6 intake is about as good as it got. Just thinking how the early ones were 90* turn logs.
 
-
Back
Top