318 MAX fuel economy builds?

-
Never would've guessed so many people would be highly intrigued and invested in a max fuel economy build over a max performance build. Really cool to see the communities brains come together in my post. 
 
So what I'm thinking for starters is taking an old 78 318 I have, deburr the whole block and put glytal on the inside for better oil return increasing longevity, maybe find a good set of 302 heads and do a little cleaning up in the bowl area and valve guide area. Get a Isky More-A-Mile camshaft paired with a good set of flat top hypereutectic flat top pistons (maybe in the 10.5:1 area?) I managed to find an Edelbrock SP2P 2 barrel intake so that decreases intake weight and helps with low end power as well, maybe headers? Maybe not I'll need some input on the exhaust aspect, a Stromberg WWC 2 barrel I have from a 361 big block with maybe OD auto trans and 3.55s out back? Rough thoughts I can go further into detail but thoughts? Inputs?
 
gagembassett said:
Never would've guessed so many people would be highly intrigued and invested in a max fuel economy build over a max performance build. Really cool to see the communities brains come together in my post. 
Click to expand...
It's refreshing to look at things in another direction. As fuel prices rise, mileage become more of a issue. How many threads start here with a "cam for my 318" question and end up talking about 400+horse builds. Not everybody wants or needs maximum performance. Those big cube hot rods often times get overbuilt and although they are fun to drive, you don't usually drive them 4 hours to a out of state car show. Also, there is a limit to how much horsepower you can hook up on the street. It can be a waste.
 
Hysteric said:
Guess that settles it then. David Vizard all the way back in 1960 or 1970 proved large droplets make the most power. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
THAT is NOT what I said. I said he figured out from racing, by accident, that a carb that they used which produced large droplets, WORKED with a SPECIFIC COMBUSTION CHAMBER.

What the hell is the matter with you?

Don't misquote people.

That is liberal manipulation.

That **** doesn't fly.
 
toolmanmike said:
It's refreshing to look at things in another direction. As fuel prices rise, mileage become more of a issue. How many threads start here with a "cam for my 318" question and end up talking about 400+horse builds. Not everybody wants or needs maximum performance. Those big cube hot rods often times get overbuilt and although they are fun to drive, you don't usually drive them 4 hours to a out of state car show. Also, there is a limit to how much horsepower you can hook up on the street. It can be a waste.
Click to expand...
very much agree. Not totally comparable but drove my old 83 D150 2 hours to a car show. Has just a mild compression, RV cammed 360 with a 4-speed. Was a blast to road trip it there. Mileage wasn't half bad for a full sized pickup either. I believe I got up to 15 on the way there.
 
greymouser7 said:
THAT is NOT what I said. I said he figured out from racing, by accident, that a carb that they used which produced large droplets, WORKED with a SPECIFIC COMBUSTION CHAMBER.

What the hell is the matter with you?

Don't misquote people.

That is liberal manipulation.

That **** doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
You present some vague recollection about something that David Vizard "figured" out with a larger droplets and a specific combustion chamber sometime in the 1960's or 1970's as evidence to counter what has already been disproven by the people pushing the boundaries of combustion by running upwards of 20+ compression ratios.

I can assure you the guys pushing the boundaries on this stuff are "NOT" reading David's books to figure out how to do it.

This is what one of those guys said to me when I asked him why a very well known former Engine Masters winner and race engine builder stated he limits his street builds to 185 psi on pump fuel:

If the fuel is in bezillions of droplets there is maximum surface area for collision and also maximum chance of the first rebound being into a droplet. That’s what homogenization is all about.

When you listen to a hotrod engine builder who restricts the compression to 185 for pump fuel you are listening to a builder who has poor homogenization. If the Homogenization is poor it means that there are larger distances between droplets which correlates into more heating of the air and less heating of the fuel. It’s the temperature of Oxygen that matters. Oxygen is the starter of combustion NOT the fuel. So when you have poor homogenization you have to reduce the compression pressure to avoid overheating the oxygen and causing it to react too fast and build a detonating pressure.
Click to expand...

And the reason he knows is he was running 240 psi on local 87 octane pump fuel.
 
gagembassett said:
very much agree. Not totally comparable but drove my old 83 D150 2 hours to a car show. Has just a mild compression, RV cammed 360 with a 4-speed. Was a blast to road trip it there. Mileage wasn't half bad for a full sized pickup either. I believe I got up to 15 on the way there.
Click to expand...
You need to be careful with that 360. It may get the best mileage of any one ever built. :)

Every factory built 360 I have ever had have been gas sucking thirsty pigs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top