65TerrorCuda
Well-Known Member
learn to weld and install a turbo. I saw a 20% mileage gain from that alone
Fuel Mileage booster’s
- Thread starter oldkimmer
- Start date
-
Is that for real? Kim
Back in 2008 I looked at the fuel economy rating for various world cars like Subaru Legacy, Toyota Camry, and such; I checked US, NZ/AU, and Europe. Some cars got 20% better economy in other world markets over the US. The stark difference was the VW Jetta Diesel; 43 MPG US and 72 MPG NZ/AU! Tried looking again recently, but I couldn't find the economy numbers very easily. Odd since that's something on everyone's mind.
ir3333
Well-Known Member
didn't VW come clean for lying about mpg for their products
They also had software installed to fool all the emissions equipment. Kim
Topless69
Well-Known Member
How about posting some details
bcschief
Well-Known Member
Acetone was a topic about 20 years age might want to search and read up.
65TerrorCuda
Well-Known Member
Yes, absolutely. Actually I did the math wrong it's more like 30% better.
1987 suzuki samurai, original hitachi "feedback" electronic carb that utilized an oxygen sensor. Best it did pre-turbo was 23-ish mpg. Installed turbo, 7 psi from a renault fuego (nothing special). Boost referenced fuel pump and installed a blow off valve. Immediately achieved 29-30 mpg. Plus it was much faster and made cool sounds.
I have pics if you really want I'll dig them out.
Even a supercharger, like on the 273, is supposed to increase mileage 1-3 mpg. Problem is keeping your foot out of it ;)
Turbo's can increase efficiency, but if you drive it to use the extra hp you get from adding one you won't get better mileage, gotta keep your foot out of it. Superchargers can too, but usually you lose out at cruise because you have to drive the supercharger. So as a power adder they're good but for efficiency not as good as a turbo. Also depends on your engine, higher compression raises combustion efficiency, but you have to not detonate and you have to not drive it like you stole it with the extra power. When I had my SRT4 (2.4L turbo) I could get like 29 mpg on the freeway/highway driving for efficiency. But around town with my foot in it and the boost gauge pegged it would go down to like 16 mpg.
All the other mileage boosters are a scam. If you pour it in the tank, put in in the fuel line or stuff it in the air box, it's total snake oil. A ECU tuner could in theory improve efficiency, but if you have a modern car with a factory tune and no major modifications it's not gonna do crap. They're already tuned for the best efficiency that won't screw up something else.
Keep your tire pressure at spec and check your tire pressures often, and keep your air filter clean and change it often. K&N style filters need to be clean and oiled properly, if they're dirty or over-oiled they'll be worse than a clean paper filter. Depending on the car some of the cold air intakes can help, but it depends on the factory intake design. If the factory intake is restrictive the cold air intake can help. If the factory intake is designed well, not so much.
All the other mileage boosters are a scam. If you pour it in the tank, put in in the fuel line or stuff it in the air box, it's total snake oil. A ECU tuner could in theory improve efficiency, but if you have a modern car with a factory tune and no major modifications it's not gonna do crap. They're already tuned for the best efficiency that won't screw up something else.
Keep your tire pressure at spec and check your tire pressures often, and keep your air filter clean and change it often. K&N style filters need to be clean and oiled properly, if they're dirty or over-oiled they'll be worse than a clean paper filter. Depending on the car some of the cold air intakes can help, but it depends on the factory intake design. If the factory intake is restrictive the cold air intake can help. If the factory intake is designed well, not so much.
diymirage
HP@idle > hondaHP@redline
Exactly what i meant with post #18
Another fuel economy site is www.Ecomodder.com
Trojmn
Well-Known Member
i figured alot of that came down to NOx regulations. If you have a hotter cylinder combustion (e.g. leaner/more complete burn) efficiency goes up.. but so does NOx. For some reason i thought most of europe had looser emissions than US and certainly CARB. Higher gas prices for sure, but looser emissions standards.
Fun fact only tangential to NOX: the down stream o2 sensor (might be 10years out of date IDK) thinks your cat is not working if it cannot detect a o2 changes before and after the catalytic. In other words if there ISNT raw fuel in the exhaust it will throw an emissions code.
Get your calculators out. When gas was almost this high ~2008 e0 100% gasoline was worth ~$0.30/gal over E10 common in my area at the time, now almost ubiquitous.
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,922
- Reaction score
- 12,274
For economy, on these old engine designs, your engine needs two things; 1) Cylinder pressure and 2) cruise timing.
as to #1; Cylinder pressure is the cure-all. Pressure makes heat which makes power, And Economy, by using less throttle to generate cruising power.
as to #2; Your cruise timing has to be up there, to get the small and widely separated components of the fuel-air charge to all react and contribute to making torque.
My little 2012Chevy Orlando pumps over 220psi at 930 ft elevation, and often gets over 40mpg from point to point on the hiway. For a 2.5liter engine it is pretty peppy in a 3600 pound CUV. The manual says 167 hp at 6700 rpm. Yes it has VVT, and is Direct Injected as well. It switches at 4500 and you can really feel it surge ahead. But I rarely go there as, the bottom end is sufficient.
The cruise timing tells the tale. To get the lean mixture all burned up inside the chamber requires a lot of advance. And your old Mopar will require even more. So much in fact, that your factory distributor cannot supply it all. Typically your Factory D can supply about 30 to 40 degrees of cruise-Timing, at 2200rpm. Which would be say 10* Initial, plus 10 in the mechanical plus 10 in the Vcan.
If you fudge it; say 16 Initial, 10 in the mechanical and another 16 in the Vcan= 42
But in all probability, after you lean her out a bit, she will be wanting 50 to 56 degrees.
How can you know what she wants?
The usual way I do it is to rev the engine in N/P to the known cruise rpm. I continuously adjust the throttle-opening to keep it there , while continuously advancing the timing...... until the rpm stops increasing with more advance. Then and then only, do I put the Timing-light on it. Whatever I get, I subtract 3* from that, and the result is the cruise-timing with a 3* safety margin to account for no load in N/P.
Try it and see what you get.
Now, how are you gonna give her what she wants?
If it gets to be over what the D can supply, and I guarantee it will, how will you give her the rest of what she wants?
What I have done on my car, is to purchase a stand-alone dash-mounted, adjustable timing-box that has a range of 15 degrees. My engine likes 60degrees in Neutral. So I give her up to 56* at cruising rpm, which is 2240rpm. That is 14* initial, plus 10* mechanical, plus 22* in the modified Vcan, plus 10 in the control knob = 56*
But my Mopar cranks 177 psi now , so is well able to pull 65mph=2240 rpm in overdrive with just a tiny amount of throttle. The previous cam made over 185 psi, and geared for 65= 1600/75=1850, she got 32mpgs, on one certain day-trip experiment.
Pressure and timing.
After that, there are lots of less effective tricks that all add up.
as to #1; Cylinder pressure is the cure-all. Pressure makes heat which makes power, And Economy, by using less throttle to generate cruising power.
as to #2; Your cruise timing has to be up there, to get the small and widely separated components of the fuel-air charge to all react and contribute to making torque.
My little 2012Chevy Orlando pumps over 220psi at 930 ft elevation, and often gets over 40mpg from point to point on the hiway. For a 2.5liter engine it is pretty peppy in a 3600 pound CUV. The manual says 167 hp at 6700 rpm. Yes it has VVT, and is Direct Injected as well. It switches at 4500 and you can really feel it surge ahead. But I rarely go there as, the bottom end is sufficient.
The cruise timing tells the tale. To get the lean mixture all burned up inside the chamber requires a lot of advance. And your old Mopar will require even more. So much in fact, that your factory distributor cannot supply it all. Typically your Factory D can supply about 30 to 40 degrees of cruise-Timing, at 2200rpm. Which would be say 10* Initial, plus 10 in the mechanical plus 10 in the Vcan.
If you fudge it; say 16 Initial, 10 in the mechanical and another 16 in the Vcan= 42
But in all probability, after you lean her out a bit, she will be wanting 50 to 56 degrees.
How can you know what she wants?
The usual way I do it is to rev the engine in N/P to the known cruise rpm. I continuously adjust the throttle-opening to keep it there , while continuously advancing the timing...... until the rpm stops increasing with more advance. Then and then only, do I put the Timing-light on it. Whatever I get, I subtract 3* from that, and the result is the cruise-timing with a 3* safety margin to account for no load in N/P.
Try it and see what you get.
Now, how are you gonna give her what she wants?
If it gets to be over what the D can supply, and I guarantee it will, how will you give her the rest of what she wants?
What I have done on my car, is to purchase a stand-alone dash-mounted, adjustable timing-box that has a range of 15 degrees. My engine likes 60degrees in Neutral. So I give her up to 56* at cruising rpm, which is 2240rpm. That is 14* initial, plus 10* mechanical, plus 22* in the modified Vcan, plus 10 in the control knob = 56*
But my Mopar cranks 177 psi now , so is well able to pull 65mph=2240 rpm in overdrive with just a tiny amount of throttle. The previous cam made over 185 psi, and geared for 65= 1600/75=1850, she got 32mpgs, on one certain day-trip experiment.
Pressure and timing.
After that, there are lots of less effective tricks that all add up.
PT Cruisers had both a turbo and a non-turbo engine. Both were 2.4L , 4valve , DOHC engines. The turbo engine got worse mileage than the non-turbo engine. Partly due to less compression. [There is always tradeoffs].
An advantage of turbos is engine displacement. If you can make the same horsepower with half the cubic inches [and a turbo], then you cut your idle fuel consumption in half. And less engine weight. The old [1989] Dodge Cummins engine made 160 HP without a turbo. I think they are up around 400 HP now. How much would a 400 HP non-turbo diesel weigh?
Saw a girl in a gas station with a new Dodge Dart. Cute little thing [both]. She said she just got back from Canada. Got 36 MPG. It had a 1.6L turbo and a 6 speed stick trans.
An advantage of turbos is engine displacement. If you can make the same horsepower with half the cubic inches [and a turbo], then you cut your idle fuel consumption in half. And less engine weight. The old [1989] Dodge Cummins engine made 160 HP without a turbo. I think they are up around 400 HP now. How much would a 400 HP non-turbo diesel weigh?
Saw a girl in a gas station with a new Dodge Dart. Cute little thing [both]. She said she just got back from Canada. Got 36 MPG. It had a 1.6L turbo and a 6 speed stick trans.
I messed with HHO on a four bange mustang got some serious results around 20 MPG gain. You would need a seriously large system for your car. Jusy FYI.
Years ago I had a '70 Duster with a rebuilt /6. I milled the head 0.100" and gave it a mild port job. Cam was a Comp 0.452" (@ .005") mech , similar specs to a 360 2-bbl cam. I converted it to Electronic Ignition with an MSD-5. It was converted to 4-speed w/OD from a '75. The kicker was an obscure "gizmo" called the Power Plate; a 1" aluminum spacer that went under the carb. It had 8 degree tapered cones that protruded about 3/4" into the manifold, and the cones had 20 pitch screw threads machined into them. The whole thing was heated by engine coolant. I got a best of 45 MPG, but still could keep it in the mid-30's with an occasional throttle stomp. I got a best of 29.5 MPG without the PP.
Jim Lusk
Well-Known Member
We did the same thing to a guy at work (he was in charge of the coffee). He was concerned that somebody was stealing coffee from the jar. I had one of the other guys buy another can and hide it away. Every day for a month or more that coffee stayed at the same level. Then it started increasing. George NEVER noticed...
-
