Looking for better fuel milage

-
Couldn't stand near the rear of the car from it burning so rich? The holley on my camaro (yeah, I know shut up about the damn chevies, it's a mopar site) is set up and has almost no rich smell at idle at all.. I also get around 17 highway mpg on that car
 
40* total timing just reaffirms that the compression is detrimentally low.
No heat with that lil squeeze, losing efficiency there.

Now understand that the power valve is designed so that you can use the leanest cruise jetting possible but under load/xelleration give the proper enrichment.

Carbs in general do not yeild poor milage, however poorly tuned carbs do.
Without a trained right foot the dbl pump can be hogish, but lets look at this.....
A vac secondary has an xellerator pump, so does the dbl pump
A vac secondary has a power valve, so does a dbl pumper
A vac sec is square bore, so is a dbl pumper, so cfm is split between 2 two barrels.
The common dbl pumpers are calibrated for street cars, just like the vac secondaries.

A lot of times the street calibrated carbs get lean in the r's, thats why the designer race carbs use a richer calibration...nt a bad thing cause you want the ideal ratio for max hp and to keep from puttin a hole in the piston.

If you can run 40*, have tried locking out the distributor to 40* and seeing if it will still start fine fully warmed up?
A higher initial timing will help power and milage as well.
I run 26* initial w/340 & 34* total, it wont start with any more initial.

You have too low compression, thats part of the problem.

for comparison-I run a 750 dbl and get 15-16 mpg w/ 280* cam and ported x iron on a 340

My engine guy has a new timing light on order that was due today. He is going to take a close look at the timing in the next couple of days. We are also going to weld some bungs on the down pipes to get a good reading on the air/fuel mixture. He will take care of the timing for me. It's been since the 60's that I fooled with it and all we had then were neon timing lights.

I wanted to keep the compression low to stay away from premium fuel. Back in 2007 on the Power Tour a lot of the gas stations were dry on premium because of all of the Hot Rods on tour. I will be driving up to Indy Thurs pm and back with the new Edelbrock 500 cfm carb. Will post up the results when I get back and check the mileage.

Thanks for the info
 
there ar eplenty of good recomendations here, like the clutch fan but i was waiting for some one to recomend the thermoquad. i have to say if you are going to run manifolds, well you might as well ditch the single plane intake and go with a performer and a TQ or have a performer rpm modified to fit the tq. try the thermoquad guy here on the site demonsizler or something like that, see what he has to say about a carb. when you get it all figured out look into a 518 trans.

My Edelbrock RPM Air Gap is a dual plane. Not going to be changing tranny's any time soon. The 727 has just been rebuilt. If I can squeeze 14 or 15 mpg on the Power Tour that will be fine with me. I don't expect any higher numbers than that, but if I get them then that will be ok too.
 
Tony, with aluminum heads you can run much higher compression without worrying about detonation with pump gas. 10-1 would not be out of the question. Invest in a distributor with a vacuum advance, that way you can get the advance in the timing at various throttle positions. This is especially important when city driving. I'm much like you when it comes to headers, I'm not a fan. I never had them on a car that didn't need them. They are mostly noisy, built poorly, leak, rust, fit horribly, and make it hard to access anything. With that said, headers have come a long way. There are several companies that make nice headers that are high quality with 3/8" flanges, heavy gauge tubing and tuned for optimum performance. Your car could certainly benefit from a set. A spreadbore carburetor with small primaries(as the guys have mentioned) would give you a great balance of performance and economy. A multi-spark like the MSD 6 would help scavenge any unburnt fuel. Also as mentioned a fan clutch is a great way to take some load off the engine. The beauty of this is that most everything suggested here will not only increase fuel mileage, it will also build power.
 
oops. i just glanced at the engine pic it looked like a single plane
 
Tony

Love the part where your wife picked your cam....:poke:

The things we do for love......:love4:
 
GENTLEMEN PLEASE.... Scores of highly trained engineers with seriously sophisticated equipment at each of the Auto companies have been facing this issue for YEARS!!!! Which is why cars of today all look like "jelly beans" and have 4 & 6 cyl engines that REQUIRE thousands in equipment to run correctly, only a few 8's are even left out there and even they have gobs of modules running them to meet cafe standards. The ERA of cars we all love was an ERA where for ooodles of years premium fuel was far less than a dollar. ZERO consideration was given to "efficiency" and primary focus was directed at power & speed...remember the quote " whom ever won on Sunday at the races, that manufacturer would sell BIG on Monday!" That was the AUTOMOTIVE BATTLE CRY to gain market share!!! The early narrow A's weighed in around 2700 lbs the newer Dusters weigh in around 32-3300 ( with V8's of course)....these were some of the lightest most powerful vehicles made in those years ratio wise (HP to weight) fact is you are never going to reach 20+ miles to the gallon even in these light weight powerhouses.....they are diametrically opposed attributes for this era vehicle. Back in 72 with a 68 spec'd 340 and using a 850 thermoquad the MOST milage I was ever able to squeeze out of my 340 w/355 gears was 10.1 mpg and that was driving like grandma and never exceeding 50 mph on the highway...... rule of thumb: 60's & 70's high performance vehicles LOVE FUEL! AND THE MORE "performance " goodies that were added typically dropped the MPG vs increasing it.
With premium gas hitting $4 per gallon I am quite contented to bop around town and hit the local shows within 50 miles.....the cross country POWER TOUR aint even on my menu at these prices......so if y'all are basing if ya go or NOT on the MPG of your car......the old saying applies..."if ya have to ask how much....ya can't afford it"
I already KNOW I can't afford it unless I plan on driving a "smart car".....
just my 2 cents
 
PS no disrespect intended in previous post OR this one
....just a lil reality checkpoint.....you built it to feel the power why jack that trying for mileage?
 
Yeah in the snake oil department. Right next to the tornado air filter thingies and all that others junk.

The hydrogen units do work. My brother found some instructions on the internet and we put one on a 4 cyl. Nissan pickup truck. It improved the mileage by about 8-9 mpg if I remember correctly. I dont know if a V-8 would require more hydrogen, or if it would be as effective on a V-8
 
GENTLEMEN PLEASE.... Scores of highly trained engineers with seriously sophisticated equipment at each of the Auto companies have been facing this issue for YEARS!!!! Which is why cars of today all look like "jelly beans" and have 4 & 6 cyl engines that REQUIRE thousands in equipment to run correctly, only a few 8's are even left out there and even they have gobs of modules running them to meet cafe standards. The ERA of cars we all love was an ERA where for ooodles of years premium fuel was far less than a dollar. ZERO consideration was given to "efficiency" and primary focus was directed at power & speed...remember the quote " whom ever won on Sunday at the races, that manufacturer would sell BIG on Monday!" That was the AUTOMOTIVE BATTLE CRY to gain market share!!! The early narrow A's weighed in around 2700 lbs the newer Dusters weigh in around 32-3300 ( with V8's of course)....these were some of the lightest most powerful vehicles made in those years ratio wise (HP to weight) fact is you are never going to reach 20+ miles to the gallon even in these light weight powerhouses.....they are diametrically opposed attributes for this era vehicle. Back in 72 with a 68 spec'd 340 and using a 850 thermoquad the MOST milage I was ever able to squeeze out of my 340 w/355 gears was 10.1 mpg and that was driving like grandma and never exceeding 50 mph on the highway...... rule of thumb: 60's & 70's high performance vehicles LOVE FUEL! AND THE MORE "performance " goodies that were added typically dropped the MPG vs increasing it.
With premium gas hitting $4 per gallon I am quite contented to bop around town and hit the local shows within 50 miles.....the cross country POWER TOUR aint even on my menu at these prices......so if y'all are basing if ya go or NOT on the MPG of your car......the old saying applies..."if ya have to ask how much....ya can't afford it"
I already KNOW I can't afford it unless I plan on driving a "smart car".....
just my 2 cents


Everything about it...Spot on. Well said.
 
PS no disrespect intended in previous post OR this one
....just a lil reality checkpoint.....you built it to feel the power why jack that trying for mileage?

I understand this and your previous post and I agree. I'm still gonna do the Power Tour but I wanted to do it as efficiently as I could. My trip to Indy and back this pm was 124 miles. I ran 60-65 going up and 70 coming back. My mileage came in at 12.4

The car still ran great with the 500 cfm Edelbrock. It put a smile on my face merging onto I-65 South.

I will pursue 13-14 but I will calculate my fuel bill for the Tour at 10 mpg. I don't like surprises.
 
That hood just screams Horsepower !!!!!!

Hurry back so we can hop it back up !!!!! :blackeye:
 
As said above, sometimes less is more, but even if you're overcammed, ditching that distributor for one with vacuum advance, and moving to a Thermoquad carburetor would be a major step in the right direction. Tighter converter (stock 340 is around 2400 stall) and 2.7 or 2.9 gears would help a bunch too. It goes without saying you'll need to have the carburetor and advance curve fine tuned to get the best results. No reason why a well set up 340 couldn't be knocking down around 20 MPH in an A body.

Jim Linder runs a shop specializing in distributor/ignition work in Speedway. Goes by GMC Bubba on the HAMB. Might be worth looking him up.
 
As said above, sometimes less is more, but even if you're overcammed, ditching that distributor for one with vacuum advance, and moving to a Thermoquad carburetor would be a major step in the right direction. Tighter converter (stock 340 is around 2400 stall) and 2.7 or 2.9 gears would help a bunch too. It goes without saying you'll need to have the carburetor and advance curve fine tuned to get the best results. No reason why a well set up 340 couldn't be knocking down around 20 MPH in an A body.

Jim Linder runs a shop specializing in distributor/ignition work in Speedway. Goes by GMC Bubba on the HAMB. Might be worth looking him up.

Thanks.....We will be tweaking the carb and timing for the next couple of weeks
 
As said above, sometimes less is more, but even if you're overcammed, ditching that distributor for one with vacuum advance, and moving to a Thermoquad carburetor would be a major step in the right direction. Tighter converter (stock 340 is around 2400 stall) and 2.7 or 2.9 gears would help a bunch too. It goes without saying you'll need to have the carburetor and advance curve fine tuned to get the best results. No reason why a well set up 340 couldn't be knocking down around 20 MPH in an A body.

Jim Linder runs a shop specializing in distributor/ignition work in Speedway. Goes by GMC Bubba on the HAMB. Might be worth looking him up.

I agree, I think 20 mpg is an attainable goal in a 340 A-body without extreme modifications.
 
At present I'm only getting 8 mpg in town and 10-11 on the highway with the rpm's never over 3000 and only on the front two barrels. Carb is a Quick Fuel 650 double pumper. I'm running 66 jets in the front and was thinking about putting a plug in where the power valve is to see if it gets any better. Engine is a 360 +.060 with dished pistons in the hole so compression is around 8-9

Car runs great but likes gas. My setup is comp XE 284 with roller rockers and flat tappets. An Eddy air gap intake and Eddy Perf. RPM heads. I have a 3.55
out back with a 2800-3200 convertor.

The 'Cuda is a cruiser with a 99 % of the time.

Any info would be appreciated. Gonna do The Power Tour with it in June so I wanted a few more mpg if I can squeeze it out of it.


Tony I know you like the sound of that cam but that is where your mileage is going. Theirs better cams for your motor witch would make it run better respond better and give you better mileage. I think your cam starts working at 3000 rpm. (Sucks fuel) You can still have a great sounding cam with better mileage. 340 cams sound very tuff. Gear will help a lot.
 
I think you should reach that goal of around 14 mpg with the proper tune. Ign. and carb. properly setup plays a huge role in MPG's. Now you just have to try and keep your foot out of the secondaries! :toothy7::poke::toothy7:
 
really weird cuz on my built /6 (10:1/246 @ .050 cam/600DP with 66 primary jets) i got 20mpg with 3.91's @ 3500 rpm to vegas and back...

sounds you got something not working right... check all your brakes for drag parking brake cable to tight?
 
This is a 360 +.060 if it makes any difference.

340/372 whatever it takes.......ala Mr. Mom :toothy7:

All joking aside Tony, even at 372 cubes; with the proper components and a tuning that synchronizes everything to its full potential, I believe you can increase your MPG by 50% or more. Even on my 500 c.i. engine the vacuum advance added over 2 mpg. When it was first set up I used a vacuum advance, but when I had a performance tune up done by a local racer, he set up the car to run solely with a mechanical advance. Immediately I recognized I had lost 2-3 mpg while cruising around town. Needless to say I switched it back to vacuum advance and I added a vacuum gauge too, which I monitor while driving. It is real easy to drop to 5 mpg with my car when my foot is in the throttle. When it comes to mpg's, one thing is to modify the way you drive your car and a vacuum gauge will help a lot. I realize you probably don't want to start tearing your car apart and changing everything but you might try some of the more non-invasive and inexpensive recommendations that have been made in this thread. I think you'll see positive results.
 
I'm getting similar mileage in my '65 Barracuda. It has a Comp cams de265 cam with a 600 Holley. The comp ratio is around 9-1 with flat top pistons. You might get another mile or two by tweaking the timing. Probably the best thing to do is install a good set of headers and add fuel injection. I am going to do this when I get enough money saved.
 
Sorry Tony, I have to say it again.

Change the cam and gear ratio.
 
PS no disrespect intended in previous post OR this one
....just a lil reality checkpoint.....you built it to feel the power why jack that trying for mileage?


That's just it, it was not built for power. It was built for sound. If it was built for power, it would have had a matching camshaft to go along with that low compression. Something on the order of 218* intake and 230* exhaust with a 112 lobe separation maybe even 114 to keep the torque curve very wide. Would probably start about 1500 and not quit pullin until he got tired of it. Would pull over 6K. A milder cam, with 3.23 gears and a stock converter would BE faster than what is there now.....because it would rev quicker, have much more bottom end torque and be much less peaky in terms of the torque curve. The cylinder pressure with a milder camshaft would skyrocket resulting in much more power. Often times an overcammed engine can see a 50 HP increase with a smart cam change. But Tony has said his wife likes the way it sounds, so he needs to work around that as best as he can. However that ends up, it will never make the power it could without the cam change. Once again, my big buddy rumblefish has nailed it. But that's no surprise.
 
GENTLEMEN PLEASE.... Scores of highly trained engineers with seriously sophisticated equipment at each of the Auto companies have been facing this issue for YEARS!!!! Which is why cars of today all look like "jelly beans" and have 4 & 6 cyl engines that REQUIRE thousands in equipment to run correctly, only a few 8's are even left out there and even they have gobs of modules running them to meet cafe standards. The ERA of cars we all love was an ERA where for ooodles of years premium fuel was far less than a dollar. ZERO consideration was given to "efficiency" and primary focus was directed at power & speed...remember the quote " whom ever won on Sunday at the races, that manufacturer would sell BIG on Monday!" That was the AUTOMOTIVE BATTLE CRY to gain market share!!! The early narrow A's weighed in around 2700 lbs the newer Dusters weigh in around 32-3300 ( with V8's of course)....these were some of the lightest most powerful vehicles made in those years ratio wise (HP to weight) fact is you are never going to reach 20+ miles to the gallon even in these light weight powerhouses.....they are diametrically opposed attributes for this era vehicle. Back in 72 with a 68 spec'd 340 and using a 850 thermoquad the MOST milage I was ever able to squeeze out of my 340 w/355 gears was 10.1 mpg and that was driving like grandma and never exceeding 50 mph on the highway...... rule of thumb: 60's & 70's high performance vehicles LOVE FUEL! AND THE MORE "performance " goodies that were added typically dropped the MPG vs increasing it.
With premium gas hitting $4 per gallon I am quite contented to bop around town and hit the local shows within 50 miles.....the cross country POWER TOUR aint even on my menu at these prices......so if y'all are basing if ya go or NOT on the MPG of your car......the old saying applies..."if ya have to ask how much....ya can't afford it"
I already KNOW I can't afford it unless I plan on driving a "smart car".....
just my 2 cents

I HATE JELLY BEAN CARS

But it is possible to get OK mileage from a performance engine

Got 17 mpg out of my 72 340 4 speed Challenger with 3.55 gears and 60's all around

can get 14 MPG out of my Dart with a 71 340, comp cam, air gap intake and PM ignition, 3.23 gears, 650 Thunder series carb, 4 speed, with 700 Holley down to 10 same setup on everything else

Seen him thursday, I'm sure by the time he heads south for PT it will get better mileage

He's gotta do what the wife wants, she bought him the car, WHAT A GAL!
 
-
Back
Top