Something different Building for MPG.

-
I know this has been discussed in other threads Adam, BUT I wanna report on what I've seen........

At the Zephyrhills Autofest (FL), there are a number of vendors selling homegrown hydrogen/oxygen converters (or whatever you choose to call them)..........Some are high tech mason-jars with the usual voltage plates inside, but more are made with stainless coils from what I saw.......

Avg. price was about $80. per unit....they can be installed in series if you want.

The interesting thing was this......... You know the old "spitfire" motors (MY terminology) like the John Deere's that are now used to run ice-cream makers at the fairs and flea markets?............A vendor was there with some of these hydrogen units, and he had a small trickle charger powering one of the units......and the unit was running that John Deere perfectly. I also saw NO condensed water in the clear gas line, and it was a pretty long run to the motor (I'd say about 4 feet of line)...........I was fairly impressed by what I saw.

Now I figure that I waste a bunch of electrical power in my beasty with stereo's and nonsense, and also have a bunch of power that I never use at any given moment......If one of these small units can demonstrate this kind of output on a trickle charger, I think it could be a serious consideration for future MPG builds, along with the other things being discussed in this thread.......

I was a skeptic until I saw the thing actually powering that motor all by itself.
Seems to make sense........especially since the "fuel" is so cheap.
 
uh, back on topic,

i'd keep my current setup and run CNG. only draw backs are tank takes up space in trunk (haha, ok maybe its a little heavier than my cell), and miles per tankfull. well i don't drive across country and i can dig driving big power around for half the cost of gas.. for now at least.
-my .02 worth
 
This past August at Moparfest in New Hamburg I met a guy that had put a Dakota V6 and OD trans into a 71 Dart, Painted up all blue and nice, looked just like a 318, actually did a double take (why is that engine so small) Started talking to him about his car, it seemed everything was done on the cheap including a Mako paint job that actually looked good. Anyways, with this Dak 6 and OD he was getting mid 30 mpg, but that is imperial gallon, not US but still impressive. He said he had more than enough performance with this combo for daily driver that desnt kill the wallet. Why cant the current automakers see this...
 
Yuk, My 98 Dakota with a 3.9L was a pig and terrible on fuel. Of coarse the truck was something like 5200lbs.
 
that is the key right there. these new cars are efficent as compaired to the old cars, but these new cars weigh about 1000 to 1500 more pounds so the gain in mpg is lost by the weight. when you take these old cars and put modern engines w/ overdrives in them ,their gas mpg is better in most cases than anything running on the road today. reason is most of our cars weigh in at around 3100 to 3200 pounds vs. 4000 to 4300 pounds
 
here is an example which weighs more from the list below

my car here vs. the contenders
1970 polara convert. length is 219.5 in, width 79.2................................
2007 caddi dts. length is 207.6 in, width 74.8...................................
2007 300c length is 196.8 in, width 74.1...................................
2007 lincoln towncar length is 215.4 in, width 78.2...................................
2007 bmw 760 li length is 203.9 in, width 74.9..................................

DSC01517.JPG
 
7demon2 said:
here is an example which weighs more from the list below

my car here vs. the contenders
1970 polara convert. length is 219.5 in, width 79.2................................
2007 caddi dts. length is 207.6 in, width 74.8...................................
2007 300c length is 196.8 in, width 74.1...................................
2007 lincoln towncar length is 215.4 in, width 78.2...................................
2007 bmw 760 li length is 203.9 in, width 74.9..................................
Click to expand...

now here are the weights:
my polara is the biggest of these cars in both length and width but weight in at 3830 lbs..........................................................................

the caddi weights in at 4009 lbs...........................................................

the 300c weights in at 4066 lbs...........................................................

the lincoln weights in at 4413 lbs..........................................................

the bmw 760li weights in at 4905 lbs....................................................

now i may not have the power accessories these cars have or all the other bells and whistles but my car is steel now plastic or rubber. these cars get slightly better gas milage than me as well. i would wager that if i had an overdrive on mine with fuel injection i would beat these cars in mpg as they stand. these cars just weight too much. if the auto makers had kept things simple and not weighed these new cars down so much they would get great milage.
 
Safety cages, side impact beams, and electronic accessories. That's where all the weight is coming from. I heard a stat some time about 10 - 15 years ago that the average new car contains 21 miles of wire. And that's an old number... I'd bet the average car in 2008 have even more. I think my Swinger has about 21 yards of wire!
 
Well I put the 3.9 with the A500 overdrive & 3.55 posi in my 1966 Dart wagon and the best mileage I can get is 22 mpg at 80 miles per hour that is where it likes to cruise. I drive about 75 miles round trip and is most on the freeway. I guess one of these days I will cruie at 65 and see what it gets with the cruise control set.
 
First time I've read this thread. Pretty interesting ideas. I am really thinking about building a /6 Duster if I can find one. I hope to get mpg in the mid 20's and it does not sound like that is hard at all. Even though gas is under 2 bucks, who knows how long this is gonna last. My Ram Charger is a pig on gas, I'd say it gets about 9-10 mpg. I figure, if I find a /6 car, I'll keep it that way for a while until my need for speed says I need to upgrade.
 
challengergary, the fuel prices are the reason I bought a 6 cylinder wagon (F*rd). I needed my vintage car fix but couldn't live with the 11 mpg I get in the Swinger (I get about 20 mpg in the Wagon).

dart64gt, you just described my dream car. I'm a huge fan of the vintage wagon (especially the Dart / Valiant), a huge fan of the overdrive transmission, a huge fan of the technology (i.e. fuel injection), and I have no need for 400 HP in my wagon. The only piece of that equation that I'm getting from my '62 F*rd is the lack of HP. I'm quite envious...
 
autopar3000 said:
challengergary, the fuel prices are the reason I bought a 6 cylinder wagon (F*rd). I needed my vintage car fix but couldn't live with the 11 mpg I get in the Swinger (I get about 20 mpg in the Wagon).

dart64gt, you just described my dream car. I'm a huge fan of the vintage wagon (especially the Dart / Valiant), a huge fan of the overdrive transmission, a huge fan of the technology (i.e. fuel injection), and I have no need for 400 HP in my wagon. The only piece of that equation that I'm getting from my '62 F*rd is the lack of HP. I'm quite envious...
Click to expand...

The dart wagon with the 3.9 fuelinjection suprises a lot of people they don't know what to think. I put a mopar dealer in stall A/C unit in it this last summer and it works great with the stock 3.9 a/c compressor. I love this car for my everyday driver.
 
dart64gt said:
The dart wagon with the 3.9 fuelinjection suprises a lot of people they don't know what to think. I put a mopar dealer in stall A/C unit in it this last summer and it works great with the stock 3.9 a/c compressor. I love this car for my everyday driver.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind seeing some pics if you got 'em...
 
Now that I think of it, Gas prices are the lowest they have been here in 6 years. Im gonna build a 5mpg race car instead !
 
I know how you feel........The prices are a real relief.

But, we gotta remember how fast they went up in the first place, and who has control of the supplies.

I'm all for havin' fun and enjoyin' the great prices..........but at the same time, keepin' the momentum goin' on some of these great ideas.
 
Someday (hopefully) when I have a family I'm thinking of getting an old B- or C-body wagon or sedan and building a mild 408 stroker or other smaller-bore longer-stroke torque engine for it. I'm pretty sure that built right, a 408 gives better gas mileage in a heavy-duty (truck, SUV, etc.) application than a stock-stroke 318 or 360 purely by means of mechanical advantage. Maybe some EQ Magnum heads, 10:1 compression, nice street roller cam, and maybe SMPI if I have the $$$ (I doubt it). Couple that with an OD 727 (forget the name of it) and a 3.23:1 rear end, I'd have one hell of a highway cruiser that could still smoke a few Rustwangs here and there.

Daily driver could be some A-body (maybe a Dart or Valiant) with a 170 /6 (for rev-ability), A-833 OD trans and 3.55:1 rear. Mildly ported head, custom turbo cam, SMPI from a Jeep/AMC 4.0L and a turbo probably a bit bigger than the factory turbo 4-banger cars, and I could probably get mid-20's gas mileage (if not better) and at least 275 HP.
 
Not sure what the m.p.g will be,but here is what I want to do when I buy that 67 Dart.

After suspension and brakes are updated I will do:

Manual steering
Stock 225 slant(or 198 if I can find one,less cubes=less fuel.)
Regular bottom end rebuild.
Fully ported head with O.S valves,340 springs,hardened seats,with ports matched to intake and headers/dutra duals.
Shave head for 9to1 comp
Custom cam grind for more bottom end torque,and better economy.
Dutra Duals or Hooker Headers(not sure here yet)
Y pipe duals into a single 2 1/4 mandrel bent exh. with straight through muffler
Aussie speed 4 bbl intake
Holley 390 4 bbl with stiff secondary spring.
Convert to electronic ignition using GM HEI
Rebuild stock trans,add gear vendors OD(hey I can dream cant I?)
2.94 gears sure grip in a body 8 1/4
Fab/create more efficient cold air intake.
Lightweight alloy wheels

This all in a 67 Dart GT.My dream car with my dream specs! As far as Im concerned as long as I see 20 m.p.g I happy cause I will get about a million smiles per gallon! But I have a feeling that if driven just right,following some of the SAFE and LEGAL hypermiling techniques this set up should see over 30 m.p.g on the highway.

I once had a 70 Dart 4 door(my first car!) with the 225 /6 power steering STOCK 14,000 orignal miles(when I say stock I mean it had the factory tires/belts/and hoses on it when I bought it!)I replaced all necessary items,rebuilt the carb,etc...I would get 20-23 m.p.g in town and 26 m.p.g on the highway following the 65 m.p.h speed limit.This is checking my speedo with the mile markers on the highway.I know most people are convinced that the slant will never get better than the 20's m.p.g,but I think with a more efficient intake/exhaust and overdrive in a lighter car (67 is two door my 70 was 4)I completely expect to see 30 m.p.g:read2:
 
My second project (or co-project) will be to set up my '67 C-barge New Yorker for interstate highway travel. This will start after I begin work on the '68 'Cuda. I want the C-barge to cruise at 80 m.p.h. while still in high torque range, which I hope to be starting at about 2,000 r.p.m. I am not too concerned about horsepower.

It has the original 440, which I plan to freshen and increase power and combustion efficiency. I plan to use 323 gears and keep it automatic. Three speed auto kinda limits my gearing, but the torquey 440 should be adequate for accelerating the barge from a stop.

I will likely use a cam with the same or similar profile as a HP '68 440. I might use aluminum heads from 440 Source. I will definitely use headers.

If I can get that thing to suck 22-25 m.p.g. at 80 m.p.h., I will be happy. Of course, I would expect to get more m.p.g. at 70 m.p.h.

What do you guys think?
 
FISHBREATH said:
My second project (or co-project) will be to set up my '67 C-barge New Yorker for interstate highway travel. This will start after I begin work on the '68 'Cuda. I want the C-barge to cruise at 80 m.p.h. while still in high torque range, which I hope to be starting at about 2,000 r.p.m. I am not too concerned about horsepower.

It has the original 440, which I plan to freshen and increase power and combustion efficiency. I plan to use 323 gears and keep it automatic. Three speed auto kinda limits my gearing, but the torquey 440 should be adequate for accelerating the barge from a stop.

I will likely use a cam with the same or similar profile as a HP '68 440. I might use aluminum heads from 440 Source. I will definitely use headers.

If I can get that thing to suck 22-25 m.p.g. at 80 m.p.h., I will be happy. Of course, I would expect to get more m.p.g. at 70 m.p.h.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

I think it would be hard to reach that level with a 440 just because you have more bore than you really need just to move you around (also remember that huge C-body weighs less than most new cars of smaller size that are often powered by V-6's). With 3.23 gears you definitely would be cruising at higher than 2000 RPM, probably closer to 3200 RPM at 80 mph (which is why you really need OD no matter what, even with 2.76 gears). I'd recommend closed-chamber iron heads because you'd have less wasted energy being absorbed into the heads instead of pushing down the piston, and you'd have more compression with more detonation resistance (if you use the right pistons). I think a modern fast-ramp cam would be better than the old HP 440 grind also because you'd get more torque across the entire RPM range.
 
Hey, MOPEkidD-3...

Thanks much. That is great info regarding the cam choice. I had not considered that to keep the torque where I want it. Very, very good info all around. Thank you!
 
OK, I couldn't resist posting this in this thread. This is my unlimited mpg Duster.:-D Some day gas prices will rise again. Check out my blog for more info on my build.

PA130006-1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top