Chevrolet S10 V8 pickup designed for maximum gas mileage !!!!

[Bassdoctor]

Hello guys I'm starting a new project for my main transportation vehicle. I have a 1993 S10, 2 WD, 5 speed, 3.08 gear and want to swap a Gen 1 V8 into. I want to be able to accelerate decently. I want a truck so I can haul engines I build to the machine shop and back.
I have a ton of parts and motors to experiment with and want to create the best combination possible. Here is my thoughts.
1979 267 sbc
Holley 7448 350 cfm 2bbl
Light weight crankshaft.
Lunati fuel efficiency cam
Edelbrock EPS intake
MSD ignition with manual retard/advance controller
Long tube 1.5" headers
Aluminum reduction pulleys
No Power Steering
No A/C
Electrical fan
Electric fuel pump
0w-20 Royal Purple
Synthetic Fluids throughout
Vacuum Gauge
AFR meter
TPS gauge for monitoring throttle position
Light weight (15 pound) flywheel and clutch

I have a 267,283, 302, 305, 327, 350 and a 400 to choose from.
I would like to keep the cruise rpm at 45 (speed limit is 50 MPH) at around 1300 to 1400 so the carb will stay in the idle circuit.

Any experience or ideas would be appreciated !!!!

Thanks Mark.

[19bonestock88]

Why a Gen 1 v8? A LS 4.8 or 5.3 would perform better than much of the old stuff... MSD makes ignition control boxes for em, and carb intakes are available... I imagine a 4.8mor 5.3 would be fairly cheap too...

Barring going to new technology, id go with at least the 327... That 267ci might not make enough power at that low RPM to lug around an S-10 going 45mph... In fact, I would almost like to see what could be done with a 10:1 400ci with economy cam, 2bbl, etc...

[LittleBlackDuck]

I would forget the carby and ancient ignition. Why don't you go for a tunable injection setup. Being GM based I would look at a hacked Delco ECU and GM bits. Www.pcmhacking.net is where I would look. Their code is free and supports lean burn and live tuning.

Simon

[t vago]

I would think the 267 would provide the most fuel economy for what you want to do. More displacement means more fuel wasted at idle and low loading. It takes power (therefore, fuel) to generate the vacuum present in the intake manifold and each cylinder. More displacement volume = more required power.

[me and my metro]

I like the 267 idea. I have had good success using a small Carter AFB and disconnecting the secondary linkage. They are so tunable with a strip kit. This was back in the 80s on a 231 in a Le Sabre. The car was originally a turbo coupe that came undone. We built a na engine with the AFB and dual exhaust and got low 30s mpg out of it.

[Bassdoctor]

I guess I'm getting old and enjoy the simplicity of older more simpler engines. I don't want to use a computer to program a computer just to get to work. I want to use what I got !!!!

Im using a 1995 K3500 454 for an acceleration baseline. It makes about 1 pound feet of torque for every 10 pounds of vehicle weight. This means the S10 has to have about 154 pound-ft. of torque at 1600 rpm.

I just purchased the Fuel Economy Calculator from Performance Trends for comparing combination. I want to have the most efficient small engine possible. The 267 beat the 283 by 2 MPG and the 305 by 3 MPG.

Been considering a 305 with a 400 SBC crankshaft....😃

[JRMichler]

Check out the six speed manual transmission in the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado. The ratios look ideal for your intended use.

[me and my metro]

You could stick that 3.75 stroke crank in the 267 also. It is about square now at 3.5x3.48. Make it more like a Buick 350, they were over square lots of torque.

[19bonestock88]

You definitely want as much stroke as possible, relative to bore... That tends to be the trend in car engines now... Subaru FB20 is way under square and has lots of torque down low...

[Fingie]

This is cool.

Dreamed about building an analog hypermiler m'self