View Single Post
Old 03-29-2012, 06:43 PM   #63 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOUL-DRIFTER View Post
I agree, but the ideas are sometimes sound.
The point I was making was, if they(AS IN THE ONES THAT DO SOME IMPROVING) did some mpg improving what would it matter?
Yes, it still could be far from what is claimed, but when one looks to improve mileage some improvements are better than none...are they not. And fuel to air mixtures in cars even at the best are far from being pushed to the limit.. So there is plenty of room for improvements.
The ideas are hardly ever sound. EPA has tested many, many of them, with about a 99% FAIL rate. There were a couple that did actually provide a modest increase in economy BUT at the expense of intolerable emissions increases.

Combustion mixtures can be improved (like HCCI) but nothing like that is gonna happen with a carb. Sophisticated controls that carbs just can't deliver are needed.

The point is moot anyway because EFI outperforms carbs as far as fuel efficiency.
__________________


  Reply With Quote