Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird
I say the Camaro can get 37, I doubt the Chevelle will. Sometimes old cars with carbs would do better at certain rpm because they were tuned that way, or should I say weren't tuned properly in all throttle and load posisitions. I bet that is what was going on with the above mentioned Monte Carlo. Get the mixture and timing right at a low load 1600 rpm and it would have had better mpg then at 2000. That or it had an aftermarket cam in it. So many times people would over cam those old school engines.
|
The cam was stock but the SS did get a "hotter" cam than the regular Monte Carlos so maybe my sweet spot was a little higher with it being an SS. The carb and timing were adjusted by the computer so I should have had a more efficient set up compared to an old school completely mechanical set up. I'm not entirely sure an you can tune for a specific RPM when the cam shaft is still playing a major role in the efficiency equation.
I was under the assumption that the new Camaro aero was pretty terrible so I thought that the Chevelle might not be much worse. With an air dam to reduce under car turbulence I think the gap closes ever farther. I really didn't think old cars were THAT bad in the aero department.
__________________
-Mike
2007 Ford Focus ZX5 - 91k - SGII, pending upper and lower grill bocks - auto trans
1987 Monte Carlo SS - 5.3/4L80E swap - 13.67 @ 106
2007 Ford Focus Estate - 230k - 33mpg - Retired 4/2018
1995 Saturn SL2 - 256K miles - 44mpg - Retired 9/2014
Cost to Operate Spreadsheet for "The New Focus"