Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com - View Single Post

cosmick · 12-23-2014, 07:15 PM

Now I realize the Monte SS being discussed had the L69, I can chime in, as I had one I played with. Those L69s did like a lot of RPM at cruise, and then they did give better MPG than the more boring versions of the 305. Getting 27 MPG from a 305 with no OD was impressive, and did happen back in '84, but 305s never were MPG engines, I had a 350 give 25.1 with the centrifugal advance not working, at 65 MPG, in the mountains, in a '78 Camaro with the 5" rear spoiler. That one had 3.08:1 gears and a 700R-4. If I ever copy it, I'll tweak it until I get 30 MPG. Anyway, the LB9 used the same cam specs, and did 27 MPG with a 3.45:1 x 0.73:1, while the L69 did it with 3.73:1 x 0.73:1.
As for the curved fastback drawing, it's so false. I'fe played with a SuperFlow 1020 and a Serdi enough to know that air indeed will flow over a 15 degree angle as well as a perfect radius. And the air will follow the angle partly because the transition is nearer being abrupt. Only a long-box pickup can have a 15 degree cone behind the rear window, anyway.
Many times many people have called me a liar over my MPG accomplishments, but I've come to realize that some people just can't drive for mileage, and will consistently get 20% worse than me in any car under any conditions.
I can believe a '94 F150 getting 18.5 MPG, but I had a '94 Chevy C1500 repeatedly return 23 MPG, with a best of 26 more than once, with a 3.73:1 rear instead of the preferred 3.42:1 or the lame 3.08:1. On the other hand, I had a 1.9L Escort return 44 MPG.
The '66 Chevelle is a beautiful car, and the 3.6L is good power for the size.

12-23-2014, 07:15 PM	#74 (permalink)
cosmick Experienced UAW Mechanic Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bear Lake Posts: 363 Thanks: 7 Thanked 73 Times in 63 Posts	Now I realize the Monte SS being discussed had the L69, I can chime in, as I had one I played with. Those L69s did like a lot of RPM at cruise, and then they did give better MPG than the more boring versions of the 305. Getting 27 MPG from a 305 with no OD was impressive, and did happen back in '84, but 305s never were MPG engines, I had a 350 give 25.1 with the centrifugal advance not working, at 65 MPG, in the mountains, in a '78 Camaro with the 5" rear spoiler. That one had 3.08:1 gears and a 700R-4. If I ever copy it, I'll tweak it until I get 30 MPG. Anyway, the LB9 used the same cam specs, and did 27 MPG with a 3.45:1 x 0.73:1, while the L69 did it with 3.73:1 x 0.73:1. As for the curved fastback drawing, it's so false. I'fe played with a SuperFlow 1020 and a Serdi enough to know that air indeed will flow over a 15 degree angle as well as a perfect radius. And the air will follow the angle partly because the transition is nearer being abrupt. Only a long-box pickup can have a 15 degree cone behind the rear window, anyway. Many times many people have called me a liar over my MPG accomplishments, but I've come to realize that some people just can't drive for mileage, and will consistently get 20% worse than me in any car under any conditions. I can believe a '94 F150 getting 18.5 MPG, but I had a '94 Chevy C1500 repeatedly return 23 MPG, with a best of 26 more than once, with a 3.73:1 rear instead of the preferred 3.42:1 or the lame 3.08:1. On the other hand, I had a 1.9L Escort return 44 MPG. The '66 Chevelle is a beautiful car, and the 3.6L is good power for the size.