A bit of thread necromancy but i'd totally lost my password and haven't been on the internet much due to RL needs.
This topic remains a thorn in my side/path not traveled until such time as i'm ever able to see someone test an engine for BSFC and torque values. I'm aware as time goes on most interest in this will decrease but i'm a completionist. :^) Not everyone in the future will be able to swap in a 2020 era powertrain just to get 1980's results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird
Put that 30 mpg claim through the current epa test and I bet it would come out something like 14 city 18 highway. 30 mpg would have been at 40 mph with gearing set to just have shifted into high.
|
I am still thinking this is completely missing the point. Nobody else was getting 25mpg with a 1932 Ford, let alone with a carburetor, 3 speed transmission, no lockup, no overdrive. The far more aerodynamic (0.31 I think) Chevy Caprice I had going 1600rpm in 4th overdrive on steel axle ratio could get that - but even that powertrain swapped into a 1932 Ford would have dropped from the aerodynamic load. That makes me wonder what that special cam might get swapped into the newer aerodynamic Caprice. :^)
FWIW the pointed out issue suggests it might be correct:
backissues.com - Hot Rod September 1981 - Product Details - I wish someone could get one and scan in a PDF to share here, then other people could read the article and come to their own conclusions. Or/and to 100% verify that it was a Miller cycle conversion kit, if that's actually what it was. (even though it sounds about right) It remains interesting to me because i'm not aware of any other Miller cycle engines or conversion kits for larger engines that you might have in a large sedan, wagon, or pickup.
Maybe one in a big block could still tow something worthwhile and get better than normal BSFC while doing it without the cost of a 6 speed transmission and VVT? It sounds like Mazda is maybe doing something along the same route with their Skyactiv-G system running 13:1 compression on 87 octane.
To Changzuki's scans... unfortunately that is absolutely not what I am talking about. :-/ I do not see any mention of maintaining an "up to 12.5:1 compression ratio or even more on pump gas" which was part of the marketing at the time - making 1960's high compression gas guzzlers into efficient MPG mobiles with just a camshaft change. They were not high lift RV cams, long duration race cams, or high compression racing cams.