View Single Post
Old 09-04-2016, 03:17 AM   #9 (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
FWIW I'd disable the valves on cyls 1 and 4 and pull the non-working pistons and con rods. Then I'd have to plug the oil ports on those two crank pins. I'd want cyls 2 and 3 to be the working cylinders because the rocking couple would be minimized. I don't think I'd try it on a turbo engine unless as someone said earlier a right-sized turbo was fitted. Stock flywheel should suffice. Stock manifolds too. O2 too. I'd put resistors equal in resistance to the injectors on injector leads 1 and 4. Might be naive but if ECU listens to the O2 sensor the mixture richness should be fine in spite of the reduced air volume moving through? It should be able to highway cruise just fine, although acceleration will be glacial vs stock. Fuel economy should be improved but not doubled; my WAG estimates better than 15% but less than 50% improvement. Mind you I haven't done this but this is how I'd start off.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
redpoint5 (09-04-2016)