View Single Post
Old 02-12-2008, 02:18 PM   #18 (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 oldschool View Post
To me it would seem to be easier to create more power in a 4 cylinder when its needed , then it would to deactivate half the cylinders and drag them along, tryin to get a 10% improvement/.This to me has been shown particularly true with fuel injection.The early carbed v8 to v4 conversions got around 26 mpg with dummy pistons in the dead holes. If you don't use dummy pistons then you are dragging the rings along. especially if the valves are disabled, and creating both compression and vacumn situations the other 4 cylinders must fight against. In addition you are carrying a lot of unneccessary weight, that would net you free mileage. In my mind it was tryed and was a waste.
If all it is good for is 10% I wouldn't futz with it either. I have seen evidence it can be worth more.

What kinda damn fool would drag 4 dead pistons around in a V4 conversion??? No way would I do that, rings gone or not. Imagine the massive rushes of air past the pistons in both directions without rings! That takes ENERGY.

Yes, if that's what they tried it was a waste.
__________________


  Reply With Quote