200 MPG Carburetor Talk

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by SOUL-DRIFTER

I agree, but the ideas are sometimes sound.
The point I was making was, if they(AS IN THE ONES THAT DO SOME IMPROVING) did some mpg improving what would it matter?
Yes, it still could be far from what is claimed, but when one looks to improve mileage some improvements are better than none...are they not. And fuel to air mixtures in cars even at the best are far from being pushed to the limit.. So there is plenty of room for improvements.

you completely miss frank lee's point.
Honesty is much more important.
To say that 'THE CARB" produces 200mph is a lie.
Unless, w/ aba testing you can swap it between to different cars and achieve 200mpg regardless of the other car's configuration.

Results need to be 'proven'. Not based on one person saying "I've been a XXX for XXX yrs so I know what I'm saying"

We are all for individual's stepping out of the box to try something. And we are even more supportive when they have aba testing to support it.
There are some very bright people here and I am constantly amazed at the high level that discussions can reach.

[Grant-53]

The high mpg carb is a legend. If there where any gains to be made in improving the air/fuel mixing you best believe the Japanese and Germans would have had them 50 years ago. They have had scarce oil long before us and no big oil companies. For them oil was a major driving force behind the conquests of WWII. The 125cc motorcycles in the Vetter Challenge races of the 1980's that got 400+ mpg were using STOCK carbs! Check it out.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by SOUL-DRIFTER

I agree, but the ideas are sometimes sound.
The point I was making was, if they(AS IN THE ONES THAT DO SOME IMPROVING) did some mpg improving what would it matter?
Yes, it still could be far from what is claimed, but when one looks to improve mileage some improvements are better than none...are they not. And fuel to air mixtures in cars even at the best are far from being pushed to the limit.. So there is plenty of room for improvements.

The ideas are hardly ever sound. EPA has tested many, many of them, with about a 99% FAIL rate. There were a couple that did actually provide a modest increase in economy BUT at the expense of intolerable emissions increases.

Combustion mixtures can be improved (like HCCI) but nothing like that is gonna happen with a carb. Sophisticated controls that carbs just can't deliver are needed.

The point is moot anyway because EFI outperforms carbs as far as fuel efficiency.

[SOUL-DRIFTER]

I remember some cars like the first year or two Honda that advertised getting 60mpg, they were not fuel injected back then. Yet the EFI of today does not get close to that.
So what is the explanation there?

[Frank Lee]

You are not aware that the EPA economy tests have changed several times over the years???

[SOUL-DRIFTER]

I have heard they changed, but not how.
More conservative I assume.

[gone-ot]

...as well as 'tighter' emission requirements, especially from California!






...I definitely am whiffing some UniCorn pharts here.

[Frank Lee]

I'll try to remain gentle; some cheeseheads require an extra measure of patience.

[mja1]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

The point is moot anyway because EFI outperforms carbs as far as fuel efficiency.

Not true. for 99.9999999% of cases yes. But EFI will always remain at higher fuel pressures, there's no way around it. The lower pressure fuel of the carb has the 'potential' to take advantage of high AFR's. This is the point where a carb outperforms EFI in efficiency, where the ICE is limited only by the melting point of the engine materials used, not by the ignition & fuel timing as in traditional EFI.

Though 200mpg is way off the mark especially in a 455

[Grant-53]

The first Honda cars imported to the US were small 600cc vehicles. The Civic 1300cc CVCC came later.