Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Introductions
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-17-2009, 08:44 PM   #11 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
No problem, at all. Firstly, I commend and respect what you've done, working with E-85. Other hypermileagers that I've read on the web curse the stuff, and say it lowers their mileage.
Secondly, I agree with you. Anyone modifying for "Performance" (racing) is trying to make their car more efficient.So is anyone modding for economy.Its just the application thats different.
Are you familiar with Endyne, (Theoldone.com). I think the name is Larry Widmer or Widmar, sorry to him if I got it wrong. He developed "Squish/quench" technology for race cars. Because he is improving the efficiency, getting a more complete burn, he also improved mileage, which is as important in indy style racing as speed.
And finally, I can't (unfortunately), completely go back to 1965, and put myself in the place of the car makers. If I could, I would go to the oil companies and say; "You've got to make your gasoline MORE flamable. More precisely, you've got to remove the very "heaviest" fractions. The ones that only vaporise at 900+ degrees.Some of them are surviving the combustion process, and coming out the tailpipe, causing smog." Can't do that, can't get the oil companies to modify the fuel 1/2 of the equation.
I think that by the time the Govt. imposed CAFE standards on the car co.'s, they were too far down the road they had chosen for emissions controls to turn back. And, those emissions controls made it difficult/impossible for them to make changes to the engines, to significantly improve mileage. Therefore, the only place left for them to go, to improve mileage, was to decrease the load, by reducing weight and drag.Thats really the only explanation for the fact that Fleet comparisons of mileage haven't improved that much, in 50 years, even though cars today are much lighter and more aerodynamic.And, of coarse the automakers also had to deal with safety requirements.Aren't you glad the Gov't. has finally taken over the car companies! Reminds me of the old saw, you know what you'd get if you had a committee design a horse? A camel!
Actually, I still haven't made a firm decision on what I'll do about compression, when I rebuild my engine and do my mods to it.I don't think my work will be able to incorporate, in a major way, squish/quench, although I'd love to.Probably will incude Somenders grooves, which is supposed to accomplish a similar effect, and is more in my pocketbook and expertise level.Either one is supposed to enable increasing compression without detonation.And, I'll be ceramic coating everything, which should keep the cylinder cooler, which reduces detonation, I believe. Wouldn't want to go with water injection, which is the ultimate answer to detonation, as that would interfere with what I'm doing with the Palladium, I think.So, I may look at slightly raising the compression ratio. Jim

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 06-17-2009, 09:01 PM   #12 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Must read article

Here's the link on squish/quench. The Old One - Energy Dynamics : Articles - The SoftHead 1999
An additional thought, something I heard, don't know the details. One of the very early Honda cars, they passed the emissions requirements of the time, without a catalyctic converter; It was a 4 cylinder engine, and they ran the exhaust from 3 of the cylinders into the 4th.
What I don't know is whether they added some fuel/air to the exhaust, or whether there was enough unburned fuel in the exhaust from 3 cylinders, to power the 4th without any augmentation. Makes ya think, though.
That means a 6 cylinder is 'wasting' enough gas to power 2 additional cylinders.So, in a sense, a 6 cylinder is using enough gas to power an 8, if you could eliminate the waste.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2009, 02:04 AM   #13 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: maine
Posts: 758

oldscoob - '87 subaru wagon gl/dr
90 day: 47.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 21
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
I like your mentality of history, truthful. It is indeed that stupid in the industry. I learned a modern lean can only be done with a boxer, preferably a carbed one (proper cams no BS), that left off in the 1980s. and then I even found modern v8s that can take one heck of a thump for combustion... and go back to tight carbed.You could find an old chassis for your local laws and then go real school (not old and not new) on your project with modern engine.
I learned the hiostory with actions, my mom had a 289 ford falcon from 1966 at 30mpg...Epiphany at the least to ponder...
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2009, 11:48 AM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yes, 1966 was when the car co.s began to respond to emissions. Your Mom's 289 may have only had a PCV valve, not sure. That was actually the first step. And, there was a period when they made cars with an ECU and carbs, but it didn't work very well.
Irony of the laws is that they go by the year of the chassis, not the engine.So, it wouldn't be practical to put an older engine in a newer chassis, as it would be required to meet the emission requirements based on the date of the chassis. You CAN put a newer engine in an older chassis. In fact, I bought one of my older engines off a guy who, with his sons, runs a business out of his house. He buys old classics, and totaled (wreck) newer cars, and puts the newer powerplants in the older bodies.I guess its for people who want the older car look, but are concerned about parts or repairs so want the newer powerplants.
Thing is, I feel that trying to improve the mileage on newer emission controlled motors is handicapping myself, (already discussed)parts for these motors are plentiful and CHEAPER than parts for newer engines,and these engines have plenty of power. After all, they had to move the old, heavy bodies down the road.There are certain things that are designed into a motor; some motors have longer connecting rods,and lend them selves to "hotrodding" i.e.suping up for high speed and RPM's. Others don't, and aren't.Like the Ford L6 223, and the plymouth slant 6.These engines were built for low end power, and max sustained RPM of 3500-4000.Max sustained speeds of 65-75 mph.They were built for mileage. In fact, the 223 was called the 'mileage maker'.Rebuildable engines can be had for $150-300, pistons for $100/set, valves for $40.00/set, cams for under $100; all the parts needed to rebuild the engine for $500 or so. A little machine shop work, and doing the rebuilding yourself, (and they are simple and basic enough you CAN do it yourself!)you can have a New engine for around $1000.
Then, tranny adaptors are available. Back then, they made a whole line of engines so they could all bolt up to the same trannies, and, thanks to the hotrodders, adaptors are now made to bolt up the "hotrod" engines of the era to newer trannies.So, for example, if you want a 700R4 tranny, there is an adaptor for that.These old cars mostly have leaf spring suspensions, which makes it fairly easy to swap in a different rear end, with taller gears, and disc brakes if you want. Disc brake conversions are available for the front axle, and converting to airbag suspension, so the leaf spring is only for alighnment and attachment of the axle, and the bag is adjusted for ride.
Now, do whatever experiments you want on the engine, free from the constraints of the emission controls and the inspectors.Then, look at selectively reducing the weight,and bellypan and aeromods.
Your Mom's Falcon got 30mpg, and that was with an old tranny, (probably not overdrive, although they had a few back then, and even earlier), the old, low geared rear end, no mods to the engine, (fuel heater, air restriction, etc.) heavy unaerodynamic body.Wonder what it COULD get,...
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2009, 01:23 PM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
wagonman76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northwest Lower Michigan
Posts: 1,006

Red Car - '89 Chevrolet Celebrity CL 4 door
Team Chevy
90 day: 36.47 mpg (US)

Winter Wagon - '89 Pontiac 6000 LE Wagon
90 day: 28.26 mpg (US)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 17 Times in 16 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobythevan View Post
Not all race car engine design will concern us because they operate in a small poewr band typically
Not much of an issue if you use a CVT.
__________________

Winter daily driver, parked most days right now


Summer daily driver
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2009, 01:27 PM   #16 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 39

HX1 - '98 Honda Civic HX
90 day: 48.08 mpg (US)

PriusG2 - '09 Toyota Prius II
90 day: 47.91 mpg (US)

PriusG2-MFD - '09 Toyota Prius II
90 day: 50.3 mpg (US)

Volt1 - '14 Chevy Volt
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
That is true with the CVT. I think everyone has great points.
__________________
Prius MFD fuel Log

Prius Gallons at fill up Log

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2009, 01:41 PM   #17 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sorry, whats a CVT?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2009, 01:46 PM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,820

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,289
Thanked 2,836 Times in 1,783 Posts
Continuously variable transmission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continu...e_transmission
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2009, 03:18 PM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Interesting, but not sure its practical for my application.Since we're getting into this, and this IS the intro section, perhaps I should share a little more about my project (2 1/2 years into, just over 1/2 way there).
In addition to wanting a vehicle which can be a daily driver, (1 of 2) and can get as good a mileage as is practical I have an additional requirement; Once every 6 mos. or so, it needs to pull my home, a 1950's era 8'x36' aluminum travel trailer; tandem axle, 7000lbs.Alas, the Plymouth Valiant won't work for this, although seriously considering it for my 'other' car.
My choice is a 1965 Divco milk truck, model 200C. Those unfamiliar with Divco's can Google Divco Club of America. Those slightly familiar may not realise that although they all look alike, they came in 3 different lengths, and 2 different widths.Mine is the 127" wheelbase, (longest standard), and with the widest box. Actually, WB doesn't tell the whole story, as there is 4 1/2' from the center of the rear axle to the back bumper, and 3 1/2' from center of front axle to front bumper; its slightly longer than a full size crew cab pick-up.
The GVW is 14000 lbs, and the stock weight is listed as 5600 lbs.Actually, its not quite as bad as it seems; the refrigeration unit weighed over 1000 lbs, and its gone, as I won't be delivering milk.Mine is whats known to Divco afficianados as a "California" Divco; it left the factory as a "Cab and Chassis Only", and a shop in El Monte, Cal put a fiberglas box on it. Actually, the metal ends just in back of the top of the windshield.(The 5600 lbs is for mthe standard model, all metal, with the box having a double metal framework, metal outside and Galv. metal lining for the box. Unfortunately, I neglected to weigh mine before taking it apart, and I've been unable to find anything telling the weight of these fiberglass models, although its safe to assume they are somewhat lighter.
When I got it, it had a 6:1 gear ratio Rockwell square axle tube rear end; the differential alone was bigger around than my chest, and the rear axle weighed about 1200 lbs. This attached to the frame with leaf springs with 21 helpers, per side.Don't know how much they weighed, but I couldn't lift even 1/2 of the helpers from 1 side.Went back with an 89 GM Corp. 14 bolt 4:1 rear end, weighing 500-700 lbs, attached and aligned with the original leaf and 2 helpers, and the actual support from 3500 lbs airbags.This takes 16" dually rims, instead of the stock 20" 5 hole budd splitrims.Did a disc brake conversion, further reducing the weight.Can put dual rims on, and plan to, ONLY when pulling the trailer, rest of the time running outer rims only.To match wheels in front, replaced stock front straight axle with one from a 79 Dodge Winnebago. Dropped all but 2 of the origina 10 helper springs, and 'bagged the front, as well. Replaced original manual steering box with a power steering box from a 79 1 ton Ford P/U.Am keeping the original "granny" 4 speed, but have installed a Gearvendors Overdrive/underdrive unit on the back of it.When not towing, will give me an overdrive gear for highway driving, lowering the RPM's and fuel consumption. When towing, will give me a gear between 2nd and 3rd, and between 3rd and 4th, although can't use 4th over when towing.
Getting into aerodynamics, I have already constructed belly pan sections, from the firewall to the back bumper.Will make 2 additional sections, from firewall to front axle, and from front axle to front bumper, after I remount body on frame, and replace front body parts.In addition to the lowering due to suspension mods, I am mounting the body 2" lower on the frame.Didn't want to majorly change the look, so rejected the idea of boat tails, etc. Am replacing the headlights with old VW bug headlights, and making a few subtle mods to the front body.The belly pan will form the bottom of a duct, 14" high and 39" wide, running from the firewall to the back bumper. The idea is to take positive pressure air from the front, and duct it to the back to "feed" the draft. I have seen several people speculate on doing this, but no info on anyone who has. So, we'll find out what effect this has.Whew, now I'm tired!Jim

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com