Anybody else, or am I the only one?
 

Not to fault anyone elses approach to improved mileage,but heres my thinking in a nutshell. In 1966, the car makers, with the Gov't. looking over their shoulder, met a fork in the road (meeting emission standards), and they took the Left fork.
The initial focus was on Smog, caused by unburned gasoline coming out the tailpipe.They COULD have taken a look at the OTHER END of the pipe i.e. the engine. Unburned gas coming out the tailpipe is wasted gas, in addition to causing pollution.However, they focussed all their attention narrowly on the tailpipe. Their 'solution' involved wasting even more gas, in order to make sure there was ENOUGH unburned gas, at all driving conditions, to 'feed' the catalyctic converter, and, having the oil co.'s make gas less flamable (higher octane) in order to prevent engine knock (pre-ignition), even though this produced Nox, as a result of slower combustion.
Once they were firmly and irrevocably on this road, the Gov't began to place mileage standards (CAFE). In fact, the things they had done to meet emission standards actually lowered the mileage.The only place 'left' for the manufacturers to go was to aerodynamics, and lightening the load.Market demand limited how far they could go with aerodynamics, (People won't buy a car if it looks too unusual) and people won't pay for the extra expense of bellypans, so they developed "crunchmobiles", with thinner metal for bodypanels, and crunch zones to absorb impact.
My approach is to go back to 1965, and take the other fork in the road.There are a lot of advances that have developed in the last 50 years.By starting with a pre-1966 car, I don't have to live with the IMHO faulty problem solving solutions they came up with, which waste gas.I can take the other fork in the road.Whatever mods I make to the engine, I don't have to fight with the ECU, OR the Govt inspector, sticking their nose under my hood and telling me "You can't do that".Then, in other areas I can lower the body weight, (and there is more to work with, so more gains to be made), I can change the rear end and tranny, to a modern one with overdrive, and taller gears, adding disc brakes in the process, and then move on to aerodynamics, where, again, there is more room for improvement.There are still such cars around, they can be gotten fairly cheap, parts are plentiful.Anyway, thats my approach. Thing is, when I've posted on other mileage improving groups, I find the others are all talking about Efies and other ways to fool the computer, etc.So, I'm wondering am I the ONLY one taking the road (or fork in the road) less traveled?Jim

What goal are you thinking can be attained with a pre 66 car that has no cat/smog, is tuned to run reasonably lean and includes aero mods? What car are you thinking is a good one to start with? I think the big one you hit on is the fact that very few people want to drive around in a bullet car.

Well, firstly my goal is not fame or fortune.Seriously, I have conversed (on the I-net) with people working on vapoisers, etc. who are dreaming of solving the worlds energy/transportation problems. I say Good-Luck, but that ain't me.I just want a car that will transport me'nmine safely, with the best mileage i can get. I don't have a specific goal in mind.
There are a lot of "platforms" that would work. I think a really good one to start with would be a 65 plymouth Valient, slant 6 225 engine. A great engine, I know of many that went 225,000 miles w/out a re-build. Easy to work on, simple engine. The Valiant was set-up so you could order it with a V-8, so with the slant 6 the engine bay is humongous! Lots of room to work, or put mods.The body is fairly heavy guage steel, so there is room for selective weight reduction, and aerodynamic improvements. I think it gets around 25 m.p.g. stock, so not a bad starting point.In the same time frame, Ford had the straight 6 223, and Chevy also had a straight 6, can't recall the #, 216 maybe?Any of these would be a good engine for a starting point.
I'm actually looking for others taking this approach, cause in the past, on mileage/economy forums, I keep getting people with newer car thinking saying "That will cause your ECU to throw a check engine light, and go into closed loop" or similar stuff. I have to constantly remind people i don't have an ECU, or a check engine light.Gets frustrating.Looking to see if there are others out there like me, so we could have our own section, on 1 of these sites.Oh, and let me make it clear, I'm not taking the attitude of trash the earth, so long as I get better mileage.Just looking for a different way; burn all the gas in the engine, theres none left to pollute. Honda came up with an alternative, for a while. Stratified charge, I think its called.Didn't require a converter, and passed emissions.Thats one way, there may be others.Jim

Very interesting approach Jim. Its to be encouraged, why should we all just believe that the current systems are the only way. (EGR and computers) I think it should be a great experiment starting from the simplest system possible and making all your mods.
I think your only real problem will be weight, but as you said, there are probably a lot of lighter things out there that can be swapped in.

After all, how much weight reduction can you do, on a "newer" car; its already been done, by the manufacturer.Pull out the passenger seats and spare tire, maybe.
Another advantage, if your 'adjusting the nut behind the steering wheel' techniques include shutting off the engine/coasting, no locking steering to worry about.Its a good idea to use a small air tank, with a check valve, as a vacuum tank, to insure power brakes if needed.Plenty of room for that, under the hood.
If you want to play with engine temps, you can put a different thermostat, no thermostat or a restrictor in the therostat cover. Can't do that, i tried it on my "newer"car, an 89 Camaro, 2.8 multiport fuel injection. It threw a check engine light.
There are also a # of 'outhere'mods I want to do, which I can't do on the Camaro.Put a negative ion generator in the intake, for example. It would probably fry the computer.
Ceramic coat the tops of the cylinder, the faces of the valves, and the top of the pistons. Then, coat the top of the pistons with a thin layer of Palladium.Probably would confuse the computer, as it should result in complete combustion in the combustion chamber, where it will hopefully do some good.Ideally, will allow me to retard the timing some. Idealised goal, to Zero advance, although I'll take whatever I can get.
Also considering a lever in the cab, controlling a cable to the distributor, in order to idle down while coasting.Cars normally idle at an rpm that yields enough low end torque for starting out from a dead stop.Could idle lower than that, just for coasting and WHILE at a dead stop.May save enough to negate the need for turning the engine off.Lights about to turn green, slide the lever from 1 detent/stop, (for idle/standing still, say 300rpm) to the next, say 1000rpm the "normal' position.Might could do that with something like megasquirt, but this is, for me, a lot easier/cheaper.Jim

I like it!
 

Jim, I really like your out of box thinking. It's occurred to me many times in the past. My 1968 Impala convertable got 19 mpg hwy with the top down at 75 mph. It seems that there should have been more progress made in the last 40 years.

My only cautions are 1)Remember there used to be lead in gasoline, so watch part interchanges, and 2) Remember that "regular" gasoline was between 92 and 95 octane back then, thus offering a bit more bang for the buck.

Please keep us posted....

There are hardened exhaust seats available for 1965 engines, as unleaded was already prevalent by then.And I believe you have it backwards; gasoline was 75 octane gas 'back then'. Higher octane means LESS 'bang for the buck'.i.e. octane effects, in plain language the flamability or ignitability of fuel.Higher octane means less ignitable.When they started putting 'extra' gas into the cylinders,in order to make sure there would be enough unburned gas in the exhaust to make the catalyctic converter work, they had too much pre-ignition. Even with knock sensors, so they had the gasoline co.'s make the gas with a higher octane, making it, in effect less flamable.They called the highest octane gas "premium", implying that it was the 'best'.In addition, for a long time there was the belief that certain engines, like Cadillacs, needed to run on "premium". I don't know whether this was true at 1 time, or whether this was part of the snow job to convice us that higher octane was somehow better.My understanding is that currently, there are no stock cars which "Have" to run on premium gas.Cars which have had work done on them to raise the compression, yes.Anyway, the 'old gas" was 75 octane, and it really did have more bang for the buck; more volatile, more easily vaporised, more flamable.
One other point; economy includes all the expences of operating your vehicle. Both insurance co.'s and state registration (DMV) go by the kelly blue book, in order to calculate the charges. And the Kelly blue book doesn't take into account "collectible' status in its values. The new price starts out high, and then gradually declines.In Az., a 1965 vehicle is charged the mandated minimum for registration, $15.00/year.Insurance, at least mandatory liability, is similarly very low.More $ in my pocket, or to be used for financing my mod projects! Jim

Higher octane does mean the gas burns slower and is harder to ignite, but.... that means you can run higher compression engines which have a higher efficieny and get more useable power out of a gallon of gas. There is nothing bad about higher octane fuel unless the engine its run in is designed for lower octane, then it doesn't get you anything. However, if the engine is designed with higher compression and only runs higher octane you get a higher efficiency engine and more power per gallon of gas. This is where E85 shines with its 105+ octane rating. I built an engine specifically for E85 and it has 12.5:1 static compression. I use to get 27 mpg with the factory compression of 7.8:1 and 85 octane pump gas, I now get 24mpg on E85 with the high compression. Much better than the typical loss of 34% to switch to E85. I got about 18mpg with E85 and the 7.8:1 compression, more in line with the 34% loss. Your arguements and ideas are very good, but other factors come into play with higher octane.

Firstly, let me make it clear, I'm not faulting anyone who's trying to improve their mileage, by whatewver method, and regardless of whether their starting with a 'newer car' or not.
I was 11 y.o. in 1966, when the car co.'s began to respond to emission standards requirements, just when I was getting interested in cars. I watched the changes over the years, and the way emissions controls evolved is what i think of as "patchwork", (or Piss-Poor) problem solving.
Example; I saw a show on TV recently, about "Medical Marajiuana". A cancer survivor said "After the radiation therapy, the side effects were it made my hair fall out, (they told me to wear a hat or a WIG), depression, so they gave me an anti-depressant, and nausea, so they gave me a pill for that. The anti-nausea medicine made me constipated, so they gave me a pill for that, which gave me diarhea, so they gave me a pill for that.The anti-depressant had side effects, and the Dr. seemed embarassed, as they recomended an herb for that, cause apperantly they haven't come up with a pill for those side effects, yet. Anyway, I was venting to a friend about this and they said,"Let me get this straight; They're giving you a pill, to deal with the side effects of a pill, that they're giving you to deal with the side effects of a pill, that" etc. (You get the point). "They got the right idea when they suggested an herb, just the wrong one. Why don't you just smoke a little pot? It helps with the nausea, and the depression, and no pills to deal with the side effects!"Thats an example of PPS. At some point, you gotta ask, maybe the original solution was faulty, and I should go back to square 1.In the case of radiation therapy, the one guaranteed way to give someone cancer is to expose them to radiation. I have no doubt that in the future we'll look back on it the way we now look at the bloodletting of the past.
Anyway, heres the way I see the PPS of emissions controls;Unburned gasoline coming out the tailpipe, causing smog.So, put a CC in the exhaust, to cause a catalyctic reaction to break the unburned gas down into hydrogen and Methane, and burn it.Great, except that at some load/throttle settings, there wasn't ENOUGH unburned gas in the exhaust to trigger the reaction. So, need a pill. Put an O2 sensor in the exhaust which, despite its name, actually is measuring the amount of unburned gas in the exhaust.Send the signal to a computer, which will richen up the mixture enough to keep the CC "fed".Only carbs couldn't adequately respond to the signals, so Bye Bye Carbs, Hello fuel injection! Only,....theres a problem. (Need ANOTHER pill)This was putting so much 'extra' gas, over and above what the engine needed, that it was causing pre-ignition.So, they put knock sensors, to detect engine knock, (Pre-ignition) and send a signal to the ECU to lean it out, a hair.Still not enough, so the car companies went to the oil companies and said, "You got to make your gasoline less flamable."Now, I will concede that my 1965 Ford 223 has a compression ratio of 8:1, (stock) and that later engines increased the compression ratio.I haven't read anything that clearly spells out WHY the manufacturers increased the compression ratio.Was it to comply with emission controls, by getting more power from a smaller, and therfore lighter engine, and did this have to do with emissions, or the CAFE mileage standards that were also imposed? Oh, yeah, I think I remember. (After awile, its hard to keep track of what all the pills are for!)NOX, (not to be confused with pre-ignition) i.e.nitrous oxide is a result of slow combustion.The higher octane means slower combustion, which produces nitic oxide in the exhaust. So, the system they developed to deal with tailpipe emissions is actually adding a new gas to the mix! So, need another pill.Increase the combustion speed, by increasing the compression ratio. And, (another pill) and EGR valve, to feed a little exhaust into the intake, to lower NOX.
I do know that the oil companies complied, even tho it meant spending 10 million $ per refinery, to 'upgrade' them to produce the higher octane gas.Up until then, (when gas was 75 octane) there were independent gas stations, selling gas .03-.07 cents less than the 'name brands'. These stations bought their gas from independent producers, unaffiliated with the oil companies, who bought oil on the open market, refined it and then with their own tankers distributed it to the stations. When higher octane gas became required, all these independent refineries went out of business, and most of the independent stations, as well. The stations that remain have to buy their gas from the only game in town.Anyway, thats just a side effect of all this.
These older engines, with their lower compression ratios, seem to have no shortage of power.Makes me wonder whether the higher octane gas was to run higher compressions, or vice versa?Is the higher compression yet another pill; to get more power out of "less flamable" gasoline?
Another thing to consider; We all know that gas is made up of many fractions, and that they vaporise at different temps.As the flame kernal spreads, the temp in the combustion chamber rises dramatically, boiling off, (vaporising) and then burning the various fractions. There is a (volume-wise) small portion of gas which only vaporises at the highest temps. Seems to me logical, (could be wrong) the the unburned gas coming out the tailpipe is probably made up of these "heaviest" fractions.And yet, when the ECU puts more gas in, to 'feed' the CC it puts more gas, composed of all fractions, into the combustion chamber, even tho only the heaviest fractions of this 'extra gas' are liable to survive the combustion process, and end up in the exhaust, where they can 'feed' the converter.
This is why I'm doing what the car companies were unable/unwilling to do, going back to square 1, and seeing if I can find another way, the equivalent of 'medical marajiuana'.The problem with PPS, is if theirs enough momentum, and enough resources, (i.e. the car companies had enough $ to continue funding patch after patch, the medical establishment actually makes $ for each of their 'patches') and if the people involved don't have to deal with the negative consequences, their is no incentive, or a dis-incentive to do the difficult, painful thing of saying "even tho we've spent billions trying to make this work, we NEED to go back to square 1."Jim

I can see where you are coming from and questioning why higher octane came about. There is nothing wrong with that. I would look at race cars that have no emission requirement and are concerned about efficiency for one possible answer. A lot of race cars are trying to squeeze as much power out of a gallon of gas as possible and get it to the tires to do work(as opposed to lost heat and losses out the tailpipe). We look to salt flat cars to learn more about aero for economy and I think we can look at race cars to learn more about squeezing power out of the fuel. Not all race car engine design will concern us because they operate in a small poewr band typically, but there are other tricks to be learned. I am not trying to sway your ideas, this aspect is interesting to me because of my tinkering with E85 to get more economy out of it.

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

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.

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...

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,...

Not much of an issue if you use a CVT.

That is true with the CVT. I think everyone has great points.

Sorry, whats a CVT?

Continuously variable transmission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continu...e_transmission

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