Hi guys New Kid to the thread
 

Hey guys my name is Dom I'm 18 and i've always had a few philosophies in eco modding the more power you have the easier your car can move and the less gas you'll use.. to an extent
Therefore i have a few simple steps i always do to all of mine and my family's cars and my friends cars who want to save gas too
K&N filters, flowmaster muffler (always with turndowns for trucks, saves about 65-100 pounds depending on truck) and run shell 91 V power, a few other things too but those are the first that are neccesary

Soo sorry guys you probably are gonna hate me

I'm a hardcore eco modder but i'm also a muscle car guy. have been since i was born can't really help it.

However I was also one of the main mechanics at my high school so lots of friends would always come to me to make their cars faster and save more gas

that's when i became a fan of Eco modding
Once again sorry i'm all about fuel economy and eco mods but i'm a total performance guy too
I'll introduce you guys to my car a little later when i have time to post pics and stuff

Hi and welcome,

Sorry to break it this way for you, but you're more power less work theory, well it's just not the way things work. Making modifications to increase power may get you better fuel economy too, but they need to be geared toward improving low end torque mainly.

I suggest you do a bit on reading on bsfc and downsizing.

Welcome to EcoModder! :thumbup:

I second Martin's comment, good luck!

Welcome to EM.

Ditto to SVOboy and Tas. More power definitely doesn't mean better mileage. Read up on brake specific fuel consumption and you'll see why.

Hi Dom,

More efficiency helps, but the others are right, too. One example of power not helping fuel efficiency is a cold air intake. Colder air means denser air, which means more power, but more fuel used. Ecomodders go with warm air intakes instead.

Another example is lower gearing for power. Lower gearing works against fuel efficiency. Hot-rodders want lower gearing. Ecomodders want higher gearing.

Thanks for the welcome guys, I know to an extent the power helping fuel economy works against itself but everything i've done so far has improved both on mine and family and frineds cars i've worked on I know a supercharger or different gearing would hurt me i'm not saying that helps fuel economy i'm just talking about small stuff like air filters and exhaust those both have always improved mileage for me

If air filters and exhaust have proven gains in efficiency for you, there are other problems most likely with your setup that are causing inefficiencies, or you're not operating the engine as efficiently as you could be.

An engine will only pull enough air and fuel to make the power it needs to do what you're telling it to do. If the engine can rev to 5,000 RPM under load on it's own, it will continue to do so whether or not you put a high-flow filter or exhaust on it. The only difference will be how fast it does it.

Your OEM air filter is not restrictive at all, contrary to popular belief. The K&N filters do flow more air, but does the engine really need it? Do a little math and find out how much air in CFM your engine really needs at the speeds you operate it at. Chances are, the OE filter will accommodate that and more.

The exhaust is a similar bet. Almost universally, when you open up your exhaust system, you lose low-end torque. This has nothing to do with back pressure, which your engine does not need to operate efficiently.

The only way you don't lose torque is if you build the exhaust in such a way that it supports the flow rate at the desired RPM. Remember, your power curve is like a game of Jenga. If you add up top, it had to come from the bottom.

Got any pictures of your cars?

Domman,
I'm really sorry, but given the 'level' of you posts for the last 24hours, I can't 'buy' what your sellin on your ride.
You claim 24+ mpg over 90 days on a 76 chevy el camino that has a 305 and weighs 4500 lbs. What.....is it downhill both ways to your job?????

Fishy MPG... where's my pole I want one!
 

Not to play kettle in this, but it is possible... I used to get between 22-25 mpg in an 89 Lincoln Towncar with the 5.0 V8 (yeah, you know I'm talking about the square boat) and that was in late fall, winter dropped it down to around 20. It takes a really light foot to keep the tranny shifting low in the RPM range, but that car did great under 70 mph. I don't have much else to say but the "proof is at the pump".

Additionally, I did have tires that were an inch larger in diameter than stock.

I've also seen decent mileage from full size vehicles, so I can't say anything to that. I think it's plausible, but I'm not placing much stock in it, TBH.

Jeep,
The 89 TownCar: designed for old people, was 9 yrs 'newer', had an overdrive tranny and a highway rearend gear........
so given your facts .......the el camino can't do 24mpg!!! lol

I mean you just proved my point.....
heck by 86 the 'new vette' could do 28mpg on the highway, but it had a 6 speed auto tranny.....AND that was highway not 90 day total.

THe el camino was a truck!

Yeah guys I've got picss of the cars just haven't had tiime to post them, The el camino is mine The mercedes is my dad's He colle ts mercedes'

No it gets 25 MPG on freeway runs
and if you know anything about chevy motors you know the chevy 305 is the most fuel efficient V8 they made heck the 1990 Chevy caprice got 27MP EPA rated on the highway and that's running a 305 If my car was a bit more fuel efficient it'd help alot. That's why i'm getting a tonneau cover soon
haha actually it only weighs 4490 now, I got a turndown and that saved a few pounds haha. But in all honesty when you really think about it a 2 barrel 305 with advanced timing and overdrive with 2.56 gears isnt really that hard to get 24MPG in

24MPG isn't really all that great idk why Anyone has that hard a time believing it i know lots of 80's GM sedans that can get over 20 MPG on the freeway it's not great in the city but when you're put putting along at 65 with a 2 barrel it doesn't use much gas

yeah that's about right my grandma's 1991 towncar gets about 21 on the freeway but like 14 in the city haha old american cars are just tooo heavy to be fuel efficient around the city but they are very good on the highway when it comes to gas most of the time

Yeah, but you've got aerodynamics and weight against you, and many of us have experience with those same vehicles as well.

I didn't say it wasn't believable, but given the context of all your posts to date that I've read, I just figured that it, too, was only happening in your head. (Although I didn't say it in text.)

Of course, I can't say it and mean it, because I don't know. I haven't tested the idea, I don't have scientific data, and I can't provide any evidence to prove one way or the other whether you're actually getting that FE or not, therefore, any argument I would make to either direction would be simply conjecture, meaningless drivel of words on a screen. (Get the idea yet?)

Remember, personal impressions are just that - Personal. Let's keep personal data labeled as such, and try to back up our claims with data from now on? (Unless you're qualifying your claims with an identifier that makes it known that it's only personal opinion, and no controlled testing has been done to attempt to show otherwise.)

haha well it's the most aerodynamic truck you can get being that low to the ground haha I mean i've seen 91 silverado's with the same motor getting 21 MPG on the freeway

Ok but the last two fuel logs are data i don't know how to show that that's just the two most recent times i have ddriven my car so i posted the info

Great! Lets see more of it! And, as long as you're staying, welcome to EM, and happy motoring!

Here's a pic of my elco I'll post a few later

Also my dad used to own a detailing company so my car is ALLLWAYS Clean and detailed that helps a little with gas too

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/a...103_234929.jpg

haha oh yeah i'm staying Question though it's startin to get cold out here how do you think it'll effect mileage? does it make much of a difference?:confused:

Because you are full of crap.
1. you clam to get 25mpg ALL THE TIME. then you say it's only on the freeway.
2. The Caprice was a 6 cyl. not a V8
3. you throw around highway numbers like the are the everyday number and like any and everybody get's that mileage.

here is the EPA page for a 1990 Caprice

1990 Chevrolet Caprice
Sorted by MPG (city),
Select up to 4 models to compare Carbon Footprint
(tons/yr of CO2) Air Pollution
Score
All states except
CA and NE states
Estimated
New MPG Annual
Fuel
Cost
Model city hwy
Chevrolet Caprice 6 cyl, 4.3 L, Automatic 4-spd, (FFS), Regular
9.2 NA
17
city 24

Chevrolet Caprice 8 cyl, 5.0 L, Automatic 4-spd, (GM-CHEV) (FFS), Regular
10.2 NA
15
city 23
hwy $2227
Compare to Official EPA Window Sticker Fuel Economy
Chevrolet Caprice 8 cyl, 5.7 L, Automatic 4-spd, (350 V8) (POLICE) (FFS), Regular
12.2 NA

23 highway for the 305 so i was a few off

And i never said i ALWAYS get 25 MPG

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...k-n-10523.html

Here, you might enjoy this, there's a lesson in there about throwing random numbers around and only being "a few off".

*places face into palm and sighs

Obviously this roadtest is wrong then
6 minutes in
it says fuel economy numbers are
17 city 27 highway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxMvZ9Visig

*gives up and moves on*

Chronic lack of attention to detail. Good bye.

1. you did say 25 mpg with no reference. so what that means is 25 all the time.
2. the caprice had a V6, your clearly, in your pubesant state, said the it had a V8.
3. we aren't used to using 'utube ads' as a source.


are you adhd?



"what is: Doing the same thing over and over and getting the same result over and over?"

I got this for you
http://www.dembot.net/images/facepal...k_facepalm.jpg

ROFLMAO

you made my morning!!!!!!:thumbup:

... and I give you...

THE DOUBLE FACE PALM!!! :D