Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-27-2011, 11:56 AM   #1 (permalink)
Diesel Addict/No Cure
 
cleanspeed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: chicago, il
Posts: 787

StolenHoopty - '90 Honda Accord EX

HvyDrnkr - '93 Cadillac Seville
Thanks: 130
Thanked 74 Times in 49 Posts
Old School Engines and Fuel Efficiency

Flatheads, Hemis, straight 6s and 8s, Nailheads, foreign, domestic.

Where these engines and others from back in the day that poorly designed?

Given some modernization, could they do just as well as what's out now?

If you have or had an old school ride that actually mpg'd well, share the story.

__________________
Volvo WIA42 VED-12 / 335 hp / 1300 ft/lbs / 9 mpg

Big n' Boxy, Never met a Hill it Didn't Like
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 05-27-2011, 12:14 PM   #2 (permalink)
Making Ecomods a G thing
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 655

Angie - '08 Infiniti G35 X
90 day: 22.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 35
Thanked 75 Times in 58 Posts
my dad had an old Chrysler 300 (I forget what year, may have been a Hurst 300) with a 392 Hemi that got around 20-22MPG, may not seem good but it was a 4200+ pound car after all, and it had the aerodynamics of a smooth brick. And I'm pretty sure he never tried for mileage in the thing
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 01:21 PM   #3 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JRMichler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 1,013

Nameless - '06 GMC Canyon
90 day: 37.45 mpg (US)

22 Maverick - '22 Ford Maverick XL
90 day: 41.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 188
Thanked 466 Times in 287 Posts
My very first car, purchased for the grand sum of $100, was a 1961 Rambler American with the flathead 6 cylinder engine. As best as I can recall, it got 30 MPG when I first got it. However, the top speed was only 60-65 MPH.

Then I fixed the accelerator linkage so the throttle plate would go full open. After that, I drove 70 MPH and averaged 24 MPG.

I've always wondered what that car could have done with some aero work and an overdrive transmission.

I won a race in it without exceeding idle speed in first gear. It was through a frozen plowed field and the other guy did not have seat belts.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 02:04 PM   #4 (permalink)
Diesel Addict/No Cure
 
cleanspeed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: chicago, il
Posts: 787

StolenHoopty - '90 Honda Accord EX

HvyDrnkr - '93 Cadillac Seville
Thanks: 130
Thanked 74 Times in 49 Posts
What got me wanting to start this thread was an article I was reading last night about the Oldsmobile Turnpike Cruiser package from the '60s. There have to be more stories about combos like that and it just raises the question about how far we have come in terms of auto design. I know the stories are out there about simple engines that mpg well.
__________________
Volvo WIA42 VED-12 / 335 hp / 1300 ft/lbs / 9 mpg

Big n' Boxy, Never met a Hill it Didn't Like
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 02:26 PM   #5 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Kodak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 346

Canyon - '07 GMC Canyon 2wd regular cab
90 day: 24.95 mpg (US)
Thanks: 41
Thanked 39 Times in 24 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanspeed1 View Post
...it just raises the question about how far we have come in terms of auto design. I know the stories are out there about simple engines that mpg well.
I recall having heard that the Ford Model T's did fairly well. Can't remember an mpg figure though. A quick net search gave varying figures ranging from low/mid teens to mid 20's, although I wonder about the validity of the figures.

Of course, conditions like congestion and poorly designed traffic lights, which were less of an issue in 1908, make for artificially lower real-life mpg than what modern vehicles may actually be capable of.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 03:14 PM   #6 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 536 Times in 384 Posts
Being 'foreign' I would have to nominate a foreign engine - BMC / BL's A-series engine - 803-1275cc. The one used in the class Mini Coopers, the MG Midget / AH Sprite and hundreds of other cars.

I had the 64 MPG car in this advert



back in the day - 998cc, 46 bhp, 82 mph and 0-60 officially in 18.2 seconds.

Needless to say it didn't manage 64 every day as I was 17 and stupid, but I did have the odd tank of 50+ mpg, which was very useful as it only had a small 5.5 gallon fuel tank. The developments that gave it the potential for 60+ were simple - high compression and a long (for the day) top gear of 18.6 mph/1000 rpm.

It also had the superbly economical single SU HIF carb - and I know that people who remember the unreliable setups of MGs of the 50s and 60s will be curing that statement - but this version did away with the side float chamber and actually remained in tune for more than the time it took to drive away from the garage.

The A-series was efficient enough to remain in production for a long long time - 1952 to 2000+ and whenever a replacement came along it was always just "good enough" to not be replaced even though it was a pushrod OHV design in the days of DOHC/16v units. Honda had been making VTECs for 2 decades by the time it was phased out.

It wasn't light (Iron block / head) and it had inefficient siamese ports but the combustion chamber design was very effective, plus being a long stroke unit it was good for low and mid range torque and made better use of the fuel it did burn. It also only had 3 main bearings so it didn't have a lot of friction lossed but at the expense of reliability at higher engine speeds - but then again did I mention the siamese ports ?

Later ones in the run-out classic Minis actually got port FI, ECUs and catalysts as well as electric cooling (for noise reasons) but with the low gearing of the Mini they weren't going to be especially good at FE.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Arragonis For This Useful Post:
cleanspeed1 (05-27-2011)
Old 05-27-2011, 03:36 PM   #7 (permalink)
Diesel Addict/No Cure
 
cleanspeed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: chicago, il
Posts: 787

StolenHoopty - '90 Honda Accord EX

HvyDrnkr - '93 Cadillac Seville
Thanks: 130
Thanked 74 Times in 49 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
Being 'foreign' I would have to nominate a foreign engine - BMC / BL's A-series engine - 803-1275cc. The one used in the class Mini Coopers, the MG Midget / AH Sprite and hundreds of other cars.

I had the 64 MPG car in this advert



back in the day - 998cc, 46 bhp, 82 mph and 0-60 officially in 18.2 seconds.

Needless to say it didn't manage 64 every day as I was 17 and stupid, but I did have the odd tank of 50+ mpg, which was very useful as it only had a small 5.5 gallon fuel tank. The developments that gave it the potential for 60+ were simple - high compression and a long (for the day) top gear of 18.6 mph/1000 rpm

It also had the superbly economical single SU HIF carb - and I know that people who remember the unreliable setups of MGs of the 50s and 60s will be curing that statement - but this version did away with the side float chamber and actually remained in tune for more than the time it took to drive away from the garage.

The A-series was efficient enough to remain in production for a long long time - 1952 to 2000+ and whenever a replacement came along it was always just "good enough" to not be replaced even though it was a pushrod OHV design in the days of DOHC/16v units. Honda had been making VTECs for 2 decades by the time it was phased out.

It wasn't light (Iron block / head) and it had inefficient siamese ports but the combustion chamber design was very effective, plus being a long stroke unit it was good for low and mid range torque and made better use of the fuel it did burn. It also only had 3 main bearings so it didn't have a lot of friction lossed but at the expense of reliability at higher engine speeds - but then again did I mention the siamese ports ?

Later ones in the run-out classic Minis actually got port FI, ECUs and catalysts as well as electric cooling (for noise reasons) but with the low gearing of the Mini they weren't going to be especially good at FE.
53 mpg ( US ) from a single carbureted, non feedback style engine with an SU carburetor that worked. That is impressive.
__________________
Volvo WIA42 VED-12 / 335 hp / 1300 ft/lbs / 9 mpg

Big n' Boxy, Never met a Hill it Didn't Like
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 03:58 PM   #8 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 536 Times in 384 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanspeed1 View Post
53 mpg ( US ) from a single carbureted, non feedback style engine with an SU carburetor that worked. That is impressive.
True, but when you consider it only weighed 1800 lbs and if you compare the performance to say a 3 cyl late model 5 sp Geo it comes off not so good.

But it was a nice car at the time.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 04:22 PM   #9 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JasonG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charlotte NC / York SC
Posts: 728

05 DMax - '05 Chevrolet 2500HD
90 day: 18.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 120
Thanked 56 Times in 52 Posts
While not real impressive, my 1979 Yamaha XS750 gets around 50MPG (if I stay off the throttle )

Air cooled, carburated, steel everything. Same engine basically from 1962.
Most new aluminum watercooled injected bikes run 40-50 MPG.

My opinion is same story all around. Most manufactuers don't engineer FE into their engines.
__________________



I can't understand why my MPG's are so low..........
21,000lb, 41' Toy Haulers are rough on FE!
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 04:52 PM   #10 (permalink)
Diesel Addict/No Cure
 
cleanspeed1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: chicago, il
Posts: 787

StolenHoopty - '90 Honda Accord EX

HvyDrnkr - '93 Cadillac Seville
Thanks: 130
Thanked 74 Times in 49 Posts
I wouldn't go that far, the manufacturers do it but unless you care heavily about it, you'll never know about it. I never looked in to the old school engines for mpg capability because, at the time, I never cared about it. But with all the complexity involved with modern engines, I find it hard to believe that prior to the advent of computer controls that the OEMs didn't have combinations that were fuel efficient, yet possibly limited because of the technology of the time.

__________________
Volvo WIA42 VED-12 / 335 hp / 1300 ft/lbs / 9 mpg

Big n' Boxy, Never met a Hill it Didn't Like
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com