318 MAX fuel economy builds?

-
RustyRatRod said:
Knock yourself out. IMO, they are totally unnecessary on anything under 220 @ .050. I wouldn't use them anyway, becaus I am over and done ewith hydraulic lifters. I MIGHT would use the Rhoads VMax lifters, but most likely not, since the slant 6 is really not built for a hydraulic camshaft.
Click to expand...
" because I am over and done with hydraulic lifters."

Why is that Rusty? -thanks for your information, time, effort, and experience!!
 
greymouser7 said:
" because I am over and done with hydraulic lifters."

Why is that Rusty? -thanks for your information, time, effort, and experience!!
Click to expand...
Because first, nobody makes a good hydraulic lifter anymore and secondly, solids make more power everywhere, so there's no sense whatsoever to go hydraulic. They were never made for performance anyway.
 
Hyd cams were designed to make starting an engine easier.
They’re more forgiving when it’s a little to large for an application. Fast forward some years, the performance industry started making bud performance cams. Simple and easy bolt in power.

I don’t recommend solid lifters on bud cams but yes it is possible.
 
IIRC, there is an angle difference ground in the cam.
 
mpgmike said:
As far as the heat chamber under the carb, Smokey Yunick did a rather elaborate design using a turbo back in the mid-80s. He was getting over 50 MPG with around 250 HP from a Fiero, Plymouth Horizon, and a European Fiat:

Smokey Yunick’s Hot Vapor Fiero; 51 mpg and 0-60 in less than 6 Seconds! See and hear it run in our exclusive VIDEO! - Information on collecting cars - Legendary Collector Cars
Click to expand...
Oh that's cool but a friend has a Fiero with a aluminum Cadillac under the lid. Scary fast
 
I've seen Northstar V-8's stuffed into them, in fact I seem to recall someone offering a kit to facilitate that swap. That's 32 valves of 4.6 liter screamer!
 
mpgmike said:
I've seen Northstar V-8's stuffed into them, in fact I seem to recall someone offering a kit to facilitate that swap. That's 32 valves of 4.6 liter screamer!
Click to expand...
The Northstar was a fantastic package. It should have caught on much better than it did. I guess it was over shadowed by the LS platform. Too bad, too.
 
GM only used it in their Cadillacs (so far as I know), plus they had issues. Originally developed by Lotus for GM, Lotus wanted a bunch of money for the project. Instead, GM bought Lotus, pulled the Northstar program, then sold the rest for pretty much what they paid. It has been plagued by head gasket issues, where the head bolts in the aluminum block eventually pull. Main bearing failures have also been attributed to structural integrity relying on threads in the aluminum block. I have one here where I drilled out the head bolt holes larger, tapped them, then used head studs with a larger clamping force.
 
mpgmike said:
GM only used it in their Cadillacs (so far as I know), plus they had issues. Originally developed by Lotus for GM, Lotus wanted a bunch of money for the project. Instead, GM bought Lotus, pulled the Northstar program, then sold the rest for pretty much what they paid. It has been plagued by head gasket issues, where the head bolts in the aluminum block eventually pull. Main bearing failures have also been attributed to structural integrity relying on threads in the aluminum block. I have one here where I drilled out the head bolt holes larger, tapped them, then used head studs with a larger clamping force.
Click to expand...
Didn't Oldsmobile use a version as well?
 
There's a whole fiero culture around different engines.

Basically any SBC bolt pattern block can fit.

Buick turbo v6 is another popular one.

I pass a late gt on my way to and from work, in a used car lot.

I've been tempted to stop in and ask about it.

Once before, I though I wanted one. Not really enough headroom for me, though. I'd need to do a T top conversion.....if I could find the parts.

I came close to buying a 2.8 5 speed se from a guy that literally had a warehouse full of them including a driving northstar conversion and a WIP 3.8 turbo.

I've seen a few Ferrari 3x8 body conversions that you can't tell ain't "real".

Pontiac actually even made one from the factory....and got sued.
 
Jadaharabi said:
In effect it was a heated carb spacer.
Everybody else wants to cool the air going into the engine this was heating it up instead.
Click to expand...
I was told a long time ago by an chemical engineer (my little league coach) that gasoline doesn’t burn, its the vapors. So when ‘gas’ is heated it gives off vapors, the hotter it gets the more vapors the more fire. Watch when they weld on those huge tanks, it has to be full because gas don’t burn
 
Ceedawg said:
I was told a long time ago by an chemical engineer (my little league coach) that gasoline doesn’t burn, its the vapors. So when ‘gas’ is heated it gives off vapors, the hotter it gets the more vapors the more fire. Watch when they weld on those huge tanks, it has to be full because gas don’t burn
Click to expand...
A little off subject.

I used to work for Progress Industries in Arthur Illinois. We built tanks for trucks and semi trailers. We also did repairs. When it came to repairs we would steam clean the inside of the tanks and then leave the steam hoses in the tank to fill the tank up so there was nothing to blow up.
One day we got in a ink trailer that has that pretty stainless steel outside covering on it and then under that is insulation and then the tank. Well the guy steam clean the tank left the hoses in did not take into consideration the ink that had soaked into the insulation. When he struck an ark it blew him out of the end of the building and blew the end of the building down. He lived. They made him a supervisor.

You might say he got bad gas mileage that day.
 
Last edited:
mpgmike said:
As far as the heat chamber under the carb, Smokey Yunick did a rather elaborate design using a turbo back in the mid-80s. He was getting over 50 MPG with around 250 HP from a Fiero, Plymouth Horizon, and a European Fiat:

Smokey Yunick’s Hot Vapor Fiero; 51 mpg and 0-60 in less than 6 Seconds! See and hear it run in our exclusive VIDEO! - Information on collecting cars - Legendary Collector Cars
Click to expand...
I wonder if something similar could be fashioned with a hot box of some kind under the carb, and using marine engine exhaust manifolds as the heat exchanger?
 
Jadaharabi said:
A little off subject.

I used to work for Progress Industries in Arthur Illinois. We built tanks for trucks and semi trailers. We also did repairs. When it came to repairs we would steam clean the inside of the tanks and then leave the steam hoses in the tank to fill the tank up so there was nothing to blow up.
One day we got in a ink trailer that has that pretty stainless steel outside covering on it and then under that is insulation and then the tank. Well the guy steam clean the tank left the hoses in did not take into consideration the ink that had soaked into the insulation. When he struck an ark it blew him out of the end of the building and blew the end of the building down. He lived. They made him a supervisor.

You might say he got bad gas mileage that day.
Click to expand...

Ok, that’s not funny but it made me laugh. I’m glad the guy lived because that definitely could have had a different outcome. But they made him a supervisor.

Hopefully he wasn’t beat up so bad that’s all he could do.
 
Ceedawg said:
I was told a long time ago by an chemical engineer (my little league coach) that gasoline doesn’t burn, its the vapors. So when ‘gas’ is heated it gives off vapors, the hotter it gets the more vapors the more fire. Watch when they weld on those huge tanks, it has to be full because gas don’t burn
Click to expand...
He's right, liquids don't burn in the cylinder. The finer the droplets are the better the homogenization is and as a result the burn is better. SO if your engine requires a lot of timing what does that tell you?
 
Rat Bastid said:
Ok, that’s not funny but it made me laugh. I’m glad the guy lived because that definitely could have had a different outcome. But they made him a supervisor.

Hopefully he wasn’t beat up so bad that’s all he could do.
Click to expand...
He was out of the hospital and working when I went to work for the company. They had a new building and a new supervisor. He did kind of have a gimp or a limp and was a little bit hard hearing but he was a good working foreman. Later on he quit there and went to work for a trucking company as a driver and that was the last I heard of him.
 
mgoblue9798 said:
I wonder if something similar could be fashioned with a hot box of some kind under the carb, and using marine engine exhaust manifolds as the heat exchanger?
Click to expand...
Charles Nelson Pogue
Tom Ogle
Allan Wallace
GEET Fuel Processor
naybox1.jpg


vaporpipe1.jpg


GeetVwEng1.jpg


vaporedbike1.jpg
 
Hysteric said:
He's right, liquids don't burn in the cylinder. The finer the droplets are the better the homogenization is and as a result the burn is better. SO if your engine requires a lot of timing what does that tell you?
Click to expand...


You can vaporize the fuel too soon and kill power. It’s not just atomize the hell out of the fuel.

Pump gas isn’t the same as race gas which isn’t the same as methanol.

Making blanket statements is reckless at best.
 
Since this is a thread on improving fuel efficiency, that's probably irrelevant. The discussion about vaporizing the fuel too soon relates to hurting Volumetric Efficiency due to the additional room vaporized fuel occupies. This was a major concern when the restrictor plates were first introduced to NASCAR. You have to consider "The Precious Commodity".

In an all-out performance application, the precious commodity is air. If you need more fuel, you can pour liquid fuel into an engine and drown it. Air, though, is limited by what can squeeze through the throttle blades, through the ports, and past the valves on the intake stroke. Thus, air is the precious commodity.

In a fuel economy application, fuel is the precious commodity. If you need more air, simply open the throttle a bit more. Vaporizing as much of the fuel as possible, as soon and quickly as possible improves Combustion Efficiency (perhaps at the expense of Volumetric Efficiency).
 
One other thing that happened to my van that had the millage up to 16 mpg. I was chasing a problem with the engine not running right, changed every part at least twice. It would buck jump under the slightest hill climb, regular hill no problem, maybe a 2% grade. Well by chance I changed the crank sensor, bam ran like a top but then after that came the 12 mpg. Still trying to figure how that sensor caused that difference because it’s only picking up a signal when to fire. Any ideas guys? Can’t find that dang sensor to retry.
 
A noisy CPS could trigger a spark event either too early or too late (compared to a good CPS). If triggering too early, you are getting additional spark timing advance. If too late, you are getting spark timing retard. Regardless of what it actually did, I believe your experience relates to altered ignition timing versus the internal Look-Up Tables (LUTs).

Ford IAT sensors are fairly high in resistance values compared to most other makes. To advance timing, put a 4.7k ohm resistor in SERIES with either of the IAT sensor wires. This will result in the overall IAT circuit having higher resistance. Colder air = higher resistance = more ignition timing advance. This means you cut one of the 2 wires and attach the resistor leads to the cut ends. If you want to see if retarding the timing helps, put a 47k ohm resistor in PARALLEL with the IAT sensor (splice one lead from the resistor into one IAT sensor wire, and the other lead with the other wire). This will reduce overall resistance, which tells the ECU you have hotter air. It will then retard timing. You could dial the specific resistance value in better for more precise timing alteration.
 
Rat Bastid said:
It’s not just atomize the hell out of the fuel.
Click to expand...
Where does all that atomizing take place?.......Not only that you use a large port with a Large valve and Large carb with a Large runner intake manifold and couple that with a late intake valve closing point so you don't actually compress the mixture all that much. Where's all that over vaporization you're talking about happening?

In the Exhaust perhaps?

mpgmike said:
Since this is a thread on improving fuel efficiency, that's probably irrelevant. The discussion about vaporizing the fuel too soon relates to hurting Volumetric Efficiency due to the additional room vaporized fuel occupies. This was a major concern when the restrictor plates were first introduced to NASCAR. You have to consider "The Precious Commodity".

In an all-out performance application, the precious commodity is air. If you need more fuel, you can pour liquid fuel into an engine and drown it. Air, though, is limited by what can squeeze through the throttle blades, through the ports, and past the valves on the intake stroke. Thus, air is the precious commodity.

In a fuel economy application, fuel is the precious commodity. If you need more air, simply open the throttle a bit more. Vaporizing as much of the fuel as possible, as soon and quickly as possible improves Combustion Efficiency (perhaps at the expense of Volumetric Efficiency).
Click to expand...
Great post. That said I've come across many "underheaded" engines combos that defy convention in regards to how much power they make for how much air they ingest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top