Add kerosene to your gas to stave off detonation & advance your timing now for more ponys!?!?

-
Kerosene costs four or five times more per gallon than diesel fuel so why would you want to run kerosene. Years ago I had an old John Deere tractor that you would start on gasoline and get it all warmed up and then you would flip a lever and it would switch it over to kerosene. But you had to get the motor warmed up first. Then when it came to shutting it off you switched it back to gas and ran the kerosene out of the carburetor and then shut it off. That's back when kerosene was cheap.
Back in the 70s we had a John Deere G that I thought ran on gas then switched to diesel that was mixed with gas. I think they called it distillate. If I remember right it was a 2 cylinder which had a de compression valve on each cylinder to relieve compression for easier start ups. Kim
 
Last edited:
How was that go cart built on the Fast & Furious movie...the engine just fired on compressing Diesel with no plugs. Am I correct?

Diesels do not use spark plugs. They compressed the fuel so tight that it explodes. Hence the term dieseling when you shut your car off and it keeps running. It's dieseling. A lot of people think glow plugs are spark plugs but they are not. A glow plug is used to heat the combustion chamber to get the process of the explosions started in a cold engine situation.
 
How was that go cart built on the Fast & Furious movie...the engine just fired on compressing Diesel with no plugs. Am I correct?
Let's not confuse any part of those movies with reality...
If you want to talk fantasy, I prefer to vote for "Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed"...
 
What's the OCTANE rating of Diesel?
It isn't rated in "octane", it is rated in "cetane". Diesels respond almost exactly the opposite to ign. engines, what causes detonation & pre-ignition in spark engines, reduces detonation in diesel engines.
We heated the showroom/waiting room at the private shop I worked at with 2 Kerosun heaters, everything ended up with a black, dingy film on it. Hardly "clean", and the "tax dyes" they put in it(red in the case of kerosene), started clogging up the cloth wicks. Pretty soon the edge of the wicks would burn-up & stopped working. Stop fishing for magic, home-brewing inappropriate fuels is not a solution, & can cause You a lot of grief for nothing.
 
IDK what your high-pressure goal is, but Suppose it's for fuel economy. If it's not then don't bother reading any further.
But if it is,
lemmee tell you a story:

>>My DD Orlando, has a Direct-injected, VVT Ecotec, 2.5 4-banger. It runs 220psi CCP. At 4500rpm, the cam-phasers do their thing. It is rated 167hp@6700 rpm.
I run it on 87E10
It makes 32mpg@55mph, pretty consistently.
It's really peppy even below 4500, and it very rarely needs more than 3500rpm for me. With me and the wife in it, and groceries in the back, I'm guessing she's over 4000 pounds. I'm always impressed with it's low-rpm power.
The point is this;
Pressure is heat is torque is power.
You really really want that pressure, both while cruising but most especially while accelerating normally at low to mid rpms. But the threat of detonation is ever-present. The Orlando, like most EFI cars solves that problem in several ways; Firstly, it has EFI, computerized timing control, and a knock sensor. And secondly, it has alloy heads.
Now, IDK the Scr, but to make 220psi, with a modest Ica, it's gotta be way up there.
If you screwed a 318 together to make that, I doubt it would make it very far before the pistons would give up.
>> so how can you achieve similar results with an SBM?
Well you can't. A 318 is 5.2liters, which is more than double of the Ecotec 2.5. And my Ecotec cruises at 65=about2000 rpm. And you'll never run a 318 at 220psi on iron heads, more than at idle, and besides that, it would need a lot of custom parts to get there.
But, getting to 200psi with a 360 is pretty easy.
If you're building for hiway fuel economy:
IMO
a high pressure 360 should be given consideration..... because, mine flew down the road, geared at 65=1600rpm and returned excellent fuel economy...... running at about 195psi CCP.
Will a 273 (or a 318) pull 65 =1600 @195psi?
IDK, probably; but it will, again, take custom parts to get to 195psi, and likely, the 273 would be pretty gutless, because to run there requires a 1.97 final-drive ratio.

If you are looking for fuel economy, you need:
>The smallest engine possible to keep internal friction down,
>To keep the rpm down,
>To keep the cylinder pressure up,
>To figure out how to cheat wind-resistance,
>To run the cheapest gas that will effectively suppress detonation, and
>To get the daymn ignition timing worked out; oh yeah and >To run the tiniest carb that will get you up to cruising speed.
But good luck driving this combo under any other conditions.
Sacrifices have to be made.
The smallest rear-end that Chrysler ever made was a 2.20 so, that makes 65=about 1800 Now, just try taking off with a standard A904 and 2.20s . So then, that's the First sacrifice. Oh and forget the automatic, it'll cost you roughly 2 mpgs which you'll never get back. So that's the second sacrifice.
And forget the A833od because the very wide ratios will force you, with a 2.20 rear, to carry each gear way to far up the rpm band, before shifting, if you don't, the engine will detonate itself to death. So that's the third sacrifice; you will need, at minimum a close-ratio 5-speed. OR a 4-gear auto with overdrive and a lock-up convertor. The auto will cost you a bit of Mpg, but the engine will live, AND, you no longer have to run the 2.20 rear.
Here's a study.
To get to 65=1600 in .69od will take 2.86 gears. Lets round down to the commonly available 2.76s for 65=1540. To get this moving, you will need the A500/2.74 low-gear, for a starter gear of 7.56, but the Convertor will make that bearable. With this combo, getting the cruise-timing right will take a computer.
Ok so the sacrifice here is cutting your tunnel up, to accept the overdrive transmission. And, you may need a higher stall for ease of drive-away and for a satisfactory rate of acceleration to the cruising speed, but you won't know this until you try the stocker.
Now, on to the engine.
To get the pressure up, to say 185psi, with a small cruiser cam, like the factory 240/248/112 (Ica of ~50*) the Scr is gonna need to be over 10.2. To get there with a 273, the total chamber volume needs to be less than 61cc.
To withstand 195psi you need something like the .039 FelPro, but with a more appropriately sized fire ring. So looks like a custom gasket. Say you get one at 6cc
Next, yur gonna need some really hi-compression pistons, installed high up in the bores.Let's say you achieve plus 6cc; for a net zero. . Now you need a head of 61 cc minus whatever eyebrows your pistons have. Lets say 4 eyebrows total 8cc, so the target chamber volume will be 53cc. But here's the catch; you can't run 195psi with iron heads, So you need alloy heads at 53cc (in this study). Next comes another catch, most of those come with 2.02 intakes, which; A) won't fit into the 3.63 bores, and B) are way too big for this application, and C) usually come with way too big chambers to achieve your target Scr. So ................ your looking at a lotta money for custom parts and/or custom machining, money that may take decades to break even for the economy savings ....... therefore .............
My advise is to not try to cruise at 65=1540, with a 273, in an attempt at getting fuel-economy.
Can a 273 cruise there?
I bet it can, but the cost for a fuel-miser is just not worth it, unless yur just trying to prove a point, and your pockets are deep.
what about with a 318?
Well sure, but the minimum Scr for 195psi is now 10.6, and the minimum TOTAL chamber size for this is 71cc. Now you can use the .039 Fell-pros, at 8.6cc, and you'll again need hi-compression pistons jacked up, which usually come with just two eyebrows totalling 5cc. Lets say you get them up high enough to net 0 cc. Thus your head chambers can be 62.4 which is doable in alloy. So all of this is now both possible and affordable.
To make getting the timing, and drive-away a lil better, lets change the rear gear to 2.94s for 65=1640
This combo is now very doable; pistons, gaskets, and heads are all available off the shelf.
The only sacrifice here is the factory cam with it's ~50* Ica, which is a low-rpm cam, and to successfully run it, without detonation, at 195psi may take careful carb and ignition timing co-ordination, rendering the whole thing somewhat underpowered.
The solutions here are running better gas, octane booster, or computer-controlled, variable, water-injection, or some other tricks I have not thought about.
> or to get a lil more power, just run a small-cammed 340.
> or to get a lil more torque, a small-cammed 360
Both of these bigger SBMs easily accept 2.02 valves. and
Both of these can more easily achieve 195psi, with more conventional parts. The sacrifice here is a slight increase in point-to-point fuel consumption due to more internal friction.......... which can be offset by going back to the 2.76 rear gears.
And finally, you can install a similarly sized cam but ground for solid-lifters, to shrink the advertised duration and win more cylinder pressure, OR keep the pressure the same and win a lil more power/torque with about one additional cam size at .050.
But here's the thing, if this is an honest cruiser, limiting the rpm to say 4500, then you can get a custom cam ground strictly for that application. If you can get faster low-lift ramps, you can run hydros, for the same results. To get back some acceleration, you just use a bigger engine.

In the beginning of this post, I said something like, the 360 should be given some consideration. Maybe now you know why I said that.
If I told you mine, on a certain Day-Trip, made 32mpgs, would you believe me? and it fell together at 10.7Scr, with off-the-shelf parts. With just minor machining this can go to 11.3. With minor Ica adjustment, the pressure can easily go to 200psi. I ran it for a while at 195psi, still on 87E10, still on full-timing, without any tricks. other than the final-drive ratio. (3.55 x .71 x .78=1.97)
That's a stinking lot of flexibility.
Oh and when it was set up like that, it still went [email protected] seconds in the quarter, with it's street tune, and on 245/60-14 BFGs, at 3650 race-weight; and
she revved willingly to 7200.
Va-va-Voom!
I loved that combo........
The point of this story is,
that I didn't need any tricks to stay out of detonation. This engine has always run on 87E10 since I first bolted it together in 1999; and the pressures it has run have always been from 177 to 195psi, and typically at 185
Happy HotRodding

Oh BTW
the 360 is way overkill for this kind of application. Mine spins the 295s at-will below 45/50 mph, and in straight-line, they say, all the way to the 660ft traps with 325/50-15 BFG-DRs
In the case of max fuel-economy, a 3.91/4.04 short stroker should be fine. If you dress a 340 up with the 318 stuff, it's just a big-bore 318 ...... with benefits. I had one like that, for like 3 years, but it lived on in my memory as my favorite combo, for like 22 more years.Hmmmmmmmmmm

BTW-2
Years ago you could get a drop-in 3.58 crank for the 3.31 saddles. in a 318 that would make her a 344. I think I could suck some nice mpg out of that combo, with almost all stock bolt-ons...... and still have a good little streeter.
Sincerely,
AJ
 
Last edited:
IDK what your high-pressure goal is, but Suppose it's for fuel economy. If it's not then don't bother reading any further.
But if it is,
lemmee tell you a story:

>>My DD Orlando, has a Direct-injected, VVT Ecotec, 2.5 4-banger. It runs 220psi CCP. At 4500rpm, the cam-phasers do their thing. It is rated 167hp@6700 rpm.
I run it on 87E10
It makes 32mpg@55mph, pretty consistently.
It's really peppy even below 4500, and it very rarely needs more than 3500rpm for me. With me and the wife in it, and groceries in the back, I'm guessing she's over 4000 pounds. I'm always impressed with it's low-rpm power.
The point is this;
Pressure is heat is torque is power.
You really really want that pressure, both while cruising but most especially while accelerating normally at low to mid rpms. But the threat of detonation is ever-present. The Orlando, like most EFI cars solves that problem in several ways; Firstly, it has EFI, computerized timing control, and a knock sensor. And secondly, it has alloy heads.
Now, IDK the Scr, but to make 220psi, with a modest Ica, it's gotta be way up there.
If you screwed a 318 together to make that, I doubt it would make it very far before the pistons would give up.
>> so how can you achieve similar results with an SBM?
Well you can't. A 318 is 5.2liters, which is more than double of the Ecotec 2.5. And my Ecotec cruises at 65=about2000 rpm. And you'll never run a 318 at 220psi on iron heads, more than at idle, and besides that, it would need a lot of custom parts to get there.
But, getting to 200psi with a 360 is pretty easy.
If you're building for hiway fuel economy:
IMO
a high pressure 360 should be given consideration..... because, mine flew down the road, geared at 65=1600rpm and returned excellent fuel economy...... running at about 195psi CCP.
Will a 273 (or a 318) pull 65 =1600 @195psi?
IDK, probably; but it will, again, take custom parts to get to 195psi, and likely, the 273 would be pretty gutless, because to run there requires a 1.97 final-drive ratio.

If you are looking for fuel economy, you need:
>The smallest engine possible to keep internal friction down,
>To keep the rpm down,
>To keep the cylinder pressure up,
>To figure out how to cheat wind-resistance,
>To run the cheapest gas that will effectively suppress detonation, and
>To get the daymn ignition timing worked out; oh yeah and >To run the tiniest carb that will get you up to cruising speed.
But good luck driving this combo under any other conditions.
Sacrifices have to be made.
The smallest rear-end that Chrysler ever made was a 2.20 so, that makes 65=about 1800 Now, just try taking off with a standard A904 and 2.20s . So then, that's the First sacrifice. Oh and forget the automatic, it'll cost you roughly 2 mpgs which you'll never get back. So that's the second sacrifice.
And forget the A833od because the very wide ratios will force you, with a 2.20 rear, to carry each gear way to far up the rpm band, before shifting, if you don't, the engine will detonate itself to death. So that's the third sacrifice; you will need, at minimum a close-ratio 5-speed. OR a 4-gear auto with overdrive and a lock-up convertor. The auto will cost you a bit of Mpg, but the engine will live, AND, you no longer have to run the 2.20 rear.
Here's a study.
To get to 65=1600 in .69od will take 2.86 gears. Lets round down to the commonly available 2.76s for 65=1540. To get this moving, you will need the A500/2.74 low-gear, for a starter gear of 7.56, but the Convertor will make that bearable. With this combo, getting the cruise-timing right will take a computer.
Ok so the sacrifice here is cutting your tunnel up, to accept the overdrive transmission. And, you may need a higher stall for ease of drive-away and for a satisfactory rate of acceleration to the cruising speed, but you won't know this until you try the stocker.
Now, on to the engine.
To get the pressure up, to say 185psi, with a small cruiser cam, like the factory 240/248/112 (Ica of ~50*) the Scr is gonna need to be over 10.2. To get there with a 273, the total chamber volume needs to be less than 61cc.
To withstand 195psi you need something like the .039 FelPro, but with a more appropriately sized fire ring. So looks like a custom gasket. Say you get one at 6cc
Next, yur gonna need some really hi-compression pistons, installed high up in the bores.Let's say you achieve plus 6cc; for a net zero. . Now you need a head of 61 cc minus whatever eyebrows your pistons have. Lets say 4 eyebrows total 8cc, so the target chamber volume will be 53cc. But here's the catch; you can't run 195psi with iron heads, So you need alloy heads at 53cc (in this study). Next comes another catch, most of those come with 2.02 intakes, which; A) won't fit into the 3.63 bores, and B) are way too big for this application, and C) usually come with way too big chambers to achieve your target Scr. So ................ your looking at a lotta money for custom parts and/or custom machining, money that may take decades to break even for the economy savings ....... therefore .............
My advise is to not try to cruise at 65=1540, with a 273, in an attempt at getting fuel-economy.
Can a 273 cruise there?
I bet it can, but the cost for a fuel-miser is just not worth it, unless yur just trying to prove a point, and your pockets are deep.
what about with a 318?
Well sure, but the minimum Scr for 195psi is now 10.6, and the minimum TOTAL chamber size for this is 71cc. Now you can use the .039 Fell-pros, at 8.6cc, and you'll again need hi-compression pistons jacked up, which usually come with just two eyebrows totalling 5cc. Lets say you get them up high enough to net 0 cc. Thus your head chambers can be 62.4 which is doable in alloy. So all of this is now both possible and affordable.
To make getting the timing, and drive-away a lil better, lets change the rear gear to 2.94s for 65=1640
This combo is now very doable; pistons, gaskets, and heads are all available off the shelf.
The only sacrifice here is the factory cam with it's ~50* Ica, which is a low-rpm cam, and to successfully run it, without detonation, at 195psi may take careful carb and ignition timing co-ordination, rendering the whole thing somewhat underpowered.
The solutions here are running better gas, octane booster, or computer-controlled, variable, water-injection, or some other tricks I have not thought about.
> or to get a lil more power, just run a small-cammed 340.
> or to get a lil more torque, a small-cammed 360
Both of these bigger SBMs easily accept 2.02 valves. and
Both of these can more easily achieve 195psi, with more conventional parts. The sacrifice here is a slight increase in point-to-point fuel consumption due to more internal friction.......... which can be offset by going back to the 2.76 rear gears.
And finally, you can install a similarly sized cam but ground for solid-lifters, to shrink the advertised duration and win more cylinder pressure, OR keep the pressure the same and win a lil more power/torque with about one additional cam size at .050.
But here's the thing, if this is an honest cruiser, limiting the rpm to say 4500, then you can get a custom cam ground strictly for that application. If you can get faster low-lift ramps, you can run hydros, for the same results. To get back some acceleration, you just use a bigger engine.

In the beginning of this post, I said something like, the 360 should be given some consideration. Maybe now you know why I said that.
If I told you mine, on a certain Day-Trip, made 32mpgs, would you believe me? and it fell together at 10.7Scr, with off-the-shelf parts. With just minor machining this can go to 11.3. With minor Ica adjustment, the pressure can easily go to 200psi. I ran it for a while at 195psi, still on 87E10, still on full-timing, without any tricks. other than the final-drive ratio. (3.55 x .71 x .78=1.97)
That's a stinking lot of flexibility.
Oh and when it was set up like that, it still went [email protected] seconds in the quarter, with it's street tune, and on 245/60-14 BFGs, at 3650 race-weight; and
she revved willingly to 7200.
Va-va-Voom!
I loved that combo........
The point of this story is,
that I didn't need any tricks to stay out of detonation. This engine has always run on 87E10 since I first bolted it together in 1999; and the pressures it has run have always been from 177 to 195psi, and typically at 185
Happy HotRodding

Oh BTW
the 360 is way overkill for this kind of application. Mine spins the 295s at-will below 45/50 mph, and in straight-line, they say, all the way to the 660ft traps with 325/50-15 BFG-DRs
In the case of max fuel-economy, a 3.91/4.04 short stroker should be fine. If you dress a 340 up with the 318 stuff, it's just a big-bore 318 ...... with benefits. I had one like that, for like 3 years, but it lived on in my memory as my favorite combo, for like 22 more years.Hmmmmmmmmmm

BTW-2
Years ago you could get a drop-in 3.58 crank for the 3.31 saddles. in a 318 that would make her a 344. I think I could suck some nice mpg out of that combo, with almost all stock bolt-ons...... and still have a good little streeter.
Sincerely,

IDK what your high-pressure goal is, but Suppose it's for fuel economy. If it's not then don't bother reading any further.
But if it is,
lemmee tell you a story:

>>My DD Orlando, has a Direct-injected, VVT Ecotec, 2.5 4-banger. It runs 220psi CCP. At 4500rpm, the cam-phasers do their thing. It is rated 167hp@6700 rpm.
I run it on 87E10
It makes 32mpg@55mph, pretty consistently.
It's really peppy even below 4500, and it very rarely needs more than 3500rpm for me. With me and the wife in it, and groceries in the back, I'm guessing she's over 4000 pounds. I'm always impressed with it's low-rpm power.
The point is this;
Pressure is heat is torque is power.
You really really want that pressure, both while cruising but most especially while accelerating normally at low to mid rpms. But the threat of detonation is ever-present. The Orlando, like most EFI cars solves that problem in several ways; Firstly, it has EFI, computerized timing control, and a knock sensor. And secondly, it has alloy heads.
Now, IDK the Scr, but to make 220psi, with a modest Ica, it's gotta be way up there.
If you screwed a 318 together to make that, I doubt it would make it very far before the pistons would give up.
>> so how can you achieve similar results with an SBM?
Well you can't. A 318 is 5.2liters, which is more than double of the Ecotec 2.5. And my Ecotec cruises at 65=about2000 rpm. And you'll never run a 318 at 220psi on iron heads, more than at idle, and besides that, it would need a lot of custom parts to get there.
But, getting to 200psi with a 360 is pretty easy.
If you're building for hiway fuel economy:
IMO
a high pressure 360 should be given consideration..... because, mine flew down the road, geared at 65=1600rpm and returned excellent fuel economy...... running at about 195psi CCP.
Will a 273 (or a 318) pull 65 =1600 @195psi?
IDK, probably; but it will, again, take custom parts to get to 195psi, and likely, the 273 would be pretty gutless, because to run there requires a 1.97 final-drive ratio.

If you are looking for fuel economy, you need:
>The smallest engine possible to keep internal friction down,
>To keep the rpm down,
>To keep the cylinder pressure up,
>To figure out how to cheat wind-resistance,
>To run the cheapest gas that will effectively suppress detonation, and
>To get the daymn ignition timing worked out; oh yeah and >To run the tiniest carb that will get you up to cruising speed.
But good luck driving this combo under any other conditions.
Sacrifices have to be made.
The smallest rear-end that Chrysler ever made was a 2.20 so, that makes 65=about 1800 Now, just try taking off with a standard A904 and 2.20s . So then, that's the First sacrifice. Oh and forget the automatic, it'll cost you roughly 2 mpgs which you'll never get back. So that's the second sacrifice.
And forget the A833od because the very wide ratios will force you, with a 2.20 rear, to carry each gear way to far up the rpm band, before shifting, if you don't, the engine will detonate itself to death. So that's the third sacrifice; you will need, at minimum a close-ratio 5-speed. OR a 4-gear auto with overdrive and a lock-up convertor. The auto will cost you a bit of Mpg, but the engine will live, AND, you no longer have to run the 2.20 rear.
Here's a study.
To get to 65=1600 in .69od will take 2.86 gears. Lets round down to the commonly available 2.76s for 65=1540. To get this moving, you will need the A500/2.74 low-gear, for a starter gear of 7.56, but the Convertor will make that bearable. With this combo, getting the cruise-timing right will take a computer.
Ok so the sacrifice here is cutting your tunnel up, to accept the overdrive transmission. And, you may need a higher stall for ease of drive-away and for a satisfactory rate of acceleration to the cruising speed, but you won't know this until you try the stocker.
Now, on to the engine.
To get the pressure up, to say 185psi, with a small cruiser cam, like the factory 240/248/112 (Ica of ~50*) the Scr is gonna need to be over 10.2. To get there with a 273, the total chamber volume needs to be less than 61cc.
To withstand 195psi you need something like the .039 FelPro, but with a more appropriately sized fire ring. So looks like a custom gasket. Say you get one at 6cc
Next, yur gonna need some really hi-compression pistons, installed high up in the bores.Let's say you achieve plus 6cc; for a net zero. . Now you need a head of 61 cc minus whatever eyebrows your pistons have. Lets say 4 eyebrows total 8cc, so the target chamber volume will be 53cc. But here's the catch; you can't run 195psi with iron heads, So you need alloy heads at 53cc (in this study). Next comes another catch, most of those come with 2.02 intakes, which; A) won't fit into the 3.63 bores, and B) are way too big for this application, and C) usually come with way too big chambers to achieve your target Scr. So ................ your looking at a lotta money for custom parts and/or custom machining, money that may take decades to break even for the economy savings ....... therefore .............
My advise is to not try to cruise at 65=1540, with a 273, in an attempt at getting fuel-economy.
Can a 273 cruise there?
I bet it can, but the cost for a fuel-miser is just not worth it, unless yur just trying to prove a point, and your pockets are deep.
what about with a 318?
Well sure, but the minimum Scr for 195psi is now 10.6, and the minimum TOTAL chamber size for this is 71cc. Now you can use the .039 Fell-pros, at 8.6cc, and you'll again need hi-compression pistons jacked up, which usually come with just two eyebrows totalling 5cc. Lets say you get them up high enough to net 0 cc. Thus your head chambers can be 62.4 which is doable in alloy. So all of this is now both possible and affordable.
To make getting the timing, and drive-away a lil better, lets change the rear gear to 2.94s for 65=1640
This combo is now very doable; pistons, gaskets, and heads are all available off the shelf.
The only sacrifice here is the factory cam with it's ~50* Ica, which is a low-rpm cam, and to successfully run it, without detonation, at 195psi may take careful carb and ignition timing co-ordination, rendering the whole thing somewhat underpowered.
The solutions here are running better gas, octane booster, or computer-controlled, variable, water-injection, or some other tricks I have not thought about.
> or to get a lil more power, just run a small-cammed 340.
> or to get a lil more torque, a small-cammed 360
Both of these bigger SBMs easily accept 2.02 valves. and
Both of these can more easily achieve 195psi, with more conventional parts. The sacrifice here is a slight increase in point-to-point fuel consumption due to more internal friction.......... which can be offset by going back to the 2.76 rear gears.
And finally, you can install a similarly sized cam but ground for solid-lifters, to shrink the advertised duration and win more cylinder pressure, OR keep the pressure the same and win a lil more power/torque with about one additional cam size at .050.
But here's the thing, if this is an honest cruiser, limiting the rpm to say 4500, then you can get a custom cam ground strictly for that application. If you can get faster low-lift ramps, you can run hydros, for the same results. To get back some acceleration, you just use a bigger engine.

In the beginning of this post, I said something like, the 360 should be given some consideration. Maybe now you know why I said that.
If I told you mine, on a certain Day-Trip, made 32mpgs, would you believe me? and it fell together at 10.7Scr, with off-the-shelf parts. With just minor machining this can go to 11.3. With minor Ica adjustment, the pressure can easily go to 200psi. I ran it for a while at 195psi, still on 87E10, still on full-timing, without any tricks. other than the final-drive ratio. (3.55 x .71 x .78=1.97)
That's a stinking lot of flexibility.
Oh and when it was set up like that, it still went [email protected] seconds in the quarter, with it's street tune, and on 245/60-14 BFGs, at 3650 race-weight; and
she revved willingly to 7200.
Va-va-Voom!
I loved that combo........
The point of this story is,
that I didn't need any tricks to stay out of detonation. This engine has always run on 87E10 since I first bolted it together in 1999; and the pressures it has run have always been from 177 to 195psi, and typically at 185
Happy HotRodding

Oh BTW
the 360 is way overkill for this kind of application. Mine spins the 295s at-will below 45/50 mph, and in straight-line, they say, all the way to the 660ft traps with 325/50-15 BFG-DRs
In the case of max fuel-economy, a 3.91/4.04 short stroker should be fine. If you dress a 340 up with the 318 stuff, it's just a big-bore 318 ...... with benefits. I had one like that, for like 3 years, but it lived on in my memory as my favorite combo, for like 22 more years.Hmmmmmmmmmm

BTW-2
Years ago you could get a drop-in 3.58 crank for the 3.31 saddles. in a 318 that would make her a 344. I think I could suck some nice mpg out of that combo, with almost all stock bolt-ons...... and still have a good little streeter.
Sincerely,
AJ
Excellent ready! Thank you soo much.
 
I mean hell, look at it this way. You get your car runnin on kerosene and you can honestly tell the guys when you're bench racin "I run my car on jet fuel".
 
IDK what your high-pressure goal is, but Suppose it's for fuel economy. If it's not then don't bother reading any further.
But if it is,
lemmee tell you a story:

>>My DD Orlando, has a Direct-injected, VVT Ecotec, 2.5 4-banger. It runs 220psi CCP. At 4500rpm, the cam-phasers do their thing. It is rated 167hp@6700 rpm.
I run it on 87E10
It makes 32mpg@55mph, pretty consistently.
It's really peppy even below 4500, and it very rarely needs more than 3500rpm for me. With me and the wife in it, and groceries in the back, I'm guessing she's over 4000 pounds. I'm always impressed with it's low-rpm power.
The point is this;
Pressure is heat is torque is power.
You really really want that pressure, both while cruising but most especially while accelerating normally at low to mid rpms. But the threat of detonation is ever-present. The Orlando, like most EFI cars solves that problem in several ways; Firstly, it has EFI, computerized timing control, and a knock sensor. And secondly, it has alloy heads.
Now, IDK the Scr, but to make 220psi, with a modest Ica, it's gotta be way up there.
If you screwed a 318 together to make that, I doubt it would make it very far before the pistons would give up.
>> so how can you achieve similar results with an SBM?
Well you can't. A 318 is 5.2liters, which is more than double of the Ecotec 2.5. And my Ecotec cruises at 65=about2000 rpm. And you'll never run a 318 at 220psi on iron heads, more than at idle, and besides that, it would need a lot of custom parts to get there.
But, getting to 200psi with a 360 is pretty easy.
If you're building for hiway fuel economy:
IMO
a high pressure 360 should be given consideration..... because, mine flew down the road, geared at 65=1600rpm and returned excellent fuel economy...... running at about 195psi CCP.
Will a 273 (or a 318) pull 65 =1600 @195psi?
IDK, probably; but it will, again, take custom parts to get to 195psi, and likely, the 273 would be pretty gutless, because to run there requires a 1.97 final-drive ratio.

If you are looking for fuel economy, you need:
>The smallest engine possible to keep internal friction down,
>To keep the rpm down,
>To keep the cylinder pressure up,
>To figure out how to cheat wind-resistance,
>To run the cheapest gas that will effectively suppress detonation, and
>To get the daymn ignition timing worked out; oh yeah and >To run the tiniest carb that will get you up to cruising speed.
But good luck driving this combo under any other conditions.
Sacrifices have to be made.
The smallest rear-end that Chrysler ever made was a 2.20 so, that makes 65=about 1800 Now, just try taking off with a standard A904 and 2.20s . So then, that's the First sacrifice. Oh and forget the automatic, it'll cost you roughly 2 mpgs which you'll never get back. So that's the second sacrifice.
And forget the A833od because the very wide ratios will force you, with a 2.20 rear, to carry each gear way to far up the rpm band, before shifting, if you don't, the engine will detonate itself to death. So that's the third sacrifice; you will need, at minimum a close-ratio 5-speed. OR a 4-gear auto with overdrive and a lock-up convertor. The auto will cost you a bit of Mpg, but the engine will live, AND, you no longer have to run the 2.20 rear.
Here's a study.
To get to 65=1600 in .69od will take 2.86 gears. Lets round down to the commonly available 2.76s for 65=1540. To get this moving, you will need the A500/2.74 low-gear, for a starter gear of 7.56, but the Convertor will make that bearable. With this combo, getting the cruise-timing right will take a computer.
Ok so the sacrifice here is cutting your tunnel up, to accept the overdrive transmission. And, you may need a higher stall for ease of drive-away and for a satisfactory rate of acceleration to the cruising speed, but you won't know this until you try the stocker.
Now, on to the engine.
To get the pressure up, to say 185psi, with a small cruiser cam, like the factory 240/248/112 (Ica of ~50*) the Scr is gonna need to be over 10.2. To get there with a 273, the total chamber volume needs to be less than 61cc.
To withstand 195psi you need something like the .039 FelPro, but with a more appropriately sized fire ring. So looks like a custom gasket. Say you get one at 6cc
Next, yur gonna need some really hi-compression pistons, installed high up in the bores.Let's say you achieve plus 6cc; for a net zero. . Now you need a head of 61 cc minus whatever eyebrows your pistons have. Lets say 4 eyebrows total 8cc, so the target chamber volume will be 53cc. But here's the catch; you can't run 195psi with iron heads, So you need alloy heads at 53cc (in this study). Next comes another catch, most of those come with 2.02 intakes, which; A) won't fit into the 3.63 bores, and B) are way too big for this application, and C) usually come with way too big chambers to achieve your target Scr. So ................ your looking at a lotta money for custom parts and/or custom machining, money that may take decades to break even for the economy savings ....... therefore .............
My advise is to not try to cruise at 65=1540, with a 273, in an attempt at getting fuel-economy.
Can a 273 cruise there?
I bet it can, but the cost for a fuel-miser is just not worth it, unless yur just trying to prove a point, and your pockets are deep.
what about with a 318?
Well sure, but the minimum Scr for 195psi is now 10.6, and the minimum TOTAL chamber size for this is 71cc. Now you can use the .039 Fell-pros, at 8.6cc, and you'll again need hi-compression pistons jacked up, which usually come with just two eyebrows totalling 5cc. Lets say you get them up high enough to net 0 cc. Thus your head chambers can be 62.4 which is doable in alloy. So all of this is now both possible and affordable.
To make getting the timing, and drive-away a lil better, lets change the rear gear to 2.94s for 65=1640
This combo is now very doable; pistons, gaskets, and heads are all available off the shelf.
The only sacrifice here is the factory cam with it's ~50* Ica, which is a low-rpm cam, and to successfully run it, without detonation, at 195psi may take careful carb and ignition timing co-ordination, rendering the whole thing somewhat underpowered.
The solutions here are running better gas, octane booster, or computer-controlled, variable, water-injection, or some other tricks I have not thought about.
> or to get a lil more power, just run a small-cammed 340.
> or to get a lil more torque, a small-cammed 360
Both of these bigger SBMs easily accept 2.02 valves. and
Both of these can more easily achieve 195psi, with more conventional parts. The sacrifice here is a slight increase in point-to-point fuel consumption due to more internal friction.......... which can be offset by going back to the 2.76 rear gears.
And finally, you can install a similarly sized cam but ground for solid-lifters, to shrink the advertised duration and win more cylinder pressure, OR keep the pressure the same and win a lil more power/torque with about one additional cam size at .050.
But here's the thing, if this is an honest cruiser, limiting the rpm to say 4500, then you can get a custom cam ground strictly for that application. If you can get faster low-lift ramps, you can run hydros, for the same results. To get back some acceleration, you just use a bigger engine.

In the beginning of this post, I said something like, the 360 should be given some consideration. Maybe now you know why I said that.
If I told you mine, on a certain Day-Trip, made 32mpgs, would you believe me? and it fell together at 10.7Scr, with off-the-shelf parts. With just minor machining this can go to 11.3. With minor Ica adjustment, the pressure can easily go to 200psi. I ran it for a while at 195psi, still on 87E10, still on full-timing, without any tricks. other than the final-drive ratio. (3.55 x .71 x .78=1.97)
That's a stinking lot of flexibility.
Oh and when it was set up like that, it still went [email protected] seconds in the quarter, with it's street tune, and on 245/60-14 BFGs, at 3650 race-weight; and
she revved willingly to 7200.
Va-va-Voom!
I loved that combo........
The point of this story is,
that I didn't need any tricks to stay out of detonation. This engine has always run on 87E10 since I first bolted it together in 1999; and the pressures it has run have always been from 177 to 195psi, and typically at 185
Happy HotRodding

Oh BTW
the 360 is way overkill for this kind of application. Mine spins the 295s at-will below 45/50 mph, and in straight-line, they say, all the way to the 660ft traps with 325/50-15 BFG-DRs
In the case of max fuel-economy, a 3.91/4.04 short stroker should be fine. If you dress a 340 up with the 318 stuff, it's just a big-bore 318 ...... with benefits. I had one like that, for like 3 years, but it lived on in my memory as my favorite combo, for like 22 more years.Hmmmmmmmmmm

BTW-2
Years ago you could get a drop-in 3.58 crank for the 3.31 saddles. in a 318 that would make her a 344. I think I could suck some nice mpg out of that combo, with almost all stock bolt-ons...... and still have a good little streeter.
Sincerely,
AJ
I am gonna use your 'Read 'polyjohn and work on the 360 build for my 83 short bed stepside d150. I already have the small primary TheroQuad and stock intake, should I hunt down a set 2.76 gears or keep 3.23s? I had an early 4sp hyd automatic already built..it doesn't have the lockup TQ converter.. I will have to toggle switch top gear I understand when I want over drive? It's the smaller Chrysler automatic OD, but built with heavy duty parts...hope it holds up ok.
 
I am gonna use your 'Read 'polyjohn and work on the 360 build for my 83 short bed stepside d150. I already have the small primary TheroQuad and stock intake, should I hunt down a set 2.76 gears or keep 3.23s? I had an early 4sp hyd automatic already built..it doesn't have the lockup TQ converter.. I will have to toggle switch top gear I understand when I want over drive? It's the smaller Chrysler automatic OD, but built with heavy duty parts...hope it holds up ok.

Polyjohn or AJ?
Somewhere in thread it looked like the message was senby someone named Polyjohn, forgive me AJ
 
IDK what your high-pressure goal is, but Suppose it's for fuel economy. If it's not then don't bother reading any further.
But if it is,
lemmee tell you a story:

>>My DD Orlando, has a Direct-injected, VVT Ecotec, 2.5 4-banger. It runs 220psi CCP. At 4500rpm, the cam-phasers do their thing. It is rated 167hp@6700 rpm.
I run it on 87E10
It makes 32mpg@55mph, pretty consistently.
It's really peppy even below 4500, and it very rarely needs more than 3500rpm for me. With me and the wife in it, and groceries in the back, I'm guessing she's over 4000 pounds. I'm always impressed with it's low-rpm power.
The point is this;
Pressure is heat is torque is power.
You really really want that pressure, both while cruising but most especially while accelerating normally at low to mid rpms. But the threat of detonation is ever-present. The Orlando, like most EFI cars solves that problem in several ways; Firstly, it has EFI, computerized timing control, and a knock sensor. And secondly, it has alloy heads.
Now, IDK the Scr, but to make 220psi, with a modest Ica, it's gotta be way up there.
If you screwed a 318 together to make that, I doubt it would make it very far before the pistons would give up.
>> so how can you achieve similar results with an SBM?
Well you can't. A 318 is 5.2liters, which is more than double of the Ecotec 2.5. And my Ecotec cruises at 65=about2000 rpm. And you'll never run a 318 at 220psi on iron heads, more than at idle, and besides that, it would need a lot of custom parts to get there.
But, getting to 200psi with a 360 is pretty easy.
If you're building for hiway fuel economy:
IMO
a high pressure 360 should be given consideration..... because, mine flew down the road, geared at 65=1600rpm and returned excellent fuel economy...... running at about 195psi CCP.
Will a 273 (or a 318) pull 65 =1600 @195psi?
IDK, probably; but it will, again, take custom parts to get to 195psi, and likely, the 273 would be pretty gutless, because to run there requires a 1.97 final-drive ratio.

If you are looking for fuel economy, you need:
>The smallest engine possible to keep internal friction down,
>To keep the rpm down,
>To keep the cylinder pressure up,
>To figure out how to cheat wind-resistance,
>To run the cheapest gas that will effectively suppress detonation, and
>To get the daymn ignition timing worked out; oh yeah and >To run the tiniest carb that will get you up to cruising speed.
But good luck driving this combo under any other conditions.
Sacrifices have to be made.
The smallest rear-end that Chrysler ever made was a 2.20 so, that makes 65=about 1800 Now, just try taking off with a standard A904 and 2.20s . So then, that's the First sacrifice. Oh and forget the automatic, it'll cost you roughly 2 mpgs which you'll never get back. So that's the second sacrifice.
And forget the A833od because the very wide ratios will force you, with a 2.20 rear, to carry each gear way to far up the rpm band, before shifting, if you don't, the engine will detonate itself to death. So that's the third sacrifice; you will need, at minimum a close-ratio 5-speed. OR a 4-gear auto with overdrive and a lock-up convertor. The auto will cost you a bit of Mpg, but the engine will live, AND, you no longer have to run the 2.20 rear.
Here's a study.
To get to 65=1600 in .69od will take 2.86 gears. Lets round down to the commonly available 2.76s for 65=1540. To get this moving, you will need the A500/2.74 low-gear, for a starter gear of 7.56, but the Convertor will make that bearable. With this combo, getting the cruise-timing right will take a computer.
Ok so the sacrifice here is cutting your tunnel up, to accept the overdrive transmission. And, you may need a higher stall for ease of drive-away and for a satisfactory rate of acceleration to the cruising speed, but you won't know this until you try the stocker.
Now, on to the engine.
To get the pressure up, to say 185psi, with a small cruiser cam, like the factory 240/248/112 (Ica of ~50*) the Scr is gonna need to be over 10.2. To get there with a 273, the total chamber volume needs to be less than 61cc.
To withstand 195psi you need something like the .039 FelPro, but with a more appropriately sized fire ring. So looks like a custom gasket. Say you get one at 6cc
Next, yur gonna need some really hi-compression pistons, installed high up in the bores.Let's say you achieve plus 6cc; for a net zero. . Now you need a head of 61 cc minus whatever eyebrows your pistons have. Lets say 4 eyebrows total 8cc, so the target chamber volume will be 53cc. But here's the catch; you can't run 195psi with iron heads, So you need alloy heads at 53cc (in this study). Next comes another catch, most of those come with 2.02 intakes, which; A) won't fit into the 3.63 bores, and B) are way too big for this application, and C) usually come with way too big chambers to achieve your target Scr. So ................ your looking at a lotta money for custom parts and/or custom machining, money that may take decades to break even for the economy savings ....... therefore .............
My advise is to not try to cruise at 65=1540, with a 273, in an attempt at getting fuel-economy.
Can a 273 cruise there?
I bet it can, but the cost for a fuel-miser is just not worth it, unless yur just trying to prove a point, and your pockets are deep.
what about with a 318?
Well sure, but the minimum Scr for 195psi is now 10.6, and the minimum TOTAL chamber size for this is 71cc. Now you can use the .039 Fell-pros, at 8.6cc, and you'll again need hi-compression pistons jacked up, which usually come with just two eyebrows totalling 5cc. Lets say you get them up high enough to net 0 cc. Thus your head chambers can be 62.4 which is doable in alloy. So all of this is now both possible and affordable.
To make getting the timing, and drive-away a lil better, lets change the rear gear to 2.94s for 65=1640
This combo is now very doable; pistons, gaskets, and heads are all available off the shelf.
The only sacrifice here is the factory cam with it's ~50* Ica, which is a low-rpm cam, and to successfully run it, without detonation, at 195psi may take careful carb and ignition timing co-ordination, rendering the whole thing somewhat underpowered.
The solutions here are running better gas, octane booster, or computer-controlled, variable, water-injection, or some other tricks I have not thought about.
> or to get a lil more power, just run a small-cammed 340.
> or to get a lil more torque, a small-cammed 360
Both of these bigger SBMs easily accept 2.02 valves. and
Both of these can more easily achieve 195psi, with more conventional parts. The sacrifice here is a slight increase in point-to-point fuel consumption due to more internal friction.......... which can be offset by going back to the 2.76 rear gears.
And finally, you can install a similarly sized cam but ground for solid-lifters, to shrink the advertised duration and win more cylinder pressure, OR keep the pressure the same and win a lil more power/torque with about one additional cam size at .050.
But here's the thing, if this is an honest cruiser, limiting the rpm to say 4500, then you can get a custom cam ground strictly for that application. If you can get faster low-lift ramps, you can run hydros, for the same results. To get back some acceleration, you just use a bigger engine.

In the beginning of this post, I said something like, the 360 should be given some consideration. Maybe now you know why I said that.
If I told you mine, on a certain Day-Trip, made 32mpgs, would you believe me? and it fell together at 10.7Scr, with off-the-shelf parts. With just minor machining this can go to 11.3. With minor Ica adjustment, the pressure can easily go to 200psi. I ran it for a while at 195psi, still on 87E10, still on full-timing, without any tricks. other than the final-drive ratio. (3.55 x .71 x .78=1.97)
That's a stinking lot of flexibility.
Oh and when it was set up like that, it still went [email protected] seconds in the quarter, with it's street tune, and on 245/60-14 BFGs, at 3650 race-weight; and
she revved willingly to 7200.
Va-va-Voom!
I loved that combo........
The point of this story is,
that I didn't need any tricks to stay out of detonation. This engine has always run on 87E10 since I first bolted it together in 1999; and the pressures it has run have always been from 177 to 195psi, and typically at 185
Happy HotRodding

Oh BTW
the 360 is way overkill for this kind of application. Mine spins the 295s at-will below 45/50 mph, and in straight-line, they say, all the way to the 660ft traps with 325/50-15 BFG-DRs
In the case of max fuel-economy, a 3.91/4.04 short stroker should be fine. If you dress a 340 up with the 318 stuff, it's just a big-bore 318 ...... with benefits. I had one like that, for like 3 years, but it lived on in my memory as my favorite combo, for like 22 more years.Hmmmmmmmmmm

BTW-2
Years ago you could get a drop-in 3.58 crank for the 3.31 saddles. in a 318 that would make her a 344. I think I could suck some nice mpg out of that combo, with almost all stock bolt-ons...... and still have a good little streeter.
Sincerely,
AJ
Reread..I will hunt down 2.76 pig for the 8 3/4 I have...and use my speed Master aluminum heads with the 65cc chamber. My cam might be a little big though. I have an old sealed power hyd cam I got from PAW back in the day when it was under a$100 for the kit. 15 years ago. Believe it's a .440 lift with 218/224 int/ ex duration at .050.
 
I have an old sealed power hyd cam I got from PAW back in the day when it was under a$100 for the kit. 15 years ago. Believe it's a .440 lift with 218/224 int/ ex duration at .050.

i'm skeptical on this considering that a) PAW closed in 2007 and by then it was a shell of it's former self, selling off odds and ends online; and b) no mopar cams were $100 in the PAW catalog.
 
In theory, this seems plausible, kerosene is a clean combustionable fuel, aka heating oil. So buy the 87 octane gas and advance your distributor til you hear engine ping/ knock. Now add enough kerosene to your gas tank til your knock/ping stops. This will solidify the kerosene as an octane booster. You get to run on the inexpensive stuff and still have the benefits of 110 octane...that is, if you can figure the amount you need to add to your gas. Any thoughts out there? I might start my own carburator company/buy out the old TheroQuad patent and build it/ jet it for this IDEA

View attachment 1716083828
Here you go. It may run on Kerosene but not all that well. Using it to "stave off detonation" just doesn't happen. This guy did some testing and got the engine running pretty smooth but it rattled pretty bad under load. See for yourself.

 
When I was growing up in the sixties in Australia my father owned a service station and I used to pump gas on the holidays. I remember the diesel was always called Distillate in our country!
 
UTG is back.

Uncle Tony you need to back off the pipe bro. This is a new low even for you. You been watching those TikTok videos for car advice again?
 
i'm skeptical on this considering that a) PAW closed in 2007 and by then it was a shell of it's former self, selling off odds and ends online; and b) no mopar cams were $100 in the PAW catalog.
Guess I will have to send you a photo of the magazine page.
 
UTG is back.

Uncle Tony you need to back off the pipe bro. This is a new low even for you. You been watching those TikTok videos for car advice again?
:rofl: :rofl:
 
Here you go. It may run on Kerosene but not all that well. Using it to "stave off detonation" just doesn't happen. This guy did some testing and got the engine running pretty smooth but it rattled pretty bad under load. See for yourself.


Very entertaining, thx for the utube video toolmanmike.
 
-
Back
Top