Running again ....
All for .370 lift and under ........
- Thread starter 318willrun
- Start date
-
Dartnut
Don't hate me because i'm beautiful
You do great videos.
Tuning the engine when it's right beside you is an awesome thing to see...lol
Tuning the engine when it's right beside you is an awesome thing to see...lol
We are making progress on the tune, and so far so good. Part throttle response was exactly what we wanted and it's what we got! Gas mileage should follow, can't wait to test the MPG. This whole project has been fun for us. Continuing...
Completely satisfied. Completely. So hard to show in the video, but as the driver before and after, it's a nice, positive gain.
all that's left of this project will be the M.P.G. test. I just have to believe with the part throttle improvement that the gas mileage will follow. I'll fix the transmission leak and then we'll be ready to go out on some excursions.
While the MPG didn't have the gains we hoped for, the project was a success due to the part throttle response/added power. Also, the valves seals were bad which was the reason the hole project was even started in the first place are now replaced!
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
Power isnt always followed by an increase in mpg, more than not.
Carburetor, 350 cfm holley
Headers, the small 1 1/2 milage kind, long collector extensions and dual 2" ,option an H pipe.
Windage tray, multi spark ignition , air up tires to 6psi below max hot.
Build a pointed nose cone for it.lol
Carburetor, 350 cfm holley
Headers, the small 1 1/2 milage kind, long collector extensions and dual 2" ,option an H pipe.
Windage tray, multi spark ignition , air up tires to 6psi below max hot.
Build a pointed nose cone for it.lol
Couple thoughts-
Did you lose compression doing the valve job- thicker head gasket or carbon cleaned off piston tops/head chambers?
If it winds up 1/2mpg better from 13.5 to 14 would be a 3.7% increase in fuel mileage. Not bad for a valve job and tune.
The aero of the van may well be the biggest limiting factor in getting much improvement in gas mileage.
Trojmn
Well-Known Member
controlled MPG testing is actually *really* hard to duplicate. I had a 130 mile round trip commute ~3000 miles a month and it was hard to test for MPG changes. Same 4miles in town, 61miles interstate 5 days a week. With careful observation i could throw out outliers i.e. weather and catching too many lights in town, and non commute errands where the biggest MPG killers, but I still would need a 'clean' 2-3 tanks of this very repeatable driving to know how that change i made impacted MPG. But you have a very tall brick, ugh good luck. In the end you only need xHP to maintain highway speed.
tires up to sidewall max cold pressure, good diff oil, good exhaust, non E gas (may not be as big of a deal for carbs IDK) then start there. They make 1 5/8 headers for Bvans. ;-) just saying.
tires up to sidewall max cold pressure, good diff oil, good exhaust, non E gas (may not be as big of a deal for carbs IDK) then start there. They make 1 5/8 headers for Bvans. ;-) just saying.
i do my MPG tests at 3am on 80 Mile loop on the highway no traffick at that time so get good reading most the time
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
Does this have the edelbrock sp2p 2 brl intake?
After that 7.25 w/2.93 gears....slick 50, tornado spiny thing, split fires, bicycle wheels...
After that 7.25 w/2.93 gears....slick 50, tornado spiny thing, split fires, bicycle wheels...
Air vane turbine fins on all four wheels and 12 volt fans mounted on the roof.
You make a very good point..... 3.7% is a nice gain when looking at it that way. I should have gained compression because the heads were off before and they used a typical over the counter head gasket, and I did the same but cut the heads .030. I agree, the aerodynamics are killer on these year of vans
Yes, it is tough to repeat the conditions in a MPG test. However, I do believe the more miles and refills, the closer you are to the truth
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
Substitute the boots for flip flops, leave the spare in the driveway and bring a plug kit/tire slime.
2003 5.2l full size van is rated 13 in town 15 hwy 14 mixed that's after 26 years of Chrysler spending billions looking for better mileage. Don't think you did too bad, useless there's something seriously hindering fuel mileage it's hard to make dramatic improvements and very hard to recoup the cost.
Absolutely. I believe if I put a TQ on it (which I'm not), I could gain mpg. But, the 318's don't like to push/pull going down the road. My van is about as aerodynamic as a concrete block. I did have a nice gain on part throttle, though. All in all, it was a fantastic project and a lot of fun. Besides, it has fresh heads on it now!
If you can gain performance and not loose mileage it's a win. Gaining mileage and performance is a WIN WIN!
Trojmn
Well-Known Member
right on. my commentary was that, at least from what i saw, you ought to be a long way from enough miles and tanks especially when trying to be objective. To put it in perspective the difference between your initial 13.5gal avg and the 13.72 mpg improvement is a savings of 0.23Gal of gas in your 191mile test case. A bit less than a quart which is a lot when steady state going down a flat highway. Then again its probably not very many 2bbl 318 B-van digs from a stop sign ;-).
I look forward to the long term update.
Swinger 340
Well-Known Member
I just sold my 72' B-300 maxi van Royal, bought new. Had a 318 but wanted more power. Mileage was around 14. Installed a 69' 340, milage dropped to 8. Change out the Dana 4.10 gearing for a 3.55, milage went up to 10. Your right the wind is a killer. The van was a fully loaded van and would run high 15's at 89 MPH. I could bury the 120 speedometer, but it was a slow go from 90. I always wonder what if I opened up the back doors and place a bar to hold them open and took off the engine cover to allow the air to flow threw. I also used a 2.5 exhaust welded to the collector flange. It made a big difference in performance. Tune-ups were also done from the front seat.
Dale Davies
Well-Known Member
Emissions Mopar 318, Chevy 305 and Ford 302 all had cams with reduced lift as compared to the 350CID relatives. Low vaccum, low power, low fuel economy and poor driveability, especially when combined with an OD transmission.
I bought a 1982 Blazer with the 305 4v carb. It got 12.5 US MPG. I put an "RV" cam from TRW in. Valve lift on the intake went from 0.370" to 0.425". Exhaust went from 0.390" to 0.425". Duration at 0.050" was 214° int and 224° ex. My mileage improved to 15.8US MPG which was a big improvement. Vaccum was up a couple of inches and driveability with the OD was much better. The Camaro and Mustang high output 5.0L engines when introduced used the 350 cams. Considering they already had the 350 cams in use, I can not figure why they went to the **** cams for their "economy" engines. This 318 would likely benefit with a 360 cam. A big pain to install in a van, but well worth it. Not quite like installing a 360 but a definate benefit.
Dale Davies
Well-Known Member
Your gain is probably to the valves sealing again. Check my other post on camshafts. You could step up if you decide to upgrade the cam to a retrofit roller. The advantage is oil selection. With flat tappet cams now, the Zinc and Phosphorus content must be checked. Basically a 10W30 diesel oil."controlled by your right foot...." Exactly !!! We know our gains will be small, but the van is a keeper so we wanted to freshen up the heads anyways... besides, I don't want to lose too bad to the Hoosier Garage Van
I have my 289 Ford apart and the cam and lifters are showing signs of wear from using shelf oil before the removal of ZDDP was known about. I have the Engle cam from my 351 with low miles and in good shape I will put in. This is in a 1940 Ford Fordor, so probably not the most aerodynamic. I will be using diesel synthetic oil in it to protect the cam and lifters..
Dale Davies
Well-Known Member
Go into McGaggars on a Saturday morning for a juice of the java bean. Just about guaranteed there will be a 16 year old behind the till who will say "Hi" as you step up. My response is to put my hands on my hips and respond in a semi stern manner, "I am not". Usually they get a stunned look on their face. After about 5 seconds of being locked up I ask "did I get you?" Normal response then is a facial change to perplexed and "I am confused". Yup, did not take much. Then just ask for the desired coffee while they chew on the proceding.
Go in a week later and do the same to the same kid and probably get the same response. Their critical thinking skills are poor.
Another one is purchasing 2 or 3 items. "Do you want a bag?"
"No thank you. I had one but when I was about 40, I traded her for 2 twenties. Then I found out I was not wired for 220. Young cashiers smile whether they get it or not. A bit older they usually laugh. Had one that said "oh you are mean". Must have hit close to home somehow.
Have a good day and some fun.
Dale Davies
Well-Known Member
I believe it was Crower had some mileage cams years ago. They closed the intake valve late so at low RPM cruise it was pushing air and fuel back out into the intake manifold. What this did was a couple of things. Vaccum was low and essentially the intake stroke took in say 75% of the air by the time the intake valve closed. So on a 300CID engine it drew in the equivalent of a 225CID engine. But on the power stroke, it made use of the volume of the 300CID engine. Basically Aitkinson Cycle. When you get the engine reved up, intake inertia continues to fill the cylinder longer, providing more power.
-
