Slant Six Forum :: MPG experiment...1976 Dart Lite...Sept 26...Up to 20.19!

and they do not make your coffee taste better in the morning.

Quote:

and they do not make your coffee taste better in the morning.

Actually there have been a few health articles pointing towards aluminum in the diet or from frying pans being 'not so good' for humans in the long run (right up there with lead, mercury, cadmium, and teflon paint from non-stick pans...)

personally having driven both types of manifolds either is fine, the aluminum one is just a lot easier to install due to weight savings

Check your rear ratio, yours is an 'early' run car so who knows what the ratio is... the A-833OD got the 2.94, and the A-904 version got the stocker 2.76's... you may have either the 2.94 (most likely which is a good 'moderate' mileage ratio... I currently drive beater valiant with an A-230 and 2.94 rear...), some manual 3 spd cars got the 3.23 rear ratio, so you might already have a 'zippy' rear (in which case an A-833OD would be fine for an OD highway gearing scenario...)

Good Luck,

-D.Idiot

Quote:

and they do not make your coffee taste better in the morning.

The aluminum intake presents no drawback in summer or in winter. A phenolic carb spacer was standard equipment starting in '73.

One of mine ended up that way, because I was constantly trying to tune it.
After going through tuning two 1945's, I gave up.

I took Doc's and many others advice and switched to the 1920 Econmaster. It is allot quicker to get into and change the jets, accelerator pump, etc. You might want to pick one up from SL6 Dan before going too crazy. The 1920's are simple carbs that work amazingly well.

mine came with 3:23's max I ever got was 29.5mpg

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:33 pm ]
Post subject:
The aluminum intake presents no drawback in summer or in winter. A phenolic carb spacer was standard equipment starting in '73.

Author:	DusterIdiot [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Rlmao
Quote: and they do not make your coffee taste better in the morning. Actually there have been a few health articles pointing towards aluminum in the diet or from frying pans being 'not so good' for humans in the long run (right up there with lead, mercury, cadmium, and teflon paint from non-stick pans...)... personally having driven both types of manifolds either is fine, the aluminum one is just a lot easier to install due to weight savings (which reminds me why the offy and clifford hyperpak intakes are much lighter than a stock super six stack...)... Check your rear ratio, yours is an 'early' run car so who knows what the ratio is... the A-833OD got the 2.94, and the A-904 version got the stocker 2.76's... you may have either the 2.94 (most likely which is a good 'moderate' mileage ratio... I currently drive beater valiant with an A-230 and 2.94 rear...), some manual 3 spd cars got the 3.23 rear ratio, so you might already have a 'zippy' rear (in which case an A-833OD would be fine for an OD highway gearing scenario...) Good Luck, -D.Idiot

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Rlmao
Quote: Quote: and they do not make your coffee taste better in the morning. Actually there have been a few health articles pointing towards aluminum in the diet or from frying pans being 'not so good' for humans in the long run (right up there with lead, mercury, cadmium, and teflon paint from non-stick pans...) Yup. Few years ago they were talking about a link between aluminum cookware and Alzheimer's disease, but last time I checked I think that had turned out not to be the case. But I'm sure if it's not Alzheimer's, it's something else. I've been steadily getting rid of the teflon cookware. We bake our bread in cast-iron loaf pans now, and we use the cast-iron skillet. Once cast iron's seasoned, it's almost as nonstick as teflon. Plus, if some burglar breaks into my house, whackin' 'im with cast iron will work better. Quote: personally having driven both types of manifolds either is fine, the aluminum one is just a lot easier to install due to weight savings +1. When I was a teenager and thought it was keen to spend hours bent over fenders, contorted up under dashboards and in all kinds of other consequence-free weird positions, it didn't matter. Now that the reality has sunk in that I'm not permanently 18, my back votes for an aluminum intake, every time!

Author:	Backtobasics [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Rlmao
Quote: Check your rear ratio, yours is an 'early' run car so who knows what the ratio is... the A-833OD got the 2.94, and the A-904 version got the stocker 2.76's... you may have either the 2.94 (most likely which is a good 'moderate' mileage ratio... I currently drive beater valiant with an A-230 and 2.94 rear...), some manual 3 spd cars got the 3.23 rear ratio, so you might already have a 'zippy' rear (in which case an A-833OD would be fine for an OD highway gearing scenario...) Good Luck, -D.Idiot I will try to check rear end today. 55 mph is the highest "comfortable" speed, anything beyond that and it really starts to buzz. Luckily (more by design) most of my driving is highway rush hour, running 25-55 relatively smoothly.

Author:	Rug_Trucker [ Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:15 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Rlmao
Quote: Quote: and they do not make your coffee taste better in the morning. Actually there have been a few health articles pointing towards aluminum in the diet or from frying pans being 'not so good' for humans in the long run I try to drink my beer from glass and not cans! Check your rear ratio, yours is an 'early' run car so who knows what the ratio is... some manual 3 spd cars got the 3.23 rear ratio, so you might already have a 'zippy' rear (in which case an A-833OD would be fine for an OD highway gearing scenario...) mine came with 3:23's max I ever got was 29.5mpg Check the tag on the rear cover for your gear ratio.

Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/

MPG experiment...1976 Dart Lite...Sept 26...Up to 20.19! https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29756	Page 2 of 6

Author:	sl6farmtruck [ Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:17 am ]
Post subject:
Call me crazy, but here's what I would do: don't know how far you want to tear into the engine, or how much money you have to spend, but here's my ideal mpg build: 13:1-14:1 mechanical compression Custom ground Atkinson Cycle camshaft (this would allow the above CR on regular pump at the expense of hp). Basically it gives you a greater expansion ratio and lower effective compression ratio by holding the intake valve open PAST BDC, allowing some of the air to get pushed back out the intake. This lowers the effective intake stroke and cranking compression ratio to allow regular unleaded. The Toyota Prius uses this technology to run 13.6:1 compression ratio on 87 Octane. Here's a wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle I'd have the heads treated with some type of thermal coating to minimize heat loss to the head/valves and reduce the chance of pre-ignition due to hot spots in the cylinder head. http://www.polydyn.com/cylinder_heads.htm Because you'd probably see a rather significant power loss with the Atkinson Cycle camshaft and the lower effective displacement, I'd consider a turbocharger to regain the lost hp. The Squires remote-mount turbos are claimed to actually improve MPG, which from an engineering standpoint is believable, because they use denser, slower moving gases to spin the turbo, which should reduce intake pumping losses enough to more than offset the increased exhaust restriction. Here's the lnik: http://www.ststurbo.com/ Finally, if you end up fuel-injecting it, definitely use a wide-band O2 sensor, maybe even one from the manual trans Honda Insight, due to their ability to accurately measure ultra-lean mixture ratios. You probably don't want to, but if you made some aero-mods to the car as well to reduce it's drag, I don't see why you couldn't make over 40-45 mpg hwy, presuming the factory 36 mpg rating is reasonable. The Superbird would be a good place to start aero-mods from, as it had a lower Cd than the new C6 Corvette does. Finally, I'd consider a different transmission, maybe a T-56 variant with that .50 OD. That would allow steeper gears without a loss in mpg, making the car more fun to drive with a lower-hp engine. Then you could even choose a short enough rear gear that would match the stock 1st gear final drive ratio in 2nd gear, and then just start out in 2nd unless you where racing.

Author:	Backtobasics [ Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:
Holy crap that is a lot of info! I am going to go a little more basic first. I intend to maximize the current configuration, only going into the engine if needed. The backup plan is a finding a spare /6 for a build, that tries many other tricks, such as oil drainback and windage, coatings, etc. Turbo is very appealing, as means to have the HP when wanted, and utilize the heat for improved fuel atomization, etc. Fuel injection sounds like a good compliment to the turbo, and I have mental images of an intake manifold redesign, however unrealistic it may be

Author:	Backtobasics [ Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Slight Update
Update: I got the carb back. I had to do some surface cleanup between the base plate and main body, as there was some SLIGHT warpage around the holes that connected the 2. Once assembled, I found that all but 3 of the screws that held the top hat to the main body, were stripped!! They snugged up enough for a test fire and start. After a little adjusting it started and sounded great. I spin around the block revealed it was much brisker, faster, and peppier. I also found out that the "accelerator pump rod" is totally missing in action. It appears it goes from an ear on the throttle blade, to the accelerator pump arm. I found one I robbed off a thermoquad, that might work. The car runs much better rebuilt, and I can't even image how it will run with an accelerator pump shot to get off the line. The carb went back out to my brother shop ( I don't have tap and dies ) and should be back in a day or 2. I can't wait to drive it with a fully functioning carb!!

Author:	Aggressive Ted [ Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:
One of mine ended up that way, because I was constantly trying to tune it. After going through tuning two 1945's, I gave up. I took Doc's and many others advice and switched to the 1920 Econmaster. It is allot quicker to get into and change the jets, accelerator pump, etc. You might want to pick one up from SL6 Dan before going too crazy. The 1920's are simple carbs that work amazingly well.

Author:	Rug_Trucker [ Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:20 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: The aluminum intake presents no drawback in summer or in winter. A phenolic carb spacer was standard equipment starting in '73. When did they get the sink strainer under the 1bbls? 198???

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:
"Sink strainer"...?

Author:	Backtobasics [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: One of mine ended up that way, because I was constantly trying to tune it. After going through tuning two 1945's, I gave up. I took Doc's and many others advice and switched to the 1920 Econmaster. It is allot quicker to get into and change the jets, accelerator pump, etc. You might want to pick one up from SL6 Dan before going too crazy. The 1920's are simple carbs that work amazingly well. Soon.... I need to get the 1945 running first, so I can drive the vehicle. After I get it back roadworthy, I will investigate the other carb options. I wonder if it would be best to convert to 2 bbl now, so I have enough air flow once the turbo gets in the picture?

Author:	Rug_Trucker [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: "Sink strainer"...? Yep I have found them in intakes in the JY on two different trucks. I snagged one. If I can find it I can email it to you.

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:
Can you describe the device you refer to...?

Page 2 of 6	All times are UTC-07:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Aggressive Ted [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Rug_Trucker, Quote: mine came with 3:23's max I ever got was 29.5mpg Was that with a stock engine? in what type car (the 72 Duster)? and which transmission (3 speed or 4)? overdrive? Was that a one time situation? what is you average mileage with today's fuel? What carb and #jet were you running? Thanks for elaborating on the set up. I am kind of stuck at 23.5 mpg average with my driving style and conditions (stop and go on the freeway, etc), automatic and 2.76 Posi. I tried a 3.23 for about 14 months and it dropped down to 21.5 mpg.