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

MPG's Challenge
https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28382		 Page 6 of 10
Author:  kipamore [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
for fuel economy, do you want a hot intake charge or a cool one? Is this the purpose of EGR?
Kip on Truckin'
People will correct me if I'm wrong, they're good like that, :wink: but I think you want heated intake air when the motor's cold, and using extra fuel, but then cool intake air once the motor's at operating temperature, for a denser charge . EGR prevents pinging from early detonation.
How's it do that? Wouldn't it just displace air volume, like running a smaller displacement motor? Is the heat a factor, or just the inert gas? So many questions.
Author:  kipamore [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
Is there something I'm missing here? Why can't a 3000# car have a 2000# battery?
I think the EPA has the say in that. Even those "safe" gel cell batteries must have some envoromental impact that is monitored by the EPA.
Damn EPA! They are bad for the environment. I've often wondered about the benefits of emissions regulations verses what that engine could attain with no emissions stuff. Like a catalytic converter - how much fuel mileage does that cost? And wouldn't the environment be better served by burning less petro in the first place?

I can build you a car that gets 200mpg easily, but it would be a deathtrap in a crash.

Speaking for myself, I believe global warming is a hoax, but that's a discussion for another board I suppose. We, as slant six owners, should all be getting grants from Greenpeace for keeping this old junk on the road, thus making it unnecessary to manufacture new junk. We're not the ones buying new timing belts every 70k.

Kip on Truckin'
Author:  CARS [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
From what I understand, a cooler intake charge builds power. At least that is what the magazines tell us. However on my daily driver, I picked up a few MPG by raising the temp of my thermostate. So do you want to gain power to compensate for your vehicles ineficencies or run your engine at a temp that makes the most use of what you have?

So many questions...
Author:  CARS [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I can build you a car that gets 200mpg easily, but it would be a deathtrap in a crash.

Speaking for myself, I believe global warming is a hoax, but that's a discussion for another board I suppose. We, as slant six owners, should all be getting grants from Greenpeace for keeping this old junk on the road, thus making it unnecessary to manufacture new junk. We're not the ones buying new timing belts every 70k.

Kip on Truckin'
I had a Chevette 4cyl, 4 speed that got over 35 mph easy and at the time I really didn't think of it as a death threat. Now would I put my 16 year old in it........


Global warming is not a hoax. If not for global warming we would be ice fishing 365 days a year! The politics of this discussion on the other hand is best left alone.
Author:  slantfin [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:47 am ]
Post subject:  Egr
Quote:
How's it do that? Wouldn't it just displace air volume, like running a smaller displacement motor? Is the heat a factor, or just the inert gas? So many questions.
I think you got it with the inert (or non-combustible) gas, making the charge resist exploding from just the heat in the cylinder, rather than from the spark as intended.
Author:  Dart270 [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:59 am ]
Post subject: 
To a point, higher intake charge temp (less dense air) is better for MPG. Try driving in the Rocky Mts and see what your mileage does (goes up). But, if your car is out of tune or can't adjust to the lower density air, then MPG may go down with higher temps.

Most electric car ads/hype overstate efficiency, if you include where your power came from and the efficiency of converting that fuel into electricity.

For example, a coal/oil power plant runs around 38% efficiency, so an electric car that was 50% efficient (elec to mechanical work) would only be 37 X 50 = 19% efficient from fuel to mechanical. That is worse than most IC engine cars (15-25%). I haven't seen numbers on elec car efficiency, but I doubt they can be much more efficient than 50%. There are other pros/cons, but that's most of the energy part.

Lou
Author:  tlrol [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:33 am ]
Post subject:  Off subject electric car efficiency
Converting an ICE car to electric still straps you to the inherent losses associated with all those moving parts in the drive train (transmissions, driveshafts, differentials, etc).

However, electric motors are quite efficient. NEMA design B motors, for example, sport efficiencies at >85% for the horsepower ratings you would use in an electric car. As to the Carnot cycle power plants you are correct, thermal plants tap out in the high 30ish percentage. Please note however, that the blendedefficiencies of power production are much higher. Hydro power is quite efficient, so are combined cycle gas turbines. Add in the fuel costs for power production (i.e. coal/gas/nuclear is all cheaper than gasoline) and electric cars are rather cost effective with gasoline in the >$3 a gallon range.

Plan on seeing electric cars in the future, and don't mess with them at the stoplights--the torque curve on an electric motor can be pretty awesome and they can scoot.

The total efficiency of an electric car is best measured by the dollars spent in "fueling" it for the distance driven. It is cheaper than using gasoline...electric cars also save $$ when you consider you don't have oil changes, air cleaners, spark plugs, etc, etc. The only pesky part is you best have a short commute to make it workable (under say 60 miles round trip).

My experience with them is that they seem to work best in a 4WD drive rig since you can easily deal with the heavy batteries with beefer 4WD springs. Having said that, I know of guys who have put them into VW Rabbits, etc. I imagine a Slanted rig like a Dart would do pretty good as an electric vehicle. The question is if it would still be Slanted enough...
Author:  Timmy! [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
To me, improving fuel economy is a bit like golf; it's easier to pare your strokes from 100 to 90 than from 80 to 70.

Likewise, for Slanters it's easier to go from 15 to 20 MPG than from 20 to 25.

I average 24 MPG in my '64 Valiant. I'm happy with that. I'm not happy about spending $50 to fill up my tank, but keep this in mind to make you feel better: Our cars are paid for. I spend $200 a year for maintenance, so that's my "monthly car payment" of about $17.

If you have a car that gets 40 MPG and you pay $400 a month in car payments, it costs you $400 a month for the car to sit in your driveway, even if you don't move one inch. How much gas can you buy each month for $400?
Author:  kipamore [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Egr
I think you got it with the inert (or non-combustible) gas, making the charge resist exploding from just the heat in the cylinder, rather than from the spark as intended.[/quote]


I still don't quite understand this. I think the gag with swapping to a warmer thermostat has something to do with fooling an ECU into running leaner. But ever car I've ever overheated (which seems like all of them at some point!) knocks like crazy when it gets really hot. Exhaust gas should be at or near the temp of the exhaust charge. In other words, heat should make it pre-ignite. I'm missing something here.

Prediction: the public will lose their fascination with Hybrids at some point, and just drive diesel or gas econoboxes. But where hybrids will rule is in commerial trucks. Hey - it's worked for 60 years in locomotives.

I agree with Tirol about parts - seems to me an electric car should have 1/10th the parts (moving or otherwise) of an ICE. Does the Prius even have a transmission? If so, why the hell does it need a transmission? And since it has less parts, it should break down less and cost less to build. Hum.....

I see the EPA changed their ratings system and the Prius now gets even worse mileage. And I hear tell that the battery pack (a wear part so they say) is around $9000 to replace.

I also heard an NPR story about a couple of tree huggers who flew to Germany, and drove a box stock diesel Jeep liberty from London to Berlin, getting 77mpg in the process.

So overall, I think we're just chasing our tails with all this alternative stuff. Just make 'em smaller and lighter, problem solved.

However, I'm always ready to hillbilly something up to save some cashish. This is a fun topic.

Kip on Truckin'[/i]
Author:  Rug_Trucker [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Egr
[quote="kipamore" where hybrids will rule is in commerial trucks. Hey - it's worked for 60 years in locomotives.

I woder if they can do it without getting really heavy

I also heard an NPR story about a couple of tree huggers who flew to Germany, and drove a box stock diesel Jeep liberty from London to Berlin, getting 77mpg in the process.

and they don't sell those here? :(



Kip on Truckin'[/i][/quote]
Author:  CrAlt [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:

Practical: (by practical I mean little to no customwork)

Super Six Setup
Lighten Car
Long Rods
Shorter Pistons (.5 inch shorter to decrease friction I suppose)
Front Air Dam
2.25 Exhaust (What about a 2.5inch?)
Dutra Duals (Would headers be better?)
Toothed Serpentine Belt
Back to /6's...

So the super six carter BBD is the best off the shelf carb for mpg?

What about this belly pan talk? Any one have a pic of one? Im not really sure what they do.

How about going from a 225 to a 170?

I have a 1972 dodge 4dr dart. Im putting 2.76s, a 8.75 rear and disc brakes on it. Once i get the suspension and drivetrain bullit proof im going to be looking at the power plant.

Would it be worth it to track down a 170? Im not really wanting to get in to a custom 2.2 piston engine...
Author:  Rug_Trucker [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
IIRC Smokey Yunick once filled the bottom of a car with bondo to make a smoother bottom.

Dusters in some classes when drag racing slowed down when running the old Direct Connection ABS front spoiler.

The cylinder head combustion chamber with grooves cut into it is an idea.

I have several in the shop I need to look at.

A belly pan can be sheet metal.
Author:  Pat Dawson [ Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:01 am ]
Post subject: 
I came across an old small flex fan in my garage that wouldn't keep my big block car cool. I put in the Valiant /6. I figure it's lighter than the stock fan so it's probably easier on the water pump bearing. It flattens out when the rpm comes up so it uses less energy and pulls good air at idle. It was hot here Saturday and I left the engine idle, drove it hard, and left it idle again. Seems to do fine. It has 5 blades instead of the stock 4 blade. Don't know if there is any economic payback, but this was basically a freebie.

Whatdya-think? 1 or 2 HP gain at 4000 rpm? 1/4 th mpg improvement overall?
Author:  MichaelS [ Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Anyone got an opinion on Flex fan versus Electric fan? The flex fan would be a lot lighter (and cheaper) than an electric and if it flattens out as the manufacturer claims it will it should have little or no drag? But the Electric fan will have no drag at all, except maybe from the power it draws? But it adds some weight.
I currently have a solid fan, no clutch so anything will be better.
Author:  Slanted Opinion [ Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
I remember one member on this board ran his car with no fan at all, but I don't remember the specifics.

I think he may have had an aluminum radiator.

-Mac
Page 6 of 10 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/