Firestorm Plugs; makin' yer own

[wallaka]

Thinner metal now, but stronger alloys. Much safer cars now; all you have to do is look at injury and death statistics through the years. Even though there are twice as many cars now as in the 70's, the death rate has stayed constant. There will be outliers every now and then, true. But I'm still going to wear seatbelts despite the fact that people can survive accidents without them.

The average gas mileage I've seen for 60's Cadillacs is 8-12...why is this one example different?

Occam's razor says that the reason it's different is because it isn't true. I say this about most of the unproven things out there that somebody heard about. Especially if it goes against everything we know to be probably true.

Don't get me wrong, I love vintage iron. If I didn't, I would have gotten rid of the Comet a long time ago. But older isn't necessarily better. In fact, it is usually worse. Remember when the life of a car was 70,000 miles? When valve adjustments and complete services (ignition and everything) were every 3-6,000 miles?

 

[StrangeRanger]

I'm going to say that the Caddy vs. Mini mileage story is pure BS. The Mini is geared very tall for such a small car. In 6th gear it has an overall top gear ratio (top gear ratio x final drive ratio) of 2.97 which undoubtedly contributed to its 37 MPG highway rating. Even the supercharged S versions which achieve the same OTGR with a different OD and different final drive are rated at 34 MPG highway. One of my former co-workers had an S and it beat the EPA rating with some regularity. That's about 3 times better than a land yacht Caddy could get in the owners wildest dreams.

 

[Junk-Falcon]

my wifes 02 mini s with the john cooper head n breaks n sup gets 31mpg in the back roads n hills here n its way faster than a cady hek ya can hit 90 in 3td n its rated to go 140mph ,, 208hp from a 1.6 the newer ones are 112hp

 

[rbohm]

Thinner metal now, but stronger alloys. Much safer cars now; all you have to do is look at injury and death statistics through the years. Even though there are twice as many cars now as in the 70's, the death rate has stayed constant. There will be outliers every now and then, true. But I'm still going to wear seatbelts despite the fact that people can survive accidents without them.

8) before you make the claim that newer cars are safer than older ones, understand one change that was made in how deaths due to auto accidents are figured. in the old days if you had an auto accident and died with in one year of said accident, it was counted as a death due to the accident. when the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, they also changed the time frame for counting traffic accident deaths to if you die with in 30 days of the accident, it gets counted in the accident death stats. this assumes that you died of injuries related to the accident. also if you look at the death rate from traffic accidents, you will se that they are rising again, and getting back to the levels of the mid 70's.

 

[wallaka]

Still, with the addition of so many cars and drivers, the trend is true.

 

[Divco man]

As far as the Caddy vs. Mini-Cooper, Firstly, I'm going from memory, on something I read in a car magazine, over a year ago. IF I remember correctly, it was in the editorial, Maybe the editor was using 'artistic license' i.e. made it up. Still, if it didn't have some merit, seems like he would have got letters like these posts, ? the truth of the story.Interesting no one is questioning the shop teacher story, or that FLEET average mileage hasn't improved much in 30 years.And yes, there are lies, Damn lies and Statistics. I hadn't heard that about changing the period of time for recording death rates, but it certainly could effect the statistics. So could the developement of a nationwide 911 system and cellphones,(the golden hour),as well as a paramedic system,and improved emergency room system and an air ambulance system, all of which we didn't have 30 yrs ago, and which contribute to getting an accident victim under the knife within an hour; the 'golden' hour.Many people are surviving injuries they wouldn't have back then because of these innovations. In fact, considering all these, they could even mask cars being LESS safe. Not saying they are, just that its possible.As for me and mine, you can keep your crunch-mobiles, we'll continue to ride and drive in Tanks, Tank-you very much!

 

[Lazy JW]

....A high school auto shop teacher had a 1930's 10 passenger bus donated to him, for his class to restore. A great teaching tool, very basic.So he had his class go thru it from 1 end to the other and completely restore it, original.Then, to demonstrate why we have emissions controls, he took it down to get it inspected, even tho its exempt.They did a tailpipe test on it, and to his chagrin, It Passed!Not only that, it got around 24 mpg.....

I sincerely doubt this one too. Having actually driven vehicles (trucks, tractors) dating from the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's I have NEVER seen or heard of ANYONE with an ounce of truthfulness be able to back up a claim that a 10 passenger school bus can get anywhere NEAR 24 mpg, much less have emissions clean enough to "pass" (whatever that means) a smog inspection.

I do have in my archives (piles of stuff) an article from 1976 where a then-new Granada was compared to a pre-war Ford (I forget which model but believe they were both I6's). The early Ford got about the same gas mileage, the CO count on the smog sniffer was WAY higher and the hydrocarbon count was astronomical compared to the Granada.

I do have 1952 International L-162 truck with a 240 Silver Diamond six that did about 7 mpg; 3/4 ton and 1-ton pickups from those eras did well to get 15 mpg (real world mpg, which happens to be where I live).

I still have some articles about the economy competitions from the 1950's, maybe this winter I'll dig them out to share.

10 or 15 years ago I spoke with a gentleman named Mike Brown who then (probably still does) had the patent rights to manufacture the Fish carburetor. He told me, and no one can likely dispute this, that neither he nor Mr. Fish EVER made the outrageous economy claims that have been bandied about concerning the Fish carburetor. He actually built it originally as a PERFORMANCE carb and gained his notoriety by winning stock car races. Mike Brown quit building them as they didn't sell well due to the fact that they wouldn't provide the economy that everyone expected (and he never promised). At any rate, he actually talked me OUT of buying a Fish carburetor when he could very well have taken my money and ran. Mr. Brown went into building steam engines, I bought a set of plans for a mini-steamer but that's another story. You can look him up on the internet.
Joe

P.S. Learn to use paragraphs, please.

 

[Divco man]

Firstly, Sorry about the lack of paragraphs. I usually post late at night, when I am tired and should be in bed, like now.

As far as the story about the bus, I can't recall the source,and I'm not even positive of all the details, since I was going from memory.

As for the Fish carb, I don't think anyone owns the patents, anymore since they would have expired by now. Someone, somewhere may own the copyright to the name, as copyrights last a lot longer.I think I remember hearing that Michael Jackson and Prescilla Presley own the copyrights to most of the Beatles songs, for instance.It makes sense that they were originally built for performance, with all the Fireball Roberts association in the early years.The Kendal and Predators are basically bigger, (much bigger) versions, or very similar to, fish carbs. And they are definetly designed for performance.

Still, (except for a few things, like putting in a bigger motor) MOST things that are done as performance enhanements improve efficency.Making a certain size and weight of car, with a certain aerodynamic drag, and a certain size engine, go quicker through the 1/4 mile faster is improving efficency. Therefore, most of these same enhancements, if applied in a different way, can be used to improve efficiency, to improve mileage.Getting a vehicle same size, etc. to go farther on a gallon of gas.Turbos gained popularity as a performance enhancement, but VW and others have put small turbos, on really small engines, in small cars and gotten some pretty impressive mileage. Saw a VW ad the other day. I THINK it was a 1.6 liter turbo, and was 55 or 60 mpg epa rating.

The fish carbs were said to be a bitch to get adjusted and keep adjusted for different driving conditions, elevations, etc.It occurs to me that wouldn't be as much of a concern for certain types of racers, who do many "test-laps' to get everything adjusted just right, and then drive in a more go like hell fashion than someone driving on city streets, in traffic.Anywho, I'm going to bed!

 

[Lazy JW]

Please do not misunderstand me, I too would love to find the "100 MPG carburetor", and I have spent a fair amount of time looking up stuff and trying to learn how it all works.

Some performance items do indeed improve efficiency, but most of it is improving the PUMPING efficiency rather than the thermodynamic efficiency. Therein lies the rub; we really haven't improved the thermodynamic efficiency of the ICE by huge amounts since the days that Sir Harry Ricardo was playing around before WW2. Yes, they are better, and they have been cleaned up a LOT, but Sir Harry got BSFC numbers in the low .4 lbs/hp-hr with FLATHEADS, for crying out loud!

Nonetheless, I intend to incorporate some Singh Grooves into my next 300 build, and I am still in search of anything that REALLY AND TRULY WORKS in the real world, which is where I intend to continue living for a while, and in the real world we need to not only go downhill but we must sooner or later climb back UP that hill, buck that headwind, pull that wagon, tote that bale..... and now I gotta go to work.

Don't give up,
Joe

 

[Thad]

In a Fish and in a Predator it is the fuel metering ramp and that causes grief . One size /slope radi does NOT fit all.The gap between the swing arm connected to the throttle doors and the curved ramp increase as doors open increasing fuel.
This is a mechanical increasing of jet size and only partially dependent on air flow and vacuum. The ramp curve does NOT adjust for load, air flow or vacuum.
Trying to rework the metering ramp and enrichment cam on a Predator in a drag car was one of the hardest carb set-up we every did. Fall flat in mid range, scream at peak.----- or the other way round.

 

[rbohm]

Still, (except for a few things, like putting in a bigger motor) MOST things that are done as performance enhanements improve efficency.Making a certain size and weight of car, with a certain aerodynamic drag, and a certain size engine, go quicker through the 1/4 mile faster is improving efficency. Therefore, most of these same enhancements, if applied in a different way, can be used to improve efficiency, to improve mileage.Getting a vehicle same size, etc. to go farther on a gallon of gas.Turbos gained popularity as a performance enhancement, but VW and others have put small turbos, on really small engines, in small cars and gotten some pretty impressive mileage. Saw a VW ad the other day. I THINK it was a 1.6 liter turbo, and was 55 or 60 mpg epa rating.

to a point you are right, increasing hp does improve fuel efficiency, but you have to be careful of the changes you make. as jw pointed out improving pumping efficiency is what improves fuel economy. and as jw pointed out we need to make improvements in thermal efficiency to get real gains in fuel economy, hp, and emissions output. as my high school auto shop teacher once stated, if we could get engines to run at 1000 degrees F we would see 500ci cadillac engines getting over 100 mpg.

as for the VW that is rated at 60 mpg, remember that is a turbo diesel and not a gas engine. turbos can improve fuel efficiency by pushing enough airflow to improve volumetric efficiency, and make the engine more efficient in the cruising range, but understand that most people dont drive a turbo engine properly to gain that extra fuel economy.

 

[Divco man]

Yeah, especially with turbos, but with any efficiency improvement, ya gotta be able to keep your foot out of it, and thats hard to resist."The single adjustment /modification you can make to achieve the greatest improvement in fuel mileage is to adjust that nut that sits right behind the steering wheel."Theres this very human thing, it just feels really good to stomp the pedal, and feel the acceleration pulling us into the seat.Not saying we're gonna change human nature, but we really don't need to go that fast, or accelerate that quickly.Whem compared to the alternatives, (walking, riding a bike or a horse) a car, even a slow one is sooo much better, especially when pulling a load, that if all cars took a 1/2 mile to get up to 40 mph, and couldn't go any faster, it would still be a vast improvement.

I'm not sure anti-lock 4 wheel disk brakes have made us THAT much safer; it seems to me people just drive a lot more aggressively, as they have more, and sometimes unrealistic, confidence in their brakes. Remember the old 'rule of thumb' of 1 car length for every 10 mph?It seems like NO ONE follows that. I regularly see people at 40-60 mph that are maybe 1 car length behind the car in front of them.I,m not saying we can or should mandate govenors or anything. The cats out of the bag.Just saying its human nature to want to drive a lot faster, and accelerate a lot quicker, than we really need to.Well, gotta go to work on my truck.

 

[wallaka]

As Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

 

[Divco man]

I don't know who Ron is, but I second or third that. Closest you can come is something like the Darwin Awards.Doesn't fix it, just recognises and awards the most extreme examples, those who either kill or sterilize themselves thru their stupidity, thereby eliminating themselves from the gene pool.Maybe a reality show version of the Darwin awards?"Boy, I REALLY want to get in the top 20! And getting voted "out of the pool" by all of America, why that would be the greatest! So please, call in and vote for ME!" From a contestant who taped 20 m-80's to his crotch, and lit the fuse. :rolflmao:

 

[StrangeRanger]

...Some performance items do indeed improve efficiency, but most of it is improving the PUMPING efficiency rather than the thermodynamic efficiency. Therein lies the rub; we really haven't improved the thermodynamic efficiency of the ICE by huge amounts since the days that Sir Harry Ricardo was playing around before WW2. Yes, they are better, and they have been cleaned up a LOT, but Sir Harry got BSFC numbers in the low .4 lbs/hp-hr with FLATHEADS, for crying out loud!

The way to increase both thermal and pumping efficiency of an ICE is to increase the compression ratio. Unfortunately this requires higher octane fuel which at the present prices decreases the "economic efficiency."

For example raising the CR of a 300 from 8.8 to 10.0 (the approximate limits of 87 and 94 octane fuels) increases the theoretical thermal efficiency from .44 to .46. When you price out the 94 octane stuff, this ceases to sound like a wonderful idea.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts (being National Doughnut Day and all) that using a Scan Gauge II MPG meter or similar device (or even a simple vacuum gauge) to alter your driving habits would do more for fuel economy than anything you could bolt on to the powertrain.

 

[Divco man]

Mileage improvement devices that really work, and pay for themselves;
A vacuum guage, and learn how to use it
A tire pressure guage, ditto.
A block of compressable rubber, glued to the back of the gas pedal. Or, Free! Adjust your seat back, 1-2 notches, so, while you can "floor it" if you 'have to', you have to extend your leg/foot in a position thats uncomfortable to maintain for long.(and mind you, many times the "hazard" can be avoided by paying attention, and letting off the gas, instead).You should still be able to reach the brake easily, obviously, and if neccesary a thicker pad can be put on the front of it, to accomodate the new position.
As for the rest, we're really getting off topic, but right into something else I've been thinking about, so gonna start a new post.

 

[wallaka]

Yep, single easiest way to get better mileage is to change driving styles. I could easily get 35 combined mpg in my old Cavalier by driving like Granny and turning the engine off in drive-throughs and long traffic lights.

 

[Divco man]

StrangerRanger; Have you read this article?http://www.theoldone.com/articles/The%5FSoft%5FHead%5F1999/
Also, would ceramic coating the combustion chamber reduce/eliminate detonation? Seems like it would.Jim

 

[Lazy JW]

....

as for the VW that is rated at 60 mpg, remember that is a turbo diesel and not a gas engine....

Yup. Diesels don't have that nasty detonation/pre-ignition problem that gasoline engines do, therefore they can run some bodacious compression pressures under boost. Gasoline engines, on the other hand, having to compress the air already mixed with fuel, need to be a bit more circumspect regarding compression ratios/boost. Direct injection gasoline, anyone?

There are things like the Miller cycle concept that helps a bit, and Larry Widmer has done some interesting stuff, but he isn't too good at sharing, plus I wonder what the emissions look like on his engines.
Joe

 

[Divco man]

As far as larry, have you read the update article (on his website, regarding the softhead? Seems to me like he's sharing quite a bit!He makes the point I made earlier, that performance improvements are about improving efficiency, and so are mileage improvements. In fact, even tho he's building race engines, he says his work actually improves the gas mileage.After all, if an Indy car can get more laps out of a given amount of fuel, thats how races are won.Wish I had the resources, (Knowledge/ability,$ etc. ) to incorporate his work, but with the emphasis totally on economy, and performance-wise only looking for street type acceleration and top speeds.As far as emissions goes, he's talking about very complete combustion,=low hydrocarbons, and very quick combustion= low NOX, so I suspect even his race cars might do really well, considering, and a car built using softhead, where the emphasis was on mileage might be phenomenal!Jim