Fuel milage and compression

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Maybe you made more horsepower at sea level, and had your foot into the throttle more. :wink: .

Which location is cooler on average. Maybe temp had an impact?
Tires confirmed to be at the same pressure during each test?
Doug
 
Same latitude (although very slightly cooler here), 42 psi all around... and I'm too old (and poor) to drive like a fiend... :oops:

All I can figure is it's either the benefits of lower compression, or at 4000 feet the gravitational pull of the earth is less and the truck doesn't have to pull as hard up the hills... :lol:
 
SuperMag":1xzz0w8a said:
All I can figure is it's either the benefits of lower compression, or at 4000 feet the gravitational pull of the earth is less and the truck doesn't have to pull as hard up the hills... :lol:

...and I always thought it was because the air is so much thinner that my truck doesn't have to push as hard to get there. :lol:
 
I suspect that you have the air/fuel ratio slightly leaner (relatively speaking) than you did at lower altitude. This would be difficult to prove, however. In the old days of gasoline powered farm tractors it was common to be able to order them with special "high altitude" pistons. Having the timing advanced will give a similar effect, up to a point. This is a puzzling question :?
Joe
 
Seattle Smitty":2h7noly3 said:
Diesel fuels make better use of crude oil, with fewer refinery steps and equipment, than gasolines. So, why is diesel at the pump costing as much as 91-92 octane gasoline, these days????

I would have to think that There is more diesel fuel used than Gasoline every day in the is world. The place I work goes through 8+million gallons or Diesel a year. each truck used 800-1000 gallons every 24 hour 365 days a year with an average of 29 trucks running at all times. Then there is building heating and big loaders and Bulldozers.
 
Lazy JW":3am1suvt said:
I suspect that you have the air/fuel ratio slightly leaner (relatively speaking) than you did at lower altitude.

No question about it. In order to keep the poor thing from drowning in its own mix at 8000 feet, I've got it set so lean down here in the valley (4000 ft.) that when I turn the engine off, I have to "catch" the engine with the clutch to prevent dieseling. But oddly enough, that gives my best mileage figures and the plug color here indicates the same mixture here that I had back in Vermont- normal to just slightly lean.

This whole high altitude thing is pretty interesting and has a number of fascinating effects... when creeping around the logging roads back in the forest up past 6000 feet, I can lug the engine down to about 600-700 RPM on some pretty steep grades, and the engine will just pop and pull like a John Deere Model 'A' with no knocking or pinging whatsoever.

It really gets interesting back at the pump... After all day in the mountains, creeping around in 2nd and 3rd gears, lugging the engine as described, I'll go back down, fill up, and do the math. The math comes back at 18+ MPG...

And you remember back in the day when you didn't have the funds to invest in a timing light, you'd set the timing by advancing it until it pinged under load, and then back off a bit? Not a valid process here. Above 6000 feet, you can advance the dizzy to the point that the engine will slow down and die, but it will never knock or ping. Nothing you can do will induce knock. (Since you have to run way more timing than what is specified in the books, the only way to properly set timing is the vacuum method.)

But I think all this is the result of "perfect storm" conditions with regards to the 300 six. The 400 in my Bronco, which has a lower base compression number than my six, just runs like crap and uses more gas in the hills. Come to think of it, the 400 always runs like crap and uses more gas... :?

Seattle Smitty":3am1suvt said:
Diesel fuels make better use of crude oil, with fewer refinery steps and equipment, than gasolines. So, why is diesel at the pump costing as much as 91-92 octane gasoline, these days????

In most places diesel is more... I remember reading long ago that you can extract more gasoline from a barrel of oil than you can diesel fuel. Which makes sense when you consider that diesel has a higher BTU content than gasoline...
 
Back to your original question:

Like CZLN6 said: Raising compression WILL increase power and efficiency, resulting in better MPG numbers. The 200 underwent changes into the "3.3L" version of the late 1970s and later that lowered compression for 2 reasons: 1) lower octane fuel and 2) emission controls, specifically oxides of nitrogen. Compression ratios above 9.4:1 cause a peak heat during burn that creates nitrous oxide and dioxide. The introduction of EGR into the intake manifold is done to lower that peak heat about 10% or so: lowering the compression also reduces the peak heat and, with it, the efficiency. That becomes less MPG at the wheels.

The easiest way to rectify the situation with the 200 is to narrow the quench band while raising the compression. With a narrow quench, the oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons both go down and the tolerance to poor fuel octane goes up. In other words, like my engine, I got the quench band ("deck height") down to about .035" and milled the head to get the compression ratio up to 9.4:1 or so. The result was an extra 4 MPG, on average, across the board, with noticeably better acceleration and hill-climbing ability. It runs on cheap regular unleaded. It still passed emissions, too, even with advanced timing (+4 degrees over stock) and vacuum advance on the distributor.

Change the distributor advance distance, too. Stock ones usually give about 26-30 degrees total advance. You can weld up the holes a little to reduce this total to 22 degrees, then use an extra static advance to make up the difference. This is precisely what the new, computer-controlled engines do: more advance earlier with less overall. The overall advance for good MPG should not be more than 34 degrees: mine likes about 32 degrees total (static + full mechanical advance). It starts better when hot, too....
 
Good, Mark, except you threw me for a minute with your choice of words. When you said to "narrow" the squishband, I first thought you meant to reduce it in area. Then I saw you meant you would tighten the squish clearance, which is the way to go on every engine with a squishband, if you want more detonation-resistance. But it does leave a little more unburned end gases.

Mike, think about how all the manufacturers have gone to casting swirl-inducing ramps and such in their heads. Swirl and tumble are another means of improving detonation resistance, thus allowing a little more compression for a given fuel octane. Our EFI heads have more compression than the open chamber heads of the late-'70s, thus more efficiency/power/economy.
 
Seattle Smitty":2uqs19en said:
Diesel fuels make better use of crude oil, with fewer refinery steps and equipment, than gasolines. So, why is diesel at the pump costing as much as 91-92 octane gasoline, these days????


This is too easy--Less refineing=less cost --higher price=higher profits
Less people will scream at their gov. reps over higher diesel prices than over gas prices. Therefore raiseing diesel prices are a quicker way to increased profits. Opec prices are paid to all oil producers even the ones that funded elections with domestic oil production funds.
 
As to compression and fuel mileage and all that--I have a Harley that came from the factory with about 8.7/1 CR and 88 cu in. It now is 95" with 10.4/1 CR. Stock had 60+ hp and tor. in the low 70's- now it has 101 HP and 116 lb tor. If driven the same as it was stock it returns nearly identical fuel mileage as the motor requires much less accelerator to achieve the same power but since it has a larger combustion chamber and carb it balances out. But it is a very well thought out combo of cam/size/carb/ign/tuning etc and believe it or not the carbed HD's generally get better mileage than the injected ones. This all goes to show the only thing set in concrete is that nothing is set in concrete.
 
About diesel prices, you and rancherlee probably have it covered. But I wonder if there is also an intent to kill interest in diesel cars in this country. Such interest was growing noticeably here . . . until diesel prices skyrocketed. An America that switched over to diesel cars would cost some elements a pile of money. I'm ordinarily resistant to conspiracy theories . . . but . . . .
 
SuperMag had it right, almost twice as much gasoline per bbl oil than diesel. The link below shows that each barrel of crude yields about 19.7 gal of gasoline and 10 gal of diesel and heating fuel. I am not sure about the actual cost of refining diesel vs gasoline because in order to make the diesel, you have to boil off the gasolines. But in recent years, additional refining processes have been added to remove the sulfur and reduce the sulfur emissions of the diesel engines.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/gas04/gasoline.htm

Another site on API.org lists the weekly prices and inventory. According to this week's report, diesel production is up over 6% over last year. However, diesel inventories are down over 3%. So it is a supply and demand issue. Then again, we all know if the oil companies had not conspired to keep the 100 mpg carburetor off of the market in the '70's we would not even be having this discussion.
Doug
 
Shoot, Doug, I forgot to mention that carburetor!

Okay, so less diesel can be extracted from a barrel of crude. Why, then, was diesel cheaper than even low-test gas for all those years? I'm not talking about ages ago, when trucks and military vehicles often had gasoline engines; I mean in recent decades.
 
I am going to guess that it was a supply and demand thing at work. I think the supply of diesel was adequate up until recently when the price of diesel over took the gasoline price. As the economy has improved, more diesel is being consumed. The following link at API states that despite higher diesel production, the inventory in stock is below the inventory at this time last year as well as bolow the average of the last 5 years. I also assume that the push for low sulfur diesel has increased, and the additional manufacturing costs have contributed to the price increase over gasoline in the past few years.

http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/FYI%2 ... -13-05.pdf
Doug
 
Supermag - one of your hints is a clue to the "better mileage" question you have: you're using lower octane fuel in the same engine. If you take any given engine and can play with the timing and mixture so as to lower the octane requirement, you will have an engine that produces more piston-push (aka torque) than before. That becomes better MPG if your driving habits remain the same.

My trusty Honda 750 taught me bout this years ago, when I moved out here from the flatlands. Back there, it required - REQUIRED - 95 octane fuel or else. After moving out here, I stiffened the "distributor" springs about 10% and rejetted the carbs down 20%, then found I could run on 87 octane, no problem. And the MPG went from 38 to 46, just like that.

Here in the West, the 85 octane is borne of the need to reduce refinery costs: also it takes advantage of the low humidity. When humidity is high and spark advance is early, ping appears. (Oddly, water injection reduces it, which, at first look, seems to contradict - but that's another topic.) When humidty is low, spark advance can get earlier and earlier with good results. Starting in 2007, you will likely see humidity sensors appearing in the ECU-controlled cars, as soon as they can test it faster than once every minute for less than $35 retail.....
 
Supermag - one other thing to consider is the mixture of the gas you are burning. I think that there is usually a different formula used in higher altitudes (more light ends, etc) that contributes to better economy (kinda like the difference between "winter gas" and "summer gas").
 
I think one commonly overlooked area of compression and efficientcy (mileage) is total deck clearence. I have built many street drag and circletrack engines and a tight deck clearence is a must. If you will look at production deck clearence numbers and think about mileage numbers you will see a pattern. In the early 70s Ford lowered compression on engines to help emissions and they did it by increasing the deck height on the blocks. This killed efficiency. The worst case is probably the FE engines, 300/6s, and the big blocks. This seems to be the most overlooked when building an engine. It adds alot of trouble to building an engine. Finding a piston with a favorable comp. height, decking the block ( sometimes up to .040 ) dealing with the change in pushrod length/rocker geometry (a whole other topic in itself) the need to have everything cc'd to know exactly what the comp. will be. However it will pay in the long run. I have built 350 CU IN engines made by those other people C**** (sorry for the language) with 10.25 comp. 292 comp cam and the pistons .010 out of the hole and Fel Pro gaskets, this combination works fine with super nolead. I have built this combination on 460s, and 454s again with no problems.
 
Plenty of people get confused over what changes octane rating demand. I've done an extensive literature search over the past 15 years, and have homed in on 3 rules, and about 14 specific factors. Since there are over 9 basic kinds of cylinder head in use in modern vehicles, I've included notes on them

The priority drive for most cost effective power and economy from a given engine is very simple. You rate the 15 aspects of the engine, and improve those you can afford by priority.

The octane ratio demand is a simple result of these 14 factors listed below, and I'd draw your attention to the 9 types of cylinder head in common useage. These have certain characteristics which you must be aware of.

Rule 1:

Optimise Ignition For the Combination first. Any change to an engine spec changes ignition timing demand. Asside from the 15 factors, there are some fixed matters of

1)weight,

2)gearing and transmission type,

3)stall ratio,

4)altitude ,

5)peak engine temperature due to engine condition changes

6) Emission requirements.

I make the assumtion that these factors are a given for any Ford I6. Unless it has had an engine or transmission swap.


These alter the ideal advance curve. The advanced curve, more than all of the 15 items listed below will influence the detonation level most. You can see that automakers must walk a fine line between a minefield to arrive at the advance curve, compression ratio, and recommended octane rating.

Use the Mean Best Torque philosphy for spark timing. Advance it to detonation, then back off timing to safe level before incipient detnoation. Ramp up intial advance as aggressivley as possible before detonation sets in. It's better to have aggressive spark advance, and then pull back on total advance at wide open throttle. Best economy in part throttle situatiuons happens when an engine is running a high level of advance.Any time an engine is suddenly loaded, peak advance must drop back very quickly to avoid detonation.


Rule 2:

Use the right stratergy for the right combustion chamber.

There are many chambers. I haven’t listed the huge range of vintage flat head and inlet over exhast combos. Each time the compression is increased, some engines have huge costs or bad factors which hurt fuel consumption. Bad heads for high compresion on low octane gas are ones which have large surface area. The last engines configeratiosn, from 5 to 9, show immense improvement when the heads are decked. The engines from 1 to 4 show poor benefits.


1.Steep included angle Mopar Hemi’s, Jag XK 6, Alfa Romeo
2.Steep Wedge Porcupine Chevies.
3.Steep Reverse Wedge , the Ford's Pinto 2000 and Lima OHC 2300. 4.Shallow Compound Vertex Hemi (Escort CVH)
5.Shallow included Pontiac’s, Holden’s, Oldsmobile, Mopar Wedge, SBC Chev, Ford’s ohv non Clevo FE's,
6. Shallow porcupine 335/385 Martel Fords, Geelong built Aussie X-flow 4.1's
7.Flat bathtub Weslake A-series Austin/Mini I4's and the , there are only positives.
8.Flat Heron head Kent Pushrod, XKE 12, Y-block.
9.Cosworth narrow Angle Pentrooof (Sierra, Toyota 4AGE, Ford BDA, etc)


Rule 3:

The main inluences in terms of detonation resistance in order for the Ford I6, are:-

1) Advance curve not optimised. Engines on the edge of detonation, like old 351C HO's can cope with todays 93 octane fuels if the spark advance is wound back, but if its stock, it won't run without 98 octane. Old engines high compression engines, like early 70's cast iron log head 250's, can't cope with 87 and need to run 93 just to avoid knock. The ignition is the first key to fixing the problem before an engine build can be contemplated. Electonic ignition systems can be more failure prone than mechanical or vacuum units, but the best, most adjustable ignition system will allow lower octane fuel to be used.

2) Intake Heating due to heat stove or air heating. A reducing in fuel octane from 93 to less than 83 is possible if the intake charge is cooler than the factory intended.

3) Fuel atomisation due to carb, fuel injection design. Carbs are better than throttle body injection (TBI), but not as well metered. TBI or port EFI systems can be metered to run 22:1 air fuel ratios, while carbs have problems getting over 17:1. Becasue of this, a TBI or EFI engines have an extra failsafe device. A knock sensor or air flow/air pressure sensor to ensure it never lean detonates. Carby engines will therefore run closer to detoantion more than a modern EFI or TBI engine.

4) Fuel Distribution due to poor intake design. Old log head engines knock becasue of lean outer cylinders, and too rich inner cylinder air fuel mixes. Any time you improve the efficency of the fuel distribution, you can turn up the advance.

5) Piston Deck Impinging , Flat or Recessed. If impinging, may help or hinder detonation, if well below, it will expose a heated anular edge of the cylinder block, and cause realy detonation. In most cases, a zero deck gives no problems, only benifits. A border line car, which has issues running on 87, may be able to run 93 octane without problems if the deck is raised.

6) Head Material and microtexture (iron or alloy). Alloy can reduce octane demand by 5 (mon+Ron)/2 numbers. Your iron head 5.0 may not like 87 octance, but can hack 95 with no changes bar having alloy heads added. Polishing (removing the fine 'as cast' microtexture) of the intake ports and combustion chamber can cause fuel to drop out, creating a need for high octane fuel. In short, a backyard port and plish can cause increased octane demand.

7) Back pressure and exhast header discharge. Open headers and low back pressure changes the spark advance requirements. Restricted headers and high back pressure casues a differnt advance curve. Most exhasts give 6 to 8 psi back pressure. Reducing the pressure to 4 psi can improve peak power, but ruin low end torque and economy. The right exhast will create the right results for day to day application. Exhast gas can help low part throttle fuel economy if the ignition curve isn't changed.

8) Flame Travel due to plug placement (its most often reduced with hi-po pistons). Some angled plug heads create more power on the same advance curve. The need for high octane is reduced when the plug allows gas to travel to the exhast valve. In pre 1990's engiones, many engines have the plug pointing in the wrong direction becasue of production engineering and engine bay issues.

9) Head Gasket Material and Thickness in relation to Piston Deck. The composite gaskets are thicker, and less prone to heating the fire ring than fully steel items.

10) Valve Shrouding . Each time a head is cut, valve shrouding can be redcued. Some shrouded valves improve mixture motion. Small chanber heads can be made to work very well if the gas flowing with a flow bench is determined.

11) Effective Compression (cam related octane demand) is too high for the other 14 factors . Doesn't always go up with increased compression, as the whole reason for it is usually to raise opening duration to increase effective compression. When a racer bolts on a 320 degree cam, he can loose a huge amount of effective compression, which reduces the octane demand. Of recent note is the Cold Cranking compression test where any engine that exhibits more than 190 psi at the cold cranking level must have the cam timing altered to reduce the compression.

12) Sharp edges, loose tollerances between cylinders. Fixed by blueprinting or having blue printed to 0.1 c/r or C/R balanced on all cylinders accept the detonation prone ones. (If they are reduced by half a point, you can go up another 0.5 points on the other cylinders)

13) Piston Dome Masking (often, the dome is relief cut to suit flame travel and valve opening).

14) Quench is often increased as at the 10 to 14:1 level, people go to alloy heads with closed chambers or welded iron or alloy production heads.

15) Inertial Ramming . Port on port carburation, efi, and vee engines have better thermodynamic properties than single barrel in-line engines. Any time you add mulitiple Weber Carbs or injection, you increase cylinder filling, and the ingniton curve changes. It requires less advance, but also reduces part throttle openiongs to a very low level, whcih is why some miltiple carb and efi engines can be very economical at part throttle.


*I've added humidity to the list of detonation influences. Its right up there with piston short fall as a detonation factor. The addition of water or alcohol at wide open throttle only can allow the part throttle advance to be very high, and allow very lean mixtures to be burnt at part throttle.
 
Let me make a comment on cost of diesel vs cost of gasoline.

It is all based on the same cost of oil. At present there is no less demand for oil to make diesel than the demand for oil to make gasoline.
There is still an economy to diesel often not noted. The energy content of a gallon of diesel is greater than a gallon of gasoline. Don't say it too loud or the gov will start taxing fuel on caloric content.

A little gasoline trivia

Remember an oil company called "Philips 66" or another called "Union 76" the numbers in their name denoted the octane of their best. This was a big sales point as "Hi Compression" engine came into being. Hard to imagine 66 octane being a big deal, but in it day it was.
 
Thad":94qrpo2p said:
Let me make a comment on cost of diesel vs cost of gasoline.

It is all based on the same cost of oil. At present there is no less demand for oil to make diesel than the demand for oil to make gasoline.
There is still an economy to diesel often not noted. The energy content of a gallon of diesel is greater than a gallon of gasoline. Don't say it too loud or the gov will start taxing fuel on caloric content.

A little gasoline trivia

Remember an oil company called "Philips 66" or another called "Union 76" the numbers in their name denoted the octane of their best. This was a big sales point as "Hi Compression" engine came into being. Hard to imagine 66 octane being a big deal, but in it day it was.


Amen. The amount of demand for diesel, propane and gasoline govern its price. In some cases, propane is priced up due to precieved risk and to dispel a change from the out put of oil refineries over America. Tetra ethyl lead was a huge boost to octane ratings in the late 20's, and by the late 50's, even Caddilacs were running high test fuels with huge grams per gallon of TEL. Sunnaco 130, I think, had a 105 or more Mon, and lots of hi po Henries, Mopars and GM's drank it with happiness on 10.5:1 ratios and above, even until the early 70's. Must have been a great time to burn gas!

Truth is, economy in an gasoline engine is only related to how early detonation sets in for an engine combination. Diesels are designed to undergo compression ignition, so its 3/4's of the way to detonating any way, and its detonation is restricted by very accurate fuel metering. You can't do that on a gasoline engine unless you throttle fuel and air, becasue gasoline is does not undergo controlled compression ignition like diesel does. Only BMW's Valvetronic allows engines to behave like diesels. This is becasue it starves the engine of air to ensure contolled combustion. Its not compression ignition, though!

If we Ford Sixers focused only on eliminating the 15 causes of detonation, we could run around in 20-30 miles per gallon econo machines which run on 89 and cary 10 or 12:1 compression.


*I've added humidity to the list of detonation influences. Its right up there with piston short fall as a detonation factor. The addition of water or alcohol at wide open throttle only can allow the part throttle advance to be high, and allow very lean mixtures to be burnt at part throttle.
 
Back
Top