Need opinions (I know you've got one! ).

[Anonymous]

Some of these are already stock: the DII system specs .050" for the plug gap, using the heat range 42 plugs (that's '82' for Autolite, '5' for NGK, etc.). I've already found that the Bosch plugs do worse than the others: so far the plain Autolites are the best. I also tried the SplitFire, and platinum versions of all of the above. I found no difference with the platinums. However, the fine-wire tips (some of which are also platinum) do allow larger plug gaps because the voltage density is higher on the smaller tips. They will also jump further because of the higher concentration: this generates a stronger plasma envelope. However, I found the fine-wire tips foul easier following hot-soaking in the summer, and they take longer to clean themselves up again.

Does the Mileage Master coil run OK with the Duraspark II?

After I pass the 2004 emission test, I can switch carbs. I've long planned on using the H/W 2-stage for just this reason: better efficiency on the primary side. Can't do it just yet, though.

 

[xctasy]

Mark P, please tell me if there is any way you can plug up the evaporative emissions vent on the top of the 1946 carb you use. If you can, I've got something which will reduce your fuel consumption by a MASSIVE amount!

 

['61 Draggin Wagon]

Nobody has mentioned this, so I'll take a stab........
Higher tire pressures.(I run 40 in my minivan/daily beater's tires) Check brake drag/ service the caliper hardware for minimum drag/ back off the rear brake adjustment. Does the family truckster have a rook rack? More drag. I agree with the overdrive addition, too, but what does your engine turn at highway speeds? Too low is as bad as too high of rpms. The compression sounds too low for that altitude. Advance the ignition advance until you get pinging, then maybe try alcohol injection to increase the advance some more.
I once talked to a guy with a Pinto, that, in the interest of gas mileage, used duct tape to cover every gap in the front of the car. Supposedly, he picked up a bunch of gas mileage.
If the Fairbox doesn't have an airdam under the bumper install one to reduce undercar drag.
These are just a few things that spring forth in my old & feeble cranium, your mileage may vary......

 

[Lazy JW]

You need some compression in that thing! Way back in the 1940's you could order TRACTORS with special "High Altitude Pistons" that were just higher compression. Compression is power, and at part throttle cruise you can use a lot more.
Joe

 

[CobraSix]

I think wagon hit a good point too. Commonly overlooked also.

I typically run my tires to within 3-5 psi of max rated listed on the tire. So, for most of my tires, that's around 40 psi. That'll help a lot.

Also, how about some ground effects body kits (for better aero), some stickers (for more HP), and some neon? I think that is what you ar emissing.

Okay...so I'm being sarcastic about the second part, serious about the tires though.

Slade

 

['61 Draggin Wagon]

Another thing springs to mind:
Narrower wheels & tires at higher pressures(as I stated before). The Pinto MPG & Mustang 2 MPG(remember those??) used narrower wheels & really weenie looking tires. As I recall, the new(ish) Michelin X1 Green tires are designed to give far less rolling resistance than other tires of a like size.
Also, '86 era Chevy Caprices were equipped with a black plastic sheet mounted to the backside of the grille. This effectively blocked off all but a small portion of the grille to cooling air. My thinking is do the same & mount an airdam under the radiator support to divert cooling air up from under the bumper & reduce undercar drag.
Oh yeah, smooth wheelcovers too.
Darryl

 

[Anonymous]

Good ideas, guys! Keep 'em coming, but at the moment, I'm trying to work with the engine as-is. Remember, high CR also causes high hydrocarbons, especially above 9.2:1 ratios. The emissions guys frown on this...

I'm in favor of the tires stuff, because the present ones are getting thinner by the day...
I run the max (32) pressure that the sidewalls show right now and it makes a good difference: when they are at 28 PSI I lose almost 2 MPG over when I'm running 32 PSI, that much I do know. I'd like to try narrower ones next time, maybe those Michelin "green" things would be the right idea. The hubcaps are full-size, smooth dome types. The brakes and bearings are all as smooth as a baby's bottom, no drag. I replaced the rear axles bearings last summer because they had over 180,000 miles on them.

The wagon has the Ford air dam under the front already. In my replacement (this weekend) of the right front lower A-arm, the right side of the (brittle) air dam got broken, so I'll have to find another or make a new one. Darn. I wanted to put the new Yellow-grommet DuraSpark module in this weekend, but the ball joint fractured and needed a sudden change. Now, it's blizzarding outside, so I have to wait a couple of days for the D2 unit.

No roof rack (except when I'm using it - it's detachable). I think I'll shy away from the duct tape right now, though..

 

[Anonymous]

An update: I've been altering static timing 1 degree at a time, since it's been to %$&!# cold to spend enough time outside to do the D2 unit or the new cat yet.

I've found that setting the timing to 8 and 9 degrees, then adding spark port vacuum, yields about 1 MPG better in town (16 MPG) and 3 MPG better on the highway (20 MPG), as compared to setting it at the stock-recommend 10 degrees and having no vacuum (remember, this is a pollution engine, with no spark port advance in factory trim). The distributor advances 26 (crank) degrees mechanically.

Today I set it to 11 degrees, just to see what's up there, with added spark port vacuum as a test. I'll let you know what happens next.

If it warms up next weekend, I'll put that yellow-grommet D2 to work and see what that brings.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, tire pressure can make a great deal of difference to the rolling resistance of most tires. I ran an informal test on my wife's VW TDi with the tires at the recommended (in the door jam) 26 psi and got 48 mpg. I then pumped the pressure up to 44 psi (the max on the sidewall) and got about 3 mpg better. We now run them at 44 all the time, and get a better ride as well (the car seemed too soft before).

BTW, Mark, increasing CR has no effect on hydrocarbon emissions. Raising CR increases NOx emissions, although I shouldn't think that's much of an issue at 9.2:1 in Colorado.

 

[Anonymous]

I run MSD Blaster coils on several of my cars/trucks. PLENTY of fire and never any problems.

 

[Anonymous]

Mark, 4 psi, does sound abit too high, like double what they callt for on my lil 92 buggy, i think it was 2psi or above, meant there was a restriction, related parts should be inspected/repaired/replaced.

I thing asa is onto something when he says if "a rock" punctures a hole in it........, well it jus so happens I have some rocks lying around, no pun intended, bout 20-30 lbs, that would be too bad if one of those kickt up and smasht that thing, lol.

I think yea, its a good idea to want to keep the air clean but, these emissions laws, it seems like its jus a moneymaker. We have that crap here in my County, which means I cant put headers, aftermarket air breathers etc etc, atleast at time of inspection. THe screwy thing is, in the surrounding Counties, they dont have emissions testing, hm, since when did they erect a dome forcefield in my County that keeps others pollution out and our "cleaner" air in ?! >:-{

Interestingly, my Dad yrs ago, had a Granada and the converter was stopping up, he chunkt the honeycombs out, (the cereal is still pretty good : p put it back on and his car still was able to pass the test, I don know if its from leaning the carb whaever.

I wondered, what octane of fuel do u use, r u fairly sure of the quality of that fuel from wherever u get it ? Now someone can correct me on this, but it jus seems like I saw a loss in power and worse fuel economy in my lil car which is even a stick, by using lower octane fuels 87* I normally went w\ 92*
I agree too that a stick is apparently better on gas mileage than automatic.

Do u have any "wings", "spoilers" or other "extensions", ie, ppl or things flayling out the windows, trunk or hood ? These can cause wind-resistance cutting down on fuel economy lol : p

Anyways, I know about the oxygenated fuel, we had it here too, it was making a mess of ppl's cars, o-rings and the like. Furthermore, I thought it was pretty dumb when they said that the oxygenated fuel gave off xx more emissions while the engine is cold than the non-oxygenated fuel, so hm, how many times do our cars initially start up warm-hot :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Hey 54ford;
That was what I thought, that CR was lowered for NOx reasons. But, the local (retired) Ford hi-altitude engineer set me straight one day: one reason was NOx, but there were several: 1.) octane was being lowered nationwide because of the fuel shortages of the early 1980s, and warranty costs were a concern, 2.) AIR injection systems caused heating of exhaust valves, so lower combustion temperatures had to be achieved (which also reduces NOx) and 3.) lowering CR below 9:1 reduces hydrocarbons, about 5% or so by going from 9:1 down to 8:1, all else being equal. Below 8:1, incomplete combustion tends to raise the hydrocarbons again in low-quench engines like ours, so catalytic convertors were often employed to cover the production variations. This rings true when I see that some 1978-80 cars did not need cats, like when they had TPI systems. Hi-quench engine designs later replaced the need for higher CR to get the power, while still keeping emissions low.

Took a good look inside the old cat today. Was going to replace it until I noticed that the flange in the inlet pipe of the NEW one was only partially welded - someone in Quality Control never even looked at this one, or it would never have passed muster (lack of quality in auto parts today is really starting to get to me... ). The old one looks like a grey briquette, makes me wonder how it breathes at all! Now, I had to put it back in so I can drive with it for one more week while the auto parts guys get me a NEW new one. Guess I'll see how the 11 degree timing does this week instead.

Gotta go price some narrower tires, too, for when the snow season is over.

 

[Anonymous]

MarkP,

Where in CO are you?

I am in Fort Collins...

Bill

 

[Anonymous]

Hi, Bill;
I'm in Lakewood, west of Denver. I frequent Windsor lately for work reasons, which lets me test things on the Interstate!

Latest news: new cat finally installed. First big change: smooth idle, now worked itself up from the 550 I had to over 850. I'll have to move it back down just to save that gas !

The highway mileage at 11 degrees static advance, EGR on, spark port vacuum and new cat is unchanged from the bad cat/9 degrees/EGR off/spark port settings: 16 town/20 highway. Top speed, though, DROPPED from 91 MPH to 88 MPH at 11 degrees, which yields a clue... it does not like 37 mechanical degrees with 85 octane and EGR. Black tailpipe tells the 'incomplete combustion' story, too. Conclusion: still too much EGR for 6,000 feet altitude.

Next: smaller EGR hole, less static advance, Yellow Grommet module for better average MPG with higher average spark advance.

Oh - and the exhaust manifold PSI dropped to 1 PSI (or less) from the 4-5+ that I saw before replacing the cat! Nice kitty...