Inliners International Forums General Discussion Hi Performance Project 2012 convention

Jerry, That's some pretty fancy math, do you work for the government.

I thought it was a richmond

IIRC, Richmond & Doug Nash are the same basic trans?

MBHD

beats me-I'm from the Cad-LaSalle, Packard era, T-10/Muncie used to be cutting edge stuff in high school.

Beater..., those were the only 2 hard numbers reported so.....I just "averaged" (Amount to or achieve as an average rate or amount over a period of time) WE ARE TALKING FREE BEER HERE !!! LOL...Jerry

If there are two or more measurements there is an average. Average has nothing to do with normal.
As I have said before my favorite beer is free beer, my second favorite is cold beer. I am sure a Texan taught me that.

For the next convention, I will have to bring a keg. It might be warm!

Got some time. Here are a few of my pics. Did not take as many as I should.
Wrench used as spacer

Heading East

Those pesky bugs! Worse when in Iowa and driving at night.

A great morning near exit 188 in Wyoming

BS session
This was after I put new headlights in the car. Halogens for better driving on way home. Short story is only low beams would work. I had accidentally rammed a screw into the wiring when instally my junk and grounded the high beams. The result was a bunch of help. Tim Tenold finally rung my bell with his wisdom and I found it.

Jakes new best friend

All Minden Pics






The nightly scene at the hotel

Good pics, never knew what a 65 station wagon weighs, any idea?

3600 - 3800 LBS?


MBHD

Yeah, I posted it before we left. Even in this blog.
3900 with the two of us and a full tank of gas. Not gear or tools. Probably add 150 for that stuff. I am fortunate to have a local certified scale that is left on and I can drive over it anytime. It even has a outside display. The perks of living in the country.

Great pictures Tom. Say hello to Jake. That wrench spacer reminds me of one of the trophies.

I saw that, I was asking how much the car weighs w/out anyone in it or tools or gear etc.


I do not know what you weigh, your son, or what extra stuff in the car weighs.
MBHD

pay for it in eggs do you?

It's pretty easy to find online., http://www.chevellestuff.net/1965/misc/dimensions.htm

Well since this was about gas mileage and gearing and the like, here was a real world example where conditions were not ideal for half of the trip( as the real world is often FAR from ideal)...I wonder what the gas mileage would have been if shorter( larger numerically) gearing had been used... this would have allowed Tom to NOT have to mash the gas pedal as much as he did in order to maintain his speed when pitted against 20-30 mph headwinds and gusts up to 55mph, whirlwinds, and driving uphill.

This could mean better mpg for at least the first half of the trip.(and potentially worse mpg on the second leg of the trip) Hmmmm I guess it comes down to averaging HOW MUCH better and HOW MUCH worse. Funny things averages are huh?

It is pretty simple to figure out.

Take a new car out w/a mileage indicator in it.

Drive a steady state of MPH in top gear, level ground, note the MPG, then downshift it one gear down & manitain the same MPH,, watch the RPM go up & watch the MPG go down, simple enough.High RPMs = worse gas mileage.

Keep those RPMs down & enjoy the quite & better mileage ride.

MBHD

Rejetted the carb tonight. I even recarbed it first. The original was a 350 CFM. The car had a lean bumble at really light loads.
Put a 500 CFM progressive on it. Much less bumble and idled better, the old 350 carb was used as is and never fiddled with except to adjust idle mixture screws.
The 500 when opened up had #55 jet in primary and 73 in secondary. Rejetted the PRI to a #60. Bumble is nearly gone. Will rejet with 64 and try again.
When running the 350, it must have been on the power valve for more fuel. I noticed tonight the add on cruise would work at the same speeds, where it would not work before. The 350 must have had to have the throttle open farther to satisfy the fuel need and opened the power valve. Less vacuum to operate cruise.

Going to also change the PV in the 500, from a 8.5 to a 6.5. Looking at the metering block, it is only drilled to allow fuel from PV to the secondary. Not the primary.
The 500 idles better and has more low end tq. Maybe just a better , used carb.

Hank: if merely reducing your rpm always results in better gas mileage,then help me figure out my mileage in this example:

I come to a stop at an intersection. I have my foot on the brake and am not moving. I am idling at 650rpm (you can't get the rpm's much lower than that huh?) and I sit there not moving for exactly one hour(thus making the math easy for you). Calculate my mpg for that hour.(hint: it rhymes with "hero")

If all it takes to get better gas milage is using taller and taller gears to reduce the rpm, then why are we not seeing auto manufacturers utilizing 1.56 rear gears or better yet, 1.13 gears or for that matter seeing the likes of a 1:1 final drive ratio?? Hank you would love it. Think of how quite oops..I mean quiet that would be!

Tom: It has been my contention all along that by using very tall gearing you wind up having to step into the gas more than you would with shorter gears in order to maintain your desired speed and wind up getting into the power stage of the carb . Thus ruining the mpg. This sounds to me like what you might have been running up against.

Using somewhat shorter gears would mean you don't have to step into the gas so much, thereby staying out of the power stage of the carb. This could potentially get you better gas mileage AND give more get-up-n-go than 2.56 gears supply. As you and I most most others realize, the Earth is not flat. Real life has headwinds and uphill climbs and is far from ideal.
Glad you had fun at the Convention, I wish I coulda gone!
fasteddie

So the 350 cfm was the carb of the trip, and the 500 is the experimental one which you are attempting to make into a really good performer. All your mods and changes to it are against good milage but will make it a more drivable product AND tend to keep you out of the carb's power stage with those Bonneville gears (but tell me-was'nt the trip quit, quite, or maybe quiet as some have stated it would be).

I feel certain, now only an opinion mind you, (which should have as much worth as any one else's on this forum) that the power stage tipping in, is a major player in the real world milage game. Along with wind drag (which increases by the square as speed increases- ask the guy with the fifth wheel camper about that) they combine to provide a more formible opponent to good milage than merely rpm, Not to mention "pumping losses" (oops).

Do continue-maybe we can cast out some more demons.

O.K. I pick 20 mph, and a 2.56 axle with a '52 thru '64 six cyl. gearset tranny that has a 1.68 second ratio.

With 27" dia tires that means 637 rpm in high and 1071 rpm in second...by golly there are more rpm happening in second gear. Lessee that was.. Uh-huh?

It's not the RPMs as much as the comfort zone of the engine. Throttle position is key. If your gears (trans, tire size, rear end, or OD) make it necessary to be deep into the throttle to go down the road you won't get good MPG at any RPM. The good old vacuum gauge is a real help in finding the zone. The most amount of work with the least amount of throttle. The combinations to get that won't be the same every where or for every use, that's the real world aspect.

Got some time today to play with the wagon. I've been gone.
Changed the pri jet to a 64 from a 60. Low speed bumble is gone. Engine runs smooth.
Will change the PV next. When getting on it, into the secondary, the engine seems rich. Will install a 6.5 PV.

1st gear is a bit tall and 5th is like overdrive. The rear tire is a 3.55-60/15 and should be about 27 tall. I measured them. 25.75. Must be worn.

I am going to try to find a different 1st gear set in the 4.41 ratio. Presently is a 3.28.

Hank,
The boy and I are about 300 pnds.

With a lower 1st gear, this car would be perect for cruising.

Preacher,
With the 2.56 gears, it is quiet, engine wise. Wind whistle is another story. Door and window gaskets are on order. Hope to throw out the earplugs!

Tom, 64s and 6.5 pv is what i ended up with.. my alt. here is 870 ft.... 50 CC pump worked best for me. My mileage has stayed around 16 no matter what i do..my top speed is 109 to 111 mph but it sure gets there quicker now !!! J

Hey Tom,
Very interesting stuff...Thanks for posting all that you do around here.



hey Tom, if you get a chance, could you measure from the centerline of the wheel to the ground for us? I believe that taking this measurement and doubling it, gives us the most accurate/realistic diameter to calculate from. This "rolling diameter", or "effective diameter" if you will, takes into account tire deflection.
Thanks again,
fasteddie455

That is exactly the way I measured it. The tires are also aired to 30 PSI. The tread is somewhat worn , but nowhere near bald (like me).

Scrap,
If it had a speedo, I am sure it could bury it. Gave my Bro back his GPS. Did have the tach upto 3200 in high gear. 27-2800 is 80 mph.. I let off, it has way more to go.

Here is a update on the ole wagon.
Drove it a bunch this summer.
Shook a exhaust pipe loose at a header and the lower alternater bolt. That is it for problems.

Just redid all the door seals, fuzzies and glass channels. What a job! Redoing the tailgate stuff was another job. Hopefully , this will quiet it down a bunch on the highway. Might not have to wear earplugs.

Going to drive down to KC and meet a friend, swing over to Springfield for the BIG swapmeet. And to top it off. Head down to the HAMB Drags in Joplin MO. Maybe I will see some of you there. It is all this weekend.

Springfield swapmeet was a nice one. Who would expect that Jake would want a set of school lockers. Well they fit in the wagon.
Saw Gary Hart and his turbo EFI Jimmy. Wow.

Next went to Joplin for evening. All HAMB people and their car were here. What a time.
All along the car is getting 20mpg going 75-80 mph.

It pulls from a lugging start with 256 rear and is perky at 80. Guess all the dyno testing did pay off.

Going to the HAMB drags today.

The weather is nice in Cedar Rapids today it was 63 @ 9 am. on my way to D.C. does Gary sill have the Bonneville car?

Not sure if he has that. He did say this is the Bonneville motor.
So far I have seen 1 online. A slant 6 altered.

Now would be a great time (with your current combo) to see how a Clifford intake (in place of the OFFY) works (as a comparision) with your combo & 256 gears, real street testing.

Just to see how well the carb works, how well it accelerates.

I have a feeling you will not like the results.


MBHD

I think it was 2006 he (Gary Hart) ran a green '50 Buick straight 8 then around 2008 stepped up to a twin turbo'd BBC in a Studie.for a 240+ mph run and explosion., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmJSGS3u7I ,

Garys' Buick and Studebaker are in this link as well as the Black Opal car. http://www.diyautotune.com/racing/bonneville_speedweek2008.htm

Tom, How were the HAMB drags? Was Ron Golden there?

The Drags were a blast! So was the party on Fri night at the hotel parking lots. Full of all types of rods. The people were a hoot also.
Not sure on how many racers, but would guess at 100. While driver cars numbered around 200.
There were cars that would be pushing with a flathead 4 cyl to stay on the road, these would have a 700 hp BBC with blower! They were a handful to keep on the track! Plenty of wheels up action. One ChevyII with a V8 had the front 4-5 feet up 2 times in one run!
Did not see Ron.
Did see a altered with a slant 6 that ran 10's. 62 or 63 ChevyII with a 230 that was running low 14's. There were a few more inlines. Will get some of the pics downloaded.
Jake and I had a great time seeing it all.

Car did give me some trouble. Left Platte City from my friends, got about 25 miles north and heard a buzzing sound. Stopped and checked, the nut had stripped on the alternator and the pully was barely hanging on. Drove to a Orielly's and had them donate a nut from a core unit. Got it installed and all is well.

Have approxiamately 5500 miles this summer on this dyno 250. Very impressed on how well it pulls at low rpms and purrs at highway rpms of 26-2800 rpm for continuous duty. No oil consumption, rattles or pinging either.

Sounds like a fun trip except for your nut trouble. Glad you caught it in time. Tell my buddy Jake hello for me. What is he going to do with his lockers?

There were a lot of HAMB guys at Bonneville too.

Doubt that a Clifford would cause any problems. Not going to do it now. Not enough time and would have to change many things to do it.

Maybe you should just get your car running and do some of this testing yourself. They are a lot more fun to drive than just talk and dream about. People dig the ole ratty wagon. They might like yours too.

It is nice not having to worry about scratching the paint.

I have done this type of testing years ago on a real street driven car.
Your friend had done some testing & IIRC, the Offy came out on top in low rpm,0-60 mph etc on an actual car that was tested on the street, not a engine dyno.
There is a big difference between the two you know?

Dynos are a great tuning tool, but it does not show you how well a combo will work when it's actually in a car that moves.

I have a lot of projects to do & no time or $$$ to get them done.
So I just have to dream, I guess.
I am not sure how to take your comment about my car being a ole ratty car?


MBHD

Did not call your car a old ratty car. I said mine is. Although I have seen pics of yours (provided by you) the paint looks as shiny as my wagons does.

Just saying, you can put yours back together and do some testing with non turbo parts.

The tests Duece did were on a stock cam and headed motor, heck even stock type exhaust. The motor could not take advantage of any of the air the manifold could give it.

When you start putting larger than stock camshafts, the signal to the carb is less, it takes longer for the carb to clear out (with the Clifford intake) any miss/incorrect metering of the carb.

When you go really big on the camshaft, stock to near stock compression, run tall gears like 3.08's or so, the engine w/a Clifford will really dislike this type of combo & will prove so immensely down low in the RPM band, where as with an Offy, the engine can tolerate such a combo much better.

I have done many, many combos w/both intakes back to back tests, different carbs, carb spacers you name it, when the combo is really off, the Clifford intake is less forgiving.

A 292 engine can get away with a bigger intake, but all my tests were done on a 254 CI engine.

Can you imagine how a poor little 194 engine will do when the combo is way off (IE too much duration of a camshaft) & you run a Clifford?

The Offy recovers quicker, the air velosity is higher, it will produce more torque down low. IMO

Like I said, an engine dyno is great for tuning, but it doesn't tell you how it will work in a chassis.

It's like when you come to a conclusion for turbo recommendation based off of an engine dyno test, that is not the correct way to judge how a turbo is going to work when it's going to be used in a vehicle.


MBHD

Here is a thrown together vid of the wagon. I forgot to wax it up before hand.

I edited out a bunch of the gravel road driving. You can see why painting it would be futile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NU7n3kOWe8&feature=youtu.be