Car Built For Mileage - need input
The AFM (DOD) is a waste of money and time for a small 1-2% increase in MPG. It only works on the hwy at speed and with that high of a rear ratio it may drop out of 4 mode most times although you can tune it as well.
Just get a Gen III 4.8l and T56 and stay out of the pedal. Reduce weight and it should do OK MPG wise and not break the bank.
Just get a Gen III 4.8l and T56 and stay out of the pedal. Reduce weight and it should do OK MPG wise and not break the bank.
All in all it seem that doing a swap just for mileage is not really practical. But if you really enjoy the car and just want to make it more "driveable" it does seem that there are a few options.
i've been looking into it and i think i'm going to go the 2.2L 5 speed S10 route. it has about the mileage i'm looking for, plus with bolt ons it gets a little more, its a truck so i can finally tote around stuff, and last it'd be a good sub for the colder months.
In the early 80's Camaro's, the Iron Duke 4-cylinder engine was an option. It was rated at 50 mpg in the Camaro. If memory serves, this was with a manuel transmission. As you can imagine, hardly any dealers ordered them. The Duke would be an interesting engine to perform a modern single turbo install on, for even better performance & mileage. I'm sure its been done somewhere/somehow, already.
http://www.legendarycollectorcars.co...clusive-video/
Last edited by rpol78; Mar 31, 2011 at 11:00 AM.
In the early 80's Camaro's, the Iron Duke 4-cylinder engine was an option. It was rated at 50 mpg in the Camaro. If memory serves, this was with a manuel transmission. As you can imagine, hardly any dealers ordered them. The Duke would be an interesting engine to perform a modern single turbo install on, for even better performance & mileage. I'm sure its been done somewhere/somehow, already.
Any FYI, hardly any dealers ordered over 70,000 of them. They were popular because brand new they were dirt cheap
A small efficient engine in a small car yields excellent economy which is how the micro cars of the late 80s early 90s gave such great results
Putting a small engine in a large car kills the efficiency because it has to work so hard
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 7
From: Beebe, Arkansas
I politely disagree. You mentioned the key word - the tune. You have to remember the OEMs are saddled with rules, and issues we in the custom car world don't have to worry about. OEM cars (even sports cars) are supposed to be squishy, quiet, easy to drive and comfortable while passing emissions, lasting for 100K and so on. They can't vibrate, make noise or have a harsh ride and all this has to be done through cats and a quiet and restrictive exhaust. If you are willing to eliminate some of the factory limitations I feel 100% sure there is more power and economy to be gained without opening the engine. Think of how aggressive you could be with a stock engine and a tune - the tune and removal of unnecessary trash will take you a long way if you don't have factory limitations to worry about.
GM just uses it as gimmick to keep the feds of their *** on MPG increase requirements and for advertisement.
Of course tune the ECM/PCM will give you way more power and even more economy.
If you're inventive take a look at the Hot Vapor system. From the Banks website on it.
http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...r-Equals-Power
"The final conclusion is that regardless of whether an engine is normally aspirated or supercharged, gas or diesel, the cooler the intake air, the better. Usually.
Now comes the really interesting part of this article that raises all the questions. Twenty years ago, the late, great racing mechanic and inventor Henry "Smokey" Yunick left the automotive engineers shaking their heads when he invented and patented his hot vapor engine. Based on the familiar four-cycle piston engine concept, instead of cooling the intake air to improve efficiency, he used coolant heat and exhaust waste heat to significantly warm the intake air. The purpose was to fully vaporize the fuel and to make the intake air expand in the intake system to generate positive pressure, like a supercharger. A small turbocharger was used as a "mixer" and as a check valve to prevent the expanding intake air from backflowing out of the intake system. With the heated, pressurized, homogenous mixture, the engine ran at air/fuel ratios considered impossibly lean, such as 22:1, on pump gasoline. The hot vapor engine made incredible power and was highly efficient, responsive, surprisingly emissions clean, and delivered fuel economy of 45-50 MPG in a compact car, and it did it all without computers, smog pumps or catalytic converters. Although initially denounced by the automotive world as a hoax, several prominent SAE engineers later published papers validating Smokey's theories and design. It was no hoax to Smokey. He considered it his greatest achievement. However, the automotive giants had their own designs for increasing fuel economy and controlling emissions, and Smokey's simple and cost-efficient engine package was ignored. Today, Smokey's designs are buried somewhere in the U.S. Patent Office (www.uspto.gov, patent numbers: 4,503,833; 4,592,329; 4,637,365; 4,862,859) awaiting someone to take this technology to the next level. So just when you think you know the rules of how things work, somebody comes along and breaks the rules. It's only fitting that it was Smokey Yunick."
Maybe somebody on the board will take it to the next level. 1.8hp per cubic inch + economy.....Hmmmm....
http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...r-Equals-Power
"The final conclusion is that regardless of whether an engine is normally aspirated or supercharged, gas or diesel, the cooler the intake air, the better. Usually.
Now comes the really interesting part of this article that raises all the questions. Twenty years ago, the late, great racing mechanic and inventor Henry "Smokey" Yunick left the automotive engineers shaking their heads when he invented and patented his hot vapor engine. Based on the familiar four-cycle piston engine concept, instead of cooling the intake air to improve efficiency, he used coolant heat and exhaust waste heat to significantly warm the intake air. The purpose was to fully vaporize the fuel and to make the intake air expand in the intake system to generate positive pressure, like a supercharger. A small turbocharger was used as a "mixer" and as a check valve to prevent the expanding intake air from backflowing out of the intake system. With the heated, pressurized, homogenous mixture, the engine ran at air/fuel ratios considered impossibly lean, such as 22:1, on pump gasoline. The hot vapor engine made incredible power and was highly efficient, responsive, surprisingly emissions clean, and delivered fuel economy of 45-50 MPG in a compact car, and it did it all without computers, smog pumps or catalytic converters. Although initially denounced by the automotive world as a hoax, several prominent SAE engineers later published papers validating Smokey's theories and design. It was no hoax to Smokey. He considered it his greatest achievement. However, the automotive giants had their own designs for increasing fuel economy and controlling emissions, and Smokey's simple and cost-efficient engine package was ignored. Today, Smokey's designs are buried somewhere in the U.S. Patent Office (www.uspto.gov, patent numbers: 4,503,833; 4,592,329; 4,637,365; 4,862,859) awaiting someone to take this technology to the next level. So just when you think you know the rules of how things work, somebody comes along and breaks the rules. It's only fitting that it was Smokey Yunick."
Maybe somebody on the board will take it to the next level. 1.8hp per cubic inch + economy.....Hmmmm....
TECH Resident
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 859
Likes: 2
From: Frozen Tundra, WI
ok i have a 3rd gen Camaro, carb'd 305 with a 700R4 and 3.23 gears. car weighs ~3300
what engine/trans/rear combo would get me ~22-24 mpg city and ~30 or more highway.
^^ or as close to that as possible
i'm open to any GM engine (minus the iron duke). turbo a 4.3L? turbo the 5.0L? a turbo'd ecotec motor from a cobalt?
i'd probably swap in a M6 whichever route i take.
what engine/trans/rear combo would get me ~22-24 mpg city and ~30 or more highway.
^^ or as close to that as possible
i'm open to any GM engine (minus the iron duke). turbo a 4.3L? turbo the 5.0L? a turbo'd ecotec motor from a cobalt?
i'd probably swap in a M6 whichever route i take.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo If you're inventive take a look at the Hot Vapor system. From the Banks website on it.
http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...r-Equals-Power
"The final conclusion is that regardless of whether an engine is normally aspirated or supercharged, gas or diesel, the cooler the intake air, the better. Usually.
Now comes the really interesting part of this article that raises all the questions. Twenty years ago, the late, great racing mechanic and inventor Henry "Smokey" Yunick left the automotive engineers shaking their heads when he invented and patented his hot vapor engine. Based on the familiar four-cycle piston engine concept, instead of cooling the intake air to improve efficiency, he used coolant heat and exhaust waste heat to significantly warm the intake air. The purpose was to fully vaporize the fuel and to make the intake air expand in the intake system to generate positive pressure, like a supercharger. A small turbocharger was used as a "mixer" and as a check valve to prevent the expanding intake air from backflowing out of the intake system. With the heated, pressurized, homogenous mixture, the engine ran at air/fuel ratios considered impossibly lean, such as 22:1, on pump gasoline. The hot vapor engine made incredible power and was highly efficient, responsive, surprisingly emissions clean, and delivered fuel economy of 45-50 MPG in a compact car, and it did it all without computers, smog pumps or catalytic converters. Although initially denounced by the automotive world as a hoax, several prominent SAE engineers later published papers validating Smokey's theories and design. It was no hoax to Smokey. He considered it his greatest achievement. However, the automotive giants had their own designs for increasing fuel economy and controlling emissions, and Smokey's simple and cost-efficient engine package was ignored. Today, Smokey's designs are buried somewhere in the U.S. Patent Office (www.uspto.gov, patent numbers: 4,503,833; 4,592,329; 4,637,365; 4,862,859) awaiting someone to take this technology to the next level. So just when you think you know the rules of how things work, somebody comes along and breaks the rules. It's only fitting that it was Smokey Yunick."
Maybe somebody on the board will take it to the next level. 1.8hp per cubic inch + economy.....Hmmmm....
http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...r-Equals-Power
"The final conclusion is that regardless of whether an engine is normally aspirated or supercharged, gas or diesel, the cooler the intake air, the better. Usually.
Now comes the really interesting part of this article that raises all the questions. Twenty years ago, the late, great racing mechanic and inventor Henry "Smokey" Yunick left the automotive engineers shaking their heads when he invented and patented his hot vapor engine. Based on the familiar four-cycle piston engine concept, instead of cooling the intake air to improve efficiency, he used coolant heat and exhaust waste heat to significantly warm the intake air. The purpose was to fully vaporize the fuel and to make the intake air expand in the intake system to generate positive pressure, like a supercharger. A small turbocharger was used as a "mixer" and as a check valve to prevent the expanding intake air from backflowing out of the intake system. With the heated, pressurized, homogenous mixture, the engine ran at air/fuel ratios considered impossibly lean, such as 22:1, on pump gasoline. The hot vapor engine made incredible power and was highly efficient, responsive, surprisingly emissions clean, and delivered fuel economy of 45-50 MPG in a compact car, and it did it all without computers, smog pumps or catalytic converters. Although initially denounced by the automotive world as a hoax, several prominent SAE engineers later published papers validating Smokey's theories and design. It was no hoax to Smokey. He considered it his greatest achievement. However, the automotive giants had their own designs for increasing fuel economy and controlling emissions, and Smokey's simple and cost-efficient engine package was ignored. Today, Smokey's designs are buried somewhere in the U.S. Patent Office (www.uspto.gov, patent numbers: 4,503,833; 4,592,329; 4,637,365; 4,862,859) awaiting someone to take this technology to the next level. So just when you think you know the rules of how things work, somebody comes along and breaks the rules. It's only fitting that it was Smokey Yunick."
Maybe somebody on the board will take it to the next level. 1.8hp per cubic inch + economy.....Hmmmm....
He actually released several completed engines in Fieros, not a damn one performed AT ALL like he intended. Fiero enthusiasts have decided something was up so they built their own systems modeled off his and not a damn one of those worked either
Much like the 100mpg carb, alot of these ideas you will hear about werent squashed by any corporation, the "inventor" just couldnt figure it out so they patented the half finished concept, called it a miracle and went looking for gullible investors
Smokey did alot of great things, this just wasnt one of them
If you want proven 50mpg, look into the late 80's early 90's micro economy cars. They follow the path of a small efficient engine in a small car and wont apply to a large car like a 3rd gen
Tell that wash to the Fiero guys
He actually released several completed engines in Fieros, not a damn one performed AT ALL like he intended. Fiero enthusiasts have decided something was up so they built their own systems modeled off his and not a damn one of those worked either
Much like the 100mpg carb, alot of these ideas you will hear about werent squashed by any corporation, the "inventor" just couldnt figure it out so they patented the half finished concept, called it a miracle and went looking for gullible investors
Smokey did alot of great things, this just wasnt one of them
If you want proven 50mpg, look into the late 80's early 90's micro economy cars. They follow the path of a small efficient engine in a small car and wont apply to a large car like a 3rd gen
He actually released several completed engines in Fieros, not a damn one performed AT ALL like he intended. Fiero enthusiasts have decided something was up so they built their own systems modeled off his and not a damn one of those worked either
Much like the 100mpg carb, alot of these ideas you will hear about werent squashed by any corporation, the "inventor" just couldnt figure it out so they patented the half finished concept, called it a miracle and went looking for gullible investors
Smokey did alot of great things, this just wasnt one of them
If you want proven 50mpg, look into the late 80's early 90's micro economy cars. They follow the path of a small efficient engine in a small car and wont apply to a large car like a 3rd gen
From a circle track racer
"That's a matter of record. While his "hot vapor" engine produced an array of combustion efficiency benefits, it would've been (or was believed to have been by the OEM who reviewed his findings at the time) a significant economic step and commitment from then-conventional powerplant technologies. There's no doubt the concept worked. I was present during some of the dyno tests and drove the car. In fact, I recently learned it's still around and functional."
From Hot Rod's follow up article (I read the original article on it back in 1984)
"Eventually, there was a three-cylinder Buick (half a V-6), a Ford project, and a Mopar Omni/Horizon. Every application got more than 45 mpg and made at least 1.8 hp/ci. The Detroit OE boys and nationally certified independent labs verified all the claims and performance figures. It was on the verge of going into production (one application, for the '90 S-10 truck, got very close). Crane Cams was given a license to develop aftermarket retrofit kits. Then everything fell apart.
It was the "not invented here syndrome" rearing its ugly head again. How could a couple of gearhead hot rodders know more than all of Detroit's best engineering talent? By this time, Detroit was committed to the computer, fuel injection, and the catalytic converter. Traditional theory was to get rid of or manage heat; Smokey was channeling heat for improved performance, the exact opposite of conventional engineering science. True, he had allies in Detroit, but his cantankerous personality had also generated plenty of enemies over the decades. The shifting political tides of OE politics eventually left Smokey out in the cold.
The original Fiero was ultimately crushed by Pontiac, which demanded Smokey return the long-term loner when GM pulled the plug on the initial project. Smokey returned the car, but not before removing the entire drivetrain. This is Allard's duplicate Fiero built in 2006 using the original salvaged Smokey drivetrain.Meanwhile, durability concerns led Crane to back off on the boost levels and temperatures for its projected retrofit kits. Smokey's original motors had trick rings, forged pistons, and Carrillo rods, but the retro kits would be bolt-ons for econo four-cylinders. The kit cost kept going up, even as performance declined. Bickering started. In marched the lawyers, and lawsuits inevitably followed. The project collapsed under a pile of recrimination."
Last edited by rpol78; Apr 1, 2011 at 01:23 PM.
He reinvented cheating for motorsports. He really was a pioneer for quite a few things, just not this system. Anyways even if this system did work, it wouldnt be cost effective to the OP. The objective was a cost effective econo setup in a 3rd gen. Stock 305 fits the bill, stock/very mild swap also fit but the benefits will take longer to be effective. An unproven system is not the answer
GM 3.8 supercharged 27 mpg highway and 20-21 around town in a grand prix. Mileage + Performance. Hook it up to your 700r4 and be done with it.
Or go buy a good used high mileage econo box - probably cheaper in the long run.
Or go buy a good used high mileage econo box - probably cheaper in the long run.
If you want gas mileage then build yourself a lean burn system. A wideband and some programming plus a lot of engineering will get you there. But be carefull you could blow some **** up. Anyway....
If you want a V8 to get great gas mileage in the city then you need to re-learn the way you drive. No stop and go, make it as light as possible, use a manual and shift really early to the point of almost bogging the motor.
If you want a V8 to get great gas mileage in the city then you need to re-learn the way you drive. No stop and go, make it as light as possible, use a manual and shift really early to the point of almost bogging the motor.
are those A6s common to come by? i dont know if i've ever seen one for sale
the Active Fuel Management, is that the flex fuel? or what the L99s have?
and stock vs stock, or each with equal bolt ons, which would net better mileage a 5.3L or an LS1?
34 in town??
edit: the other thing i have been thinking about was getting a 67-72 C series pick up and doing a swap with mileage in mind. i'd have something for the winter, and also a truck to haul around parts and anything else i need. Although with the truck's weight, i don't know if any build would get me what i want mileagewise, even a few miles per gallon under my goal.
the Active Fuel Management, is that the flex fuel? or what the L99s have?
and stock vs stock, or each with equal bolt ons, which would net better mileage a 5.3L or an LS1?
34 in town??
edit: the other thing i have been thinking about was getting a 67-72 C series pick up and doing a swap with mileage in mind. i'd have something for the winter, and also a truck to haul around parts and anything else i need. Although with the truck's weight, i don't know if any build would get me what i want mileagewise, even a few miles per gallon under my goal.
No not 34 what the op stated he would like to get in the city
