I used special hi-performance spark plugs, carburetor, ignition, fuel and engine treatments. Every one gave me a few percentage points improvement in mileage. Eventually I got over 100% and I had to rig up a pump and an overflow tank to collect the excess gasoline created by simply driving my car.
Back in the ‘70’s, some of my friends were obsessed with efficiency and mpg. I got pulled into the mix as well. I was driving a ‘65 Chevy, with an inline 6. A guy at work had bought a truckload of NOS carbs, 1, 2 and4 bbl, still in the box. He was selling them for $10/ barrel. I bought a number of them. I put a single throat Rochester, made for a stationary engine on my car, hoping to achieve maximum mpg. Bad move! Burned 2 exhaust valves. An engine will only do what it can.
My experience with a Chevy straight six was a 250 in a 1978 C10 stepside with three on the tree. They may have been reliable, but what a terrible engine. It’s got mileage like an eight, but had the power of a four. I didn’t keep that truck for very long. That truck helped me find uphill grades I never knew existed. I was driving on the highway and the truck was slowing down. I thought something was wrong, but then I realized I was climbing and it didn’t have the power to hold 70 mph
@@MrJeffcoley1 that's crazy. Your truck wasn't running right. I have the same exact setup but instead of 3 on the tree I have a th350 automatic. My truck doesn't spin tires but it's more than adequate. Rochester mono barrel
@@mikem5475 I had just bought the truck near Abilene, TX in 1989 or 1990 and was driving home to El Paso. It was firing on all cylinders. I didn’t recall if it had points or HEI, but according to the specs it made 115 hp in a 4000 lb truck. I’m sure I would have tuned it up but I don’t recall. The long uphill grade was Interstate 10 between Midland, TX and El Paso climbing out of the Permian basin. Usually there was a headwind as well. I was rolling along at 70 but when I hit that long, long climb speed dropped off to about 55. I actually pulled over to check the plugs and wires to make sure they were OK. They were.
@@MrJeffcoley1 I believe it the way you describe 100hp for 4000lb. Mine doesn't have any emissions equipment, and just a cherry bomb glass pack muffler. Engine bay looks very uncluttered. I wonder if the emissions stuff really messed it up or maybe my standards are just low for how fast something is
Well put Tony. I’m an old timer like you. I have a newer truck but my daily driver is a 1976 F150 4x4, 360 granny low 4 speed. I love that old truck. Yes it uses more gas than my new one and doesn’t handle as well. But it’s dead nuts reliable. And I can fix it if it needs anything which rarely happens at only about 5,000 miles per year. Your channel has helped me keep it on the road and I thank you, sir. I really appreciate your teaching style. Oh and guess which truck pops everyone’s eyes.... not the new one.
had a 1977 f100 flare side! had a 351w 2v with a c4! had hedders and a diy hi out put ignition and a recurved dizzy. got 20 mpg! loved it was a day to day driver! was simple and reliable!
I’m right there with ya, Brian. Tony has taught me so much with my older vehicles as well, albeit they are TBI rather than carbureted. But I too have a newer 2016 Silverado, but daily drive my 1987 C10 (although she’s undergoing a major project to upgrade the aging fuel system, brake system and replacing rusted components) and I get WAY more comments on that than my Silverado. But my 1986 Thunderbird is the ticket. I’ve had it all my life and rebuild the engine and trans last year. Being able to take Tony’s teachings has allowed me not only to keep that car running, but also increased the mpg’s from 23 on the highway, all the way up to 35 mpg if I’m not romping on it on the highway. And for both vehicles - anything wrong with them, it’s a simple turn of a wrench, adjust this, tweak that, and they are back on the road in no time.
@@brianhdueck3372 thanks man! I really enjoy them and take them to car shows too. The c10 has 123,000 miles but my thunderbird only has 46,000! However they are skyrocketing in value so I do drive them like a little old lady haha!
Hey Uncle Tony, I received my two t-shirts today ! My FAVORITE item was the self drawn pic of you ! It's hanging on the wall in my shop so everyone can see it ! I totally LOVE it !!! Thank you !!!
I'm in total love with this series of videos Uncle Tony! I kinda knew that carbon deposits could make an engine not run properly or lose gas mileage, but I had no idea about the science of it! Amazing video once again! o/
Intake carbon acts like a sponge & can create lean Pre- ign knock.( bad) Sacking Fuel/ air mix @ cyl.🌀💥💨 or cyl inefficiency🏁 good fuel= filter svc, some occasional additives for low octanes help . Correct base timing per spec depending on Mfg . & Year of production . Basics. (SuK-SQuiZ- B💥-.&B🌬💨)
Funny you should mention that. I had the same urge a few days ago when I saw them while wandering around my local farm supply store. I bought 2 boxes of the blue ones.
Ha! I just ran out of my blue shop rags. Are there any better ones that don’t disintegrate when using lacquer thinner? I buy prep towels (blue ) and those are good but more money.
In the 1940s Nash had their "iso-thermal™" head on their 6 cylinder engines. They had no intake manifold. The carb mounted directly to the head. The air passage inside the head ran over the top of the exhaust ports. The theory was that heat would vaporize the incoming air/gas mixture and would evaporate the gas droplets into a pure vapor for combustion. I don't know if it contributed to the MPG, but I smog checked a 56 Nash in the 1970s and it was surprisingly clean burning for the time era.
@@hotrodray6802 Yeah, 0-60 was measured in minutes 😅 They advertised 23 mpg in 1953. They won the Mobil Gas mileage run that year. The Nash 600 advertised 30 mpg. Like today it's best-case scenarios. I got 19 on my 54 Ambassador in the 1970s but it dropped to about 13 nowadays with the sh't gasoline and all. In fact when I upgraded it to a 350 crate engine the mileage is still at 12. A little more peppy now.
@@Iconoclasher except I have a 400hp ls motor that gets 40mpg on the highway... And a Camry that frequently gets 50mpg. 30mph is not today's best case scenario lol
@@UFC_Buffalo I can understand that. My lovely 54 Nash Ambassador has a SBC 350 now. (can't hardly get parts for the old Ambassador 6 anymore) Now I'm getting 13 mpg. 😂
Uncle Tony this was spot on, very informative, very technical, very interesting. Interesting how when you discussed the cam failures of the Gen III hemi, you caught a lot of flack, which was undeserved. Some folks out there unfairly dismissed your thoughts and used the term hack, which was not true then and you certainly proved it again today. I thought I knew a lot about cars and then you go through this lights just click on upstairs.
i read a article that chrysler was supposed to have done a test and said that it was impossible to burn all the fuel in a bore dia over 4" now this was written back around 1980 if i remember corecttly and was supposed to be one of the reasons that they made the V-10
I love this. This was so intresting, I never read anything on the stages of temperatures encountered by the mixture between the carb and the cylinders. And I totaly not thought about the back part of the valves and top of the piston heating fuel, and that carbon deposit could act as a insulation. So cool. Thanks a lot.
NAY, the problem is dieseling, an indication that excessive amounts of fuel is used. There is an asymmetric bell curve you have to get past in terms of heat. When you add gaseous fuel then the problem becomes getting enough charge to make HP, at the other end of said curve ...the running crappy just indicates you're on the typical side of said curve. Smokey's contrivance was a cheater's attempt to get to the other side ...
One of the big problems for fuel mileage is that it by definition, negates what MOST people want.......performance! One of the best economy tips is to learn to drive economically. We take the heat out of our fuel intake systems to gain 3 hp and wonder why we lose mileage. Soft tires make for a smooth ride but not good economy. 4.11 gears really get you off the line but suck for mileage. Everything is a compromise. How fast do you want to go? How much can you spend.
Ive used a can of Berryman B12 into 1/2 tank of gas $4 about every 5,000 miles. my favorite. 50 years ago we ran water injection made from a windshield washer tank. In the early 80s Holley sold a water injection kit for knock supression. Same thing. washer tank with nozzles and a vacuum switch. Worked well on the high compression 70 Corvette 350 hp 350.
I had to hire 007 Bond to protect me from big oil, because they sent gang members out to bump me off, because my 6 times removed step brother had a friend that built the million mpg carb... It was so crazy. It was so reliable that 007 Bond had one on the DB5 he picked me up in!!!! I swear !.. great stuff tony, as usual!!
Someone told me that they got 100mpg from a flat head but it burned a hole in all 8 pistons. The only part of the story I believe is that they probably leaned out an engine so much that they burned holes in the pistons.
My late father was a combustion engineer and I once told him about a system I read or heard about that involved platinum and he just said, we tried that and it doesn't work, platinum is very expensive. If it was possible to do these things, there would be practically no way to stop it from getting it out.
@@hotrodray6802 yes but the in-line motors are different. Sure you can run it with no intake heat. Even drag race it, but if it’s cold outside you won’t like it in traffic. I used to build in-line 6 kits and sell them professionally. The problem with an in-line is the intake is just hanging out in the wind. On a V block you still have some heat rising up from the valley with an air gap manifold. Not as big of a deal. If you use a normal intake on a V block the hot oil keeps the intake as warm as needed. The in-line blocks are a different animals. The intake on a in-line with no exhaust heater or hot water will Ice on you on cold days. Yes that may make the most horse power but tip in it or take off slowly it won’t like it. I sold kits with a carb tuned and ready to run. Never ever had a complaint. I was told how much better my set up ran in traffic than what they started with almost every time.
I've always hated carbon in my engines whether it was from the pcv system or egr system. In my experience growing up in the 90's and dealing with those cars the egr system was always to blame for excess carbon build up but I never could really explain it well, but UT just summed it up perfectly.
Good stuff, as always. Who knew how complex that heat/fuel interaction was? Other than emission problems, I wonder if the better road to less fuel consumption is higher compression engines. Think Michael May's Fireball heads for the Jaguar. Somewhere in my pile is a Popular Mechanics (or Popular Science--I can never keep them straight) article from the 1970s of a German-developed 4-cylinder car with 16:1 compression that ran on regular gas. Better gas mileage and power to boot. Nitrous oxides emissions were a problem, though, which may be why the engine never took off. The idea still intrigues.
With direct injection compression ratios are on the rise again. I think the Mustang GT is like 12 to 1 on pump gas but the Ford Coyote uses VVT to help control combustion temperatures and limit NOx.
Tony one thing that kills those high mile per gallon stories is there is that strange problem, engine cooling. There is only so many BTU's of energy in a specific volume of fuel and that would set a maximum MPG. Now that nasty cooling system sucks up quite a bit of energy, but it is necessary , If there was no cooling system you would get better energy conversion, while at the same time they would melt down into a huge metal lump. Those high mpg vehicles getting that tremendous numbers have no cooling and they run the engine at WFO for only a few seconds and it is disconnected and the vehicle coasts to a near stop then they repeat the cycle again. Not really effective for day to day driving.
I read some where the carter bbd 2 barrel flows at 280 cfm while the holley 2 barrel flow around 265 give or take . I think the best bang for the buck is the thermoquad since the primeries flow close to 200 cfm on the 2 barrel part of the carb while other 4 barrels flow at 400 cfm on the 2 barrel so your getting really good fuel economy from the thermoquad 4 barrel and the bbd 2 barrel . I also like my carter 1 barrel on my slant6 in my 65 dart . my car was mostly stock including the tires and the 7-1/4 had 2:92 gears . got really good gas milage . got a little better gas milage when I added a k& N filter and put a bigger exhaust pipe from the manifold back
The EXACT reason the spreadbore carbs were so popular! A Quadrajet CAN get better gas mileage than a stock 2 bbl. It never does because we all like to hear that sound!!!
Especially in inline 6 engines. I have a Ford with a 300. Offenhauser intake. Holley 4 Barrel. I live in Phoenix az. Have to run a radiator heater plate in the winter and have it off in the summer.
Thermodynamics can predict the limits of efficiency of a motor based solely on compression ratio. This is pre friction, oil losses, etc. 100 mpg might is possible on with a tiny motor in a tiny car.
Lassi, you actually just made my point. A gas engine has about a 10 to 1 compression ratio, while a diesel runs about 18 to 1, or higher. Also diesel has many more btu per gallon.
Fuel vaporization from a carb principally occurs in the cruise. What happens is kinda cool really. High manifold vacuum substantially lowers the boiling point of fuel causing it to boil off into a fuel/air gas. Full throttle where there's hopefully no manifold vacuum has to have added fuel enrichment by various methods. My favorite carb will always be the Thermoquad. God I love those things. Faults, none! The perfect carb. (Maybe there's a few faults - I'm in love alright) Also anyone who's ever blown a headgasket knows that those pistons at the leak site are always spotlessly clean. A bit of water in the intake never hurt a gas engine, but don't think of trying it on a Diesel.
My Hemi actually gets 110 mpg. This has been documented all over the place and everyone that owns one like mine gets the same mileage. OK, so it is a 49cc Chinese scooter BUT, it is indeed a hemi (hemispherical combustion chamber) and it really does get 110 mpg. It only does 44 mph top end but, around town that's all I need.
As kids we would put tuning kits on 49cc mopeds, 70cc cylinders, higher compression cylinder head, expansion chamber exhaust, large 24/26mm carbs, std was 16mm, and majorly ported intake runners, exhaust, enlarged ports and lightened piston. This in conjuction with max bored cylinders, for approx 74/75cc, really woke it up. Far higher max rpm than out of the box tuning kit, and it pulled hard up top. But milage really sucked, almost like a regular car. We found a toned down version without the high compression top, which broke pistons due to knock unless using octane boister + 98 octane gas, less expansion chamber, and standard carb, was best of both worlds. Essentially same as the first 1966 mustang had a 2 port carb on a 289. The added cubes gave most drivability.
Engine Masters (sorry Tony, I know they're not your favourite people at the moment) did some testing on cool intakes and found that ambient air temp doesn't make a noticeable difference due to the intake vacuum cooling it down, but fuel temp did make a difference, cooler fuel was found to be better. When race guys ice the intake, it's to keep the fuel cold and also keep the intake walls cool, which helps with creating a lower pressure in the intake to help move more mixture through
On any V8 I build, I block off the heat stove completely. You notice it takes a while to warm up. But I never have problems with vapor lock and my alum manifold is still spotless after 90k miles. It’s a 350 Buick in a 66 Chevy pickup. I get 17mpg on the hiway. Never had an issue with spark plug fouling or performance. But on days when the temp is below 30 you do notice a bit of stubbornness.
I'm impressed with your knowledge and how easily you explain it. You are smarter than you look(I'm kidding). Lol! I'm going to refer to you as Professor Tony from now on. Today you taught me something that I did not know before.
Air fuel mixture 14.7 to 1 is optimal mixture for fuel efficiency. Dual spark plugs would increase combustion optimization.Mopar Hemi engine is the most efficient designed engine.
So conventional wisdom says to block the heat crossovers in the heads for maximum performance but you just explained a benefit to increasing heat of the air/fuel mixture. In a future video can you elaborate on when it makes sense to block the heat cross over (like plan z) and when you should leave it open?
I had the same thought. UT had a vid a couple of years ago talking about blocking the heat crossover and how it helps keep the intake and as a result, the fuel in the carb, cooler. I know there's some beef between UT and the Roadkill guys, so I cautiously bring this up... they found in an episode of Engine Masters that a cool intake helps with increasing cylinder filling, not due to cooler air temp but effectively via cavitation... Cooler intake walls = lower pressure area Vs hotter area = high pressure area, so the mixture wants to find it's way to the lower pressure area, helping with cylinder filling. A hotter intake won't have time to heat up the mixture (too short of a duration) but it will create more resistance and slow down the mixture, whereas a cooler intake will provide less resistance, allowing more mixture to squeeze in. These are of course small differences. They found that cool fuel temp was more important. Air temp going into carb didn't make much difference. Cooler fuel means more energy in the same volume, so if for example an engine will pull through say 1 cubic inch of fuel, the cooler cube will contain more energy in that given volume, compared to the same size cube that's hotter. With more energy, rpm increases and the idle screw / jet can be adjusted down, to minimise the volume of fuel pulled through (in that example, maybe only a 0.9" cube needs to be drawn through). Then again, that sort of suggests that the same volume is being pulled from the tank in either case. As temp changes volume, the idle screw / jets are compensating for energy per volume changes. It's still the same amount of energy, just in a different size. A warmer fuel will take up more space, so idle screw / jets need to accommodate that same unit of energy coming through in a larger volume. In other words, if tank volume is X, but in the warmer under hood temp that volume is now X +10%, volume is relative, so a warmer fuel unit passing through the carb may be X+10% but in its cooler state at the tank, it's still pulling through volume X. So maybe, fuel temp doesn't change volume consumption (efficiency), only that the metering of it needs to change relative to how that energy packet changes in volume in order not use the incorrect amount i.e. bring in a cooler mix but leave the metering the same, resulting in a larger volume being pulled the through unnecessarily. So effectively there is a dynamic between fuel tank volume, temp, and fuel draw at carb draw. 2 different temps, changing the volume, but still the same volume being pulled the through from tank (when carb adjusted the right). The cooling of fuel effectively acts a compressor... The same amount comes from the tank and the same energy is used by engine but because it's in a smaller packet, the metering is reducedduces to pull the same energy through, just in a smaller packet. Possibly this is where hotter temps could be better... a hotter mix has more area between the molecules which requires a longer burn time (same as as lean idle mixture needing more time to burn), so this may suggest that a hotter mix would be able to release energy over a larger area in a given timeframe, creating more movement to act on the piston (it's already an expanded mix) and while it may push less (lower power), it would still push. And perhaps that's where economy from higher temps comes from... Using the minimal amount of effort to push the piston, but stil lmoving it, in exchange for lower power output. Back to cooling quickly - A high vacuum level (cruise and idle) will help drop temp (through characteristics of low pressure effect on temp... As pressure drops, temp drops) but also the higher vacuum helps atomise the fuel more. The more fuel that is atomised, the more heat is taken out of the surroundings, keep temp low. But you can't help think that a mixture that's as hot as possible, on the edge of combusting, is the best thing to put into a combustion chamber. That way very little change (work) is required to push the mixture into combustion, which is what would make it most efficient.
Ray-maybe I have it over simplified in my head but I always thought that the purpose of keeping the air/fuel mixture cool was that it was a denser charge in the same volume. You would cram more air and fuel into the same space and make more power. I never considered resistance to flow but I’d love to learn more.
The correct answer is what UT ignored. If you want to make power, you need to ATOMIZE the fuel a fine as you can get it, at the booster. Then you have to keep it as fine a you can until it hits the chamber. You need some fuel that is NOT vaporzied all the way to the chamber and into the chamber because converting the fuel to a gas (vaporization) drops the incoming charge temperature and that makes power. You can easily vaporize too much fuel and lose power. Also, I forget the temperature at which cast iron turns blue, it I know it’s more than 200 degrees and I’ve seen way too many cast iron intakes that were blue from way too much heat in the crossover. You use booster signal and design to atomize the fuel, and correct atomization leads to correct vaporization. And that makes power.
That Hemi head is awesome design i would like to see a THE INTAKE PORT from an NHRA Super Stocker engine after it has been reworked, I only saw one from a distance in a Magazine
There are ALWAYS improvements that can be made. If Shell engineers can design a 376 mpg gas vapor car in the 70s (yeah, fact, look it up) then I’m sure we can eek out another 10 mpgs. Gimme a break
@@duane4972 Technically, what he says is true, I did look it up. In reality though (you know, that world where most of us live), the car was a 1959(?) Opel something or other that was HEAVILY modified including chopping the top and removing EVERYTHING that added excess weight. They even went so far as to remove the transmission and replace it with chain drive because they found that the only way to get that kind of fuel mileage was to run it between 3-12 mph, therefore, they had no need for multiple gear ratios. I googled 376mpg shell car and found an article about it on quora. They even removed the headlights..does anyone even drive at night?
@@MikeBrown-ii3pt you didn’t mention the fuel vaporization system on the engine which was also modified. The point is, again, there are improvements that can be made not that we could get 376 mpgs out a modern car.
Suspension deleted, one seater, engine with a lawnmower carb, chain drive, Sounds like a go kart with an Opel body. Tested at an airport, no traffic, no acceleration or deceleration. I would love to know the mpg at a 60mph cruise, but there's the rub, it couldn't do 60mph
Home example. Aftrr frying. Put the frying pan in the sink and open the tap slightly. When the water hits the metal it instantly vaporizes. If the water hits a leftover piece of the eggs you fried it does not vaporize. Simple.
Smokey used a turbocharger backwards to reverse homogenize the fuel and atomize and pre heat it into the intake track to get it to burn easier and more efficiently like kindling in a camp fire, dryer wood burns better than damp wood
My neighbour had a 1920's Fordson tractor that I believe had a vaporiser instead of a carburettor. Ran on kerosene or pretty much anything else that would burn, so the idea has been around for a while.
A lot of farm tractors up into the 60's could run on Kero. There was a small gasoline tank to get the engine running and warmed up then a second tank for kero. Some farm tractors ran on propane too.
Tony Thank's so much for Teaching !! This is what People like US need to do !! Because the Next Generation is CLUELESS !!! Thank YOU , And Merry Christmas Bro !!!!!!!!!
If I remember correctly Smoky Yunick had experimented with ceramic intake manifolds to maximize fuel temperature and heat retention but cracking was a problem. I wonder today if that idea may work with modern materials.
Very interesting. It makes sense to use top tier gas to keep the valves as clean as possible so they can vaporize the fuel effectively. Thanks for this video. Joe
Sort of, yes. But that little miniscule part of a percent of alcohol they include at $15-18 premium per tank, can be bought for $2-3 a can which lasts 20-30 tanks, which would be a far better economical approach, but in essence, same result. "Top tier gas" is marketed towards people who don't understand this on purpose, and they overcharge quite alot for the tiny amount one get. Higher octane gas on the other hand, IF your vehicle can benefit from it, IS actually worth it.
@@Santor- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ystuUJWae0Y.html. There are some other independent certified lab test videos that show benefits from the extra detergents in top tier gas. Cheap gas near me is around 10 cents less per gallon than top tier. Not that much difference. Most people don't bother getting fuel system cleaners, so it may be helpful to get the gas with extra detergent added in. I understand all of the base gas comes from the same refineries. Top tier stations and their own proprietary extra detergents to the tanker trucks before distribution to stations. Cheaper gas stations use base gas that meets minimum standards.
All interesting stuff, you really know your thing and make some really interesting videos, merry Christmas to you and I hope that you and your family have a wonderful and restful holiday season 😀
I see what you mean by trolls everybody has a opinion, but no one has ever been on a track .they do a lot of reading and so-called research then tell you you're wrong with never laying a wrench to a car. It's always my brother's cousin's uncle's friend sister who knew somebody that heard of a guy that did it.
The world record for auto gas mileage was set in October 1973 by a 1959 Opel station wagon with a highly modified engine. The car traveled 376.59 miles on a single gallon of gasoline during a Shell Oil Co.
There's this guy on utube that is running his Ford Pinto with a 302 V8 on a lawnmower carburetor. He hooked up a computer controller to it and claims that the car runs great and gets 41 mpg. Tony I would love for you to replicate this test.
Someone help me out here. Going to rebuild a 360 for my Duster. Had planned on welding closed the heat exchange ports to keep the intake cooler. Now I'm wondering if thats the right thing to do. The engine is being built for the street and maybe a trip down the strip to see what it will do. Stock block, some mild porting, truck style cam for torque, older edelbrock 4 barrel intake and 600 cfm carb.
In theory it might. At low load the extra heat might help vaporize the fuel along with the hot air being less dense so maybe it would lean out the mix a little. Might get to a point where you’re having to open the throttle more to compensate for the loss of power though. A lot of times it’s a lot of tinkering to really get there because things that seem good end up not working, and things that seem like nonsense do. The real world is funny sometimes.
I use an array of crystals blessed by a trustafarian shaman in Sedona in a bipolar configuration to the injector wires. But it's critical to always be chanting Om while energetically expressing diametrically opposed radiance from the spleen chakra of the driver. .01% mpg improvements have been reported during full moons.
You don't want all vapor to start with. You want optimized droplets that are the proper size to make the simultaneous heat and mass transfer on the surface during the burn. Vapor and Oxygen would just ignite at once causing a disaster of high pressure. The modern electronic fuel injection can help with multiple shots over the combustion stroke. Good explanation of the passage of the gasoline from liquid to a form that can provide the pressures needed to drive the piston down properly.
That is a good point.... The intake valve will vaporize some of the gas. I have never thought about that. But I work with Diesels mostly so that is not happening in a Diesel engine. But here is how you can get more mileage from a gas engine. Use a Diesel injection pump to inject gas into the ports! The high pressure atomization will be fare superior to a carburetor or even to a low pressure fuel injection system. You will get more power and better MPGs, I guaranty it.
@@UFC_Buffalo Yes, of curse. Diesel injectors, because nothing else can handle that kind of pressure. I would also put about 5% Diesel into the fuel for lubrication of the pump.
Dr Taglioni (Ducati) and the guys running a mule engine at Ferarri worked out that a slightly under-square bore of 426 cc was the best for volumetric effiency.
i REALLY hope you talk about the 4 and 1/8th inch bore of the GM 400 small block its almost TOO big to be efficient.... . but with a shorter stroke (like using a 350 crank....AKA a 377.... or even smaller crank) you can REALLY rev these engines up..... while still having quite a bit of displacement . . their is a reason 99.8% of modern engines use a larger bore and a shorter stroke (over square) . . . the GM400 has the LARGEST bore of all small blocks (and IIRC, even bigger than the smaller big blocks!) and also has the LONGEST stroke of all the small blocks . so its a TORQUE monster...... but will still rev to ~5500 RPM (6200 or so if valve train and rods are upgraded) from 1970 to 1980..... they ALL made at least 245HP..... and over 400 foot pounds . even the smogger 400s with 2 barrel carbs and Net VS gross HP..... they may be rated at 190hp, but they were still making 245-265 at the crank . im pretty sure GM never changed the compression, cam, ETC on the 400s just 2 and 4 barrel versions . . . . . . and looking at the 377 VS 350...... even if the 377 was the same displacement (or if you evenly bored and stroked a 350 out to 377) the 377 will BURY a 350 . the 377 will bury a 383 (350 bore, 400 long stroke crank) . . and that all boils down to the LARGE bore simply more surface area for the explosion to act on simply an over-square engine doing over-square engine things . . like, everyone LOVES their 383s...... but i think they are an ass backwards motor (unless you are looking for torque) id rather build a 350 or 400.... than an under-square (iirc) 383....... because the 350 would make more HP in the end . . again.... 383s are GREAT for a "work pickup" ...... towing with a bit of fuel economy but for high performance, you should have built a 377...... or even a 400 . . . i think most build 383s because "no replacement for displacement" (but their is when your 383 engine is under-square..... its called over-square / efficiency) i think most build 383s because 400 blocks are getting REALLY hard to find........ but people are still making aftermarket 400 stroke cranks with 350 main sizes i think most build 383s because they are scared of the "400s overheat because steam holes" MYTH!!!........ and it is a myth i think most build 383s because they are scared of externally balanced motors.... or ran a 350 flex plate / main pulley on a 400 and it didnt last very long... so the 400 must be weak . . honestly.... if the 400 had an even larger bore, and a slightly shorter crank throw...... that allowed it to rev like a 350 NO ONE would be building 350s, 383s, or even 377s every 350 build you have seen..... in the past or today..... would have been a 400 build . i think GM went just a BIT too much on the stroke but for a 1977 K10 with full time 4 wheel drive...... that only gets driven to pull and haul.... and do general work type stuff the 400 CAN! NOT! BE! BEAT! . . that truck DOES NOT GET STUCK and even with a trans that only has 1st and 3rd..... its still pretty damn quick (doesnt get into the "power band" till you are doing 85mph) it shifts into 3rd at 13MPH..... and if you didnt know it.... you would swear its in 2nd gear . it has SO MUCH torque.... it just DOES! NOT! CARE! its skipping a whole ass gear
I have built a 400 .30 over no problem! heads wer the lareg valve non camal hump type 1960s from mexico with larger water pssige just drilld for steem holes and use a external bypass from intake to radator from the late 1980s so not to rely on the internal bypass. used a edelbrock rpm proformer and a holly 600 vac secondary and a 300hp 327 cam! in a 1986 long bed c10 got 19mpg! i would love to see a 327 crank in a 400! us long rods for less friction on boor walls! am a ford man but helped my chevy frend out to build it! I have got 27mpg on a mustang with a 351c 2v and a fmx auto 3speed! it is not hard build for tq and gear for speed! tq + tall say 2.80 rear end = mpg!
One reason I like e85 for racing - it's a lot less prone to carboning up an engine. In fact, when I switched to E85 in a supercharged sbc I used to race it actually partially cleaned off the pistons and combustion chamber over time. Not perfectly, there was still a little carbon in there but nowhere near as much as with race gas.
If there was a way to spit out gas within its atomized state like a carb mixed with the fuel delivery of fuel injection I think we could get somewhere. Fuel injection gives a more liquid state compared to atomized carburator gaseous mixture. Gasoline fumes burn, not the liquid (when gasoline is set ablaze, the fumes ignite creating an increase in temperature turning the liquid within contact into vaporized fumes, allowing a chain reaction of fuel combustion allowing a gasoline fire). It would be cool if there was like a small chamber/container that the fuel can be pushed into creating an atomized state of gasoline then pushed into the combustion chamber such as fuel injection to have a fuel "cloud" that is in a more atomized state allowing for more surface area to interact with the cloud and allowing for a more efficient explosion and chain reaction. Increase in atomization would require less fuel and would be easier to create cleaner and full combustion reaction
Brings us back to the dumping of water down the carburetor wen ya toon up a motor. For example if you ever blown a head gasket into the cylinder the piston is clean. No carbine lol but ya tony your a mad scientist!! Hahaha we need to get ya a dry erase board. So ya can give a visual.
I'm a retired mechanic I had a 1965 Ford Galaxie four-door 289 V8 with a two-barrel carburetor Ford carburetor old motor compression was 120 down to 90 lb compression old motor I pulled a 5 x 10 trailer 100 lb tongue weight on the hitch I got 24 miles to the gallon going through Kansas and Missouri I modified the carburetor for better gas mileage got between 23 1/2 and 24 Mi to the gallon pulling that enclosed trailer I can also do the same modification with the Holley carburetor
I remember when alot of folks used to put magnets and aluminum foil around their fuel line to save gas.🤣 used to tickle me when I'd trade for a old car and still find one in place!
Berryman B12 in the gas every 5,000 miles. Berryman makes a full line of products with great valve and intake tract cleaners. Easy to use and very reasonable priced B12 is half of seafoam$ and a better product. JMO😎
Can't you just compensate for less vaporized and less atomized fuel and it's slow burn with more spark advance? so that the slower it burns, the sooner you light it?
One cannot avoid the basic laws of thermodynamics. Energy in… energy out! Some engine designs are better, some worse. I bought a ‘94 Escort, 1.9, 5-speed, single cam from my daughter who had driven it for 9 years. She got 40-42 mpg. I never got less than 39, and I never babied it.
Keep your oil clean, regular ignition service with correct ⚡ plug, annual coolant service, good Tires &timing belt miles, Stock 1.9L, TBI or H.O. 🏁which has👍🏻 HO cam & tuned exhaust, aggressive throttle response, Fun MPG, don't forget Fwd understeer in corners, ( tap brakes going in) physics always wins if you don't respect it. The block is durable , Never let it get Hot (aluminum heads) capable of 200th. Miles or More.. Had an 84HO. 1.6L 2bbl, Motorcraft Weber, & Tuned exhaust. Similar to my 65 Cortina GT. Which got great MPG ⛽
With fuel economy, you can only make it so lean and the plug gap so big. I do find that modern engines with fuel injection will never get better economy than could be seen with the old engines we love with carburetors on them. The new engines blow through more fuel no matter what even though it's metered by the computer. And from what I gather is that for meeting emissions now, more fuel is required to accomplish that. It's not so much about economy as meeting emissions numbers I miss my carbureted cars.
JMO Fuelies balance air fuel ratios between cylinders much better. Fuelies atomize fuel better . Port preferred. Computers go for lean in many conditions. 10% ethanol gas reduces mileage 6% due to heat loss. Premium non-eth fuel does not offset the price. Real gas lasts a year easily before getting putrid. MSD 6AL is a great device!! Cures a multitude of problems. etc BTDT, tryed them all.👍
If you want to see what the absolute limits of internal combustion engines are check out the shell eco challenge. The The records are in the thousands of miles per gallon.
actually, it is thanks to the heating of the intake manifold that such a thing as the accelerator pump in the carburetor works on the car. Moreover, if the car is not warmed up, there will be failures, since the fuel from the accelerator pump nozzle will flow into the engine in liquid form and will not perform any useful work except cooling pistons and refueling candles. But without the accelerator pump, there will be no failures in the carburetors. So that heating the intake manifold by itself does exactly that, which vaporizes gasoline. and you can even see it, turn off the engine warmed up to operating temperature, press the gas a couple of times and you will see a cloud of steam in the intake manifold.
