Good luck.
bobb
Bob Basques wrote:
Something you may want to consider down the line a bit is adding a water injection system to the Carb. See here for some quick info: http://better-mileage.com/water1.html.I actually installed a setup similer to this on a 390 equipped late 70 ford truck, I could tow a trailer up uphill and if the engine started to ping at all going up, all I had to do was flip a switch on the dash board and, wah-la the pinging went away, this also improved gas mailage to some degree.
Just some thoughts.
bobb
Bob Kiger wrote:
My approach is going to be to put on the exhaust and then take the puller into the carb guy with one mandate. Do everything to fuel flow and vacuum to increase gas mileage. He is a wiz and has already told me that he will set the carb on the margin to get a couple of miles more per gallon. That might reduce performance a bit, but as I mentioned the truck is so hot at the low end that I could sacrifice a little performance.The numbers are staggering in terms of operating costs. Even 1mpg is 10% increase in fuel economy. I would not be pursuing this if I had a modern puller that was getting 20mpg or just a regular passenger car with 25+mpg. I am still aiming for 14-15mpg and will know by next week.
Thanks for all your advice.
Bob
At 04:54 AM 6/14/01 -0500, you wrote:Bob,------- Original Message -----
From: Bob Kiger
At 05:59 PM 6/13/01 -0500, you wrote:
Dual exhaust systems will improve high rpm horsepower, but in some cases, will reduce low speed torque.> Why is this Harvey?<I can't remember the details sufficiently to provide a convincing explanation; the thought comes from books and magazine articles I have read on building and dyno testing performance engines. I think it is because of the scavenging effect of increasing exhaust flow that leans the incoming fuel air mixture because of more complete removal of the exhaust gasses from the prior power stroke. It is a known fact that gasoline engines such as small block Chevys used in pickup truck engines have smaller intake and exhaust valves than high rpm horsepower engines used in Corvettes, Camaros, etc. for the same reason.
>Hope I can prove you wrong on the gas mileage thing. Only time will tell.>
I hope you can also but I must have read 100 test articles on those old trucks back in the '60s and '70s, some factory stock and others testing aftermarket products advertised to improve performance and efficiency. I have never read of one that attained much more than 10 mpg in documented testing.
Harvey
1966 Airstream "Safari" WBCCI #2857
1966 Ford F-250 "Camper Special"
Mira Mar Mobile Community
Oceanside, California
http://64.33.167.222/
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \/\ \/\ \/\ \
//\\___\\\___\\\___\\\___\
\\// _/_/ /// /// /
\/_/\ \__/\/___/\/___/
//\\___\ //\\___\
\\// _/_ _\\// /
\/_/\ \/\ \/___/
//\\__//\\___\
\\// _\\// /
\/_/\ \/___/
//\\___\
\\// /
\/___/
--
http://64.33.167.222/
___ ___ ___
___
/\ \/\ \/\ \/\
\
//\\___\\\___\\\___\\\___\
\\// _/_/ /// /// /
\/_/\ \__/\/___/\/___/
//\\___\ //\\___\
\\// _/_ _\\// /
\/_/\ \/\ \/___/
//\\__//\\___\
\\// _\\// /
\/_/\ \/___/
//\\___\
\\//
/
\/___/
