News Group Map

From : coasty

Q: the epa did not demand retarded timing. they demanded nox reduction which at the time could only be done with lower peak combustion temps and pressures and retarding timing. today people make matters worse by clinging to 87 octane fuel in a high comprssion engine. the only reason your engine has a knock sensor is for tolerance for low octane fuel and nothing more. and everytime the ecm retards spark for low octane fuel it reduces power output and mpg. easy pal. im not the enemy. i dislike the epa as much as anyone. they only recently hired their first real scientist and hes an evolution / ecology freak. by demanding reduced nox in effect the epa demanded retarded timing. source chrysler ford and gm engineers that were overseeing the cat converter machine installations at arvins. 87 octane fuel is the result of the catylitic converters . . .no lead allowed although later tests proved it settles out of the exhaust less than 20 feet from the pipe. gawd i miss that good old 105.5 octane sunoco 260. . .. . the first engine ive ever owned with an ecm is my 95 lebaron and to be honest im pleased with its performance 3.0 v-6. with my current state of health i dont tinker as much as i usta could. my last vehicle was the 79 d-150 that my eldest son is still driving and now has over 400000 miles on the 318 under the hood. budd budd cochran wrote no sorry i do not have it wrong according to chrysler engineers i worked alongside of while they were assisting in the installation of catalytic converter manufacturing equipment at arvin ind inc in franklin in in 1971. they understood the need for proper combustion the complete burning process happening in the cylinder while the epa was demanding retarded timings and all when the first emissions laws were enforced . . .uh correction . . shoved down our throats. if you remember for about 4 years cars in america got horrid mileage because of screwed up tune procedures. my own experience was a 72 charger with 400/2 bbl engine that got only 14 mpg on the highway / 8 in town when tuned to 1972 specifications but that jumped to 17 around town and 24 highway when tuned to 1968 specs . . . .and it still ran fine on 87 octane fuel -- budd cochran warning!!! poster still believes that intelligence logic common sense courtesy and religious beliefs are still important in our society and might include them in his posts. you have it wrong on cr ratio as you raise it you increase the thermodynamic efficency of the engine and it will boost mpg if you use the correct fuel octane and valve timing with it. it capture more energy from expanding gasses. one of the main reasons oil burners get better mpg is because the same higher cr that is needed to ignite fuel also extract more energy for expanding mixture. cr ratio is a key factor in mpg and if you bulit a gas engine properly with 12 to one or better cr you should see a 10 to 15% or better improvement in mpg. if you ran one on propane you could do up 13 to one with ease because of its high octane. budd cochran wrote agreed. while a higher c.r. improves specific horsepower not always economy it cannot pull more hp out of the fuel than is available. go too far with cr and you will lose economy. its more important to burn all the fuel you can in the cylinder and low octane fuel actually burns faster than high octane. the water/alcohol system i used added a fuel in the form of alcohol vapor and the water vapor reduced the chance of detonation from a lean mix / excessive timing advance situation at cruise throttle. for example my 79 dodge d-150 with 318 ran 55 degrees advance at less than 40 mph mechanical and vacuum advances combined. normally vacuum advance doesnt come in under cruise throttle until 50 mph and yielded 20+ mpg from a vehicle with the aerodynamics of a brick but it would detonate under certain conditions. the 65 225 slant six otoh ran two light springs in the mechanical advance which brought full advance in at around 1000 rpm. on 87 octane this would be a massive ping situation under any load but it only pinged when i forgot to add mix to the bottle. in a 64 valiant it towed an overloaded u-haul trailer over monarch pass co 11000+ feet without strain anddelivered 28 mpg at the time. the water / alcohol injection system was on that engine for over 100000 miles and during that time my worst fuel mileage was 20 mpg ... the point had burned up and i didnt have another set until payday the next weekend -- budd cochran warning!!! poster still believes that intelligence logic common sense courtesy and religious beliefs are still important in our society and may include them in his posts. budd cochran wrote to big al yes i read the article and if it were anymore vague it could be used as a soap-ope