Hey Jake what do you have for us on the MPG engine Options

[r_towle]

funny, I was thinking hmmmm 65 356 sc coupe....50mpg.....

Look good, and still be green.

Rich

[RJMII]

The thread on super MPG was on my forum when it was hosted at www.shoptalkforums.com

The site is down right now, so I can't rab the link, but my entire old forum is there in archive form.


Its been a while since we had a chat on my community about MPG and its time we have one. I'll put some time into the big picture of the plan and post something next week that can be universally applied to all my TIV applications.

The 1911 is THE way to go... For once I am trying to do something that you guys can afford, and then you want to pay more!

This could be done for much less than 5K.

I've got the 1911 and a pair of 36Dellorto carbs... What else do I need? Taller velocity stacks? Helium foot instead of a lead one?
or were the carbs a mistake?

No worries, I'll be cheap. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happy11.gif)

and you're going to post a link to your MPG thread, like you did with the 1.7/1.8 to 2.0 stuff?

[LarryR]

Larry,

That is why I drive an old, worn, 1.7 that does 0-60 in the 60ish second range...so anything I do will be a HUGE improvement!!!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif) I have to admit I am the typical spoiled american! my jeep is the slowest thing I own and its not a slug. Its 4.0 6 is enough to tow porsches and have tons of grunt to get out on the highway with.

but even a 1.7 stock 914 tired would do better than 60 seconds (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer.gif)

[johannes]

FYI...

Theese figures come from a french magazine published in 1970.
Test was made with a factory new VW Porsche 914 1.7 with Michelin 155 tyres.
They mesured the fuel consumption at constant speed in fifth gear.
here are the figures

mph - / - mpg
37 - / - 44
43 - / - 44
50 - / - 43
56 - / - 40
62 - / - 37
68 - / - 34
75 - / - 31
81 - / - 28
87 - / - 25
93 - / - 22
99 - / - 19
104 - / - 16

Thin tyres did help... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

They also mesured fuel consumption on a road trip at an average of 55 and mesured 21 mpg

Last test was a road trip at full throttle (no speed limit in France in 1970)
Average speed was 81 mph (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) and fuel consumption was 17.6



...

[Jake Raby]

One kind of interesting note is that the right combination can sort of optimize fuel economy and performance

ABSOLUTELY!!! Combustion effectiveness is everything!!

thats why I GUARANTEE that this 1911 combo built the way I plan will fool most people into believing it is much bigger and has both more TQ and HP than it really has!!!

Mixture quality dictates most everything.. Maximizing the charge is how we have picked up 40HP from the same displacement engine in less than 2 years. without a camshaft change.

The same goes for MPG. The key is putting the peak torque of the engine at the sweet spot for the speed you'll be driving and the gears/tires you are using.

Thats how I configured the Super 2 Liter.

[Todd Enlund]

Anybody know how well a Type IV will fit in a Type 3 Squareback? A 40 MPG Squareback would be killer.

[Bleyseng]

seen two and it fits...finding 411 HE's is hard.

[r_towle]

I would think, based upon all the stuff out there that a square motor would be possible. a square motor is the most efficient.

Use the largest crank, I think 84mm and use 84mm type one pistons.
Instead of welding the head, install a ring to bring the outer size of the register down in size....(I know its a bit more than that)

this is an 1862 motor, with the higher speed heads of the 1.7, a long stroke for torque and the square motor would be more efficient.

The pistons and cylinders for the type one are out there.

Rich

[Todd Enlund]

seen two and it fits...finding 411 HE's is hard.

Hadn't thought about heat... good point.

[Dave_Darling]

I'd love to see BSFC graphs from Jake's dyno at various loads. We usually only get the WOT graph, seeing the graphs for 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 50% would be very educational for motor trying for high FE.

Remember, a street car engine typically spends 95% of its time at 15% throttle or less, and it only takes ~10 HP to keep a car moving at 70 MPH once it has gotten there.

--DD

[Jake Raby]

Building the engine square costs just as much as my other kits and you wouldn't get huge MPG or huge power.

On top of that easy assembly without a full "kit" being necessary is out the window.

Using the 94mm Type 1 pistons increases every aspect of the assembly because the pin height demands .500 spacers on a stroker engine.

My recommendation of a 1911cc combination remains for the best all around results.

[RJMII]

My recommendation of a 1911cc combination remains for the best all around results.

Ok, I'm listening... You got more parts that I should get for my 1911 ?

[Jake Raby]

Sure, what do you have now??

[RJMII]

Sure, what do you have now??

I have:

no idea what cam is there. I will try and figure out what my valve train is this week.

Any tips on figuring it out w/out cracking the case?

The engine has zero miles on it.
So I know I need to buy some break in oil.

1.7 heads that have been fly cut for the 96mm setup
DRLA 36 carbs
throttle linkage on its way from CB performance
stock 2.0 exhaust, the engine is going in my 76 for the summer, then we're pulling it to put in the 73.

What I know I need:
Break in oil.


What I might need:
new jets for carb to match my unknown cam?

[Jake Raby]

So, did you buy this engine or build it?? Partially build it?

Brad Penn IS THE engine oil that you need to buy... (available from LN Engineering)

[toon1]

Would there be any benifits to putting a 78mm stroke setup (crank, rods,pistons w/ the right pin height) on a stock 1.7?

Will the 9550 cam support a 78mm stroke 1.7? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

here's the combo I am thinking of:

90mm pistons
78mm stroke
10:1 compresstion w/ flat top pistons
.040 D/H
stock 1.7 heads

[messix]

Would there be any benifits to putting a 78mm stroke setup (crank, rods,pistons w/ the right pin height) on a stock 1.7?

Will the 9550 cam support a 78mm stroke 1.7? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

here's the combo I am thinking of:

90mm pistons
78mm stroke
10:1 compresstion w/ flat top pistons
.040 D/H
stock 1.7 heads

piston dwell at tdc and bdc would effectively be longer, the smaller bore would give less dead space at piston crown to ringland, should be less likely to detonate, but small bore would shroud valves and restrict port flow.

trust jake, i'm shure he could come up with a combo that could push 40-45 mpg @ 120hp but would you pay $20k for all the coatings and one off stuff to make it happen?

[RJMII]

So, did you buy this engine or build it?? Partially build it?

Brad Penn IS THE engine oil that you need to buy... (available from LN Engineering)

Partial build, I'm trying to get ahold of the guy that built the bottom end and had all of the machine work done to it to find out exactly what is there.

I'm measuring the deck height and CCing the heads. What compression ratio should I am for? Or does this depend on the cam I have? which leads me back to finding out the cam. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/headbang.gif)

(he moved to Texas, so it has proven to be *fun*)

[toon1]

Would there be any benifits to putting a 78mm stroke setup (crank, rods,pistons w/ the right pin height) on a stock 1.7?

Will the 9550 cam support a 78mm stroke 1.7? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

here's the combo I am thinking of:

90mm pistons
78mm stroke
10:1 compresstion w/ flat top pistons
.040 D/H
stock 1.7 heads

piston dwell at tdc and bdc would effectively be longer, the smaller bore would give less dead space at piston crown to ringland, should be less likely to detonate, but small bore would shroud valves and restrict port flow.

trust jake, i'm shure he could come up with a combo that could push 40-45 mpg @ 120hp but would you pay $20k for all the coatings and one off stuff to make it happen?

This combo is close to the super 2L. The purpose of having the small bore and long stroke w/ small valves is to increase port velocity. with the right cam, it's possible to continue an intake air charge even AFTER the piston is on it's way back up. This creates great mixture properties.

NO, I would not/ could not(sam I am (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ), pay 20k for all the coatings to get 40-45MPG.

What if this combo could consistantly yield 32-35 with the possibility of 40!?

I have a two cyl. engine right now that is this excact combo

90mm bore
78mm stroke
8.2:1 comp.
3600rpm redline

it swings a 13" surface drive prop. and pushes a boat around through the mud and weeds. I lives it's life to to create huge amounts of low end torque @ low rpm's ( and does a good job of it).



If it had 2 more cyl's. (ala a T4) it would be a great motor (IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

[HAM Inc]

78 x 90mm is a great combo. The valves are only shrouded if the valves are to big for a mileage engine. Short strokes with large bores are great for racing and any high speed engine. Long strokes and small bores are great for low speed torque engines. They, by nature, require less induction. The smaller quench area of the bore means better thermal characteristics. Stay with a rod ratio around around 1.7 for even better mixture motion during quench. This combo is not nearly as easy to build as a 1911, and cost more, but would make a great DD. And if money is really no object, add a second set of spark plugs. On that tiny bore it would up the mileage even more. I believe 50MPG is realistic.