Gas guzzling alternatives

[theastronaut]

How about a 270hp Chevy HHR SS engine? They get high 20's/low 30's mpg on the highway. Should be room to make more power from one too.

[Big Fenders]

[DO I HEAR 'FLUX CAPACITOR'??
Bob

[LEEVON]

4.3L TBI / NV3500 5 speed can net around 18-20 mpg.

[Chevysdominate]

I manage 18-20mpg with my 5.3 (ls1/lm7) and 4l60e on the highway. Its not a trivial install but it was well worth it. I also have cruise control now which will net me 1-2mpg better too. I haven't taken a long trip to test how much better though. Just another option.

[LostMy65]

Originally Posted by Chevysdominate

I manage 18-20mpg with my 5.3 (ls1/lm7) and 4l60e on the highway. Its not a trivial install but it was well worth it. I also have cruise control now which will net me 1-2mpg better too. I haven't taken a long trip to test how much better though. Just another option.

Here's a LSx Swap Index:
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=457939

[MalibuKasey]

Originally Posted by theastronaut

How about a 270hp Chevy HHR SS engine? They get high 20's/low 30's mpg on the highway. Should be room to make more power from one too.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I like this idea.

[theastronaut]

Originally Posted by MalibuKasey

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I like this idea.

The HHR's weigh around 3200 pounds, so quite a few hundred pounds lighter than a C10. You'd drop atleast a couple hundred pounds going from an iron V8 to an aluminum 4 banger, so that would help. I think if geared right (get the engine at it's peak torque at your cruising speed) it should still get decent mileage in an old truck. They make peak torque at 2000 rpm so you don't have to wind them up like most four cylinders, and the lower torque peak would help with mileage. The HHR's run ~14.80's in the quarter so given the one-tenth per 100 pound rule, you'd be running mid 15's in a truck- not too pokey and the Ecotecs can take a lot more boost than what GM's gives them...


When are you going to start?

[suzq044]

diesel conversion anyone? O_o Seems obvious to me.

[Captainfab]

Well that depends on where you live. Around here diesels are very popular, so consequently the engines themselves bring a hefty price. Then on top of that, diesel fuel is typically $0.90 a gallon more than 87 octane gasoline. So around here a diesel conversion will take some time for it to amortize out and be cost effective.

Originally Posted by suzq044

diesel conversion anyone? O_o Seems obvious to me.

[LostMy65]

diesel stinks and gives me a headache.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Sicboy]

Originally Posted by jonathan-m

Just buy a motorcycle

I'm with Jonathan!!!

[joedoh]

Originally Posted by Captainfab

Well that depends on where you live. Around here diesels are very popular, so consequently the engines themselves bring a hefty price. Then on top of that, diesel fuel is typically $0.90 a gallon more than 87 octane gasoline. So around here a diesel conversion will take some time for it to amortize out and be cost effective.

I dont think it ever would, you would need about 5 more mpg to make up just for the difference in price per gallon, more than that to make up for the motor cost. diesels make a lot of sense if you plan on hauling every day, my brother in law (duramax/allison) says he gets 18mpg empty or loaded.


now if you could find a cheap late model car TDI like a VW or even import a BMW 1.8 TDI, they would give you 150ish hp and 250ish tq, more than enough for an old truck and would just SIP the diesel.

Nobody wants to do that though. Its not glamorous, everyone wants the magic pill to have a 350hp small block that gets 35+mpg.

[Corts60]

Originally Posted by joedoh

says he gets 18mpg empty or loaded.

Ouch. I would've thought those new diesels would have gotten better fuel than that. My Non-turbo 5.7 diesel gets 18 for city mileage. And that is from 30 year old technology.

[joedoh]

Originally Posted by Corts60

Ouch. I would've thought those new diesels would have gotten better fuel than that. My Non-turbo 5.7 diesel gets 18 for city mileage. And that is from 30 year old technology.

it really has to do with conversion efficiency of gas to power, you need a fixed amount of input (gas) for a fixed amount of output (power). So you both may get 18-21, but I will bet the duramax has significantly more power, at 300hp and 600 tq.

[LostMy65]

If one often buys new when it comes to purchasing a new car or truck, then it might make sense to spend the money to make our trucks fuel efficient if it now becomes our daily driver.
It may take many years to recover the investment, but so does buying a new car.
So our 1985 Honda or our 1998 chevy truck that we bought new is finally paying us back for keeping it all these years, but what is it worth? What does it look like? Our chevys will still look cool.
Posted via Mobile Device

[LostMy65]

Originally Posted by markeb01

This is a great thread topic, and thanks for posting. It will probably result in some good ideas that could help improve economy in our trucks.

When they finally outlaw gasoline I’m just going to swap in a universal neutron cell with my own adapter to keep the manual 4 speed. Since the neutron cell will have no moving parts, run silently, and never wear out, I’m finally going to install a huge stereo system so I can generate big block supercharged engine noises from under the hood!

But seriously, having lived through the gas crisis of the mid 70’s I just don’t have much enthusiasm for investing good money to make old vehicles fuel efficient in the modern sense. A lot of people back then traded in their mint condition gas guzzlers for expensive new cars which provided better gas mileage. Most never came close to recovering the lost investment in fuel savings. They saved gas but lost a lot of money.

And from a hot rodders perspective, available technology changed overnight. Normal performance carburetors were rebranded “racing” parts and the cost doubled. In their place all the new efficiency models flooded the market and magazine advertising. I actually paid good money for a couple of “smog carbs” that ran like complete crap. Economy cam grinds became a hot magazine topic, anti-reversion headers, along with high rear end gears, lightweight engine fans, and a bunch of other stuff all the way to cow magnets on the fuel line. It was an era that set enthusiasts back a lot of money, and turned out to be a fad that came and went leaving little history it ever even happened.

It’s like removing a perfectly functional TH350 for the improved gas savings of a 700R4. There’s no question the overdrive transmission is more efficient and saves on engine wear and mileage, but if there’s nothing wrong with the 350, it could arguably take 10 years of gas savings to pay back the initial investment of installing the 700R4. The same could be argued about changing to a smaller or newer more efficient engine.

Our trucks are heavy and about as aerodynamic as a brick. Mileage expectations of new cars can be near 30-40 mpg. I can’t imagine the investment needed to get one our trucks up to that range. My solution is to drive a 10 year old CRV for daily chores and keep the old truck for the weekends.

.
I know this is an old post, but recently I was thinking about this same topic and I remembered you made a post about the the miles you'd have to drive to recover the cost of any gas saving upgrade.
I've played around with this some:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/savemoney.shtml

[gar187er]

gas prices are dropping around here!!!! Oil is $37 a barrel...itll keep dropping!

not to $1/gallon, but im only paying $2.09 around here....

I smile when I stomp on it, worth every penny!

[AcampoDave]

There is much to said for a properly tuned motor. I have seen many an h.e.i distributor with crappy frozen up mechanical advances and a shot out vacum advance. Then if you compound that with poor driving habits, a poor cam selection, mondo exhaust pipes, a carb that is too big and running too rich, and a high winding rear differential..... the gas goes out the tailpipes. Sounds funny but I've seen many small blocks set up just that way in an otherwise stock vehicle with 8:1 compression. Driveability is gone and everybody's eyes are burning from the stink as it sits idleing at a stop light.

[vince1]

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/savemoney.shtml

Thanks for the link. I'll keep driving the VW TDI even though it is depreciating more with all the miles going on it. The truck sits until it gets a job, maybe once every couple of weeks, or more if I just have to drive it. Change it to 4.2 EFI and auto overdrive etc, etc, now that is too expensive and time consuming for this old man to do.

[goatless]

Cheap gas now is nice.

[Monte's62]

350 with fuel injection, 700r4, 3.07 gears, tune it like many have mentioned and you can see near 20 mpg on the highway.

[patrickk1]

Originally Posted by Monte's62

350 with fuel injection, 700r4, 3.07 gears, tune it like many have mentioned and you can see near 20 mpg on the highway.

A properly tuned quadrajet will get the same mpg as Fuel Injection.

[Blessed66]

Originally Posted by patrickk1

A properly tuned quadrajet will get the same mpg as Fuel Injection.

While I don't disagree, there is one word that comes up in the EFI vs. Carb debate I always felt was a tip in EFI's favor. Consistency.

Not wanting to derail this into a debate, but I'll put my money where my mouth is soon enough. MS TBI conversion in the works.

[BOE]

markeobe. well said. i like my tank. i didn't buy it for cross country i bought it because its cool. i could never afford to drive it every day. when i do people give me room unlike my everyday economy crap car that gets no respect. try running a 64 of the road?

[Monte's62]

Originally Posted by patrickk1

A properly tuned quadrajet will get the same mpg as Fuel Injection.

I don't disagree with that statement