Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
07-09-2006, 06:05 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
I figure 45-50 mph is where aerodynamic factors become more important than
weight. Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.
Now Bill had the right idea of what to put in an old Jeep. I wonder how
much goatpower that 400 cid engine has? Or you could try a more modern four
cylinder, something capable of handling forced induction and a wide rpm
range.
Earle
"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:gMKdnU6vp9aC8izZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@rcn.net...
> Earle Horton wrote:
> > My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
> > injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26
mpg.
>
> It weighs close to 4,000 pounds which is roughly 2 times more than a
> Flat fender.
>
> Fuel economy isn't the be-all end-all goal, I'm just looking for
> opinions on the best power plant to start with. Assuming it had to
> achieve highway minimum speeds of 55 to 60 MPH (which to tell the truth
> is all I ever do in my YJ because of the aerodynamic's problem)
>
> I do of course realize there are better suited Cars for daily driving,
> that's pretty obviously not the point of my question.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
weight. Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.
Now Bill had the right idea of what to put in an old Jeep. I wonder how
much goatpower that 400 cid engine has? Or you could try a more modern four
cylinder, something capable of handling forced induction and a wide rpm
range.
Earle
"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:gMKdnU6vp9aC8izZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@rcn.net...
> Earle Horton wrote:
> > My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
> > injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26
mpg.
>
> It weighs close to 4,000 pounds which is roughly 2 times more than a
> Flat fender.
>
> Fuel economy isn't the be-all end-all goal, I'm just looking for
> opinions on the best power plant to start with. Assuming it had to
> achieve highway minimum speeds of 55 to 60 MPH (which to tell the truth
> is all I ever do in my YJ because of the aerodynamic's problem)
>
> I do of course realize there are better suited Cars for daily driving,
> that's pretty obviously not the point of my question.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
07-09-2006, 06:05 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
I figure 45-50 mph is where aerodynamic factors become more important than
weight. Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.
Now Bill had the right idea of what to put in an old Jeep. I wonder how
much goatpower that 400 cid engine has? Or you could try a more modern four
cylinder, something capable of handling forced induction and a wide rpm
range.
Earle
"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:gMKdnU6vp9aC8izZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@rcn.net...
> Earle Horton wrote:
> > My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
> > injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26
mpg.
>
> It weighs close to 4,000 pounds which is roughly 2 times more than a
> Flat fender.
>
> Fuel economy isn't the be-all end-all goal, I'm just looking for
> opinions on the best power plant to start with. Assuming it had to
> achieve highway minimum speeds of 55 to 60 MPH (which to tell the truth
> is all I ever do in my YJ because of the aerodynamic's problem)
>
> I do of course realize there are better suited Cars for daily driving,
> that's pretty obviously not the point of my question.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
weight. Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.
Now Bill had the right idea of what to put in an old Jeep. I wonder how
much goatpower that 400 cid engine has? Or you could try a more modern four
cylinder, something capable of handling forced induction and a wide rpm
range.
Earle
"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:gMKdnU6vp9aC8izZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@rcn.net...
> Earle Horton wrote:
> > My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
> > injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26
mpg.
>
> It weighs close to 4,000 pounds which is roughly 2 times more than a
> Flat fender.
>
> Fuel economy isn't the be-all end-all goal, I'm just looking for
> opinions on the best power plant to start with. Assuming it had to
> achieve highway minimum speeds of 55 to 60 MPH (which to tell the truth
> is all I ever do in my YJ because of the aerodynamic's problem)
>
> I do of course realize there are better suited Cars for daily driving,
> that's pretty obviously not the point of my question.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
07-09-2006, 06:20 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
Earle Horton wrote:
> I figure 45-50 mph is where aerodynamic factors become more important than
> weight.
half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
in that regard...
Not
"what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
> idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
> decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
> end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.
Fun
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> I figure 45-50 mph is where aerodynamic factors become more important than
> weight.
half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
in that regard...
Not
"what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
> idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
> decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
> end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.
Fun
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
07-09-2006, 06:20 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
Earle Horton wrote:
> I figure 45-50 mph is where aerodynamic factors become more important than
> weight.
half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
in that regard...
Not
"what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
> idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
> decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
> end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.
Fun
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> I figure 45-50 mph is where aerodynamic factors become more important than
> weight.
half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
in that regard...
Not
"what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
> idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
> decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
> end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.
Fun
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
07-09-2006, 06:20 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
Earle Horton wrote:
> I figure 45-50 mph is where aerodynamic factors become more important than
> weight.
half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
in that regard...
Not
"what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
> idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
> decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
> end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.
Fun
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> I figure 45-50 mph is where aerodynamic factors become more important than
> weight.
half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
in that regard...
Not
"what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
> idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
> decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
> end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.
Fun
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
07-09-2006, 07:02 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
About fifty.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
> and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
>
> What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
> in that regard...
>
> Not
> "what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
> Fun
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
> and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
>
> What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
> in that regard...
>
> Not
> "what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
> Fun
07-09-2006, 07:02 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
About fifty.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
> and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
>
> What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
> in that regard...
>
> Not
> "what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
> Fun
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
> and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
>
> What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
> in that regard...
>
> Not
> "what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
> Fun
07-09-2006, 07:02 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
About fifty.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
> and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
>
> What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
> in that regard...
>
> Not
> "what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
> Fun
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> half the wieght is going to have some impact regardless of aerodynamics
> and again this has got zip to do with the question. which was:
>
> What kind of MPG do old ****** engine's get and which of them was best
> in that regard...
>
> Not
> "what is your opinion of trying to get good MPG out of a ******"
> Fun
07-09-2006, 07:21 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
That was interesting but obviously in French, which makes me wonder did
Jeep sell any flat head sixes in the US or were they just for export?
Jeff DeWitt
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Jeep used a flathead four and six cylinder engines:
> http://perso.orange.fr/morbius/jeep....orisation.html
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>
>>Did they ever put a flat head six in a Jeep?
>>
>>For that matter was there ever a flat head four? The F head is only
>>partly a flat head.
>>
>>It really depends on the engine and the car itself. I used to have a 57
>>Studebaker wagon with a flat head six, NEAT car but both it an I would
>>have been a lot happier with a Stude 259 V8 in it.
>>
>>Again, I only have experience with Studebakers but an early Lark with a
>>the six and overdrive will get in the low 20's. You won't win any drag
>>races but it will get you there and will keep up with modern traffic.
>>
>>There are also things you can do, there is a conversion kit available
>>that enables the use of a more modern 2bbl carburetor and it actually
>>increases both power and gas mileage. Then you can also get performance
>>parts but I suspect that would defeat your purpose... although with that
>>carb conversion, a mild compression increase, and with electronic
>>ignition I bet that same Lark could approach 30 MPG.
>>
>>To stay on topic I understand that same little Studebaker Champion six
>>is pretty much a direct bolt in replacement for the F head and would
>>give you better performance and possibly better mileage, especially with
>> those upgrades.
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>Simon Juncal wrote:
>>
>>>What kind of mileage could the old small displacment 4 and 6 flatties
>>>get? What was the best engine for mileage?
>>>
>>>Contemplating a resto-daily driver flattie
>>>
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Jeep sell any flat head sixes in the US or were they just for export?
Jeff DeWitt
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Jeep used a flathead four and six cylinder engines:
> http://perso.orange.fr/morbius/jeep....orisation.html
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>
>>Did they ever put a flat head six in a Jeep?
>>
>>For that matter was there ever a flat head four? The F head is only
>>partly a flat head.
>>
>>It really depends on the engine and the car itself. I used to have a 57
>>Studebaker wagon with a flat head six, NEAT car but both it an I would
>>have been a lot happier with a Stude 259 V8 in it.
>>
>>Again, I only have experience with Studebakers but an early Lark with a
>>the six and overdrive will get in the low 20's. You won't win any drag
>>races but it will get you there and will keep up with modern traffic.
>>
>>There are also things you can do, there is a conversion kit available
>>that enables the use of a more modern 2bbl carburetor and it actually
>>increases both power and gas mileage. Then you can also get performance
>>parts but I suspect that would defeat your purpose... although with that
>>carb conversion, a mild compression increase, and with electronic
>>ignition I bet that same Lark could approach 30 MPG.
>>
>>To stay on topic I understand that same little Studebaker Champion six
>>is pretty much a direct bolt in replacement for the F head and would
>>give you better performance and possibly better mileage, especially with
>> those upgrades.
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>Simon Juncal wrote:
>>
>>>What kind of mileage could the old small displacment 4 and 6 flatties
>>>get? What was the best engine for mileage?
>>>
>>>Contemplating a resto-daily driver flattie
>>>
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
07-09-2006, 07:21 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Q for the old timers (Flat fender fuel mileage)
That was interesting but obviously in French, which makes me wonder did
Jeep sell any flat head sixes in the US or were they just for export?
Jeff DeWitt
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Jeep used a flathead four and six cylinder engines:
> http://perso.orange.fr/morbius/jeep....orisation.html
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>
>>Did they ever put a flat head six in a Jeep?
>>
>>For that matter was there ever a flat head four? The F head is only
>>partly a flat head.
>>
>>It really depends on the engine and the car itself. I used to have a 57
>>Studebaker wagon with a flat head six, NEAT car but both it an I would
>>have been a lot happier with a Stude 259 V8 in it.
>>
>>Again, I only have experience with Studebakers but an early Lark with a
>>the six and overdrive will get in the low 20's. You won't win any drag
>>races but it will get you there and will keep up with modern traffic.
>>
>>There are also things you can do, there is a conversion kit available
>>that enables the use of a more modern 2bbl carburetor and it actually
>>increases both power and gas mileage. Then you can also get performance
>>parts but I suspect that would defeat your purpose... although with that
>>carb conversion, a mild compression increase, and with electronic
>>ignition I bet that same Lark could approach 30 MPG.
>>
>>To stay on topic I understand that same little Studebaker Champion six
>>is pretty much a direct bolt in replacement for the F head and would
>>give you better performance and possibly better mileage, especially with
>> those upgrades.
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>Simon Juncal wrote:
>>
>>>What kind of mileage could the old small displacment 4 and 6 flatties
>>>get? What was the best engine for mileage?
>>>
>>>Contemplating a resto-daily driver flattie
>>>
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Jeep sell any flat head sixes in the US or were they just for export?
Jeff DeWitt
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Jeep used a flathead four and six cylinder engines:
> http://perso.orange.fr/morbius/jeep....orisation.html
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>
>>Did they ever put a flat head six in a Jeep?
>>
>>For that matter was there ever a flat head four? The F head is only
>>partly a flat head.
>>
>>It really depends on the engine and the car itself. I used to have a 57
>>Studebaker wagon with a flat head six, NEAT car but both it an I would
>>have been a lot happier with a Stude 259 V8 in it.
>>
>>Again, I only have experience with Studebakers but an early Lark with a
>>the six and overdrive will get in the low 20's. You won't win any drag
>>races but it will get you there and will keep up with modern traffic.
>>
>>There are also things you can do, there is a conversion kit available
>>that enables the use of a more modern 2bbl carburetor and it actually
>>increases both power and gas mileage. Then you can also get performance
>>parts but I suspect that would defeat your purpose... although with that
>>carb conversion, a mild compression increase, and with electronic
>>ignition I bet that same Lark could approach 30 MPG.
>>
>>To stay on topic I understand that same little Studebaker Champion six
>>is pretty much a direct bolt in replacement for the F head and would
>>give you better performance and possibly better mileage, especially with
>> those upgrades.
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>Simon Juncal wrote:
>>
>>>What kind of mileage could the old small displacment 4 and 6 flatties
>>>get? What was the best engine for mileage?
>>>
>>>Contemplating a resto-daily driver flattie
>>>
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com