Automotive myths

[slomotion]

Not exactly a testament to mileage, but we thought it was amusing....
Back in the 60's I was stationed on a ship who had an electrician that was into all the gimmicks to increase mileage. He ordered some little fan gizmo that attached to the top of his single barrel carb. This "Turbo Jet something, something" had a wire sticking out of it and he wired it to a toggle switch so he could "monitor the data".
One duty night we added a quart of gas to his tank. Three days later we did it again. This went on for a couple weeks and he started bragging about his mileage being increased even better than he thought it would. We stopped adding gas for a couple of weeks and he began to get puzzled that the mileage was "dropping off". Then we started siphoning out a quart on regular intervals. This drove him crazy.
We never learned who outed us, but somebody did and we had to find another source of amusement.

[rgunlock]

^^^

[Troy Sr]

Originally Posted by motornut

I thought the higher octane gas is better.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...emium-gas.html
what do you think now?

From a friend I used to race with and is a petroleum engineer at a local refinery here in the SF Bay Area. There's more latent energy in the lower octane fuel than the higher octane fuel, the only reason to waste money on the higher octane fuel is if you have higher compression in your engine, then you will make more power. You should run the lowest octane fuel that you can without having detonation in your engine. We used 110 octane race fuel when we raced but only because it was at the track and everyone had to use it, that way we were all on the same foot. Mine ran better on the 87 octane but it would not pass the tests after the race so you would be disqualified.

[Troy Sr]

Originally Posted by special-K

My '72 had a myth till I changed the plug wires

Ahahahahaha NOW THAT'S FUUUNNNYYY!

[Troy Sr]

Originally Posted by cory d

my friends first gen accourd gets 35 at its worst, maybe 50 when cruising, its a 1.8 i think, 340k on it. funny how VW's and hondas were getting 40+ mpg...........30+ years ago

My son's first car was a '92 Honda Civic VX. They were designed to get 50+mpg they are one of the most sought after cars for the "Hyper Miler" guys. They do everything to get the highest gas mileage. That said my son sold his for twice what the regular ones go for. Then we say it a couple of months later on craigslist for twice what my son sold it for.

ps it was a 1.6 L

[Steeveedee]

Originally Posted by Troy Sr

From a friend I used to race with and is a petroleum engineer at a local refinery here in the SF Bay Area. There's more latent energy in the lower octane fuel than the higher octane fuel, the only reason to waste money on the higher octane fuel is if you have higher compression in your engine, then you will make more power. You should run the lowest octane fuel that you can without having detonation in your engine. We used 110 octane race fuel when we raced but only because it was at the track and everyone had to use it, that way we were all on the same foot. Mine ran better on the 87 octane but it would not pass the tests after the race so you would be disqualified.

That's totally true and people are wasting a ton of money buying higher octane fuel.

On another note, I had a '69 Camaro with a 327 and a 4-speed that I got 23 MPG driving cross country from California to Illinois for my A-School.

[Coley]

That gas mileage is a major or key driver of vehicle costs....ie: paying at the pumps.

Fuel is one of the smallest costs you will probably have to worry about relative to overall 'true' vehicle costs....particularly if the vehicle is new or near new.

However, we have been trained and indoctrinated to think that we must 'save at the pumps' in order to personally save money on a vehicle....lol.

Many people don't realize that in buying a new car and financing and insuring it...the last thing they need to worry about is gas mileage draining their pocket books.

I have also found this myth interesting and somewhat entertaining.

This begs the question: how would you go about buying and running a vehicle from a purely maximum economical standpoint?...that would perhaps be its own interesting thread.

All good
Coley

[richards72chevy]

Electric cars are pollution free.In my opinion I think they will harm the environment more in the long run with the batteries.Plus the mining of the lithium to make the batteries and the infrastructure to get it going.

[slomotion]

Whew! Old thread!

I don't know enough about battery technology to know if going to electric cars/trucks is a good move or not.

What I do know is a large percentage of the price of a gallon of gas is taxes that are supposed to help the states maintain roads and highways.
I have an acquaintance with a Tesla. He's had it for at least a couple of years, but not buying gas, he's not paid any road taxes for that same period of time. Where will the equitable line be in this case?

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out........

[Stocker]

Originally Posted by richards72chevy

Electric cars are pollution free.In my opinion I think they will harm the environment more in the long run with the batteries.Plus the mining of the lithium to make the batteries and the infrastructure to get it going.

I share your concerns about impacts on the environment from lithium mining. However, while electric cars may be pollution free, the electricity has to come from somewhere.
Many electric generation plants are fueled by coal, oil, or natural gas, all of which contribute to pollution.

[The Rocknrod]

Originally Posted by Stocker

I share your concerns about impacts on the environment from lithium mining. However, while electric cars may be pollution free, the electricity has to come from somewhere.
Many electric generation plants are fueled by coal, oil, or natural gas, all of which contribute to pollution.

Correct and with enough added load there will have to be more plants built to keep up with it, so pollution free? No!

[special-K]

Yeah, they aren't pollution-free. The idea is the electricity it takes to make them go requires a fraction of pollution producing energy to produce. And they aren't spreading pollution everywhere they go. But the myth comes in for all those who do consider electric cars pollution-free. Most who are pushing them forward live in urban/suburban areas where everything they do is supported by the existing infrastructure. In the country I can save energy by walking outside and taking a leak, burn firewood, grow my own vegetables, hunt my own meat, even get water from a spring or purify water from one of the streams running nearby. I have electric heat and I didn't ever think that was considered going green. I try to conserve energy use and that is my biggest downfall

[4u2nv]

Originally Posted by Steeveedee

That's totally true and people are wasting a ton of money buying higher octane fuel.

On another note, I had a '69 Camaro with a 327 and a 4-speed that I got 23 MPG driving cross country from California to Illinois for my A-School.

Todays 87 octane just isn't the same as them days though , to much corn juice added

[truckster]

Here's a fuel mileage myth: That anything you add to your vehicle or your fuel tank will have a bigger effect than your right foot.

My niece came to me because her Toyota truck was getting far worse mileage than was advertised for the model. She asked me about tuning, mileage devices, etc. I told her to tell her husband to lighten up his right foot. She thought for a minute and said, "Well, he has gotten three speeding tickets since we bought the truck."

Driving habits have far more to do with fuel mileage than most people realize.

[Greasey Harley]

Most excellent thread resurrection

Originally Posted by Troy Sr

...There's more latent energy in the lower octane fuel than the higher octane fuel...
...if you have higher compression in your engine, then you will make more power.
You should run the lowest octane fuel that you can without having detonation in your engine. ....

Basically true. However, modern vehicles use multiple sensors (ie. knock sensor) to monitor engine performance.
For instance, a modern vehicle will compensate for cheap fuel on a hot day at high altitude. The vehicle will not ping, it will basically "detune its self". That vehicle might gain performance with a higher octane fuel.
Generally one may not notice this, as most of todays rigs have hp/tq to spare. If you're driving something that is woefully underpowered, this can become apparent very quickly.
Source:
I drive a 4 banger Jeep on mud tires over a mountain pass regularly.

[toms68cst]

xx

[Blue GMC]

Originally Posted by Greasey Harley

Most excellent thread resurrection



Source:
I drive a 4 banger Jeep on mud tires over a mountain pass regularly.

Yep if you want real fun try a CJ7 with a 4 banger, auto, and 33s on it for an 800 mile drive home after you bought it off the Evilbay. Have to gain as much speed as you can down every hill to make it up the next one.

[LONGHAIR]

Originally Posted by Blue GMC

Yep if you want real fun try a CJ7 with a 4 banger, auto, and 33s on it for an 800 mile drive home after you bought it off the Evilbay. Have to gain as much speed as you can down every hill to make it up the next one.

Most of the problem you are having there is with gearing. CJ-7s didn't come with anything near a 33" tire. So that lift and tire diameter increase has put it way out of it's operating range, made worse by the fact that carburetors don't deal with the low RPM cruising that comes along with it.
I can assure you that a simple ratio swap will help it with both performance and mileage at the same time. But at this point, it will probably cost more than whatever you just paid for a 40 year old Jeep.


BTW, 3 years is not that big of a deal, I have seen them come back from over 10.

[Sheepdip]

Here's my almost all original 46 CJ2A it makes the trek to 10,000 ft on Sonora Pass almost every summer at least once. 26 percent grade in a couple of spots.

Original 134 Cu. In. 60 HP Hurricane 4 Banger and 5.38 differentials, you do not get there very fast, or carve up any twisty/curvy mountain roads with it but gets there eventually, it's all about gearing!

I put 11" Jeep Wagoneer drum brakes on it several years ago, they are like having power disc brakes and sure help coming off the pass. The old 9" dia. factory center pivot non-binding brakes were pretty scary to say the least.

[special-K]

CJ2As are my favorite Jeep. The original concept of what a Jeep was created for and they do it well. Start modifying and you will end up with nothing but the body before Properly matching all components... except better brakes

[LONGHAIR]

Mine too, followed closely by CJ-5, though I haven't messed with either in years. Back in the early 80s I worked in a 4 x 4 shop and owned a '79 CJ-5 and worked on a lot of other Jeep models. Back then was the beginning of the tire size growth era and the lift laws that came along in response to it.
It was amazing to see how many guys would run around with 40"-42"-44" tires and stock gearing. After a while of dealing with it, many did learn from those who did figure it out.
Many of the GM guys did the swap as part of the repair from the inevitable Gov-Loc failure.

[special-K]

Yeah, back when 36"+ tires came out the auto myth was you could jack it up to make them fit and you had a badass 4wd. I guess I was one of them. I ran 37/14.50s on Dana 44/Dana 60 axles with 4.10s and 4spd. It actually seemed pretty bad. Most new trucks at that time had gutless engines, taller gearing, lighter rear end, and automatic transmission. I never broke an axle, after I replaced the outer and spindle the p.o. broke, I suppose, joyriding it one more time. It only had 11-15s then, but had Warn Loc-O-Matics that would break if you wheeled w/o manually locking them. I learned that the hard expensive way myself.

[Stocker]

Originally Posted by special-K

.... Warn Loc-O-Matics that would break if you wheeled w/o manually locking them. I learned that the hard expensive way myself.

Good info to know.... those were on my K20 when I bought it.... no damage, but if I'm working the truck hard, I lock 'em in.

I bought another pair from a board member so I have spares just in case.

[LONGHAIR]

Yeah Tim, a lot of that happened back then and once they were stuffed in there, the truck became useless as an off-roader. They barely fit, so the suspension travel was virtually zero because of interference.
The 4 speed was at least some help in accelerating from a stand-still. Automatics got well and truly abused by that.
Those times did bring us the the birth of the "Mall Crawler"

I did break an axle or 2 back then, but I was abusing a Dana 44. The 74 C-20 with a 454, 4 speed, metallic puck clutch, Tru-Trac front, Detroit Locker rear, 4.56 gears and 40" Regul Trailblazers were a bit much for the short-side front axle under the foot of a mid 20s kid who worked in a shop who could fix it.
I did break it two different ways though, once the joint failed, the other was the outer shaft itself. I guess those are places not ways....the way was simple, right foot and traction.

The GM automatic hubs of the 80 weren't any better. I replaced countless pairs of them over the years back then.

[leddzepp]

“Air conditioning works, just needs a recharge”.