Cams, exhaust and intake manifolding can greatly improve fuel economy and
power at the same time. It's not necessarily a trade off. Head design and
associated manifolding were originally done to be cheap to produce. You
can't do much about the head design but you can sure improve the
manifolding. Headers and dual carbs will greatly improve both breathing and
induction mixture distribution so that each cylinder gets it's fair share.
I have every reason to believe Alan's report of 20 MPG. By changing from
stock (except for Zenith carb), to Fenton headers and two Zenith carbs and
a mild Howard's M4F grind cam, my mileage went from ~ 9 empty to 13 empty
and 11 loaded with a 2700lb camper.
-Tom
At 01:36 PM 11/30/01 -0800, Allen Jones wrote:
>Why on earth would I want to pull my inline in favor of a V engine? The 261
>in the '50 has more power than I need and gets ~20 mpg with dual carbs.
>
>Allen in Seattle
>'50 3100
>http://students.washington.edu/jonesal/truck.html
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike " <passnb4u@earthlink.net>
>To: <oletrucks@autox.team.net>; <ldfinley@juno.com>
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:24 PM
>Subject: RE: [oletrucks] Fuel Injected V-6
>
>
> > Well, personally I don't think you'll see that kind of milage with a V6 in
> > one of these trucks.
> >
> > Take a look at the MPG figures for the new full size V6 (injected, etc)
> > and expect a bit less than they get.
> >
> > I think a correctly geared and OD'ed 350 with fuel injection could get in
> > the low 20's for MPG.
> >
> > Just my .02:)
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: <ldfinley@juno.com>
> > > To: <oletrucks@autox.team.net>
> > > Date: 11/30/01 11:32:29 AM
> > > Subject: [oletrucks] Fuel Injected V-6
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Has anybody out there experimented by pulling out their old 216 or 225
> > > and putting in a small to midsize V-6 with fuel injection attached to an
> > > automatic overdrive tranny. I'd like to upgrade, but I am thinking
>ahead
> > > of the next time gas goes over $2.00+/gal.
> > >
> > > I'm thinking of a 3.0 Liter F**d or a similar GM product replacement. I
> > > know a lot of us like the venerable 350, but my experience with them is
> > > that they are somewhat thirsty, except when parked. I think it would be
> > > grand to get 25 to 30 mpg as we cruise along, lookin good.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions or admonitions?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Larry
> > > 1951 3100
> > > OKC, OK
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> > > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> > > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> > > oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
> >
> >
> > --- Mike
> > --- passnb4u@earthlink.net
> > oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
>oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
Tom Allen
Seattle, WA
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
|