[Shop-talk] 6 to 3 fuel saving

[Gerald Brazil]

If God wanted it to run on three cylinders She would have made it that way!

Seriously, if it does run, I think he will use almost as much gas because he
is basically pushing a brick through the air and it probably didn't have an
over abundance of hp to begin with. He will just have to open the throttle
wider to get where he wants to go.

-----Original Message-----
From: shop-talk-bounces+gerrybraz=cablespeed.com at autox.team.net
[mailto:shop-talk-bounces+gerrybraz=cablespeed.com at autox.team.net] On Behalf
Of Elton E. (Tony) Clark
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:08 PM
To: Shop Talk List
Subject: [Shop-talk] 6 to 3 fuel saving


*Okay, open your minds . . . the guy on the next bar stool opines that on
his straight six '95 Jeep Cherokee work car,  he is considering removing the
rocker arms and pushrods on every other cylinder in the firing order and
running it on three cylinders to save gas..  The closed cylinders would
resist rotation on compression but rebound on downstroke with little loss
except friction.  *
**
*I'm  thinking this would probably work for some saving but at a steady
state throttle opening, won't it just require about the same fuel to achieve
equilibrium with the wind resistance and rolling resistance?  Also, won't it
freak the ECU when 3 cylinders aren't working?*
**
*What do YOU think?*
**
*Tony*
You are subscribed as gerrybraz at cablespeed.com

Shop-talk mailing list

http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shop-talk

http://www.team.net/archive