[Shop-talk] 6 to 3 fuel saving

[FRED E THOMAS]

Anybody remember the "Cadillac" 8-6-4 from a few years back, seemed to work 
O/K.  "

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Murray" <ericm at lne.com>
To: "Elton E. (Tony) Clark" <eltonclark at gmail.com>
Cc: "Shop Talk List" <shop-talk at autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Shop-talk] 6 to 3 fuel saving


> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 08:08:15PM -0500, Elton E. (Tony) Clark wrote:
>> *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?
>
> Yes.
>
> If it's driven at the same speed, the only savings will be the lack
> of valve train friction in 3 cylinders.
>
> That's not zero, but it's not very much.
>
> Switching to highway tread tires would do more.  As would
> keeping the tires a bit over inflated.  Or using the Cheroke to
> haul a bicycle to within commute distance to work and riding in.
>
> Of course halving the power would encurage a more sedate driving style
> which itself would result in increased mileage. But he could do that
> without touching the engine just by driving slower.
>
>
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net  http://www.team.net/donate.html
>
> You are subscribed as frede.thomas2 at verizon.net
>
> Shop-talk mailing list
>
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shop-talk
>
> http://www.team.net/archive