Radical Gas Miser Ford Windsor Small-Block

I have similar ideas with a 283. full roller, windage, aand other performance tricks, to up the power with a smaller cam. I haven't dug into it too deep, but am very interested in what you may find

 

I wasn't clear in an earlier post.

Do not bother with a 221, 260, or 289 block.

You need a late ROLLER-CAM 302 block. You can get hyd-roller retrofit stuff for the early blocks but it'll cost you MASSIVELY more than running the late OE hyd-roller setup.

If efficiency matters you don't want sliding stuff inside, and you can do much better on the lift-vs-duration tradeoff with a roller. Could argue you ought to go roller rockers too.

For that matter, for all the effort you're going to expend, you would be better off just running a complete '96-97.5 Explorer engine with the good GT40 heads (or '97.5-2000 if you can accommodate the bolt pattern of the GT40P heads.) It's got a decent torque cam, the exhaust was crippled to fit in the tight Explorer frame but you can do better.

(and run the Explorer EFI, EDIS, and EEC w/a Moates Quarterhorse, but I can't say that here.)

 

This should be H.A.M.B. friendly So let's go back to the Jimmy Carter "gas crisis" days and dig up a few tricks from the past.First is this:http://www.summitracing.com/parts/cro-15206/overview/make/ford now about those heads use the 260 heads:http://www.mre-books.com/interchange/interchange5.html we want a high velocity intake manifold :http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-Edelbr...Parts_Accessories&hash=item3380a4519c&vxp=mtr The small primaries in the Economaster was always a plus:http://www.ebay.com/itm/Holley-4360...Parts_Accessories&hash=item2a2a7b8f2b&vxp=mtr Since your car is a full size Ford you need torque to get it moving so a 302 block would be a start and there are advantages to going overdrive transmissions as they have a lower first gear to get you rolling so an AOD would be a good choice or T-5 if you like to have a bigger calf muscle on your left leg. MSD 5's had just started out around that era so that may be something to look at.Small primary headers 1 1/2" should be on the list also.We actually had results around 26+ MPG with these combos "back in the day".

 

o/t alert!!!!!!!

 

I had a 302 in an early series Bronco that got 24 on the highway. Had a tiny 4 barrel carb on a Wyand dual plane manifold. The guy that sold it to me called it an economizer. I don't remember what it was exactly. The gears were 4:11, with an automatic transmission.

 

What ever you do, don't run the 255 heads, the ports are so small that its almost impossible to put your finger in them.

 

The E6SE 5.0 heads are a high swirl design that may be good for your project. The valves are shrouded and don't flow as well as the E7TE heads. They were used on the non-HO 5.0 through the late 80's. They won't fit a 255 block, but like others have suggested, the roller cam block is a better choice anyway.

 

How about a 302 roller long rod build with 400 chevy rods speed o motive used to offer a chevy rod kit.

 

You can get mid 20's without much effort or upper 20's with some effort. Pick your battle.

Aerodynamics has a lot to do with it too. My brother drove an '85 Mustang GT 5 speed from near Rochester, NY to Memphis, TN and back to a drag race and averaged right around 29 mpg. It was a totally stock engine, T5 speed car with factory 2.73 gears.

'85 was the only year with a carb and a roller cam.

My recipe is as follows....

Weiand Stealth intake
625 cfm carb
Crane Compucam 2020 Camshaft
1.6:1 Roller Rockers
Thumper of Orange Park Ported E7TE Heads
10:1 Static Compression Ratio

 

For what ever reason the late firing order 5.0 in my fairlane beats the early 302 in the sedan delivery every time, both weigh almost the same and the final drive is super close but that Fairlane will get 24 MPG on the hi-way all the time

 

You can machine the rear flange off of a 260/289 crank and run it in a roller 302 block. I have a 260 crank in a roller block that is in my International hot rod.

 

I think you are probably on the right track. I DO agree with those that are telling you the 255 heads are the wrong choice. HINT:I would be looking more at chamber shape than small ports/valves. You are also on the right track with the longer rods, it will reduce cylinder wall loading (read friction)as the piston changes direction at either end of the stroke. You also want narrow rings, napier second, a good ring package will be of more value for friction reduction than the roller cam, although that would help as well. The smaller bore will help with flame travel, and reduce crevice volume, which is something else you want to be aware of. think thin head gaskets and relatively high top ring placement. the smaller bore will also pay dividends in reduced ring drag.

 

The gear and final drive ratio is the biggest factor. My dad had a 66 Catalina wagon years ago with 389 2 bbl 2:56 gear. I rebuilt the carb changed the plugs and dropped in an hei, that car got 20 mpg on the highway all day long. 25 mpg wouldn't have been hard to get with an overdrive.

 

Its good to see so many posts. Mid 20's seem to be about par for the course in stock to mild trim for these engines, with high 20's to low 30's possible under hypermiling driving techniques (ie, drafting, coasting, etc.).

As to physically possible, I guess I'll have to do some hands-on research.

As to theory, a smaller bore will reach full ignition sooner (the flame front has less distance to cover), thus needing less ignition advance for optimum peak pressure timing. High piston dwell time will allow for a slower flame speed (as seen with lean mixtures), while still building peak pressure at optimum.

One problem that I hear of with the 255 block, is that the 289 / 302 heads won't fit; the valves would hit the block. Intake is different, too.

Porting the heads *might* increase flow, which could help (or hurt) the goal. My goal is for as high of an intake velocity as I could get. (meaning, small valves, small ports, small intake manifold runners, and small carburetor venturis.

If I could, a tuned intake long-ram type setup (I'd be kind of partial to twin 4-packs of side-draft 1 bbls, laid out in a cross-ram Individual Runner configuration), on a dry (no coolant passages) custom manifold.

Turbo'd is a different ball-game, different external recipe.

I'd like to keep the static compression as high as I can get, and only boost enough to provide positive pressure so that the back-firing flame front cant 'climb' up-stream to reach the compressed charge in the turbo, or get past the turbo to ignite the carb.

And, of course, the yunik recipe of VERY HIGH INTAKE CHARGE TEMPERATURE. (~ 350 degs F.) 50 mpg off of a 151 (2.5 L) 4 cyl, pushing 250 ponies, etc.

I might be able to translate that into ~ 40 mpg, 375 horses, out of a modified smogger 255 (244), which is still about 3 times what I'm accustomed to getting with my daily drivers.

40 mpg is a hell of a lot different than 24 mpg.

which, is also almost un-heard of in ANY V-8.

 

Two things to consider here, 1) any mileage friendly cam is going to have pretty minimal lift numbers and 2) you can lightly notch the top of the bore for intake valve clearance.

 

Sir,
Not to sound disrespectful, because you seem to have done some homework on this idea, but do you seriously think you can beat (outperform) modern engineering and technology with an "ancient" engine and bolt-on parts?

Even if you could, it's basically OT for this forum.

 

Troym you have obviously done some homework on this. Can you tell me the recipe in detail for the Adiabatic motor. I have read several articles on it and have an idea what he was up to. But don`t know how he controlled detonation etc. would like more details if you have them.

 

I don't know if I'd agree that it's "Off Topic" for this forum.
Here's why:

Things in this world are changing. Remember a year or so ago when the state of California was trying to change laws that would basically get all older cars that weren't currently used on the road crushed & destroyed? Hot Rod Magazine was ALL OVER that issue for MONTHS.

Obama just made a speech yesterday making a plea that we as a country get completely off of oil in something like 10 years.
And these are just two things that come to my mind immediately.

We need to start thinking outside the box, at least a little bit. And even if it's not your "thing" or my "thing", we have to acknowledge that there are some very very powerful forces in this country (not to mention the radicals) that are totally against what we do as a hobby, and those same forces wouldn't think twice if we, and our rods, were flat-out eliminated or outlawed (again...reference that deal in California from two years ago).

Don't get me wrong, but just think about this for a second and set your personal feelings and opinions aside: Wouldn't it be GREAT if we could do some things that the radical environmentalists might actually appreciate? And do it without losing our the things we hold dear?

What if we COULD get a 50 year old motor to get 30 MPG, yet be in a COOL rod, sound COOL, and look at least somewhat traditional?

What if we COULD take a totally rad, period-correct 50's tail dragger Lead Sled, get over 20 MPG or so, run it on propane or something, and make the carbon footprint like next to nothing, or get it at least close to the neighborhood of what the manufacturers are doing now with new cars?
They talk about "carbon footprint" all the time. Well, we "recycle" cars....seriously, we do. That creates a smaller carbon footprint then junking them, right? They'd have no choice but to like that or appreciate that, because if they didn't they'd be hippocrites.

I would think this concept might be attainable with roadsters, model A's, etc. just due to the shear lack of weight and size of them.

Maybe I'm dreaming, but the things I see our local & federal governments doing, and the direction they are taking, I think it's probably only a matter of time before they come at us (as a hobby & culture) again. And that really worries me. I'd rather be over-prepared then surprised by legislation. I don't think having these discussions is a bad thing at all. (that being said, yes, I love our 390 automatic...don't get me wrong, it's not the point I'm trying to make here, and no, I'm not the proverbial treehugger either. I'm a car guy just like everybody else here. I just pay way too much attention to what is happening around me then the average American).

The other thing is that if you think about it, it could really open up some serious financial opportunities for companies & business people in the hobby. Think of the possibilities.

Just my $.02.
Feel free to bash me.

 

I didn't read all the comments above, but did anyone mention aerodynamics? Even if it were possible to transplant the drivetrain from one of your 24 mpg daily drivers into a less aero-efficient, older vehicle, you might be lucky to get 20 mpg.

 

You mean like flying in private jets and riding in stretch limos to attend a "save the earth" convention? Many of those people are beyond hypocritical. My favorite was Al Gore's family owning a huge stake in Occidental Petroleum, while he jets a round the world promoting his "Inconvenient Truth" movie. The real truth is he probably uses at least 100x the energy any single hot rodder would ever use.

 

I know. I agree.
But our problem is that knowing that "truth" doesn't stop THEM from coming after US.

Do as I SAY, not as I DO.
You hit the nail right on the head.

 

Another stumbling block for sure.

 

No bashing, just respectful disagreement. Not to say that this subject is not interesting, but this forum is for traditional tech. Just making it appear on the outside to be traditional is like saying that PT Cruisers are on-topic.

 

More like 12 to 20 times, but that is just his 4000 square foot home. Someone checked up on his gas and electric bills a few years ago and found he was spending nearly $30,000 a year. In his defense, he pointed out that there were several buildings on the property besides the house, and that the energy bills included the heated pool.

Check out any other rich greeny like David Suzuki or Barbra Streisand and you will find the same story.

A few years ago David Suzuki chartered a Greyhound bus and rode across Canada from coast to coast, all by himself, to promote green energy. I must say, it did me a lot of good. Since then I have never felt guilty about driving my car no matter how wasteful or inefficient, since I know no matter what I do, I`m still better than him.

In 2009 in Copenhagen they had a big environmental convention. They were bringing in limousines from as far away as Germany to keep up with the demand. None of the delegates would ride a bus or even a taxi, they all had to have a limo for the 2 block ride from the hotel to the conference center.

The second irony was that the conference was nearly shut down by an unseasonable blizzard (in November).

The third was that this is when some anonymous hacker released the `Harry read me`files which exposed the leading global warming scientists at the University of East Anglia and the UN as frauds who were cooking their numbers, faking their results, and basically making the whole global warming crisis up.

 

Well, this thread just spun straight down the crapper....

 

This is in interesting topic, and not quite as off topic as some might believe. I haven't delved into the subject too deep, but if I recall correctly, there was another Atiabatic engine developed in the 50's using a Chevy six. There were a lot of expieriments at the time for more power-Nitro in drag cars is one, and a similar E"nd of Oil" attitude, that led to such things as the turbine car, and fords infamous, if only a drawing, Nuclear car, the "Nucleon". a little later, but still in the time period for the Hamb was a turbocharged, intercooled 57 T bird, that had an early Hemi. Way above the tech level of most rodders of the day, but developed witout efi and computers . With all the vets from ww2 and Korea coming back as trained aircraft mechanics, and other related skills, there was quite a bit of ingenuity.
my .02 worth.

 

In the interest of being "traditional" lets take a look at this link:http://www.firstcarnow.com/first-natural-gas-car.htm Natural gas cars came into being in the 1930's,one of the by products of the oil being produced in the Bakken is huge natural gas reserves.When I retired I invested some 401K into companies working the oil fields so I get updates and one of the things being talked about is companies setting up natural gas filling stations that will be replacing diesel in commercial trucks,you can look up this stock (CLNE) which is on the way up,on the downside some of these filling stations are getting financial backing from China.There are also auto manufacturers looking at natural gas cars in the future.One hot-rodding pioneer that worked with propane and natural gas was Ak Miller whose company Ak Miller Enterprises is still around,you can do a Google search for more info on his achievements.A fuel 1/3 the price of conventional gasoline could make for some fun cruising I suppose.More about natural gas "hot rods" here:http://speedbuster.blogspot.com/2008/07/ngvs-racing-evolution-into-future.html

 

NG is great stuff. The only problem is transporting/distributing it. It needs to be piped., meaning we'd need a nationwide network of pipes that nobody wants to pay for.

 

I just read an article about fracking for natural gas, and the reason the government/power brokers/etc. are soo against fracking is because it's way way way cheaper than traditional gasoline (you can figure the rest of the story on your own).
That being said, I saw in the Wall Street Journal that Waste Management has converted 19,000 of it's truck fleet to natural gas, and as of 2012, they saved a whopping $18,000+ per vehicle on fuel costs PER YEAR, PLUS now have a smaller carbon footprint.

And after reading the 3-4 posts above this one, yes, I think this discussion fully fits the "traditional hot rod" outline, as guys have been trying to do these types of things in the hot rod community for what, almost 60 years?

I think this is a great discussion of ideas and viewpoints. (although I do admit I wish we didn't need to have it).

 

Please get rid of the political BS so this thread has a chance of surviving.