water for fuel

[tRustyK5]

I was also very intrigued by the possibilities of Crowers 6 cycle engine...I recall seeing that about a year or so ago.

In the interim I really think the most cost effective answer on a large scale is for manufacturers to start selling more diesel powered vehicles here in north america. It is the simplest answer to the current problem. The product line already exists for all manufacturers, and would only need some minor changes to sell the product here...and the diesel technology is more fuel efficient than hybrids, with a much smaller 'carbon footprint' to build and maintain than hybrids. The infrastructure for refueling and service is already in place too.

If I can get 26 mpg out of a full size pick-up with 30 year old technology, no computer, poor aerodynamic's, and weighing over 4000 lbs it's hard to imagine the big 6 manufacturers not being able to nearly double that...

Rene

 

[throttleissues]

Jon, now that the thread is just wandering, I used to have a '65 LB with a 292, 3sp and 4.10s. On small street tires (read: revving the piss out of it up to 90mph) it got 16mpg day after day. I always wanted to try one with a 5sp and see how good it would do with some lower revs. Haven't run across one since I've had the means to actually do it.I think mileage would be pretty damn good.

 

[throttleissues]

tRustyk5, the future of diesel isn't as rosy as it appeared just a couple of years ago. The new emmissions standards are flat rediculous. I just went to a class on the new Detroit engines and emmissions systems last week. The standards are going to increase initial cost and maint costs, besides affecting the power output. How well the new engines will do at performance while they try to comply remains to be seen. Also, we've already seen the fuel industry's answer to the huge amount of diesel truck sales. The mileage on my Duramax isn't good enough to offset the extra charge for buying diesel lately. I'm pretty much only using it for towing, no longer using it to run around town.

 

[tRustyK5]

Funny how in a more crowded region they're not as freaky with the emissions standards for diesel as they are here. The reason the D-max, CTD's and PSD's don't get great mileage is the factory has them all turned way up...I guess they think if it doesn't make 400 hp it won't sell. Any of those three can make some very significant numbers if they would only turn them down to a more reasonable power level. As you know the only way to make more power with a diesel is to up boost and fuel rates...

I'd be more than happy with a 220-250 hp D-max that got way better fuel economy...

I still think they could spend a few bucks getting the emissions figured out to suit North America and be billions ahead of the game compared to Hybrid research and production.

Rene

 

[jonrpick]

Jon, now that the thread is just wandering, I used to have a '65 LB with a 292, 3sp and 4.10s. On small street tires (read: revving the piss out of it up to 90mph) it got 16mpg day after day. I always wanted to try one with a 5sp and see how good it would do with some lower revs. Haven't run across one since I've had the means to actually do it.I think mileage would be pretty damn good.

Well... congrats for being the 1st not to either say

1) it's cheaper to build a SBC than a L6
or
2) 292's all get bad gas mileage

292's only came in 3/4 ton trucks, usually with 4.10's, and always with a restrictive intake pulling through an even more restrictive carb. My plan is to do away with that intake setup and put it through an OD tranny, like you suggested. I'm still seriously considering forced induction when power is needed, but otherwise, I think I'll be fine cruising around with under 300 cubes.

I used to get a solid 17mpg on the highway with the 305, I don't see why a 292 would get any less.

Honestly... I think there's enough of us street-driving C/K owners to where we could actually get a pretty cool thread going where everyone's aim was better fuel economy. I'd be down.

 

[BGKYK5]

The new emmissions standards are flat rediculous. I just went to a class on the new Detroit engines and emmissions systems last week. The standards are going to increase initial cost and maint costs, besides affecting the power output.

And lower fuel economy.

Rene, there is a rumor of a smaller displacement D-max on the way.....

 

[MaxPF]

Now THAT's Funny. They teach you to say "Do you want fries with that, sir?"

Those are the folks with the liberal arts degrees

 

[LVJimmy]

Natural gas is also a good choice as long as you don't drive long distances at one time. A dedicated natural gas car/truck would perform as well as a gasoline vehicle. The tanks would get to heavy and large if you needed any driving range.

 

[throttleissues]

292's only came in 3/4 ton trucks, usually with 4.10's, and always with a restrictive intake pulling through an even more restrictive carb. My plan is to do away with that intake setup and put it through an OD tranny, like you suggested. I'm still seriously considering forced induction when power is needed, but otherwise, I think I'll be fine cruising around with under 300 cubes.

Mine was a 1/2 ton, but I can't be sure it was the original engine. I do know it was a 292, because I rebuilt it assuming it was a 250. The 292 crank won't turn past a 250 cam.I found out the 292 cams had clearance flats for the crank throws. There was a retired fireman around L.A. that was selling crossflow heads for those. He had several drag cars using 292s. One even had 2 engines end-to-end. He had kinda made an inline 12, and clocked the cranks to make it fire like an inline 12. Really cool stuff. I saw him run the 12 cyl rail at LACR a couple times.

 

[noJeepshere]

Honestly... I think there's enough of us street-driving C/K owners to where we could actually get a pretty cool thread going where everyone's aim was better fuel economy. I'd be down.

That has become the aim with my Yukon. To see what a 350 4x4 can get for fuel economy. My average for my trip home from Rexburg, with A/C on most of the way, was 19.5 mpg's.

 

[throttleissues]

That has become the aim with my Yukon. To see what a 350 4x4 can get for fuel economy. My average for my trip home from Rexburg, with A/C on most of the way, was 19.5 mpg's.

How much of an improvement did you see playing with the Hydrogen thing? 19.5mpg doesn't seem like a big deal, since I get 17mpg highway with my '87 'burb with a tbi350 adn 170,000 mi on it.

 

[jonrpick]

Mine was a 1/2 ton, but I can't be sure it was the original engine. I do know it was a 292, because I rebuilt it assuming it was a 250. The 292 crank won't turn past a 250 cam.I found out the 292 cams had clearance flats for the crank throws. There was a retired fireman around L.A. that was selling crossflow heads for those. He had several drag cars using 292s. One even had 2 engines end-to-end. He had kinda made an inline 12, and clocked the cranks to make it fire like an inline 12. Really cool stuff. I saw him run the 12 cyl rail at LACR a couple times.

Yep... I know what you mean about the cams. I would love to find a cross-flow head but they're so rare; only racers had them.

Classic Inlines has designed and started selling a newer, better head for the Ford sixes, and they're currently working on a 12-port (non-crossflow) head for the Chevies.

It will be aluminum (like their Ford head) and probably have a better combustion chamber design. It'll definitely breathe better than the stock piece. The 12-port design will make MPFI pretty easy on a 292.

 

[4by4bygod]

On the other hand, 4by4bygod would you care to elaborate a little more (without giving up trade secrets of course!) on the focus of your research. For example, what exactly are adding to our rigs and why are we doing it? Normally I wouldn't bait off-topic posts but it seems relevant to this conversation.

well, I cover the what and why and how in my vendor thread..There's a lot of detail as to what a catalyst is, what we do in the combustion chamber, and the myraid benefits involved..

sort of buried in there ( last page) is the point I make that all we're doing ( through the use of applied chemistry ) is utilizing the BTU of a given fuel charge more effectively..we're not increasing BTU, or extracting extra energy that wasn't there before, burning all of your fuel, or anything like that..

I'm interested in reading about technologies and devices that do claim to do that, which is why I follow these threads with interest..

again I just jumped in because I want those who are open to know we're here.. if it gets me a sale, fine, if not, that's ok too..as I've said, I'm here for you guys, not me.