New member - Gas Savers

onegammyleg · 08-25-2006, 12:35 PM

Howdy all.

I'me a new group member in here.
Not new in the quest for mpg though and for many years (not so much recently) experimented with various ideas.
Some of my success are..
A '72 Fiat 128 with a 1100cc engine that made 100hp and gave 40mpg around town.
And a 72 KE20 Toyota Corolla that did 60mpg with standard power (maybe a little more but nothing note worthy).
This was in the pre-efi days and tuning done by gut feel and observation.
No dyno's , and nonoe of the diagnoistic magic machines that are available now.

I am sure that if I got serious about it now days that it could be interesting but the economy of my unaltered Suzuki Swift 1.0 is not demanding enough for some mod's - mind you I do miss the 120mph top speed that my Fiat had.

What limited my experiments from ataining more mpg was the fuel itself and this is where I would pay attention to and make my own brews.
Mechanically the cars can make great mpg , but its the fuel that is needing the change.

gregW:-)

100hp Fiat 128 1100cc 40mpg
std-hp 72 Toyota corola 60mpg

MetroMPG · 08-25-2006, 12:43 PM

Neat cars GregW. Where do you live? (I don't recall the Swift 1.0 being available in the U.S. market, which prompted the question.)

PS - welcome.

onegammyleg · 08-25-2006, 12:55 PM

Hi MetroMPG

I'me Australian but currently living in Helsinki Finland.

gregW:-)

100hp Fiat 128 1100cc 40mpg
std-hp 72 Toyota corola 60mpg

SVOboy · 08-25-2006, 01:00 PM

Consider editing your signature to display your car stuff so you don't have to type it or cut&paste every time.

How'd you find the site?

Also, don't forget to fill out a garage and gaslog entry for your swift.

Ted Hart · 08-25-2006, 03:36 PM

What limited my experiments from ataining more mpg was the fuel itself and this is where I would pay attention to and make my own brews.
Mechanically the cars can make great mpg , but its the fuel that is needing the change.

gregW:-)

100hp Fiat 128 1100cc 40mpg
std-hp 72 Toyota corola 60mpg[/QUOTE]

Hi, Greg!
Well! Someone else agrees with the mad engineer ("The gasoline quality is just not there, anymore!"). On this basis, I began dissecting the problem areas...to search out a cause for these effects! And...Eureka!...I found the gas (Popular Science magazine ran a cover story..."Bad Gas" ... 8,1988 I think;it's in my files) was lacking in quality from pre-Embargo days! Remember the Arab Oil Embargo? What a joke!
I can only imagine what Aussie / Finland gas is like! Comments? Ted Hart

onegammyleg · 08-26-2006, 01:25 AM

SVOboy - ?How'd you find the site??

I bookmarked it a couple of months ago from a link found on a Suzuki Swift clone site.
I can't recall what site that was tho.

SVOboy · 08-26-2006, 01:26 AM

It's prolly something about darin, he's allover teamswift. Glad to have you here though. Mind if I use your little blurb on carbs on my website?

onegammyleg · 08-26-2006, 01:34 AM

Ted Hart - ?I found -"Bad Gas" was lacking in quality from pre-Embargo days!?

Hi Ted.

Sure the gas back then was a lot better but i'me talking going WAY back.

Back to the time of the first horseless carriages (i'me not that old

).
Back in those days car fuel was really ?gasoline? not ?petrol?.
It had a much lower evaporation temperature which was needed for the wick carburettors.
Applying modern construction techniques with this fuel would instantly double or triple economy figures.
The saying that petrol isnt as good as it was in previous times is not through accident or ?its just what it is?.

The fuel now days is managed very carefully by men in white coats and thick black rimmed glasses , they know exactly what they are doing.

onegammyleg · 08-26-2006, 01:36 AM

SVOboy ?Mind if I use your little blurb on carbs on my website??

Go for it.

SVOboy · 08-26-2006, 01:44 AM

Thanks you very much!

Ted Hart · 08-26-2006, 08:54 AM

Ted Hart - ¨I found -"Bad Gas" was lacking in quality from pre-Embargo days!¨

Hi Ted.

It had a much lower evaporation temperature which was needed for the wick carburettors.
Applying modern construction techniques with this fuel would instantly double or triple economy figures.

Hi, Greg W!
I'm not picking a fight, just continuing a thread (I guess that's what you call this...).
Early gasolines were indeed different! Octane? Much lower (so were compression ratios!)!
I tend to agree with you about "modern" refining chemistry being able to double or triple present MPG figures...but why should "they" do this? It would kill their profits! We wouldn't want to do that, would we??? ;-)
Your "lower evaporation temperature"...didn't you mean "vapor pressure"? Temperature hasn't got as much to do with vaporization (all attackers line up on the left!) as composition. The Reed Vapor Pressure of today's gasolines has changed...EPA has something to do with this...they wanted a "safer" gas-for those who insist on pumping gas with a lit cigarette hanging from their lips! A gas of lower fuming capability (it's the fumes which go "bang"). So, if it won't go "bang" as readily outside...what's the same stuff gonna do inside the engine? Hmmm....

onegammyleg · 08-26-2006, 11:30 AM

Hiya Ted Hart

(?It would kill their profits! ?)
Yup , Exactly.!!

(Your "lower evaporation temperature"...didn't you mean "vapor pressure"?)
Well .Yes , but as soon as you say vapor pressure you lose the majority of people reading this.
I used the term ?lower evaporation temperature? as its easier for others to understand but the process correctly stated is as you say , a lower "vapor pressure".
As written on Chevron.com ?A more volatile fuel has a higher vapor pressure and distills at lower temperatures.? , it is somewhat temperature related but is not the only factor to be considered.

(.they wanted a "safer" gas)
Yeah , I believe that - NOT

If they really wanted a safety they would have switched to alcohols whose fires can be put out with water.(eventually) or insisted on superior gas tanks (foam filled , baffled etc) both in cars and at the service stations.
A non open venting fill system also could have been arranged so no (or minimal) fumes can escape during filling.
These are standard issue on racing cars.

This would have been much safer than changing the fuels make up. - it still goes bang quite easily.

(So, if it won't go "bang" as readily outside...what's the same stuff gonna do inside the engine?)
Well thats rite - water doesn't go bang readily outside either and it also doesnt make much power when put in a gas tank.

onegammyleg · 08-26-2006, 12:53 PM

Hiya theclencher

Yep they say that as well , but its quite an invalid argument.
Various gasses are stored and transported every day with no loss quite safely.