Ok, some of you don't care about it but, what do you think about CC doing a series on MPG? They can use Disco Nova for it. They can try different cams, dyno it, then run a gas mileage loop to see what the difference is. They can try different gears and O.D. verses 3 speed. They should also run the car at the track for each combo. I think it would be interesting at the least. They can compare alot of components for these tests. I am curious to see if anyone is interested in this experiment. I would like to see the hp difference compared to the mileage increase.  

Yes, I think that would be cool. After all every race team out there is concerned about fuel economy, you cant win races when you sitting in the pits all the time refueling. Bring it on!!!

The measurement of horsepower can be standarized to some conditions found in a SAE book, fuel economy cannot. It would be very difficult to keep track of all the variables. Gas quality, style of driving, weather conditions, road conditions, etc, etc.

Uh...they live in southern california...I'd say weather changing rapidly will not be a concern (unlike missouri where we went from mid 60's on a wednesday morning to 14 inches of snow by that friday morning).  Road conditions are kept constant by simply driving on the same roads or same types of roads.  And driving styles are held constant by allowing, say, five different people to drive the car and taking an average...calculating standard deviations...getting a t-statistic...and seeing if the differences are statistically relevant.  Fuel quality is just splitting hairs.  I don't hear anyone complaining about the quality of the fuel used in these dyno sessions.  If gas affects mileage...it affects power.  But to keep things constant, be sure to get gas from the same station every time.  Same octane as well.

But they don't even have to run the thing on the street.  All the testing can be done in the same conditions by using a chassis dyno.  The EPA doesn't run every car on the street to measure fuel economy.  Put the thing on the dyno...run it for a couple hours in high gear at 65 mph.  Right there is your highway mpg.  Fill it back up...input a sine wave the replicates city driving to the trottle (all it takes is a small soleniod to move the throttle) and let it go.  This stuff is all very basic and easy to do.  Automated data acquisition makes it so they don't even have to touch the thing...they can drop it off and go do something else.  

I've set up numerous engineering experiments...this one would be by far the easiest.

GO FOR IT!!!!

Only problem I see with that kind of testing would be the wind resistance on the car at speed. But, if you are just comparing MPG then it would give you valid results since every test would be without the wind resistance.

I am glad there are a few people that would like to see this. I refuse to buy a new car (by that I mean anything newer than a 1979 car) and I refuse to run anything but a V-8. So, I need to build a car that is old, has a V-8 and gets good MPG. Selfish me! LOL

Ya, i would like to see this too. From what I understand, good brief accleration gets you the best mpg. Not stomping on the pedal when you take off, but not feathering it and taking 30 seconds to get to 60. I guess taking off 2 lightly makes the engine want to bog and the fuel system sends extra fuel to compensate, both carb and efi systems do this, which richens the a/f mixture causing worse gas milage.  

ROFL, I just got done with a statistics class. I dont know how many times I threatened to blow up the book. However I do know what you are talking about CSIROC. Its good stuff to know.

20 to 1 says you wont blow the book up   sorry just had to

WOW it's been 30 years since I took a stats class but I kinda knew what was going on.  I would like to see the article too.  I just heard a story this weekend about a guy that claims he got 37 MPH from a chevy pick-up truck in the 60's or 70's.  This was with a highly modified carb and what he said was a whole bunch of carb spacers (something like 6 or 8 inches worth).  I know the guy he said did the work for him and I don't think he was BSing me.  I would like to ask the guy that did the work what he did because it sure sounded interesting.  He said the engine had good power too.  Anyway I think it would be an interesting article.  

But these men are not engineers they are writers. Building a half dozen combinations and having five different people drive each under different conditions would take a lot of work and a lot of time for a monthly publication.

I agree with everyone here, it would be pretty interesting but I'm trying to justify a reason why it hasn't been done before...

my uncle claimed he got 100 mpg from a 70's nova with a straight six. he said he and another guy had the fuel go into a heated container and used only the fumes to make the car run. which i used to think was b/s, but a car that runs on this idea was in a autoweek magazine a few weeks ago. kinda makes me which I had started working on it myself. anyone wanna help me make a chip thats shuts down the fuel line incase of a backfire?....

QUOTE Ya, i would like to see this too. From what I understand, good brief accleration gets you the best mpg. Not stomping on the pedal when you take off, but not feathering it and taking 30 seconds to get to 60. I guess taking off 2 lightly makes the engine want to bog and the fuel system sends extra fuel to compensate, both carb and efi systems do this, which richens the a/f mixture causing worse gas milage. END QUOTE

I agree. I did some experimenting with this and came to the same conclusion. If it takes you 13 1/2 miles to get up to 50 mph (like everyone drives around here!) you get worse mileage than if you get up to speed as quickly as possible without getting into the secondarys. Then you can get into the cruise circuits quicker and burn less fuel. The whole time you accelerate your burning alot more fuel than during cruise even if you are barely touching the pedal to accelerate. That explains in part why you get better mileage on the highway, unless some bonehead in front of you is slamming on his brakes every 5 seconds for no reason at all.

As far as the person that said it would be a pain to do the testing, I agree with that but, I was thinking they could have an ongoing series on it, you know take a whole year to do it and just have some installments each issue.

It would take a long time...no arguing that...but it can be done and be done with accurate results.  They would have to do it over the course of a year or so like someone else said...but it could be done.

I'd say a better reason they haven't done it is because they can barely keep a car running long enough for a dragstrip pass...much less actually driving it around reguarly.

Should they do it?   Of course.

Will they do it?  About as likely as an average CC reader dating an On-the-Rack model . . . .

Ordinary dyno testing would work for driveline efficiency, but it wouldn't work to test weight reduction and aerodynamic changes (both of which have major effects).

The Aussies have an on-line car magazine that seems to go for these sorts of fun and games.  They even test aerodynamics on the street with smoke wands and wool tufts taped all over the vehicle bodies (Try explaining THAT to FIVE-O when you get pulled over . . . .)

Finally, I'd like to see some work on whether any Displacement-on-Demand/Active Fuel Management/MDS roller hydraulic valve lifters could be remachined to fit in any "old school" V8s.  

(Actually, my nightmare scenario is sending an MDS lifter set to Rhodes to see if they can also be converted into  "lost motion" leak down lifters, too.   Now that would rock--lifters that would shut off cylinders when not needed (controlled manually by a shifter-mounted switch) and which would also reduce lift and duration at low R.P.M. for a broader torque curve  when all the cylinders were "on". . . .)

shouldn't we change that to Four-Sixes now?