Darion

Every Mustang engine is recommended to use 93, and all of them ran 93 to achieve their performance data. This is according to the Ford Website. Camaro auto SS, combined 20 mpg. Numbers are fun because at the end of the day we just find different ones for different outcomes. Would you like to focus on the Alfa Romeo Giula again?

One note to add, LT1 is also recommended 93, not required although I would never run less, words matter too.

Did ya know GM has sold over a 100 million small blocks?

PC

BEAR-AvHistory

Agree they run better on 93 as per FORDS website note on BHP rating not MPG.

That said the Mustang EPA tests are run on 87 & the Camaro/Corvette on premium. Manufacturers choice since the EPA just collects their data, big fine if they get caught in a lie. Apparently the hit the Mustang takes on actual mileage reduction is offset by the marketing advantage of being less expensive overall to run if you go with 87. Its claimed the power drop is slight but have never seen hard data.

Also agree, all my cars have premium recommended & thats what I run - 93 in NC. Both the trucks get 87. Yeah I know they built a mess of small blocks built about 45 or so myself from 283 to 406.



One of the first Mighty Mouse versions about to spend some time in the '67 StingRay. Was a surprisingly strong running engine. Gray car is a home made 280ZX convertible. Eventually got a 327 SBC.



Personally don't really care about personal mileage, never had any consideration in any car I bought. Find it interesting when it comes up in the gas threads.

JD_AMG

It was said that a larger displacement engine will automatically get worse gas mileage than a smaller displacement engine, regardless of year the engine was made - unless this only applies to 2020 engines? Comparing engines of today while being apples to apples (similar power output, same fuel saving features, similar weight car, same number of gears) is near impossible.
I simply showed that displacement wasn't that big of a factor when comparing performance engines and being apples to apples(numerous times over) by showing cars that didn't use electric motor assist, stop/go, DOD or any fuel saving features to make it a fair comparison. If what is being said about displacement and gas mileage is true then the age of the engine (especially if its a modern EFI engine like they were in the early 2000s) is totally irrelevant, it should apply to all engines and be easily provable with real numbers, not just theories and estimations.
So Ill ask again why does the C5 Z06 get better gas mileage than the other cars on the list despite having the largest displacement of the group if displacement matters that much to gas mileage? No more deflection or dodging the question or changing the subject, if you cannot answer then admit it and move on.

The Mustangs slushbox is hardly "better", but it has two extra gears over the auto Corvette and three extra gears than the manual. The Camaro of the same year using the same gearbox gets better gas mileage than the Mustang yet you just happen to leave that one out.

Yea and enjoy the Coyote being even more of a dog in the low rpms as it pulls timing.

Quit reaching for straws and trying to derail this. The whole gas mileage thing was brought up in the first place for the CAFE regulations these manufacturers have to meet, and whether they use premium or not doesn't matter.

msm859

Well perhaps heresy here I would like to see something like the 5.2-liter, flat-plane-crankshaft V-8 in the Mustang Shelby GT350. 526 horsepower at 7500 rpm and 429 lb-ft of torque at 4750 revs and redline 8250 rpm.

JerryU

Yep, in WWII they worked very had to increase power significantly of engines that started the War with loss power using very creative engineering and lots of testing!! Curtiss Wright was one of the leaders in designing and producing radial engines. (Actually waited too long to get into jet engines after WWII.) This is what it says about what is called Turbocompounding- it replaced superchargers and used otherwise wasted exhaust energy to create boost.

However once you use all the exhaust energy needed to produce boost there was still energy left in the exhaust stream. Sure there is some exhaust restriction but that can be managed with valve and pipe size. Note the hp these 3 Turbos (two seen in Green) produced in this Curtiss Wright R-3350 that were mechanically connected to the crank/prop. It used a torque converted coupler! Quoting:

"Turbocompounding added about 550 horsepower at take-off power and 240 horsepower at cruise settings over a similar non-turbocompounded R-3350."

JerryU

Here is some recent info on Turbocomponding from a Car & Driver article-quoting:

Turbo compounding is the process of using a turbo run off exhaust gasses to provide additional power to the crankshaft via gearing or a hydrodynamic coupling, or to power a generator that distributes energy via a power electronics module. The technology isn't new - the aerospace industry introduced the concept in the 1940s - but an article in Car and Driver says it could be "the next big thing in energy recovery" for automotive engines.




There are even more ways to capture exhaust heat energy that don't add restriction! While testing a concept for one of my latest patents that includes a unique way to use a Thermoelectric Cooling Module in a PAPR welding helmet to cool the welder (PAPR's are commonly used to reduce exposure to welding fumes buy blowing filtered air into the welders helmet) thought about approach for car exhaust- shown in pic! It's been published on my website for over 5 years!

Perhaps of interest, a module that provides all the cooling that can be used in a welding helmet so you don't cause "brain freeze" is ~40 watts. That is about 1 inch square and 1/8 inch thick and cost about $10 (from China-where else!) The heat sinks are the key. So think about how many could be placed on an exhaust pipe to generate electricity. These are commonly used as in a fireplace pilot light control. By applying electric power these modules can cool (a computer chip, solid state refrigerator, etc.) or heat OR by heating one side while the other is cool they generate electricity! That is what it does in a gas flame pilot device where one end is in the flame!



BOOTOM LINE:
Sure these ideas cost more! Just like double overhead cams (that allow independently variable intake and exhaust valve timing and more efficient 4 valve/cylinder gas flow) and more efficient turbocharging to use otherwise wasted exhaust energy.

BUT IMO it's a much better solution that the cost of switching to EVs, the infrastructure to generate all the electricity needed to power EVs. Even with solar power which is yet to prove cost effect over time with the life and required maintenance issues etc (Sure hope daughter and extended family pay for their $75,000 solar addition in their 6500 square foot home in San Antonino CA! Visiting net week, we'll discuss!) Then what are the electric utilizes supposed to do when in rains for several days (as in has in the LA area where daughter lives) when all those EV's need to be charged? Who is supposed to pay for the needed back-up power when those solar cells aren't producing? Then will EVs they sell without a $7000 "government subsidy" and when each pays what is needed for roads without the gas tax- ~$300/year.

It will really be interesting to see what happens in Europe where most of their $10 gallon gas cost goes to support their "free" social programs when folks switch to EV's! Lets see, most already have a ~25% VAT tax (just like a sales tax BUT paid for upstream so you don't see it as readily!) Even "poor folks" pay that! IMO more efficient ICEs combined with hybrid technology (light weight, short duration F1/Alfa KERS types for sports cars) is a far better alternative.

Warp Factor

Thanks.

Is that what's commonly called a Peltier device? If so, I didn't realize that they could be used backwards to generate electricity. Very nteresting!

Darion

Read that comment about Ford using different fuel octane for different tests had to look it up. I have never heard of a company doing this and sure enough Ford does. What a bunch of BS. On one hand point out how much HP your ride makes on recommended 93 and on the other how cost effective it is on 87 but with no Ethanol which isn't really available. That's all some pretty sketchy **** IMO, pick a side of the road.

PC

JerryU

Yep, that is what is being done in a gas stove and fireplace control. It's a very small Peltier device (that is what the device Peltier discovered in late 1800rds is sometimes called.). One of the uses, still employed today, is a temperature measuring thermocouple. Put two different composition wires together and that junction will generate electricity if the temp is different than the other wire ends (chromel/alumel is still preferred.)

Many years ago in an undergrad class as a Junior (gosh 1963) finally had an elective! (With 35 hours per week no time for those in the first two years! Felt like grammar school, traveled around with the same group of folks as the logistics of everyone having different classes was impossible!) I took an energy conversion course. Got interested in flywheel energy storage AND that transistor junctions could be used to produce Peltier devices! That is in fact how they work today. Instead of just two wires connected there are thousands of transistor junctions in those little very thin modules. Turns out the key is the heat sinks. Need to get the heat out of the hot side.

May recall some of the the first F1 KERS (>5 years ago) used flywheel energy storage. Porsche had a 911 race car that used flywheel energy storage Hybrid!

BEAR-AvHistory

My heated/cooled truck seats have Peltier units in them. Much nicer then the "ventilated" seats that most cars advertise especially in NC during the summer. Very nice pieces of technology with many interesting applications.

BEAR-AvHistory

Bad discontinued testing criteria back then or the new cars really suck. Pick one.

The current 2019 fully modern Corvette does not stand up very well to the larger, more powerful 2006 version. Time marches backwards.

2006 Corvette Z06 7L V8 (505hp) 16/26mpg Plain no frills engine to improve mileage
2019 Corvette 6.2L V8 (455hp) 15/25mpg All the modern bells & whistles to improve mileage.

Bottom Line in todays reality.

Naturally aspirated:
Base C7 455BHP
Base Mustang 460BHP
Z51 Corvette 460BHP
Bullit Mustang 480BHP
350GT 526BHP

Supercharged
Zo6 655BHP
GT500 662BHP
ZR1 755BHP
GT500 TBD

JerryU

Very interesting! Was not aware they were being used for that. What truck, your old Ford??

Of interest, a device similar to mine in a welding helmet (my two patents proceed this device) weights only 4 lbs. However since they have lots of power available it does NOT use one of my main patent claims! Since the flow into the helmet must be ~10 times higher than a persons breathing rate (to meet NIOSH requirements for a PAPR Ned 6 CFM) the cool air coming out (my device uses a 2nd hose) can be used to cool the hot heat sink. Turns out that is the governing factor in power requirement.

In my tests with a crude heat sink and not great efficiency cooling it, I show a 50+% reduction in power needed using that still cool air to blow over that heat sink! Important when using a battery as most PAPR's do now. In addition it keeps the heat sink clean that is also essential! Especiallly in a prduction welding shop.

Still looking for someone to license but US welling helmet supppliiers buy from overseas, most from China! Heck you can buy an auomttic helmet his device needs from Harbor Freight for < $50. Have talked with the leading Chinese helmet manufacturer and they have little interest in welding fumes or keeping a production welder cool!

BEAR-AvHistory

No its the other one, Expedition Limited 4X4 EP. Pickup is a base model with regular no frills cloth seats.


You can just make out the perforations in the leather. Unit, fan & ducting are mounted inside the seat under the cushion. Separate seat controls for driver & passenger on the dash with multi-level heating & cooling. Quick acting & very effective.

Had posted to my other web site a while back & a number of the replica builders are hitting the salvage yards for the units. Also there are now 3rd party supplies in the aftermarket selling Peltier systems for fresh builds & retro fits into most cars.

Warp Factor

Someone with a hot enough butt might be able to power their headlights.

BEAR-AvHistory

Yeah will have to look into that, can take a load off the alternator & increase available power. EPA will love it. Your mileage may vary by the size of your butt.

jtryba

I hope it is an LT1. I don't even care if they upgrade it. 460HP is plenty and with all the weight over the rear wheels, the performance increase will be there.

I love my C7 and a C8 with the same power would be fine by me.

JerryU

Thanks, had not seen that! These modules are getting inexpensive as are the system sold with heat sinks installed. In the US there are companies selling these that can handle tough environments as the military use them to cool electronics when in 100+F temps in the desert. Recently gave a link to a Swiss welding helmet manufacturer who showed interest to one that sells for ~$200 with fans. Then looked on Alibaba and you can buy a similar ~40 watt system for under ~$50 from China! Easy way for them to make a prototype!

This is a system being used by some teams in NASCAR that has about the same cooling as my helmet patent. I use that to compare the power requirements with what my patent covers, which is to reduce it by > 50%. In a car, current draw not an issue but in a battery powered device it is.

Kodiak Bear

As i recall, the joke at the airports was that a Curtiss-Wright Turbo Compound engine never completed a flight with all the cylinders functioning. I also recall reading that Curtiss-Wright head of engineering abhored "jet" engines and was convinced they'd never replace the Turbo Compound in commercial applications. Then there's C-W trying to get into the "jet" business by buying two English designs for "jet engines", one on which went on to power the B-57. The other, the Olumpus, didn't make the 10.000 lb thrust level the AF was seeking at that time so lost to P&W for the next AF contract.

Ah yes, the days of yesteryear.

I did follow the Porsche 911 GT3R Hybrid's short career as I have a bias against chemical energy storage as represented by the current Li batteries. It appeard that Porsche was trying that technology against the Li batteries and chose hatteries.

BEAR-AvHistory

The B-57 was a British English Electric design so the engines were a logical choice. Interesting plane survived forever after its initial flight in 1949 in England with a lot of engine malfunctions eventually flying for NASA. Not sure when the B-57, NASA 927, was built, production ended in 1957, but it was still flying as of November 2018.

Without doing a search I believe excluding WWI its one of only two non American designs the USAF flew in Combat the other being the Spitfire. USMC flies the British Hawker designed Harrier. We are pretty much if its not built here its no good.

When I was racing Triumphs & Morgans the joke was " Why don't the British build TV sets?" Punch line "because they can't get them to leak oil."

JD_AMG

Different testing doesn't make it "bad" especially when people were getting the same real world results with their cars - how do you explain that?

How about we use the new EPA method and test the same cars again?

C5 5.7L- 17/26mpg
S2000 2L- 17/23mpg
STi 2.5L T- 16/22mpg
Mustang Cobra 4.6L S- 15/22mpg
Boxster S 3.2L - 16/24mpg
911 S 3.6L - 15/22mpg
EVO 2L T- 16/23mpg
350z 3.5L-18/24
NSX 3.2L- 16/22
M3 3.2L - 15/22mpg

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...19508&id=19475
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...19428&id=19637
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...19333&id=19465

Whoops looks like the results are the same, the bigger displacement engine gets the best gas mileage here...
So is the new method of testing bad too or is displacement of a performance engine not big of a factor with gas mileage? Pick one.


Two different tests.
Either way C6 Z06 owners report high 20s mpg highway while C7 owners report high 20s/low 30s highway.

Bottom line in today's reality:
LSx/LTx is significantly lighter and smaller than Coyote and makes more hp and torque /lbs.
Both the Camaro and Corvette embarrass the Mustang around a road course.
The Corvette beats the Ford GT around the track, GM's flagship beats Fords flagship, like usual.