A great start to a bad day

[derf87]

So, i go out to start my truck this morning and apparently it had no will to live today. It just kept turning over and over. The only thing i got out of its was a back fire. Then the battery died.

So i ended up taking my moms blazer to school today. As i'm pulling out of the driveway, i realize that the heat wasn't working. Needless to say the drive to KVCC was a cold one. I was a freakin icicle when i got here.
Hopefully the rest of my day turns out better than this morning.
I think i'm gonna go back to driveing my 65 chevy it never let me down.

[Kämpfer]

I can only imagine what kind of mileage you'll get. ROFL

[derf87]

I dunno, that truck was always pretty good on gas it was getting around 18 gallons per mile.lol J/k But ya, like 18.

[Kämpfer]

See, what I don't get is that if that's true a '65 Chevy gets better mileage than a '97 F150...

[AronMsmith1987]

yeah but in the end I still had a nice warm Ford waiting on me. LOL now that I say that its going to take a shit on me (Knock On Wood) but hey hopefully the day got better, How was the ride home. ROFL

[derf87]

Its funny, on the ride home the heat started working in the blazer. I don't get it.lol

Theres a few reasons it gets better mileage than ur f150. 1 is the fact that it was built back in the day when the compression ratio of motors was still high. I believe something like 10.5 or 11 to 1. your truck proly only has like 8 or 8.5 to 1. that makes quite a difference in how efficiently the fuel is used. MIne also only had a 2 barrel carb on it.
What i don't get is, the guy i bought the monte off of, his son has a 75 camaro that runs low 13's in the quarter and gets 22 mpg. lol oh well.

[Kämpfer]

But your truck probably has a lower drag coefficient if you you ran it in reverse*.... lol

I never knew older cars actually had higher compression ratios. Why would they ever think about going lower?!? Just cutting more corners or is there an actual reason? The only thing I can think of is the removal of lead from the fuel. Lead is essentially equivalent to using a higher octane level and hence could allow greater compression. As basic thermodynamics goes you want to maximize the compression ratio for performance and efficiency; the only significant limit being imposed by auto ignition or knocking. But if your '65 can run today's petrol there isn't any reason why a '97 couldn't. Fuel additives have gotten better and if it becomes a problem you can either ignite earlier (just about every car since 1990 has had a knock sensor for this purpose). Personally, I would just run a higher octane fuel or intake cooler air (think formula 1 style) or I guess you could play an Audi and go the diesel route where you pretty much live or die by auto ignition.

*They actually had to redo the entire aero profile on the Chevy Volt because it literally was more efficient to run it down the wind tunnel backwards. And this is supposed to be a "green" car!

[derf87]

Thats hilarious.lol Ya, your right on the removal of the lead thing. The only reason i could run this gas is because i either ran mid or premium and had to retard my timing a significant amount. So defiantly lost some power there. Ya, so that is why all production cars have basically sucked since 72. Now they are finally getting power out of the motors again.

[Kämpfer]

I can't believe they'd just drop to compression rather than actually taking the time to design a new engine or just raise the minimum octane... This is exactly whats wrong with American cars.

[derf87]

Wow, i figured you out of all people would know that.lol Ha, i knew something harvey didn't. i feel smart now.lol

[Kämpfer]

Well you definitely have way more expertise there, I can only only use logic to work my way through with what I know from thermodynamics and chemistry. Still you gotta give me credit for being able to figure it out with out any prior knowledge or research into the subject. lol

[derf87]

Ok, credit given.lol