Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: HotRodDave] #3158032
07/08/23 02:23 PM
07/08/23 02:23 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,237
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,237
fredericksburg,va
Been reading this from the start and now ready to get er done. My plan, 92 360 with the lock up overdrive (ditching the 904) SP2P intake TQ or QJ, heads off the 88 318. I’m sending the cam out to get reground but can’t remember the specs recommended, lost in the back posts, so ?? Anything else? 88 150 pickup 2x

Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: HotRodDave] #3158033
07/08/23 02:25 PM
07/08/23 02:25 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,231
nowhere
S
Sniper Offline
master
Sniper  Offline
master
S

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,231
nowhere
It's getting to the point where it's cheaper, for my 230 flathead anyway, to just buy the tools and do a three angle VJ myself.

Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: Sniper] #3158076
07/08/23 05:15 PM
07/08/23 05:15 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,237
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,237
fredericksburg,va
Originally Posted by Sniper
It's getting to the point where it's cheaper, for my 230 flathead anyway, to just buy the tools and do a three angle VJ myself.

Correct, I bought a Quic Way valve grinder and Van Norman seat machine 3 years ago for $1100

Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: cudaman1969] #3158097
07/08/23 06:51 PM
07/08/23 06:51 PM
Joined: Nov 2022
Posts: 201
Green Bay
Andyvh1959 Offline
enthusiast
Andyvh1959  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Nov 2022
Posts: 201
Green Bay
Since I don't already have a 5.2 Magnum to start with, I'm shopping for whatever I can get to make the best daily driver 318. I'm leaning toward port fuel injection for the better fuel mileage. So what year 5.2 Magnum should I shop to buy? Seems that anything 5.2 Magnum after 1995 is a good choice, correct? I may use the Mopar factory performance heads or go for a set of aluminum aftermarket heads with the bigger valves. I have a decent budget so I can select the best cam for torquey power, best Edlebrock EFI intake and a good set of headers.


My 56 C3-B8 Dakota build
Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: Andyvh1959] #3158105
07/08/23 07:29 PM
07/08/23 07:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
H
HotRodDave Offline OP
I Live Here
HotRodDave  Offline OP
I Live Here
H

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
Originally Posted by Andyvh1959
Since I don't already have a 5.2 Magnum to start with, I'm shopping for whatever I can get to make the best daily driver 318. I'm leaning toward port fuel injection for the better fuel mileage. So what year 5.2 Magnum should I shop to buy? Seems that anything 5.2 Magnum after 1995 is a good choice, correct? I may use the Mopar factory performance heads or go for a set of aluminum aftermarket heads with the bigger valves. I have a decent budget so I can select the best cam for torquey power, best Edlebrock EFI intake and a good set of headers.



TBI does better MPG because the fuel has more time to vapoorize. My TBI 318 dakota got significantly better MPG than this one or any stock magnum engine truck I have ever owned. Now they are not great on power but that is a different question...


I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!



Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: HotRodDave] #3158434
07/10/23 08:32 AM
07/10/23 08:32 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize Offline
master
Streetwize  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
I had thought about doing something like this using a 273 or a 318 with a ported SP2P manifold and a small hydraulic roller with the small chamber "302" heads and fariy high compression. I was going to use a OD 833 with the goal of well over 30mpg highway.

I had a 94 Firehark with an LT1 and a 6 speed and that sucker would run 13's all night long and get 31 mpg on the way home. the .29 drag coefficient and the motor turning under 1500 RPM at 60mph made a huge difference. part throttle torque at low rpm and aerodymanics really make a difference. EX the 1960's VW bug had the same chassis and engine as the Karmen Ghia but the KG got something like 30% better highway MPG.

it's very doable

Last edited by Streetwize; 07/10/23 09:39 AM.

WIZE

World's Quickest Diahatsu Rocky (??) 414" Stroker Small block Mopar Powered. 10.84 @ 123...and gettin' quicker!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mWzLma3YGI

In Car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXcf95e6v0
Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: Streetwize] #3158450
07/10/23 09:28 AM
07/10/23 09:28 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,237
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,237
fredericksburg,va
What’s the lowest gear the 8-1/4 came with? I’m thinking now of still keeping the 904 with hat low first gear instead of an overdrive behind the 360. Also keeping the TBI adapting to the SP intake with 318 heads.

Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: cudaman1969] #3158527
07/10/23 01:32 PM
07/10/23 01:32 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
H
HotRodDave Offline OP
I Live Here
HotRodDave  Offline OP
I Live Here
H

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
Originally Posted by cudaman1969
What’s the lowest gear the 8-1/4 came with? I’m thinking now of still keeping the 904 with hat low first gear instead of an overdrive behind the 360. Also keeping the TBI adapting to the SP intake with 318 heads.


The lowest gear I have seen in a factory 8.25 is 3.92 however I think you are actually wanting to know the highest gear and the highest I have seen is a 2.20 with a 2.45 being fairly common.


I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!



Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: HotRodDave] #3158551
07/10/23 03:05 PM
07/10/23 03:05 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,237
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,237
fredericksburg,va
Originally Posted by HotRodDave
Originally Posted by cudaman1969
What’s the lowest gear the 8-1/4 came with? I’m thinking now of still keeping the 904 with hat low first gear instead of an overdrive behind the 360. Also keeping the TBI adapting to the SP intake with 318 heads.


The lowest gear I have seen in a factory 8.25 is 3.92 however I think you are actually wanting to know the highest gear and the highest I have seen is a 2.20 with a 2.45 being fairly common.

Yes highest, but I do have a 4.30 posi in a A-body rear size

Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: cudaman1969] #3158662
07/10/23 10:01 PM
07/10/23 10:01 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,538
Freeport IL USA
poorboy Offline
I Live Here
poorboy  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,538
Freeport IL USA

The higher number of gear makes it a lower gear rear end. A 4:10 is a low gear, but a 2:76 is a high gear. Sounds pretty dumb, but that is how it works. Its easier to picture the speed at a given rpm. With 4:10 gears at 2,000 rpm, the vehicle speed will be pretty low. But with 2:76 gears at the same 2,000 rpm, the vehicle speed is much higher.

I had a 2:76 gear 8 1/4 in a 54 Dodge pickup for a while. The problem with that high of a gear is that you put your foot into the gas pedal more to get it to crawl away from stop signs. That gear with tall 15" tires sure kills off the stop power. I actually gained about 2 mpg when I swapped in a 3:23 geared 8 3/4 into the truck. I didn't have to step into the gas so hard to get the truck to move.

The OD with the lower gear is the best of both worlds, you get it rolling easier with less throttle input the lower gear, than once at a steady cruising speed on the highway, the OD drops the rpm. Those small block Mopars are very efficient at 1800 -2000 rpm at the chosen mph. Gear the rear end to turn those 1800-2000 rpms at the speed you expect to be driving at the most. Much lower rpm and it works too hard pulling hills of any height and will kill the mpg. Its very hard to find a cam that will produce the torque you need to pull the hills at those low rpms.

Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: poorboy] #3158698
07/11/23 12:21 AM
07/11/23 12:21 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
H
HotRodDave Offline OP
I Live Here
HotRodDave  Offline OP
I Live Here
H

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
Originally Posted by poorboy

The higher number of gear makes it a lower gear rear end. A 4:10 is a low gear, but a 2:76 is a high gear. Sounds pretty dumb, but that is how it works. Its easier to picture the speed at a given rpm. With 4:10 gears at 2,000 rpm, the vehicle speed will be pretty low. But with 2:76 gears at the same 2,000 rpm, the vehicle speed is much higher.

I had a 2:76 gear 8 1/4 in a 54 Dodge pickup for a while. The problem with that high of a gear is that you put your foot into the gas pedal more to get it to crawl away from stop signs. That gear with tall 15" tires sure kills off the stop power. I actually gained about 2 mpg when I swapped in a 3:23 geared 8 3/4 into the truck. I didn't have to step into the gas so hard to get the truck to move.

The OD with the lower gear is the best of both worlds, you get it rolling easier with less throttle input the lower gear, than once at a steady cruising speed on the highway, the OD drops the rpm. Those small block Mopars are very efficient at 1800 -2000 rpm at the chosen mph. Gear the rear end to turn those 1800-2000 rpms at the speed you expect to be driving at the most. Much lower rpm and it works too hard pulling hills of any height and will kill the mpg. Its very hard to find a cam that will produce the torque you need to pull the hills at those low rpms.


It's not dumb at all... the higher your transmission gear the faster you go, the higher your rear end gear the faster you go. Lower trans gears are for lower speeds and lower rear end gears are for lower speeds.


I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!



Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: HotRodDave] #3158738
07/11/23 07:38 AM
07/11/23 07:38 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
3
360view Offline
Moparts resident spammer
360view  Offline
Moparts resident spammer
3

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
Confusion abounds in “gear ratio” as regards good fuel economy.

I suggest talking about MPH for each 1000 rpm, which takes everything into consideration, including tire diameter.

As regards getting the “right camshaft grind” for fuel economy, that is especially tough.
Today “variable valve timing” certainly improves late model engine fuel efficiency
but adjusting “ground in camshaft values”
down to what VVT is truly doing to the valves in today’s “real world”
is nearly impossible because even today’s 1800 page FSM
does not have tables about what modern PCM software commands are making happen to lift and duration.

There is another 10% fuel economy improvement if the air to fuel ratio goes from 14.7 to 18 or more.

There is an old Autospeed.com article about the early year Australia spec Honda Insight
and how at steady cruise speed on a level highway its air to fuel ratio would lean out to 25 to 1.

Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: cudaman1969] #3158743
07/11/23 08:25 AM
07/11/23 08:25 AM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,631
in a cattle trailer down by th...
G
Guitar Jones Offline
Paddle faster! I hear banjo music!
Guitar Jones  Offline
Paddle faster! I hear banjo music!
G

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,631
in a cattle trailer down by th...
Originally Posted by cudaman1969
What’s the lowest gear the 8-1/4 came with? I’m thinking now of still keeping the 904 with hat low first gear instead of an overdrive behind the 360. Also keeping the TBI adapting to the SP intake with 318 heads.


The A500/42RH also comes with the 2.77 first gear ratio.


"Follow me the wise man said, but he walked behind"


'92 D250 Club Cab CTD, 47RH conversion, pump tweaks, injectors, rear disc and hydroboost conversion.
'74 W200 Crew Cab 360, NV4500, D44, D60 and NP205 divorced transfer case. Rear disc and hydroboost coming soon!
2019 1500 Long Horn Crew Cab 4WD, 5.7 Hemi.
Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: poorboy] #3158750
07/11/23 09:10 AM
07/11/23 09:10 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,405
Michigan
MarkZ Offline
Worthy
MarkZ  Offline
Worthy

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,405
Michigan
Originally Posted by poorboy
The OD with the lower gear is the best of both worlds, you get it rolling easier with less throttle input the lower gear, than once at a steady cruising speed on the highway, the OD drops the rpm. Those small block Mopars are very efficient at 1800 -2000 rpm at the chosen mph. Gear the rear end to turn those 1800-2000 rpms at the speed you expect to be driving at the most. Much lower rpm and it works too hard pulling hills of any height and will kill the mpg. Its very hard to find a cam that will produce the torque you need to pull the hills at those low rpms.


Factory roller cam in '85+ 2bbl 318 cars. Off idle torque through about 4500 RPM. I think those motors were rated at 230 ft/lbs and 150HP.


1987 Fifth Avenue - 512/518/D60
Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: poorboy] #3158833
07/11/23 01:11 PM
07/11/23 01:11 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
H
HotRodDave Offline OP
I Live Here
HotRodDave  Offline OP
I Live Here
H

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
Originally Posted by poorboy

The higher number of gear makes it a lower gear rear end. A 4:10 is a low gear, but a 2:76 is a high gear. Sounds pretty dumb, but that is how it works. Its easier to picture the speed at a given rpm. With 4:10 gears at 2,000 rpm, the vehicle speed will be pretty low. But with 2:76 gears at the same 2,000 rpm, the vehicle speed is much higher.

I had a 2:76 gear 8 1/4 in a 54 Dodge pickup for a while. The problem with that high of a gear is that you put your foot into the gas pedal more to get it to crawl away from stop signs. That gear with tall 15" tires sure kills off the stop power. I actually gained about 2 mpg when I swapped in a 3:23 geared 8 3/4 into the truck. I didn't have to step into the gas so hard to get the truck to move.

The OD with the lower gear is the best of both worlds, you get it rolling easier with less throttle input the lower gear, than once at a steady cruising speed on the highway, the OD drops the rpm. Those small block Mopars are very efficient at 1800 -2000 rpm at the chosen mph. Gear the rear end to turn those 1800-2000 rpms at the speed you expect to be driving at the most. Much lower rpm and it works too hard pulling hills of any height and will kill the mpg. Its very hard to find a cam that will produce the torque you need to pull the hills at those low rpms.



It does not work harder at lower RPM, it does the exact same amount of work as long as it is able to maintain speed without downshifting. Back when everyone ran carbs and it was harder to atomize fuel properly at very low RPM and high load an engine could get worse MPG if the RPM were too low because the fuel simply wasn't able to burn fast enough before the piston was at BDC and the ex valve opened, modern engine/trans combos really bring the RPM down at high speeds and have picked up quite a bit of MPG by doing so. At low RPM and high load is when an engine should get best MPG if everything is ideal.


I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!



Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: 360view] #3158841
07/11/23 01:40 PM
07/11/23 01:40 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
H
HotRodDave Offline OP
I Live Here
HotRodDave  Offline OP
I Live Here
H

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
Originally Posted by 360view
Confusion abounds in “gear ratio” as regards good fuel economy.

I suggest talking about MPH for each 1000 rpm, which takes everything into consideration, including tire diameter.

As regards getting the “right camshaft grind” for fuel economy, that is especially tough.
Today “variable valve timing” certainly improves late model engine fuel efficiency
but adjusting “ground in camshaft values”
down to what VVT is truly doing to the valves in today’s “real world”
is nearly impossible because even today’s 1800 page FSM
does not have tables about what modern PCM software commands are making happen to lift and duration.

There is another 10% fuel economy improvement if the air to fuel ratio goes from 14.7 to 18 or more.

There is an old Autospeed.com article about the early year Australia spec Honda Insight
and how at steady cruise speed on a level highway its air to fuel ratio would lean out to 25 to 1.




I like to think in terms of "displacement per mile" for example a 400 CID engine with a 2.28 gear ratio would have the same displacement per mile as a 200 CID with 4.56 gear ratio (tire diameter and such all being equal). They would have roughly the same performance all else being equal and in this case neither would be quick off the line but both should run satisfactorily at cruising speeds. If both engines were of the same design they would both have roughly equal air volume and speed in the ports. The 400 CID engine turning 1500 revolutions per mile would inhale the same air as the 200 CID engine turning 3000 revolutions per mile.


I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!



Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: HotRodDave] #3158867
07/11/23 03:25 PM
07/11/23 03:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,538
Freeport IL USA
poorboy Offline
I Live Here
poorboy  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,538
Freeport IL USA
My opening point was, many new to the automotive world, or those that have not been taught better, believe that a rear end gear in the 4:00 something (4:10, 4:88) is a high rear end gear (big numbers) and that a rear end gear in the 2:00 something (2:45 or 2:76) is a low rear end gear (low numbers) when in fact both of these statements are incorrect. A 4:00 something rear end gear is considered a low gear ratio and a 2:00 something rear end gear is considered a high rear end gear. We need to be sure people learn these things correctly, and if they don't hear it from us, who would they hear it from?

If you are cruising along in your ride at 1800 rpm at 70 mph, and you come to a 5% grade increase on the road, to maintain the 70 mph speed, you have to open the throttle. How much, and for how long you open that throttle for will depend on the torque the motor has. As soon as you open that throttle more then it was opened before the 5% grade, you are reducing the fuel mileage the motor is getting. In the over all picture a one time event probably will not make much difference, but should it happen often, the throttle effect will have more impact on the mpg.

The point someone brought up about the mid 80s 318 2bbl wit the OD and the 2:71 rear gear was interesting. If you actually drove any of those vehicles you fully understand what I am talking about. Even the slightest increase in the grade on the highway would drop the trans out of OD. If the vehicle was running on cruise control, after it dropped out of OD, it would also unlock the converter, and if the hill was big or long enough, it would open the throttle wide open, and might even shift the trans into "passing" gear. I worked at Chrysler as a tech from 86-88. Guess what the biggest complaints about those new OD transmissions were? Constantly engaging and disengaging the OD on hilly country roads. If they were driven and used on pretty level roads, they pulled some pretty good mpg, but throw in a few hills, and that mpg dropped. Chrysler actually limited the availability of getting the high rear gear and the OD in some locations across the country

Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: poorboy] #3158873
07/11/23 03:55 PM
07/11/23 03:55 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize Offline
master
Streetwize  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,872
Weddington, N.C.
I agree with this, in fact I reprogrammed my transmission in one of my vehicles where it won't even go into OD below about 47MPH because the factory OD would be annoyingly kicking in and out between 25 and 45 just cruising around town.

And guess what? the city MPG picked up!

I think I'd rather use the deep first and second gear 904 and gear the rear for whatever you think is going to be the most efficient highway rpm (+/- 200 rpm) at whatever speed you real-world plan to drive....70? 75?

EX: The low gear 904 (2.74:1) turns a 4.10 into an effective 4.56 rear for launching compared to the standard (2.45:1) in terms of torque multiplication.


WIZE

World's Quickest Diahatsu Rocky (??) 414" Stroker Small block Mopar Powered. 10.84 @ 123...and gettin' quicker!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mWzLma3YGI

In Car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXcf95e6v0
Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: poorboy] #3158920
07/11/23 06:50 PM
07/11/23 06:50 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
H
HotRodDave Offline OP
I Live Here
HotRodDave  Offline OP
I Live Here
H

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
Originally Posted by poorboy
My opening point was, many new to the automotive world, or those that have not been taught better, believe that a rear end gear in the 4:00 something (4:10, 4:88) is a high rear end gear (big numbers) and that a rear end gear in the 2:00 something (2:45 or 2:76) is a low rear end gear (low numbers) when in fact both of these statements are incorrect. A 4:00 something rear end gear is considered a low gear ratio and a 2:00 something rear end gear is considered a high rear end gear. We need to be sure people learn these things correctly, and if they don't hear it from us, who would they hear it from?

If you are cruising along in your ride at 1800 rpm at 70 mph, and you come to a 5% grade increase on the road, to maintain the 70 mph speed, you have to open the throttle. How much, and for how long you open that throttle for will depend on the torque the motor has. As soon as you open that throttle more then it was opened before the 5% grade, you are reducing the fuel mileage the motor is getting. In the over all picture a one time event probably will not make much difference, but should it happen often, the throttle effect will have more impact on the mpg.

The point someone brought up about the mid 80s 318 2bbl wit the OD and the 2:71 rear gear was interesting. If you actually drove any of those vehicles you fully understand what I am talking about. Even the slightest increase in the grade on the highway would drop the trans out of OD. If the vehicle was running on cruise control, after it dropped out of OD, it would also unlock the converter, and if the hill was big or long enough, it would open the throttle wide open, and might even shift the trans into "passing" gear. I worked at Chrysler as a tech from 86-88. Guess what the biggest complaints about those new OD transmissions were? Constantly engaging and disengaging the OD on hilly country roads. If they were driven and used on pretty level roads, they pulled some pretty good mpg, but throw in a few hills, and that mpg dropped. Chrysler actually limited the availability of getting the high rear gear and the OD in some locations across the country



Nobody ever drove an old 318 2bbl with OD and 2.71 rear end that was stock. They never used the automatic OD with a carb, and the old carb engines were insanely crippled by the emissions equipment of that era so not really relative and they also never used an OD trans with a 2.71 rear gear, 3.21 is the highest gear they used behind the automatic OD and that was in the dakota with a pretty short tire otherwise 3.55 was as high as it went... mine has the 3.55 and it is turning way too many RPM for max MPG on the open road even in OD and LU and in fact gets worse MPG than my 3/4 ton 4x4 4 door long bed with a 6.4 did.

I previously had a 1999 318 NV 3500 4x4 dakota with much taller tires and I could leave it in 5th gear almost exclusively except initial acceleration and it would motor right along even 35 MPH and at highway speeds it would not lose speed up even decent sized hills with lugging it and it would almost always give me near 20 MPG city or highway, that excesive down shifting is just that, excessive downshifting and is the reason I hate automatics, they downshift way more than needed for normal cruising no reason an engine like a 318 magnum can't pull a 2.76 gear with short tires in a light vehicle and stay in OD most of the time.


I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!



Re: Super duper MPG 318 (part 2) [Re: HotRodDave] #3159035
07/12/23 07:55 AM
07/12/23 07:55 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
3
360view Offline
Moparts resident spammer
360view  Offline
Moparts resident spammer
3

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
Having owned a 260 cubic inch V8 that was great fun in a light car with a small frontal area to push through the wind,
I wonder whether 318 or 273 is “too big”.

I like V8s.
They are rare but I also like Flat 6 engines too.

Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1