I wonder how the fuel efficiency of a 440 V8 with EFI would compare to a modern effort like Ford’s 7.3 V8
That Dyno test comparison would probably never get funded today.
I do see a surprising number of shipping containers on open trailers being hauled on the interstates by 3500 size pickups.
I guess this is because of a shortage of “fixtures” that 18 wheelers almost exclusively used to deliver shipping containers “the last miles” to customers.
With today’s abnormally high diesel prices I have wondered if gasoline 3500 pickups could deliver shipping containers at a lower cost per mile than a modern diesel that also requires buying DEF..
Swap in a big cubic inch 440 stroker with EFI running a 20 to 1 AFR into a 1994 Ram Dually and see?
What transmission (or camshaft) would be another challenge....
While not specifically 440 based, there have been numerous carb vs efi tests on performance engines over the years. The vast majority of them have shown that power and efficiency between the two is actually very narrow, if you spend the time to optimize all the circuits of the carb. Carbs actually make just a bit more power while efi has slightly better BSFC numbers. Of course, at the OEM level where a fleet number matters, even a .5% increase in mileage has big implications over the selling of a million + cars. Often the failing point with a number of enthusiasts is that they only work on the carb until it is "good enough" for power production and never dial it in to the Nth degree for high vacuum, low throttle angle, cruising at a steady speed. I also seem to recall reading that the biggest advantage of the efi is at start up and cold temp operation where it avoids fuel washdown of the cylinder walls and the resulting dilution of the oil that carbs have a very hard time achieving.
Whether a gas big block could become as economically equivalent to a diesel for hauling, perhaps over a short time and perhaps only in 3500/4500 chassis and smaller. I doubt the gas engine will have the longevity to offset the diesel's capability so periodic rebuilds would tilt the longer term savings back to the diesel. I also suspect that in truly heavy duty applications, like over the road trucking pulling 53', fully loaded trailers, the gas engine would need to displace so much, that its fuel consumption would sharply fall against the diesel. There is a reason why OEMs haven't tried this yet and that because even at higher prices, the diesel engine is still an efficient way to perform this work.
I know I asked about 440 millage but that’s in a 79 truck. What I would do on the newer trucks is get a 392 engine like what's in my 15 SRT, to replace a 5.7. I’m getting 25 mpg in the car and weight should be close between the two, has anyone done this? Not talking about the ‘truck’ 392 dog.
Hmmm, I bet there is a bigger gap in weight between these than you think. SRTs are around what 4500-4800#? My '09 Ram crew cab short box is 6000#. I'm willing to bet a 3500 is easily over 7000# I'd also venture a guess that the 25 mpg you see is on cylinder deactivation while cruising on level ground. My Ram will hit 20 in those same situations, unless I'm hauling. While towing a load, its rare that my truck ever hits deactivation mode. Pulling my 20' boat, my mileage drops to low teens. I haven't towed any of my cars for any extended period to compare, but they outweigh my boat by around 1000-1300#, so I'm willing to bet my truck mileage would drop towing them for hours at a time.
