Super duper MPG 5.9 magnum

Just thought I would share my latest on going saga to get rediculously good MPG in my dakota. It is a 318 magnum right now with a deep dull thud going on inside the engine at start up so digging around the shop I am formulateing a plan

KB107 pistons 4.030 bore
5.9 block, tq plate honed, thinking about square decking (if the 318 holds out till I get enought $$) to get a tighter quench.
318 magnum cam, again this will be updated if I get some $$$ together before the 318 blows. I may send one out and get the exhaust duration reduced and tighten the LSA a couple degrees for a little more burn down time before the ex opens and get perhaps, less overlap and .050 more intake lift and keep the duration about where it is.
Beer barrel intake with minor clean up in the port entry, still trying to figure out a really good way to insulate the steel plate and space it 1/4 to 1/2 inch down to allow the ports more air flow, that plate is real close to the port opening and can only contribute to the lack of RPMs. Thinking about grinding out the entire water passage in the front, drilling and tapping holes in the head for a pipe fitting and running a remote thermostat (what is a good one and where to get it?) to keep the heat out of the intake, that front port runs about 30* hotter than the rear one.
Ford yellow fuel injectors, maybe someday upgrade to the accel cone spray pattern ones later.
Stock magnum heads with a quality VJ and minor port clean up of ski jumps, casting flash...
I have a nice pair of the early big magnum manifolds, need to get them ceramic coated to keep heat out of the engine compartment to help reduce detonation.
Gonna shoot for about .030 quench at the tightest spots and near 10.5 compression.
Ignition I will probably get some firecore wires and a blaster coil and call it good, the stock ignition works pretty good.
I already have a K&N CAI (didn't do much on the stock engine).
Ported stock throttle body, thinned shafts...
3.55 gears, I would like a 3.23 or 2.94 even but I can't find anything higher than what I already have for the front difff.
I have the sway bars and torsion bars from an R/T durango so I don't got to slow down around the corners as much.
I will get a custom mandrel bent single exhaust and probably a diesel muffler as I need it real quiet for hunting.
Electric fan.
I already run 0W20 synthetic as well as thin weight synthetic gear oil.

Best I have been able to milk out of it is just a hair under 20 mpg, hopeing to get a couple more MPG since I need to swap engines soon anyhow. Keeping the RPMs low, giving myself plenty of stopping distance and useing the engine to brake (the computer shuts off the injectors when doing this) I can get about the same city and highway MPG.

Any thoughts?

Sounds like a plan! I've always wanted to follow a tight quench Magnum build.

A few comments... I think square decking it could be pretty important to help get quench dialed in consistently from cylinder to cylinder. Even then, .030" is pretty tight. 10.5 CR with iron heads, stockish cam and hyper pistons is really pushing also. It may require premium fuel and/or retarded timing. I would think 9.5 would be safe and high 9's probably OK. I don't think stock is much over 9:1 if that. As far as water mods to the intake, that sounds like a lot of work and $$... maybe keep that one as backup.

I ran 10.00 compression in a 318 mag with .037 quench and it was fine on 87 octane. Even if I have to run premium but get 20% better MPG than I can get more miles per tank and more HP and TQ.

Dave, if I ever get anywhere close to Kalispell I'm going to look you up.

R.

Feel free to stop by the shop

http://www.blacktailmotors.com/contact/

I should have put this in the engine section, any way it can get moved?

My first thought is that you are going to have considerably more cubic inches,
So how much power and torque
Would be adequate for this 4wd Dakota?

Stock late model obd-ii 1998+
5.9v8 is in the ballpark of
245 hp at 4000
335 ft-lbs at 2900 to 3600 rpm
300 ft lbs at 2000 rpm

With you already planned higher static compression (true 8.7 to true 10.5)
and slightly longer duration 318 cam
guess you will be at least 12% above these.

If you go
Lean Burn air fuel
Or
Atkinson Cycle
You can trade off some power for higher fuel efficiency.

Would you be willing to offset bore and swap piston offset,
For less friction and better rod to crank power transfer angle?
There will be piston slap noise.

Would you be willing to fit Honda low friction bearings like NASCAR?

Any budget for ceramic coatings (3% gains)

Would you consider Mahle steel pistons since you will be buying 4.030 ?

Any budget for aluminum MP heads with their 53 cc combustion chambers?

What aero tweaks to the Dakota body could you tolerate?

I am gonna try the 5.9 because I have a nice set fresh bored block in a bag in the back room.

I already have the KB pistons.

Unless someone wants to trade me a set of KB167 pistons and a fresh bored 5.2 block those are kind of set in stone. I would prefer the 5.2 for this truck but got to go with what I got and I don't figure it will be a big loss with everything else I am gonna do.

Even if I could find some of the mopar magnum aluminum heads they cost a lot to get useable and the swirl and velocity are no where near what the iron heads are.

The honda bearings are fine by me but I worry a little about the cast crank going that small with a manual trans (got to think about 100,000 reliability here and I do tow cars on my 16ft open trailer with it from time to time). I could do a chevy 2.1 journal and see if I can find some 350 cheby pistons and use my 6.25 rods but then I am doing machine work and a re-balance. I actually have some an awesome set of NASCAR carillo rods 6.25 I think length(acutally they are 1.85 journal) I could use but then I got to find a crank shop capable of it and buy expensive custom pistons... maybe I can find a set of SCAT I beams for real cheap and try to scrounge up money for rebalancing.

I could rob a little atkins cycle theory and run the compression up by milling the heads .030 and then retard the cam to reduce the cranking compression and allow a longer push on the crank before exhaust opens as well as the benifit of a higher expansion ratio. It would not be exactly a true atkinson cycle but I don't even know if there is a defined intake closing point where it becomes atkinsons.

Again on the offset boring, the block is done, even if it was not I don't trust my local shops to pull it off and it would scare me on a magnum block to move it more than .030 anyhow and I doubt that would make any messurable difference.

I did not know there were any steel pistons available for an aplication like this but I think they would make detonation worse as they would not transfer heat away from the hot spots as fast, kind of like how AL heads can tolerate more compression I would think the same would apply to pistons.

Aero mods are kind of limited use for me, I can't give up much ground clearance (air dams and lowering is out)for when I am out gathering meat in the woods, most of my other driving is in town so not much to gain there but I don't think it would hurt to block off some of the grill area. Anyone got any other ideas I am willing to listen.


I am kind of on a budget (I have done all of these experimental engines on my own $$$ and honestly don't have much, if someone wants to chip in parts or $$$ send me a PM with what want to do and I will see if I can work it in) and under some un-know time constraint with the other engine starting to take a dump, I do have a few plain jain magnum engines sitting here I could throw in temporary while I build this but the 4x4 dakota is a pain to stick engines in and out of so it may become permanant if I did that.

What are your thoughts on the air gap design intake manifolds as a way to lower the intake air temperature of number 1?

http://www.hughesengines.com/Tools/Popup...itle=HUG%205409

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dodge-MOPAR-Plymouth-340-360-Magnum-Air-Gap-Dual-Plane-Aluminum-Intake-Manifold-/391078610751?hash=item5b0e1a073f:g:0XUAAOSwGvhUB4jL&vxp=mtr

It does have a much shorter runner length, but at part throttle cruise that will not have a measureable effect on fuel economy. Because the throttle will have to open a bit more to produce the same torque at lower rpms, it might even improve part throttle fuel economy, although it would be expected to worsen full throttle fuel efficiency in the 2800 to 3600 rpm range where the beer barrel 15.5 inch runners resonate.

I have tested both the m1 4bbl and hughes air-gap and they do dramatically reduce IAT and pinging (as a result of low IAT and no low RPM ram filling the cylinders at low RPM) but the lower RPM where I usually run this truck(500-2000 RPM) TQ is very noticably gone. That would make me need to shift higher and frictional losses would go up with the RPM. They both made very good gains starting around 2500 or so, at that point they would run away from the beer barrel but you can not run them as low in RPM, I am putting the m1 on my 410 stroker in my other dakota to kill some low end and add some top end, I sold the air-gap. There is nothing anywhere close to what the resonant tuning in the beer barrel can do at low RPM. This is why I am stuck on keeping the kegger, I just need to figure out how to manage the heat soaking desighn.

I don't want to give the impression I don't like the hughes... If you have an automatic and 3.92 gears the hughes is an awesome intake. The m1 I only like with strokers and more RPM.

Nothing to add, I just wanted to subscribe

Something like this is what I'd love to build for my W200 one of these years.

I wonder if the ceramic heat rejection coatings
could be applied to the INSIDE
of the coolant passages of the
Magnum V8 beer barrel intake manifold?

At the top of the priority list should be a coating that would not flake off and plug coolant passages or jam thermostats.

Maybe extra thick anodizing?

Thats a good idea! Sure would be easier than grinding all that out and putting a remote thermostat in. I could go ahead and coat the inside the plenum area of the intake also as long as I was positive none was gonna flake off.

I could sand blast it first to give extra grip to hold the coating on.

Isn't anodizing basically oxidizing the aluminum surface so dye can be made to stick? If thats what it is then it is basically microscopic saphires, how good of an insulation would that provide?

What about an alcohol injection system? You could build higher compression and still run it on 87 octane, plus the cooling affect should compensate for the heat absorbed by the intake. Also the mix would keep your valves, pistons and chambers clean, further extending detonation resistance.

Yes the coating is a form of Al2O3, like carborundum grinding stones or Sapphire.

Normally you would not want to coat a cooling passage but the beer barrel intake does not need heating since the fuel injectors spray onto the back side of the intake valve.

I haven't examined it closely.
Could the thermostat housing section in front
be cut away from the rest of the intake,
then rejoined using a thick insulating gasket?
That might isolate heat from soaking the aluminum runners.

There are now alot of magnesium engine parts.
Too bad the beer barrel intake was not magnesium.

I am glad it was not 1992-1994 era plastic,
because i remember Ford had a lot of complex plastic intakes crack.

Easy to check: Thermal conductivities measured in Watts per (meter x degree Kelvin)

Aluminum oxide - 30
Aluminum - 205

So anodizing would help some, but not a major amount because the layer is thin compared to the thickness of the aluminum. But every bit helps, right?


R.

Any reason you are choosing manifolds over headers?

No alchohol injection, don't want another tank to fill or something corroding up my stuff.

If I tried to cut a slot between the coolant and intake there would be nothing to seal, it is a very thin devider.

Maybe I could find someone locally to put on a thick anodizing layer.

I have the manifolds, I don't think shortys gain enough to be worth the bother, long tubes would be nice but got to keep it quiet and last a long time, long lasting ceramic coated headers are expensive and still not as quiet as manifolds.

Any good insulating material that don't cost a fortune I can make intake gaskets with?

Maybe when it's done and tuned to perfection you can save up for some good headers. I would bet there would be an increase as long as you have it 'scienced out' with the correct tube size/length and enough back pressure.

I guess the quiet thing is tough to get around.

From what you have so far, I think to get that last couple mpg better you are going to have to resort to some expensive measures. NV3500 swap, 2xx gear swap, lowering it, coating pistons, swapping rods/bearings, and shedding weight.

But even then, the factory injection won't pinch anymore fuel off at minimal throttle position: I've tried it with my 360 Magnum with heavy tail-wind and throttle goes to a "light-switch", on-off mode and max mpg I see is about where you are at right now. I have all the mileage tricks on my truck too. One thing is for sure on my 360: 1500 rpm gets the best mileage.


I guess on a side-note, If it was me I'd leave the 360 idea and either get a 3.9 V6 or the 2.5 and run a T3 turbo on either one. Less pistons to feed means better mileage (works for the 5.7 MDS).

I don't have many tricks done to it yet, just real sensible driving and like you said under 1500 RPM unless I am on the highway. I can not find any higher gears for the front diff or I would do it. Don't want to make it complicated under the hood so no turbo. I sold my V6 truck a year ago because it was too underpowered for pulling my trailer so V8 it is, besides getting good MPG out of a V8 is 1/2 the challenge.

On a nother note I may try the teflon coating on the piston skirts, hadn't thought of that one. I think the ceramic coating would increase detonation by not transfering the heat away fast enough.

I do have an NV3500 in it already. Maybe there is a higher OD ratio in a chevy trans I could swap in...

Like you I felt that headers were not a key item in an "economy" build engine.

But then i read a paper by Mazda describing their "SkyActiv" series of engines that have 13 to 1 static compression but can run on 87 AKI gasoline.
(Mazda runs 14 to 1 overseas where 91 Motor Octane gas is a bit better)

Mazda claimed that a specially determined
23.6 inch first section length in a
4-2-1 Tri-Y type header was necessary
to evacuate the last of the hot "residual gas"
that would otherwise overheat the fresh intake charge
if left in the clearance space of the chamber.
Mazda claimed this was a key step to raise the compression ratio the last point.

http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/skyactiv-g/

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/mazda-skyactiv-g-and-skyactiv-d-engines-news

They can retard the intake timing on that thing a bunch plus it is direct injected-you can wait till it is too late to detonate before you inject the fuel.

I think in order to get a proper header for it at the low RPM range I use most it would need abnormally long and small tubes.

In one of the Mopar Performance small block books Larry Shepard wrote that 4 into 1 header tube length needed to be a slightly longer than normal 38 to 42 inches to get best all around performance.

My memory is foggy but i think long ago one of the car magazines fitted 48 inch long 4 into 1 headers onto an economy build V8 small block and claimed some success?

I thought it was interesting that Mazda emphasized that the first segment of their 4-2-1 header had to be longer than 600 mm/ 23.6 inches to get the mix of fresh charge and residual gas down to a temperature that would not detonate at 13 to 1 static compression.

There is a warning though. Sometimes those tech papers to impress customers deliberately contain "misinformation" to confuse their competition automakers engineers.

I believe that with
62 cc combustion chambers,
0.026 quench,
flat top pistons with no valve reliefs or soap dish bowl,
the static compression of a 4.00 bore Magnum 5.9V8 is just shy of
13 to 1

I wonder if anyone has already built such a Magnum V8
And run it either on
race gasoline
Or E85?

It would be interesting to then fit such an 12.7 to 1 Magnum V8 engine
with a 23.6 inch first segment 4-2-1 header
and see if there was an Octane tolerance improvement before knocking.

An alternative test would be to fit that Magnum V8 with water injection and see how the water spray requirement changed when the 4-2-1 header was on.

That comes out around 12 to 1.

The way mine is gonna come out is a hair under 11 to 1, I think it will be fine on premium. I may try takeing one or two CC out of the chamber to unshroud the valve and take a smidge of compression out.

Try building a set of spray bars to squirt oil on the bottom of the pistons. That will help draw the heat out of them and reduce detonation.

Something like that should be easy for your to put together.

What you need is a combustion chamber that works with 20 deg of total advance +/-.

Kevin

In the past didn't a machine shop in Florida have a jig that drilled holes in small block mopar oil mains to create oil squirters?

The original Viper V10 combustion chamber was similar to the Magnum V8.
Since then several Viper shops have created CNC programs that recontour the chamber,
Especially near the sparkplug threads.

My take on the Magnum chamber is that it was created for the 5.2V8,
and that the 5.9 V8 deserved its own chamber
Perhaps with more cc's on the exhaust valve side.
The 5.9 V8 piston should be flat top like the 5.2 design.

I wonder what the maximum ignition advance programmed into the 1995 Mopar Performance PCM for the 5.2 is, say around 4400 rpm, full throttle?

If it is less ignition advance than Mopar Performance programmed into the 5.9V8 (like I own) then that would indicate a better chamber/piston crown combination, that is faster burn.

The 5.2 cam is slightly different than the lower duration 5.9 cam. That is a wrinkle.

The 318 cam has more lift and less duration, very slightly on both counts.

My 99 at 4400 WOT only gives about 25 degrees, my experience slapping carbs on stock magnums they seem to run way better around 35 total but with the air in the beer barrel being baked will not allow more advance. With a tight quench and fast burn from good injectors the 25 degrees becomes not so bad. When I built a tigh quench 5.9 magnum it was happy around 30 toatal advance.

Slotting and advancing the crank sensor only nets a 2-3 degrees but is noticably snappier.

My guess is the flat top in a 5.9 created too high combustion temp for to keep the NOX under control so they just dished the piston instead of redeisghning the intake to keep the IAT down.

I agree the magnum head is perfect for the 5.2 but think it is still very good on a 5.9, just open around the valve to match the bore size and call it good.

I'm following this topic with interest as I'm currently putting together a 360 with a focus on engine-efficiency.

Using KB107 pistons, polished 302-heads and valves and balanced crank assembly I'm shooting for around 10.5:1 cr.
I've got a cam on the shelf for the engine but I'm not 100% sure yet if I'll use it; it's a CompCams XE256H

I wonder what cam specs you'll end up with.

On the 302 heads on a 360 the TQ peak is so low you just about need a manual to use it. Also if you do stick with em make sure to grind the point in the middle of the chamber out and smoothe the left overs. At 10 to one it gets real hot and starts detonating. If you are useing a dual plane intake then your cam should be good.

Will be running an Edelbrock RPM intake for the time being. Engine will be run on LPG propane only, but propane sometimes likes a single plane intake better.

Maybe will be LPG injected later on in time with Megasquirt to see if better MPG's can be achieved.
(A518 transmission in '73 Dart. 3.55 gears). The transmission alone eats away some MPG's. Would like to exchange it for a A500 if I can find one overhere.

I've polished the chambers to a shine and blended and polished the in/ex ports.
In the chambers I've pretty much ground away the pointy nubs and unshrouded the valves a bit with smooth curves just about everywhere.

I'm hoping the high CR and degreed cam keeps the torque of the small port heads high and help with 'low rpm' daily economy.
Will be using shorty headers into 2.5" X-pipe exhaust a Dynomax mufflers, maybe with resonators on the rear.

LPG would love at least 11.5 compression, 12.5 would make it really happy also. It is pretty high octane and cold both of those help it be very happy with a lot of compression. Without the compression to speed up the burn it will still be burning as the exhaust opens and it will burn your ex seats so it is important to get the compresison up for that also.

The KB-pistons should supposedly be able to create a 11:1cr, but since I've smoothed the sharp edges on the piston and the chamber along with valve unshrouding, I'm not sure it will still reach that number without a few more cuts on the heads.

I have however ordered thinner headgaskets (0.028")
http://www.summitracing.com/int/parts/mrg-1121g/
to gain back some cr.

Any ideas of using 1.6 rockers with the XE256 cam?

Wouldn't hurt. Also you can try advancing the cam a couple degrees to get a little more cylinder pressure but that also advances the ex opening. If you can get the head cut more it should only help.

LPG and methane are very high Octane rating fuels, and adding a test port to a cylinder and then squirting in a little propane or methane is a way to find out which of your eight is the knocking cylinder.

Cylinder # 1 on Magnum V8s already has a "test port" in the runner - the IAT threaded hole.

I wonder how this could be used to find the maximum allowable static compression ratio for cylinder #1 alone?

Spray something into the IAT port before tearing down the engine.
Spray LPG/propane or methane in, starting from a large amount, then gradually reduce it until the knock comes back.
Or....
Spray Hexane/diesel fuel in, starting from a small amount, increasing until a slight knock is detected.

An alternative involving far more work,
Would be to acquire multiple fuel injectors
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 lbs per hour
Then swap them in and out.

A second alternative involving even more wrenching
Would be to gradually grind out the combustion chamber of cylinder #1 to more and more CC's.

A very easy way to quickly add a few CC's to #1
would be to remove the sparkplug
and add in a "fires in oil" extender sleeve,
but this also slows combustion speed like a severe timing retard.

Another quick method would be to slowly screw in a bolt of the right thread deeper and deeper into the IAT hole. As the bolt pinched off more of the airflow, the air- fuel ratio would grow richer and the volumetric filling percent of that cylinder would decline.... both of which would decrease the tendency to detonate.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
A safe and smooth V8 is limited by its most knock prone cylinder(s).

On a Magnum V8
What is the limiting compression ratio of the most knock prone cylinder?
What is the quickest-cheapest-but dependable method to find the needed info prior to building a Magnum V8 to SuperDuper Fuel Economy nirvana?

One reason for number 2 to detonate first is the fuel is hottest in that cylinder because it is the last one fed off the rail that fuel gets heated fastest, perhaps I should add a return style rail off an earlier magnum to keep the fuel cooler and further reduce detonation that way, that would tollerate a little more compression that way also. I think I have mentioned before the front cylinders look the worst on tear downs normally.

Is cylinder number 2 more prone to detonate than number 1 ?
Are #1 and #2 at front more prone to show damage than the other six cylinders?

I am trying to make sure i have understood your previous posts about what your engine tear down experience has been.

I have also wondered if i should get junkyard 1992 Magnum 5.2 return line style fuel parts so that fuel line pressure could be custom adjusted.

When i changed out the 1995 tank submerged pump assembly
it looked like it would not be that hard to add spacers behing the valve spring inside the pressure regulator to increase fuel line pressure.

I wish i knew enough about the solenoid actuated pintle and its sealing seat inside Siemens single hole fuel injectors to be able to custom adjust pound per hour flow rate.

They don't seem to look as bad inside as you would expect with all the rattling that they do but yes they seem to be worst front to back.

I have often looked at the factory PR ufo thingys and wondered if there wasn't some way to bump up pressure a little. Let me know if you come up with something.

I had a 94 1500 2X shortbed with a 5.9 that I could knock down almost 21mpg with. This was with the MP PCM [had to run premium for it], 1st design F&B throttle body, 1.7 ratio Crower rockers [way cheaper than a cam, more performance for the money too], 340 timing gears, MP [Mike Leach] headers, MP cat back, V10 cat[ cheaper than v8 & had bigger inlet and outlets], K&N FIPK, Trans Go shift kit, modded TPS, additional fuel pressure, Ford Motorsports 24lb 4 hole injectors[ better spray pattern and less expensive than many others. got this tip from mp hotline of all places], un-altered intake manifold, 3.55 gears, p275-60r16 tires[ like indy truck], 180* t-stat. We also had a 99 Durango 2X that was lucky to do 13 on the flats. Fuel sucking pig. Wish I had done some work on that but that was my wife's car and I had to watch how much I changed it. Only had the MP cat back and the FIPK.

The Mike Leach designed headers sold by MP were Tri-Y design weren't they?

What would be your guess as to the length from exhaust flange to first Y?

Could you stretch four $ bills out down to the first Y,
or only three?

I have always suspected that 1994-1995 Rams with EGR OBD-I
Got better highway MPG
Than 1996-2001 OBD-II Rams without EGR.

The raw, uncorrected EPA fuel consumption numbers in the publicly available database seemed to confirm this, but the year to year tested vehicles were not always identical.

I would like to run a convoy style SAE/TMC Type IV fuel consumption test on the highway of nearly identical 2 wd club cab Rams, one a 1995 and the other a 1996.

Then I would like to modify the 1995 by cutting its EGR pipe at the stock exhaust manifold connection, extending the EGR pipe rearward using CuNiFer alloy brake line back to near the exhaust system exit to get cooler exhaust gas.

Then do another highway test with the two trucks.

A few years ago Toyota wrote that their 4.6 V8 in the Tundra got improved fuel economy with cooled EGR. As best i understand it cooled EGR boosts part throttle Torque at the same NOx reduction efficiency, and allows you to then use a numerically lower gear ratio, but still climb modest hills without downshifting.

Hot from the presses:

Begin quote

Credit, in part, its engine – a direct descendant of the celebrated Pentastar V-6, named three times to the prestigious list of Ward's 10 Best.
The redesigned 3.6-liter V-6 in the gas-powered Pacifica features
two-step variable-valve lift (VVL),
cooled exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR) and
innovative engine-weight reductions that boost the engine's efficiency and performance – all while preserving the smoothness that remains a hallmark of the Pentastar bran
End quote

From

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2016/...assed-fuel.html

Cooled EGR? My 1975 Toyota Land Cruiser had it. It looked like two Briggs and Stratton cylinder heads bolted together.

R.

You want cooled EGR pull it from after the cat as far back as possible, there will be less carbon pulling it after the cat also. As for me I won't be putting EGR on anything I own, one more system to fail and I am not convinced it helps MPG, everything I have ever removed it from (for test purposes of course) got better MPG without it. My experimenting seems to show that speeding up the burn always helps and EGR slows it down.

Don't get me wrong.
I do not "like" EGR when compared to running lean instead.

I estimate that my 1995 Magnum 5.9 V8 is flowing about 10% EGR and 90% air at 70 mph cruise on the highway.

I guess this is adding about 1 MPG.

If instead of EGR,
if it were running
14.7 times 1.1 equals 16.2 air/fuel ratio
I think the MPG would go up by 2 instead.

EGR blackens the lube oil.
EGR increases spark misfires.
EGR creates deposits that eventually have to cleaned out.

One of the engine tech books has a graph from the 1970s that shows that any inert gas works to reduce NOx,
such as Argon, Nitrogen, CO2.... And most interesting
.. Plain old water steam reduces NOx very well.

I have thought about building a steam generator using heat from the exhaust and plumbing the water vapor produced into my stock EGR pipe.

I have previously sucked the air conditioner evap drain water into my engine using a second PCV valve.
This was sucking all the time.
A steam generator hooked to the stock Magnum EGR would only turn on when the PCM senses engine load above 60% and an exhaust backpressure above 1.5 psi.

Graph

Effects of EGR on fast burn and moderate burn combustion chambers

I am guessing that the fuel consumption of the fast burn chamber drops from 415 to 390 grams of fuel per kilowatt hour, perhaps a 5% drop

This 1979 research by Nissan engineers led by Y. Nakajima.

A slow burn combustion chamber
would probably show worse fuel economy with any EGR at all,
which would explain why taking EGR off older open chamber, wide quench engines almost always improves fuel economy.

This 1400 rpm engine is at a low load, BMEP of 324 kPA, or 47 psi, maybe one third of full load.

I think at WOT 330 ft-lbs max torque at 3200 rpm a Magnum 5.9 V8 has a BMEP of about 138 psi

If I remember correctly, the MP headers were tri y. Its been a long time since I've seen any so I could be mistaken. I do remember that the v10 cat didn't need any bells for the inlet to size it up to the headers like the v8 unit did plus the outlet was already 3" too. When I was working at the dealer I saw the two cats side by side and went, hey! those things are copies of each other on the layout and bends just different size on the pipes.

Let me ask the obvious question. Why bother to vaporize, when sprayed into the inlet tract in small enough droplets, water will reduce the overall temperature? This could allow for more compression ratio, among other things.
Or is cooling the intake charge doing something else?

What publication are you copying in your attachments?

R.

There would be a fuel economy penalty with the tiny water droplets because the fuel in the intake charge would have to supply the surprisingly large "heat of enthalpy" of liquid H2O.
I experienced this with my AC evap drain experiment.

On the other hand, the evaporating water droplets would
cool and densify the charge,
increase volumetric efficiency filling of the cylinder,
lower Octane requirements,
and clean out fluffy porous carbon deposits by filling pores with liquid water that would then flash to steam bubbles after ignition.
A higher compression ratio could be used until the water ran out.

Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals
By John B Heywood
McGraw Hill 1979
Isbn 0-07-028637-X

http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustio...Isbn+007028637x

Dave, is this the 5.2 cam that you intend to use?

http://dodgeram.org/tech/gas/specs/valve-5_2.htm

The 318 Magnum cam seems to be approximately

Intake
115 degrees centerline ATDC
192 degrees duration at 0.050 lift

Exhaust
108 degrees centerline BTDC
207 degrees duration at 0.050 lift

If you intall it with the "advertised" lift event degrees as in the web link above
The EA 3.2 program says its is approximately at the
3.5 degrees retard
Setting

I have playing around with the EA 3.2 engine simulation computer program on a
11.95 static compression ratio (dynanic CR = 9.6)
Estimated cranking compression 260 psi ( ! )
0.026 tight quench
Magnum 5.9V8
running AKI 93 gasoline
at 2,950 feet above sea level like in Kalispell,
with the only hardware changes so far a
170 degree thermostat and
52 inch long primaries 4 into 1 headers of 1.375 inch internal diameter.

So far there is a 11% improvement in fuel economy at 12.8 air/fuel ratio full throttle at nearly every rpm point from 1600 to 5200.

Predicted non pinging ignition timing
is within four degrees of stock at wide open throttle,
so maybe this TSB
And setting the new option to -4
would allow the OEM pcm software to work without a custom flash

http://dodgeram.info/tsb/1998/18-24-98.htm

Notice it allows an adjustable 2 or 4 degrees of retard

I should be under 11 to 1 on this magnum. That cam info is about useless with out knowing the lift the duration was checked at or the .050 numbers, heck I don't even see lift specs there. I think they changed the specs when they ditched the EGR.

The 318 Magnum cam seems to be approximately

Intake
115 degrees centerline ATDC
192 degrees duration at 0.050 lift

Exhaust
108 degrees centerline BTDC
207 degrees duration at 0.050 lift

If you intall it with the "advertised" lift event degrees as in the web link above
The EA 3.2 program says its is approximately at the
3.5 degrees retard
Setting

Lift
0.432
0.432

HRD,

Couple of things. 1st, I picked up 1mpg on my 2wd 318 auto long bed dakota just by installing a soft roll up tonneau cover. Not and engine mod, but $300 well spent.

As far as intake temps, I have a 2002 Ram 1500 van. I did not like it running on the ragged edge of overheating, so I installed a dual fan set up out of an intrepid. Plenty of those out there available for parts. I also installed a flea bay a/m all aluminum 3 row rad. Cooling temps are down from 205* to 180* on all but the hottest of days. Probably not as big an issue where you live v/s Atlanta.

Magnaflow makes a nice y pipe for our trucks with mandrel bends and bolts up directly to factory exh manifolds.

Another area for easy improvement for automatics is a shift kit along with a good a/m converter. OEM converters are not as efficient as a good a/m with custom full welded vanes and bearings v/s bushings.

Lastly, you might watch ebay for some doug thorley/mopar performance tri y headers for your truck. I have had good luck finding them. As long as you are not in a hurry they do pop up from time to time.

I see oGoBugeyes. Is. Viewing....

How about 28.1 in a 2020 Scatty Charger on regular pump 87 ?

That is some pretty good mileage Doc. I don't get that kind of mileage from my 3.6 300.

Got BOUNCED almost through my whole LONG response.... BBL

I got you all beat, my 74 W200 magnum headed 360 gets 7.3 MPG. Oh wait...

While I always wondered how good a
super lean air-fuel ratio dual sparkplug 5.7 Hemi V8 with a six speed manual could do in a second gen Ram 2wd,
I guess the more reasonable question now would be
what could a 3.6 V6 do in a highly aero new generation Dakota?

While I have heard pretty good MPG numbers on 3.6 V6 full sized modern Rams at a steady 70 mph,
the modern Ram has gotten so much heavier, taller and wider than the 1994 Ram.

Is it too much to ask that a pickup with an 8 foot standard bed get 30 MPG at 70 MPH on a windless, level, smooth, concrete highway?

If the EPA would relax the NOx standard just a little I am confident it is possible.

I can get over 20 easily in my 2011 ram 1500 with a 6.4SRT8 short block, cam and eagle heads, Vararam intake cruising at 70MPH but I bet the NOX is too high for EPA. It does need premium fuel. My new truck is a 2011 dodge 2500 long bed crew cab and I have settled on building a BGE short block, eagle 5.7 cam, intake and heads, hoping to still get 20 MPG with it. I have run out of money to address the lack of quench on this one also so it just is what it is, pistons about .020 in the hole .035ish head gaskets.

Yo oGo ... I’m kind of impressed toooo ... but better MPGs are expected.... driving it S M O O T H L Y ! ... the 28.1 was done on the flat ... I-75 in Florida with the cruise clicked at 71 AND the tires were at 44psi. BTW ... the tires were at 49 when I picked it up... SO MUCH for proper DEALER PREP ! supposedly it’s set at that high psi at the assembly plant for ease of loading on RAIL or a semi trailer. And quite honestly it did not ride uncomfortably and it handled and braked quite well.

Now ALSO .... the aero on your 300 is no so good ... compared to the Charger... so I’ve been told.

HRD just wait until you can have the block decked to finish the build. You know you won't be happy with it and will just wind up building another to replace it down the road if you don't.

Just got done with a weekend full of mostly interstate travel. Averaged 27.3 mpg with the 3.6 300. Hard to complain about, especially with my lead foot combined with lots of stop, slow, and go on Atlanta interstates. I have been wondering what kind of mileage could be achieved with the 3.6 in an old A body or old first gen Dakota.

I would but I already assembled the short block and put it in the truck while I was getting the heads done. I can't push it off any longer I got several big jobs waiting where I need the 3/4 ton and I am actively trying to sell the 1/2 ton.

OgO.... my mpg was no trip.. it was a 110 mile cruise picking up a miter saw.

I drove it like my life depended on the best MPG I could get. I did another CL purchase some months ago ... the guy had a 19 GT Charger.... he claimed over 31 on a trip up to South Carolina.

A 3.6 is a nice motor

Life does have a way of interfering with stuff like that sometimes. I enjoy working on my hot rods and building engines, provided they are not for my daily driver. Hopefully I'll never be in a position where I have to wrench on a car at 10pm in order to have a way to work in the morning. It is nice having an extra car or two around.

Given any thought to the thinnest head gasket available?

Maybe it is not as important on the Hemi head because the quench flats are so much smaller than on the Magnum 5.2/5.9 V8 combustion chamber.

The Hemi head is supposed to have far greater “tumble”
as compared to “swirl” and “quench” on the Magnum combustion chamber..
Tumble is swirl turned 90 degrees.

The shallow “soap dish” cast into the Magnum 5.9/ V10 piston crown is to increase tumble in addition to increasing combustion chamber CC’s and adding some valve clearance.

The 5.2 Magnum stock piston does not have the soap dish and you would think the quench in the 5.2 would be of higher magnitude.

Willem Weertman writes a little about the piston design of the 5.9 V8 and how it was used in the iron V10 as well in his book “Chrysler Engines”

When I read this years ago I wondered:
“Is the dish of the 5.9 V8 a little too big because it also had to work in the V10?
Is the combustion chamber in the cylinder head of ideal size in the 5.2 with its flat top piston,
but a cost driven compromise in the 5.9 V8 and V10 ? “

If high compression ratio on regular gas is an indicator of good chamber gas velocities
the 5.2 beats the 5.9 V8 and 8L V10 by that measure.

The aluminum Viper V10s had several “tweaked” chamber and piston crown features over the years.

I have considered using the single layer of the factory head gasket (.010 thickness) like I have done on magnums and LAs but am a little scared with the aluminum heads that is might not last long. Also it would give me almost identical compression to my current SRT8 6.4 in the half ton that needs premium but with the smaller cam I am using I will have even more cylinder pressure and am scared it would just be too much even with the tighter quench.

Does your SRT8 have sodium filled exhaust valves?

Seems like I read that the SRT package mods included sodium filled valves one year.

6.4 truck engines have them, not sure about the SRT.

The SRT8 has eagle heads, it's got serious compression, eagle heads have about 10CC smaller chambers that the 6.4. I did mirror polish the entire head of the ex valves on that to keep them from absorbing as much heat from combustion, I did the same on these.

HRD did you ever do anything with this build?

Unfortunately not really, did a few of the little things and let someone borrow it and they got it totaled for me.