I had Zoom gears in the 8.2 in my 68 Camaro back in the 90s. Went through the set up process 3 times before giving up and listening to the gear noise. Sort of a whine if I recall.
Zoom gears were like that...louder than this one. I can barely hear it, and only under certain conditions.
I had Ed Smith's Speed shop install a set of 4.56 Zoom gears in my 1968 Chevelle SS in 1971.. They were quiet.
Installed Zoom 4.88's many moons ago. Don't recall them being overly loud. I wonder if they're cut at a different pitch, being subject to severe use (in most cases) (ala rock crusher gears)?
I've been fiddling with the fuel and spark maps, to try to get a bit better highway gas mileage. It made about 10-12 mpg on Drag Week, which is rather lame for having EFI and a modern efficient engine. I added more spark at cruise, and leaned it out just a little bit. Took it for another test drive to Bisbee, it seems to be a little better. I might drive it up to Tucson tomorrow to see how it does on the AZ freeways, which I haven't tried yet.
How lean? Cruise on flat land I used 19-1 seemed ok. A little gas dropped. 14-1 normal. 12-1 for power. Been a year that what I remember
I've only gone to about 14.5 on the AFR. The timing is about 36 at 3000 rpm under light load, it was not going that high before I messed with it.
14.5 will be 'perfect' mix. You can easily run leaner at light load. Log knock and temps and keep them both 'safe'. https://www.hemmings.com/stories/ch...talytic converter. It was a short-lived glory. "The carburetor ran very lean–an 18.0:1 air/fuel ratio, well off the standard stoichiometric 14.7:1. What’s more, Chrysler was able to meet hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide levels without use of a catalytic converter." Yes, it developed the rep it still has, but if everything is not a goofy add-on mess that easily got out of tune and developed vacuum leaks it proves you can go that high. I wouldn't, but there is a hard number. Not familiar with the LS timing curves. A fella could lurk in a few forums and see what they like. As for freeway mileage, I have a feeling that the screen door out front isn't helping.
I noticed that the Tahoe got really bad mileage towing Cheep at 75 mph, I slowed down to 65-70 and it improved noticeably. So there's some serious drag going on. I think it has more to do with the big old boxy greenhouse, but hey, it's been almost 45 years since I took any engineering classes. timing...they don't need much, compared to a BBC!
I'm sure the back end is horrid for drag, but your additions out front are not helping. Just the nature of the narrow, short overhang nose. Can't tuck all that in. Don't suppose you want to bring the intercooler up and duct tape one of these on?
Thats Pretty much what they get With 400 No overdrive , I am 13 mpg Normal driving, cruise I am 14-8 AFR with th350 , have not installed the G-V yet . Mybe 2 more mpg. My cousin 32 5w 87 IRoc Tuneport 350 , 700r Was 22 -25 mpg What was the Chevy 2 with 427 & G-V?
Plan II got 10-11 mpg on my long trips with 3.89 gears and GV. Usually ran around 2500 rpm around 70 or so mph on the open road. So I'm doing better with this one, already. And I have the GV out of my truck that I can install in Cheep if I want to make it worth more money. The converter is pretty slippery below 3000 rpm though. I'm getting stuff ready in case I decide to drive Cheep out to LA and back to Tucson for the Duct Tape Drags.
Under stand , In my sedan I pulled 427 sb 10 mpg out Installed a stock Vortec 350 with Carb intake & Holley Sniper 3:50 gear 29 tall tire th350 1,800 converter its 15 mpg , Definitely not Pinto and Vega mpg ! I have a 4L80 , that trains is monster for my pre war cars ,I think I have a th200 thinking build, might try
she and the kid will be hauling the Airstream to the drag strip the day of the cruise...so that won't work out...
Cheep is a stack of bricks, aerodynamically speaking. All that air space under it is not helping either, I also suspect the under carriage air flow probably isn't much better the the air flow over the front end and then the air flow above the top. The faster you push the pile of bricks through the air, the worst the mpg drops. With my 49 Dodge pickup (also a pile of bricks, air flow wise), the difference between 60 mph and 70 mph over a pair of 200 mile back to back runs is 2 mpg difference. Air flow can hurt mpg a lot.
My daily is an 07 silverado 1500 crew cab 4x4 with 4.11 gears and 33s. 65mph cruise is 16mpg and 80mph cruise is 13.5mpg. If you can get ethanol free fuel it boosts my mpg. On long highway runs at 65 I flirt with 17.5mpg with rec 90 fuel.
Drove up to Tucson today, visited my brother. We were looking at the engine and I noticed a rib was gone off the serpentine drive belt. When I was figuring out what belt to use back in May, I goofed up the routing direction, and ended up with it routed opposite from what I wanted, so the crank was pulling the belt from the alternator, then idler, then water pump. I got a belt the right length to pull the water pump first, then alternator, then idler. It's a spring loaded idler. I had removed the power steering pump, and mounted the alternator so the belt would go where it needed to. Anyways, on the drive home, the belt flew off and disappeared. I saw the battery light on and noticed the temp up to 200 degrees, so I stopped and put on the old belt again. Maybe something's not lined up perfectly, or ???? I'll have to check it all out. also when we were at the parts store in tucson, ended up talking to a couple guys in the parking lot who are going to the Duct Tape Drags. Small world.
I think I figured out the belt problem. The belt looked funny because it had shed one of the ribs. After looking things over, I discovered that the alternator has a 5 groove pulley, which doesn't work too well on a 6 rib belt! It hides under the intercooler pipe, so it's not noticeable. I'll just run it as is, and order a 6 groove pulley to use with a new belt, to fix the problem.
Way to go Jim! Late to the game with a lil' tech. 8.8 found in Fox/SN95 cars was cast Fe. In '05, with the retro S197, Mustangs 8.8 is cast steel. Not sure on what other models also have cast steel 8.8s. Is there no filter or velocity stack on the turbo inlet? Just raw dogging the air? A bellmouth(~$30) on the inlet would improve linear airflow and compressor efficiency thus mo powa! Is there no fence or dam between the water radiator and turbo inlet? Sucking heated post rad air is killing your power. Even a piece of dryer ducting to get the turbo feed inlet ahead of the hot air off the back of the rad would improve power, or at least consistency. Intercooler would be more efficient if there was some pressure differential around it. An airdam and some fencing, or even some mild ducting behind the from the bumper down to the I.C. would improve air flow through it. Keeping air from under the Cheep would promote better cooling for both radiators, reduce drag increasing mpg, and help with keeping Cheep more stable at the top end, and highway cruising, by not riding that speed sucking cushion of air under Cheep. I understand there was a budget and time crunch, a few small changes would make Cheep faster. Yes I know the big gaping hole up top isn't helping with aero, but can mitigate the barn doored-ness with a few more cheap tweaks.
great ideas...and will probably get some of them done as time goes on. I thought about making something to keep the radiator air out of the intake, but it looked like too much work I also need to cut some holes in the bumper or just cut a big notch out of it, where it's blocking 1/3 of the intercooler. Adding some air dam to the sides of it would be pretty easy.
got my new alternator pulley in the mail today, and installed it. And the weather forecast for this weekend has caused both of my potential t-n-t drag races to be cancelled/postponed. Oh, well.
The Jalopy Journal
