Are any of you considering building an "efficent" hot-rod?

I wish people would fuckin read. The Chevy E85 rod CAN be road legal, if it can have similar crash ratings to a Prowler and pass emissions. NOW STFU!

 

Here's the problem with that as I see it... the first hurdle is getting past emissions, safety and compliance standards. The second is running it through their idiotic "focus groups", a team of 22 year old designers that only think cool cars come from Japan and lastly some CEO that has never seen a classic car in his life and that wants his new cars to look like something out of a Buck Rogers movie (hence the new Camaro) The last stumbling block is keeping it simple (K.I.S.S.) which means no automatic transmissions, radio, or any of the standard stuff that cars come with today... especially a cup holder... make it a "drivers" car and you might have something... keep it cheap and you might be the next Henry Ford.

They'd also have to put fenders on it like a model A or early car did also... so's we could take 'em off

If this was easy... wouldn't everyone be starting up car companies today?

Here's a car similar to what I'm talking about that I thought might see the light of day... maybe now that Pontiac has the Solstice... you never know? http://www.allpar.com/model/concepts/dodge-razor.html I could see that SRT-4 drivetrain powering a rwd hot-rod... oh yes I could.

 

Here's My Efficient Hot Rod ... The fuel I am using, a mixture of several brands of cheap beer, mexican food, and pizza ... is causing a problem with the EPA. Something about excess methane gas in the exhaust. I'll have to have that checked out.

 

they are fairly compact,which is a good thing in a 7, much more common and well known in the UK , were used on the Mercury Merkur here, and in a very light car they hold up well...I'd never heard of them either until I got interested in 7's

 

Don't know the exact ratios in mine as it came with the car, but the spacing is good, AFAIK only 1st gear was changed. From what I've read the T9 is smaller than a T5 but is also a lot weaker and can break in a heavier car...but might work OK in yours, sounds like it will be very light...the 7 and a Track T are similar in many ways

 

T9's are known to be fragile in Merkur's. Your mileage may vary. For the little bit of space you sacrifice, go with the V8 spec T5. You will not hurt a T5 with a Quad4.

 

ok i am getting ideas now, going to go look for the old mercedes diesel,he has a bout twelve of them in the yard here. get the engine and a tranny and start looking at it for a while. i do think old german clattering engines have a very high coolness factor. just me i like anything mechanical lol. . anybody know where i can get an old ambulance body? korean war style?

 

My vote is for a 2.4 Turbo from a Neon SRT4. They are very reliable up to 500 HP on the stock bottom end, and there are soo many wrecked ones I've seen complete engines with harness and computer go for 500-800.00 with 30K or so miles. I have a 2005 ACR with the Mopar Stage 3 upgrade. It puts 385HP to the the tires on the Chassis dyno, and honestly gets 32 MPG @ 75-80 MPH, I just verified this over 500 miles going to Pennsylvania. The 2.4 has the same bell housing bolt pattern (- 1 bolt) as the old 2.2/2.5 motors, and old Dakota 5 speed trannys will work for the RWD conversion.

I am planning a Lakes modified T with this engine. A vice 3" straight pipe off the turbo and outh the hood side would look and sound sweet, the only issue I am concerned with is where to package the Intercooler while trying to keep the nostalgic look.

 

2.3 Ford's are just as capable. A hybrid T3/T4 turbo, a real intercooler, some head work and ECU tuning and ...TA-DAA...350-400 hp at the wheels with 18-20psi.

Sounds like a cool ass engine you got.

32 mpg. Damn. 4 cylinder economy at cruise. Big V8 power at go time. Nice.

 

What a great combination !

 

I would NOT get an engine out of a Neon unless it was newer- the first generation Neons were absolute garbage! My wife had one (boss talked her into getting it for more reliable transprtation) and it was constantly needing work AND they are expensive to fix. The alt, starter, etc are all specific to the Neon.

Sorry for the rant (of course I NOW see that you're looking at a 2005), but that little demon of a car was a constant pain.

 

I get 25 mpg with a T56 behind my flathead with a 3.80 locker

 

The nice thing about the 2.4 is you do NOT have to do the headwork or figure out the Turbo, stock turbo cars with bolt ons easily get over 300 WHP, never removing the valve cover.

 

get out of town,really?Very interesting thread.What about guys using webers,they look great, especially as a nest of 4x2.Guys are mentioning them here as if they are fuel efficient;my understanding was they are fickle and need constant re fiddling about with because they go "out of tune"?

 

Thanks, I couldn't find any comparison in strength, weight or size when I searched.

 

Every time I have talked to someone that put Webers (or Delortos) on after having a centralised single carb (for a street car) they have told me that they get better milage than they did from the old setup (regardless of it being a 1,2 or 4 bbl). I figure they are realising that primarily because they aren't having to worry about mixture distribution, and they tend to have short fairly straight runners, so you don't have to worry as much about the fuel falling out of suspension.

As far as the 'going out of tune' (not having had a set of my own) I figure it's more a case of being able to get them dialed on more precisely, for each cylinder, so when something changes (the weather, a float starts to sink, the valve clearances close up, whatever) it is more noticeable. That and with that many adjustments per cylinder X how many ever cylinders you have, it's fairly easy to get 'lost'. FWIW I have never owned a set, but I have seen (and attempted to help) several friends tune theirs over the years.

 

Nope.

Webers are awesome.

When I put a set of 40DCOE's on a 1600 Cortina GT Engine, I was told this would not work because the car it was in was the Wagon I used to tow my Racer with.
They also told me I could not run them with a Stock Cam, and that I needed at least 32mm Venturi's

I did it anyway, left the Stock Cam in, used the smallest venturi's I could find ( 28mm ).
Ran great.
Much better milage than the stock progressive 2BBL Downdraft, and so much extra Torque that I could even switch to a taller final drive.
( helping the milage even more )

I spent a lot of time dialing them in ( I had extra jets in my pockets for weeks...), but after that, I hardly ever touched them again.
Not even to re-synchronise them...
They were completely trouble free, and I put a lot of miles on that Car Towing and as a Daily Driver to and from work.

 

is there any one that sells these gears? 2.42-2.56-2.73 for 10 bolt or s-10?

 

Lowest gear set I've heard of is the 2.50 gears my brother has for a 9"

 

Richmond had a decent selection of 10 bolt Chev gear ratioes last I checked.

I know the 8 1/2" 10 bolt is stronger, but I have to wonder if the smaller version is more efficient (like the article I read last month on parasitic losses of various rear ends, can't remember which mag though, Hot Rod, Car Craft ). The parasitic losses are proportional to the power you are putting through them at the time, so at low power / cruise the losses are smaller, but something to think about if you are truly planning on an 'econo' rod.

 

I've got all these gear sets in my shed for GM 10-bolt 8.5" if anyone is interested PM me or email me off group, they are for sale

the GM 10-bolts had as low as 2.42's in them, I pulled a set myself

a few also had 2.56's

a LOT and most had 2.73's

a family in-law ran a 326 Poncho w/2bbl as work car in the 1980's, it got 18 mpg no problem in a '67 Tempest 4-door at 3600 lb.- pretty damned good considering a "modern" SBC2 doesnt' get much better with all it's high-flutent computerized BS controls and injection

 

That's damn good mileage in a car that's within shouting distance of 2 tons empty.

 

All these comments on the mpg someone has gotten has me wondering if we all calculate our mpg the same way.

I fill my tank till the gas pump shuts off and note my mileage at that time. Then I drive till it's at or just below empty and fill it until the pump shuts off. I again note my mileage and how much fuel I added. Subtract the mileage for distance traveled and divide that by the gallons I just put in.

 

20mpg good? In my next rod, 30mpg city is the goal - either from a small motor or light weight. It may not be achievable, but I plan to give it a good American try.

I remember getting 17mpg (both city and highway) in my 318 Dakota with a 3.90 spool and 4sp auto OD for years, but when gas hit 2-bucks+ per I traded for the small motored HHR with CVT. Now I get 32-33mpg highway and gas only "seems" like it's only 2-bucks a gallon when I take a trip!

But when I take my 5.0 powered 37 with 3.08 gears and a C-4 on a trip, the devil is getting 4 bucks a gallon again.

If all you need to be "hot rod" is vintage tin and loud pipes, I think you can do that with a 4 banger, eh? Limping around the fairgrounds doesn't take much HP, does it?

But getting there and back takes more and more "disposable" cash than ever. There will always be gas $ for a trip to the DQ or Sonic, but that 2000 mile trip to a big show? Hot rod vacation?

Off the soap box, into the web... Gary

 

I hear ya Gary. I took a somewhere between 3500 and 4000 mile trip in April, in the A, I figure the more efficient I can get what I already have, the better off I am.

So, anybody in the PNW have a 31 spline 4.11 9" diff setup (the whole dropout) I could borrow the next time I try one of those trips (I just want to see how far I need to go change wise).

 

aerodynamics have a lot to do with it too, some old cars (like mine) are like a brick into the wind and this kills mileage....wonder if there is a reference somewhere showing drag coefficients of some older cars?? some of the sleeker ones probably are not too bad...

 

I suspect my 37 is more of the brick than I'd like to admit. And my proposed ultra-light, eco-rod 31-34 Ford pickup coudn't be any better. Hopefully, slotting the back of the wind shield visor will help keep the drag down!

Speaking of aero, am I the only one who never saw much in a Duval windshield on a deuce? Like wings on a brick. Conversely, why don't you see many Duvalls on 33-40 Fords? That would seem much more of a correct and natural match, like the wind screens on vintage warbirds, racing seaplanes and wooden speed boats in those times.

Gary

 

have people forgotten about SU carbs? they are self adjusting like a FI system, but much less fickle then webbers.and much eaisier to tune. you can make anything run with them. plus if you polish the aluminum domes they are great looking.

 

I,m not denying they may work great but I,ve only seen them on hotrods with the Rover v8 lump where there are only 2 at a 45 degree angle to the intake,Aesthetically its all wrong and we need a manifold to take 6-8 of the buggers,Probably not the most thrifty of systems but were talking hotrods here,its still got to giggle the eyeballs.You seen them look good anywhere?