The Car Thread

[gaminwench]

My current daily driver is a 72 Blazer; took the hard top and cut it down to a bikini top ... I corroborate Elliot's experience of receiving offers on her whenever I take her out, but I love her, can't imagine letting her go.

[ygmir]

My current daily driver is a 72 Blazer; took the hard top and cut it down to a bikini top ... I corroborate Elliot's experience of receiving offers on her whenever I take her out, but I love her, can't imagine letting her go.

Post a photo and description of your coolest ever RV, GW!!

[AntiM]

Elliott, I can hardly wait to show all your amazing work to Larry when he gets home. You are a wizard, sir!

[Elliot]

My current daily driver is a 72 Blazer; took the hard top and cut it down to a bikini top ... I corroborate Elliot's experience of receiving offers on her whenever I take her out, but I love her, can't imagine letting her go.

Yeah, I drooled over that one.



The 1972 Blazer!

...
Another good "topless" 4x4 is a Ramcharger. Like the Blazer, but of course "Mopar".........

Tiahaar -- sometimes on this forum -- drives a Ramcharger.

Great minds and all that.

[Captain Goddammit]

I'm an old American car guy...
A buddy and I started with this; it looks like shit, but it's rare as hell, a '57 Eldorado. Regular 1957 DeVilles are common, the Eldo has a totally different (and way cooler) rear end.



Here's the roof, removed from the car:

[Captain Goddammit]

This too-far-gone '57 DeVille convertible provided all the parts to transform the former-hardtop Eldorado

[ygmir]

I had a 69 Lincoln MkIII for a time........what a ride!!
fast and smooth.

gotta find a photo and scan it. I was young then........hahhaaa

[Captain Goddammit]

I've got a zillion photos but I'll edit it down... here's the becoming-a-real-convertible Eldo.

[Savannah]

Wow! . . . I can already tell that's going to be cool.

[ygmir]

Wow! . . . I can already tell that's going to be cool.

nodding in agreement

[Captain Goddammit]

this the same GMC that hauls my shit to BRC...

[Captain Goddammit]

[MikeGyver]

My grandpa has a 57 Fairlane 4 door that I've tried talking him out of multiple times. Been sitting in the same spot in his yard for 20 years.

Looked at RamChargers when I bought my Cherokee Chief. But everything around here in my price range was chopped up into a desert toy.

[ygmir]

car porn.........I need a minute, thanks.

[name redacted]

Hey Elliot...

Sure thats a 63 biscayne? Sure looks like a 64. The 63 Impala had an egg crate style grille, plus the hood lip molding in the picture is definitely from a 64. And as far as I know, the Bel-Air and Biscayne shared the same body as their upscale brother, the Impala. The only exception was the 62 model year Bel-Air and biscayne, which retained the 61 Impala's "bubble top" roofline.

[FIGJAM]

Why is the hood ornament in your hand instead of on the car?

[Box Burner]

Why is the hood ornament in your hand instead of on the car?

Because the captain is better at building boats than he is a t cars. He did not know how to attach it!

[name redacted]

Nothing unusual.
Just good design.
1.3 litre Fiat tuned to hit peak efficiency at high rpm, fine tuned with the distributor advance, 9.5 compression down from normal due to smog years, and milder cam.
Better mileage if I had changed to a stock euro cam.
Typical mileage was 35-40 mpg on premium on the highway, days of real leaded premium, without the ethanol gas tax which loses about 35% for most cars.
20-25 mpg in town if I was hammering it.

I get 25 mpg with the 408ci, but so do many other people.
12.5 compression, mild cam, 3.25 rear end, extremely aero daytona body.
Mileage probably doesn't vary between 55 and 100 mph.

Check out the hypermiler forums for the really shocking claims.
I got 26 mpg with a full size van once in the mountains, four speed manual overdrive, 318.
That probably depends a lot on wind, but it always did well.

Mileage runs in the fifties used to routinely break 50 mpg using all the tricks.

I can't beat 25 mpg in my volvo or ranger.
My ranger should get 36, but with ethanol and age, may not be possible.
The volvo is compression limited in those years and high drag.

Im curious about your statement about fuel consumption not varying between 55 and 100 mph. Can you support this? Higher speeds require more work. More work requires more energy. Without getting into the formulas, basically if you double your speed, you will need to more than double your horsepower. It is not a linear increase.

[Captain Goddammit]

Oh here comes Gyre's "engines are most efficient at full throttle" horseshit... wait for it...

[unjonharley]

Hey, Goddammit those were some good pictures.. Then you gop and spoil them with your ugly mug

[name redacted]

I cant understand where he gets his facts/information. No noticeable fuel consumption difference between 55 and 100?

Seriously?

[MikeGyver]

I cant understand where he gets his facts/information. No noticeable fuel consumption difference between 55 and 100?

Seriously?

For good measure, without a device he would be figuring "noticeable fuel consumption) fill up to fill up. I had a 91 Cadillac DeVille for a while that had a digital fuel mileage readout that always through me for a loop, if you took your foot off the throttle MPG would shoot into the hundreds, then drop back down to 30-ish when you touched the throttle again.

Now going through the "smokey" mountains I would believe 45MPG (which he admitted down from the 80 he originally said). Yes, going 100 MPH takes somewhere near double the power as 50 MPH, but once you get up to 100 if your on a flat straight road its viable that your fuel mileage will be fairly good as long as you stay at a constant. What takes the most fuel is getting to speed, not staying at it. I know going through the mountains long stretches are far and few but its still a make-able point.

Coming down the 5 from the burn in my truck I got about 30 MPG on some of the straighter stretches doing 80+ when the truck doesn't get 15 at home. (averaged 20 mph on the way up 395)

Now the 84 Corolla I drove for a while was getting 40 MPG daily driving, efficient 4 cylinders with the correct tuning can get great mileage, I never took a trip in it to know distance miles but probably would have gotten pretty damn good mileage on an open highway.

[Popeye]

gyre wrote:Nothing unusual.
Just good design.
1.3 litre Fiat tuned to hit peak efficiency at high rpm, fine tuned with the distributor advance, 9.5 compression down from normal due to smog years, and milder cam.
Better mileage if I had changed to a stock euro cam.
Typical mileage was 35-40 mpg on premium on the highway, days of real leaded premium, without the ethanol gas tax which loses about 35% for most cars.
20-25 mpg in town if I was hammering it.

I get 25 mpg with the 408ci, but so do many other people.
12.5 compression, mild cam, 3.25 rear end, extremely aero daytona body.
Mileage probably doesn't vary between 55 and 100 mph.

Check out the hypermiler forums for the really shocking claims.
I got 26 mpg with a full size van once in the mountains, four speed manual overdrive, 318.
That probably depends a lot on wind, but it always did well.

Mileage runs in the fifties used to routinely break 50 mpg using all the tricks.

I can't beat 25 mpg in my volvo or ranger.
My ranger should get 36, but with ethanol and age, may not be possible.
The volvo is compression limited in those years and high drag.


Nameredacted said:
Im curious about your statement about fuel consumption not varying between 55 and 100 mph. Can you support this? Higher speeds require more work. More work requires more energy. Without getting into the formulas, basically if you double your speed, you will need to more than double your horsepower. It is not a linear increase.

NR I have to disagree with "need to double your horsepower". Higher speeds do not require -much if any- more work. The work is in reaching that speed and in overcoming any additional friction losses. Additional friction could come from increased turbulence or possibly a hotter engine. You do not need to increase your horspower to maintain a speed. This is how the car companies can advertise gas mileage that no one else can get. Take it sllllloooowwwlllyyy to 55 on a smooth road with overinflated tires and drive at one speed for 10? hours and your average mileage will be great.

[Elliot]

Hey Elliot...

Sure thats a 63 biscayne? Sure looks like a 64. ...

Well, I called it the Belchfire 500.
But you had to make me go thru a whole file cabinet drawer, didn't you. Yes, it was a 1964. And I paid $425 for it, not $300. Considering I bought it on 02 November 1987, I figured I remembered closely enough. I will now commit hara-kiri for my grievous errors.

No offense intended, Name Redacted. It just seemed too trivial to look up. But I've worked with serious car buffs as an auto journalist, so I ought to know it does matter to those who are into it.

Carry on!

[ygmir]

isn't there an increase in power necessary to push air out of the way? especially after a certain speed?

[Jackass]

gyre wrote:Nothing unusual.
Just good design.
1.3 litre Fiat tuned to hit peak efficiency at high rpm, fine tuned with the distributor advance, 9.5 compression down from normal due to smog years, and milder cam.
Better mileage if I had changed to a stock euro cam.
Typical mileage was 35-40 mpg on premium on the highway, days of real leaded premium, without the ethanol gas tax which loses about 35% for most cars.
20-25 mpg in town if I was hammering it.

I get 25 mpg with the 408ci, but so do many other people.
12.5 compression, mild cam, 3.25 rear end, extremely aero daytona body.
Mileage probably doesn't vary between 55 and 100 mph.

Check out the hypermiler forums for the really shocking claims.
I got 26 mpg with a full size van once in the mountains, four speed manual overdrive, 318.
That probably depends a lot on wind, but it always did well.

Mileage runs in the fifties used to routinely break 50 mpg using all the tricks.

I can't beat 25 mpg in my volvo or ranger.
My ranger should get 36, but with ethanol and age, may not be possible.
The volvo is compression limited in those years and high drag.


Nameredacted said:
Im curious about your statement about fuel consumption not varying between 55 and 100 mph. Can you support this? Higher speeds require more work. More work requires more energy. Without getting into the formulas, basically if you double your speed, you will need to more than double your horsepower. It is not a linear increase.

NR I have to disagree with "need to double your horsepower". Higher speeds do not require -much if any- more work. The work is in reaching that speed and in overcoming any additional friction losses. Additional friction could come from increased turbulence or possibly a hotter engine. You do not need to increase your horspower to maintain a speed. This is how the car companies can advertise gas mileage that no one else can get. Take it sllllloooowwwlllyyy to 55 on a smooth road with overinflated tires and drive at one speed for 10? hours and your average mileage will be great.

Sure at higher speeds you've got more inertia but you also have a hell of a lot more wind drag, that's your biggest enemy. If you've ever ridden a naked bike, you know this...

[tatonka]

I have the old cars cause I can work on them but I really love bikes

1970 I got a 1959 Indian ( really a 750 royal Enfield ) they owned the name at the time and tagged the bike



1974 Leaving TX and headed home to Ore. on a 1972 650cc Yamaha Chopper I built while in the service





2007 In Utah on a rode trip on my 1998 1200 Sportster , still have it with 80,000 miles on it . It gets 65 mpg at 45mph ,
It gets 55 mpg at 55-65 mph , and less the faster I go




2011 My bike in the background and my sons up front a 1979 Harley Sportster 1000cc




2012 me winning the plus 50 class at woodland mc track on vintage race days . a 1974 CZ 400cc

[Elliot]

Air resistance (drag) increases tremendously with speed. If I remember anywhere near correctly, drag increases with something like the SQUARE of speed. And we are talking about maintaining a steady speed. If you change your speed from, say, 55 to 60, drag will increase by something like 25 percent. (Never mind the accelerating phase. That's a different game. But of course it is correct that to score a maximum MPG number, you want to minimize accelerating.)

As Ygmir notes, people sometimes speak of a certain speed where drag becomes important. This is strictly a number of convenience for "quick reference". The concept actually applies right from zero speed. The common speed mentioned is 60 MPH. Above that, drag increases "off the scale". Hmmmm... as I think about it, 60 MPH may be the point where drag begins consuming more power to maintain speed than all the mechanical friction combined. I may be off on details here, but the concept is cast in stone.

As for engines, an engine can be designed to have maximum efficiency at any RPM the designer chooses. Valve timing -- camshaft lobe duration, overlap, lobe shape, cam timing etc is highly important. The ratio of bore diameter versus stroke length matters a lot. But "maximum efficiency" does not relate directly to MPG -- too many other factors involved.

That will have to do. I'm falling asleep. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jackass]

Here's my 1972 CB 550 Frankenbike, I've got more cool wheels, just hunting for the pics.

old 182.jpg

Here's a project bike that I dialed in for someone, this was fun

old 164.jpg

[Popeye]

I had to look it up, but you are right. Drag does increase with speed, but it would be felt more on something like amotorcycle than a car and the more aerodynamic the shape the less effect drag would have.The more turbulence caused by the car/mortocycle the more drag.