roller rockers+MSD=power and economy?

[vintagetin]

On my endless quest to get the most power and mpg's out of my daily 360 Charger, I was wondering what you guys think about roller rockers and an MSD (multi spark discharger?) ignition. I heard the MSD helps a great deal because it ingnites the plug many times after TDC to help burn left over fumes. Engine then run cleaner with more power and efficiency.
About the roller rockers, my main concern is mpg's. I notice that the chrysler ones come with bearings to go around the rocker arm shaft, and of course the roller on the valve end. Does anybody have any experience with how much this actually helps reduce friction in the valve train? I also noticed some are designed to increased cam lift and I'm really not concerned with that. I'd like to keep a fairly stock lift. Does anyone have a type of roller rocker they might suggest for the best dependable economy?

 

[rumblefish360]

On my endless quest to get the most power and mpg's out of my daily 360 Charger, I was wondering what you guys think about roller rockers and an MSD (multi spark discharger?) ignition. I heard the MSD helps a great deal because it ingnites the plug many times after TDC to help burn left over fumes. Engine then run cleaner with more power and efficiency.

It's not many times after TDC. It's many times period. Where ever you set the timing, the spark plug will recieve multiple spark jolts. I think the number was 7 as per MSD, which decreases over engine RPM due to not haveing enuff time to introduce more spark strikes. At around the 3,000 rpm mark, theres simplely not enuff time to do a multi spark to a single plug, the system just dumps the discharge and reloads.

Theres a physical time limit to the system, things only move so fast and that is that. Unless you figured out how to brake the laws of physics....LMAO! ;)

Yes, the systems (Engine workings) is old and can bennifit from this item. MSD brand or not, it will ad fuel mileage and cleaner tail pipe readings.

Take this advice and get one for your search from the been there and done that.

About the roller rockers, my main concern is mpg's. I notice that the chrysler ones come with bearings to go around the rocker arm shaft, and of course the roller on the valve end. Does anybody have any experience with how much this actually helps reduce friction in the valve train? I also noticed some are designed to increased cam lift and I'm really not concerned with that. I'd like to keep a fairly stock lift. Does anyone have a type of roller rocker they might suggest for the best dependable economy?

The amount is so minimal, it's retarded to ask anyone here that question due to the fact no one here has the equipment to measure such frictional losses, gains in power or mileage for the small increase a single rocker makes, but the whole package will show a power increase. So says the dyno's. From there a theorectical amount can be made.

I say that because there are so many other things to consider than just what extra power, frictional loss, decrease in fuel consumption, air temp/quality, humidity, flat running surface or hills etc.... The list goes on and on...

Each application will show a different result. Each 360 given the same treatment should show identical results. % gain wise.

As for the bang for the buck, it's probably the worst purchase you can make. If you do roller rocker, then save money for the cam. Excellent mileage cams can be purchased or custom ground for no real extra cost by any decent cam grinder.

The bearings around the shaft within the rocker will help in a small small way. This is normaly seen in a race ride or very serious street stripper car. The normal rockers do not have the bearings. They ride (So to speak) on a thin layer of oil. ZERO friction. Or should be.

Look into a custom roller cam discussed with a cam grinder to max. out possible mileage. Type of driving is a must know for these guys along with every last asspect of the car and drive train.

 

[rumblefish360]

On a simpler note, I had a '79 Dodge Magnum with a 360/904/2.76 - 235/60/15 tire with minimal upgrades to it that got 20 mpg's (Hwy.) on the best driving days. 19 was the norm.

The following was done.

'73 trap door OEM 340 air cleaner w/K&N fliter
625 AFB/Carter
OEM iron 360 intake
Dual exhaust @ 2-1/4inchs off the exhaust manifolds into a a "H" pipe, twin cats (Law at the time) into Thrush mufflers (Cheapest ones available) run to the rear bumber.
MSD 6 box triggered by a junk yard OEM truck distributor w/vacuum advance.

This set up was well tuned. This is the main key to mileage, next is breathing, in and out.
My set up could have been enhanced some. However, at the time, the law was getting wacky and the emmission stations were getting nervous due to the camreas installed at every work/emmissions station to prevent fraud. The state (N.Y.) was getting retardedly serious about this matter. The car HAD to PASS the test. No if and or butts about it.

Headers would have helped as well as;

an Open element air cleaner
better intake manifold, actually, a well designed and tuned runner single plane intake should be excellent for mileage seeking while traveling at Hwy. speeds. (Of course, this is also RPM dependent)
tricked up head work,
trick valve work
better mufflers
custom cam
seriously getting into the distributor. The stock curve was OK. Being a truck distributor, the weights may have been taylored to a heavy truck. Then again, it could have come from a 1500. (Light truck, same curve as a car.)

On a wild end, (Read - $$$!) Fuel injection would be a real bennifit.
An over drive trans is another.
Possible gear ratio change. This is dependent on actual driving. Long distance or not. If I was on the Hwy. then with an overdrive trans, I could run a higher ratio, then go into overdrive for a lower ratio for lower RPM cruising to match the custom cam so it can cruise around in peak torque rather than just below or above (Gear ratio and speed of engine dependent) OH tire size has a play. How tall? Width can be an aerodynamic issue as well.

If your cruising in / at peak torque, this is where the engine uses the air and fuel best. As in best return on fuel used and power returned.
If your useing *** amount of fuel and getting back YYY amount of torque at ZZZ RPM's, and this is all in theroy of Least amount of fuel (***) max (Amount of torque (YYY) at a engine speed to work with the tire size at Hwy speed (Lets say 65 mph) to get the max (ZZZ) to move the car easiest and most effciently.

The problem is getting all this math to work. If it is done in your head, I hope your brain ethier has the time and or computing power to figure it out. A computer program that is not of the cheap kind can help point the way. But just because the program sez so, don't you beileve it. But do try it for a starting pont. You probably won't be disapointed. But improve on it you can or should be able to.

I ahven't had a new program in a very long time. The newest ones are probably head and shoulders above a decade old med. program. LMAO!

 

[vintagetin]

Your words of knowledge are appreciatted. In this time of economic crunch I'm desprate to find ways to enjoy my favorite thing everyday, and do it without sacrificing too much.
I'm trying to get as MANY mpg's as I can out of a carburated, v-8. Those two things I don't want to change. Has to be a v-8!:icon_super: I want to see if it is possible to beat 25 mpg's. I've read articles where people claim they have, but have never actually seen it myself. And since me and this old Dodge see an average of 350miles a week..it doesn't seem like a bad idea. I'm working on getting an A833 overdriver tranny for it. Everyone complains about the lower gear being too low for racing....but I have a 2.73:1 rear gear ratio so this will actually help me off the line. I'm confident (have no scientific data) that the 360 has enough torque between 1,500 and 2,500 rpms to pull the 3,800 Charger against the wind at speeds of 55-75 mph. I assume less throttle at same speed means more fuel mileage. I plan on keeping the 2.73's back there too. I wonder if I could truely rack up 25 mpg's??

So at cruising rpm's, the MSD is still technically doing it's multi-spark thing? Then that means, while just cruising, or under light acceleration the engine should run more effeiciently with the MSD set up.

I've also heard that a higher compression (not too high) also helps. The higher the cylinder pressure the better the fuel is atomized (something that a high pressure fuel injection system already helps) Not too high, as I do not want predetination. I believe my 360 stock has crap *** 8.5:1. by resurfacing the heads and maybe some different pistons, I wonder if 10:1 would improve economy (I know it would improve horsepower/torque) without putting too much stress on the starter or cause spark nock with 89 or 87. The only thing that confuses me is: Doesn't it take more work to compress an air/fuel mixture at a higher pressure? or does the extra power from the better atomized air/fuel mixture out weigh it in power lost and power gained? Also, higher compression is harder on the bearings and such.

I'm currently running an Edelbrock 600 on an aluminum dual plane and have the floats adjusted parrallel to the top of the carb. The best I've been able to rack up was 22.5 mpg's on a cool night coasting down hills on a country road. I even built a small external fuel tank with a clear level on the side so I can read EXACTLY how much gas burn. I average about 18-20..and it does horrible on the interstate.

It sucks that to remain dedicated to this hobbie you have to remain a slave to the potroleum industry. I hate it so much in fact ,that me and a few other friends at the University of West Florida are trying to find ways to run carburated engines off hyrdrogen created from water via electricity. It works...but there are other issues that confine the idea from developing..and one is our wallets....

 

[Satellite65]

Don't spend too much money in your quest for MPG's. You'll find yourself sneaking up on the point of diminishing returns rather quickly. A 360 Charger (is the '66-'67 in your avatar the car we're talking about?) pulling 18-20 is probably about as good as it's gonna get, maybe a little bit better but don't expect miracles.

Here's the thing:

For any given vehicle, I don't care if it's a car, boat, plane, space shuttle, whatever, a vehicle of a specific mass with a specific aerodynamic profile is going to require a specific amount of energy to push it along at any given speed. A car that requires 40 hp to push it along at 55 mph is going to need 40 hp whether it's a 360 or a 440. The only advantage the 360 has is that the car will be lighter overall, which would reduce the power required to push it and the engine would have a slight advantage due to the lighter weight of the rotating assembly - all other things being equal.

If you already have an electronic ignition and it's in proper working condition, you're not likely to see any benefits from an MSD type system. Those systems work well to mask the ill effects of big cams and other performance oriented stuff that tends to lead to stinky exhaust fumes by making sure unburned fuel is burned before it leaves the engine. It could help smooth out the rough idle of a heavy cam as well - to a point. Any significant gains in fuel economy that you would realize from swapping in one of these systems would lead me to believe that there was something wrong with your old system to begin with. As far as ignition goes, the best thing you could do is make sure that your advance curves are optimized and both the mechanical and vacuum advance mechanisms are working properly.

As for the roller rockers, if there's nothing wrong with the ones on your engine or if you run a hydraulic cam and don't need the adjustability then save your money. There's nothing to be gained in that department.

You didn't say what carb you are using. If it's a square flange then by going to a spread bore carb (Quadrajet or ThermoQuad) might give you a slight edge. Headers would also help.

Whenever I see a thread like this I can't help but think in terms of cost to benefit. It doesn't seem to make much sense to spend a boatload of cash to get 1-2 more mpg's. How long would it take to see a return on the investment? That's why I said to be mindful of how much money you put into it.

 

[rumblefish360]

Wise word Satellite. I'll argue the MSD bennifits till i'm blue, but you do have a very good point.

VIN;

So at cruising rpm's, the MSD is still technically doing it's multi-spark thing? Then that means, while just cruising, or under light acceleration the engine should run more effeiciently with the MSD set up.

1.) Yes, the multi spark is multi sparking until 3,000 rpm's.

2.) Yes, but only verse the old system. Best effecient/most efficeint running vs mileage is at peak torque. If your cruieing in/at peak torque, you'll get the best mileage.

I've also heard that a higher compression (not too high) also helps. The higher the cylinder pressure the better the fuel is atomized (something that a high pressure fuel injection system already helps) Not too high, as I do not want predetination. I believe my 360 stock has crap *** 8.5:1. by resurfacing the heads and maybe some different pistons, I wonder if 10:1 would improve economy (I know it would improve horsepower/torque)

Higher comprsion will help. But at piston and ring cost not to mention new bearings and , well, your basicly rebuilding your lower end at a cost of 2 - 2500 bucks, the idea of cost vs the bang for the buck is out the window.

A high quench engine is great for power and the more squezze the better. Until your octane requrements run out of octane at the pump.

without putting too much stress on the starter or cause spark nock with 89 or 87.

Stress on the starter is a non issue and a bologna voo doo someone stirred up. It's more of a timing issue than anything else.
You wanna run on 87? Leave it all alone then.

Know where your peak torque is at and aim to cruise in that RPM.
Slow/lower RPM's do not mean better mileage allways. Effecent falls if the RPM is to low or to high.

What are you getting on a flat hwy. during the day?

 

[rumblefish360]

What are the exact details of your engine trans and rear, tire size as well?
66 Charger? That would be an aerodynamic brick and a half ya know.

 

[Satellite65]

Oh wait, you did say what carb - Eddy 600. Better get my eyes checked. That's not a bad carb and certainly not oversized so I cant see it being a major factor.


Quote from Rumblefish:

"Know where your peak torque is at and aim to cruise in that RPM.
Slow/lower RPM's do not mean better mileage allways. Effecent falls if the RPM is to low or to high."

A lot of truth to that. Years ago I ran my '65 Sat with a 440, 3.54 gears, auto w/ stock converter and 26" tires. It was a LOW compression (7.8:1) dog with no low rpm power but it did make really good midrange. On the highway I could coax 16-17 out of it even though it sounded like it was reving kinda high but then, I was right in the sweet spot of the powerband. Passing trucks was lotsa fun but the gas mileage went out the window.

 

[rumblefish360]

I have the same thing now with my Magnum and it's (1978),400/727/3.55 combo. 245/60/15's on all 4 is how I like it on the car.
A T-Q sits on top a Holley Street Dominator with Headman Elite headers into dual H piped 2-1/2 exhaust. 16 - 17 Hwy mpg's at best on the best day @ approx. 70 mph. Slower gets worse mileage. Faster than ...oh 75-ish, drinks like mad.

 

[YY1]

This is a very interesting discussion. I had been thinking maybe the EPA should create a new requirement to list the peak operating efficiency RPM of the engine. I did not know that the tourque peak was also the efficiency peak.

I can verify that lower RPM does not necessarily equate to better MPG. I have a Scangauge computer interface in my PT, that tracks instant and average MPG. I found through experimentation that shifting at 3K nets MUCH better averages than any other RPM, even if it doesn't "feel" right.

I get 26-27.5 AVERAGE MPG, which is the EPA HIGHWAY rating for that car.

I can also verify that some engines like "quality" fuel.
The PT gets 1.5 MPG better on Shell, Chevron, etc vs WalMart/Murph, Racetrack, etc.

The Dakota, on the other hand gets the same no matter what.
That's a fun one to try to get MPG out of.

For some reason, after 115,000 miles, it decided it was going to average 14.1-14.4, for the last 2 tanks, versus the 13.5 it has gotten since I learned how to keep my foot out of it all the time. Oddly, I had a bad water pump bearing, which didn't affect MPG, and then a sticking caliper, which also didn't affect it, but 6 months later, bang 1 bonus MPG.

For the record the 5.9/360 Dak has o/d and 3:91 gears. I am tempted to try a 3:55 set.
At 50 MPH it can get 23+ MPG. If I could get that RPM at closer to 70 MPH....

 

[rumblefish360]

There was a fella on the Dodge Dakota-Durango forum that had a custom torque conveter made for him which netted him an extra 3 mpg's. Can't remember the screen name. FWIW, theres also a guy that ports the throttle bodies and customers love the enhanced 318 TB over the common 360 TB swap.

For the record the 5.9/360 Dak has o/d and 3:91 gears. I am tempted to try a 3:55 set.
At 50 MPH it can get 23+ MPG. If I could get that RPM at closer to 70 MPH....

Strickly speaking, in theroy, that should work. You'll need a RPM calculator or a gear ratio/tire change calculator to do some figureing .

 

[Satellite65]

Also bear in mind that the aero's at 70 mph are going to be a lot different than at 50. It's possible that the aerodynamic drag might negate a lot of the gains realized from the drop in rpm's.

Only experimentation can tell for certain.

 

[vintagetin]

Higher comprsion will help. But at piston and ring cost not to mention new bearings and , well, your basicly rebuilding your lower end at a cost of 2 - 2500 bucks, the idea of cost vs the bang for the buck is out the window.

What are you getting on a flat hwy. during the day?

The best I ever calculated was 22.5mpg @ 55mph @ 2,400rpms (if the stock tack is right).

When I build my next engine for the car, I want to build a torquey, dependable, effecient engine. So I figured it was worth discusing. I'm not much into racing, I just like to smoke the tires and wave at the girls.

What are the exact details of your engine trans and rear, tire size as well?
66 Charger?

That would be an aerodynamic brick and a half ya know.

I'd have to get back to you on the exact details of the rear end. I can tell you it's an 8 3/4 one wheel peal. The transmission is a three speed standard. The engine was out of a '76 little red express truck. I honed it, took some metal off the heads and completely reassemble it. New cam, lifter bearing, rings...you know, a basic rebuild. The cam has a lift of .420 at both the exhaust and intake valve. Duration at .050" lift is 204 degrees for both the exhaust and intake. It has the car and intake stated above. It has a set of long tube Hedman Hedders and 2 1/4 twin pipes with reversed Purple Hornies. The tires are 215/75 R14's.

As far as aerodynamics go, I know it's no 98 Camaro. But I did read the design of the body caused so much lift in Nascar that they had to start selling them with a small spoiler so they could use it on the track. And for a sixties car..it's really not too bad. The tear trop shape is the most effecient design wear the rounded end is in the front. I know I'm being critical..but I'm just trying to learn.

Here's the thing:
A car that requires 40 hp to push it along at 55 mph is going to need 40 hp whether it's a 360 or a 440. The only advantage the 360 has is that the car will be lighter overall, which would reduce the power required to push it and the engine would have a slight advantage due to the lighter weight of the rotating assembly - all other things being equal.

I agree, but not completely. I have to argue one more thing. The 440 requires more air and fuel to rotate at 1,000 rpms than the 360 does. The 440 has a bigger stroke and bore and will therefore consume more air/fuel to produce the same engine speed. If my car only needs 40 hp to push it, and my 440 is making 400hp at cruising speed...then I'm just waisting energy (until I have to pass). So I think there is a balance between how much power you need and what you can scrifice. Seeing how this is my only car, to find ways to make it run as efficient as possible would pay off. At least I'm not making payments on a $30,000 hybrid!

I've heard of this "sweet spot" rpm before. And it make perfect sence, unless your cars max torque is at 4,500 rpms. Because it would not make any sence to cruise in 2nd gear devouring all your gas. There is a balance between this "sweet spot", wind resistance, and rpms. You obviously want to slow your crankshaft as much as you can, but not to the point were the engine bogs or strains. The lower the rpm, the lower the air/fuel needed, but not so low so wind resistance forces the engine to strain. A factory 4 barrel 360 makes 270 foot pounds of torque @ 1,600. That's it's "sweet spot." So I'm guessing my car is probably making 270-285 ft-lbs with the shaved heads, long tube headers and carb on it at nearly the same rpm. So a used $150 a833 overdrive tranny would be a wise investment I think. My car does 70mpg @ about 3,000rpm. Maybe I could drop it to more like...2,500rpm?

 

[YY1]

Not sure I completely agree with peak torque being peak efficiency.

Chart for 5.9 Mag indicates 235 ft/lbs at 3000??
http://www.gearvendors.com/images/d5gas.gif

Is that correct? Does tha mean my engine wants to run at 3K all the time?

I suppose it could be using less fuel (better mileage) at lower RPMs but just in a less efficient way.

Wonder why the non-mag 360 would peak at so much lower RPM.

BTW, this truck FEELS much faster/quicker than any test numbers indicate.

My 360 Duster with 3:23 ran a 9:15 1/8 mile.

The Dak feels a lot faster, but about the best times I've seen for a non-power adder is 9.8.

 

[YY1]

I paid attention and wrote down my MPG according to the factory trip computer, which I verified to be accurate to .5 MPG per tank of gas.

These were taken on a gentle curve of very flat road.

45 MPH 1500 RPM 22 MPG
50 MPH 1650 RPM 19 MPG
55 MPH 1800 RPM 18 MPG
60 MPH 2000 RPM 17 MPG

This road is long enough that you can settle in at a given speed to make sure you are not accellerating/decelerating.

Tomorrow, maybe I'll try it without the o/d.

That will give numbers for an MPI 5.9 Mag with lockup 618 and 3:91, if you're interested in going that route.

I do have a K&N airbox and cat-back duals with a Dynomax cat.

I think my o/d is .68.

If this info is too far off the original topic, let me know and I'll butt out.

 

[vintagetin]

I paid attention and wrote down my MPG according to the factory trip computer, which I verified to be accurate to .5 MPG per tank of gas.

These were taken on a gentle curve of very flat road.

45 MPH 1500 RPM 22 MPG
50 MPH 1650 RPM 19 MPG
55 MPH 1800 RPM 18 MPG
60 MPH 2000 RPM 17 MPG

This road is long enough that you can settle in at a given speed to make sure you are not accellerating/decelerating.

Tomorrow, maybe I'll try it without the o/d.

That will give numbers for an MPI 5.9 Mag with lockup 618 and 3:91, if you're interested in going that route.

I do have a K&N airbox and cat-back duals with a Dynomax cat.

I think my o/d is .68.

If this info is too far off the original topic, let me know and I'll butt out.

No, it's cool man. Any relative feed back is good. You've got REALLY high rear end gears though. I think the ole Charger would react a little differently. I've got a K&N on my Dodge too.

 

[rumblefish360]

The best I ever calculated was 22.5mpg @ 55mph @ 2,400rpms (if the stock tack is right).

When I build my next engine for the car, I want to build a torquey, dependable, effecient engine. So I figured it was worth discusing. I'm not much into racing, I just like to smoke the tires and wave at the girls.

I hear ya man. I hear ya.

I agree, but not completely. I have to argue one more thing. The 440 requires more air and fuel to rotate at 1,000 rpms than the 360 does. The 440 has a bigger stroke and bore and will therefore consume more air/fuel to produce the same engine speed. If my car only needs 40 hp to push it, and my 440 is making 400hp at cruising speed...then I'm just waisting energy (until I have to pass). So I think there is a balance between how much power you need and what you can scrifice. Seeing how this is my only car, to find ways to make it run as efficient as possible would pay off. At least I'm not making payments on a $30,000 hybrid!

this is another cn of worms and I can prove, if your willing to come here and sit down in it, a 440 that gets 20 Hwy. Engine size sin't allways a gas eater. Design and effecientcy is.
Also the high lighted above is not an accurate assesment. (SP?!)
Again, this is another cam of worms, let it be.

I've heard of this "sweet spot" rpm before. And it make perfect sence, unless your cars max torque is at 4,500 rpms. Because it would not make any sence to cruise in 2nd gear devouring all your gas. There is a balance between this "sweet spot", wind resistance, and rpms. You obviously want to slow your crankshaft as much as you can, but not to the point were the engine bogs or strains. The lower the rpm, the lower the air/fuel needed, but not so low so wind resistance forces the engine to strain. A factory 4 barrel 360 makes 270 foot pounds of torque @ 1,600. That's it's "sweet spot." So I'm guessing my car is probably making 270-285 ft-lbs with the shaved heads, long tube headers and carb on it at nearly the same rpm. So a used $150 a833 overdrive tranny would be a wise investment I think. My car does 70mpg @ about 3,000rpm. Maybe I could drop it to more like...2,500rpm?

If you can get cruise RPM down to peak torque or so, exactly needs experimentation, you'll pick some mileage up.
Above or below peak torque is the guess about the engine. VBolumemetric effceintcy is the key. This should appear somewhere around peak torque on fuel consumed and power returned.

 

[rumblefish360]

Not sure I completely agree with peak torque being peak efficiency.

If you can get cruise RPM down to peak torque or so, exactly needs experimentation, you'll pick some mileage up.
Above or below peak torque is the guess about the engine. Volumemetric effceintcy is the key. This should appear somewhere around peak torque on fuel consumed and power returned. Remember, this is not a HP seeking adventure on volumemetric effec.

Perhaps my wording may be off/wrong.

Chart for 5.9 Mag indicates 235 ft/lbs at 3000??
http://www.gearvendors.com/images/d5gas.gif

Is that correct? Does tha mean my engine wants to run at 3K all the time?

I suppose it could be using less fuel (better mileage) at lower RPMs but just in a less efficient way.

Exactly.

I paid attention and wrote down my MPG according to the factory trip computer, which I verified to be accurate to .5 MPG per tank of gas.

These were taken on a gentle curve of very flat road.

45 MPH 1500 RPM 22 MPG
50 MPH 1650 RPM 19 MPG
55 MPH 1800 RPM 18 MPG
60 MPH 2000 RPM 17 MPG

This road is long enough that you can settle in at a given speed to make sure you are not accellerating/decelerating.

Tomorrow, maybe I'll try it without the o/d.

That will give numbers for an MPI 5.9 Mag with lockup 618 and 3:91, if you're interested in going that route.

I do have a K&N airbox and cat-back duals with a Dynomax cat.

I think my o/d is .68.

If this info is too far off the original topic, let me know and I'll butt out.

I thinkit good, but theres only one big difference in this all and that is the computer is controling aspects we can not and the carb can not. Excellent info otherwise and proof of FI being better? I like to spend everyones internet money and tell'em a FI set up is the way to go on many levels, but that is a scary ting for many people or just simply not what they wanna do.

 

[rumblefish360]

What is the O.D. ratio in the manual trans? I know it isn't .69.

in this for sale thread @ FABO posted by Migs Big, the intake on the left is a known mileage getter from back in the day. It was also noted that any mods like a cam threw it out of wack, this is not a performance intake, it is a mileage intake from the gas crunch era.

http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/showthread.php?t=130043

 

[Satellite65]

If you can get cruise RPM down to peak torque or so, exactly needs experimentation, you'll pick some mileage up.
Above or below peak torque is the guess about the engine. Volumemetric effceintcy is the key. This should appear somewhere around peak torque on fuel consumed and power returned. Remember, this is not a HP seeking adventure on volumemetric effec.

Perhaps my wording may be off/wrong.


Exactly.



I thinkit good, but theres only one big difference in this all and that is the computer is controling aspects we can not and the carb can not. Excellent info otherwise and proof of FI being better? I like to spend everyones internet money and tell'em a FI set up is the way to go on many levels, but that is a scary ting for many people or just simply not what they wanna do.

Not if they go with the new (relatively, anyway) F.A.S.T. EZ-EFI. It's a completely self tuning throttle body injector system. Also offered in a MPI config.