<VV> was: testing Tom's cooling system, now: fuel economy

[John Dozsa]

Craig,

How did you modify the 140 heads to accept the Fiero port injectors? 
What did you do for a fuel rail and where was the fuel pressure
regulator?  What did you use for an air valve, single center mount or
one on each head?  Any photos of the modified head available?  Did you
make mods to the Fiero ECM PROM?

John "questions" Dozsa

> Subject: <VV> was: testing Tom's cooling system, now: fuel economy
> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:33:43 EDT
> From: NicolCS at aol.com
> To: virtualvairs at corvair.org, pp2 at 6007.us
> 
> 
> We're on the same page here, Padgett.  This is why I installed a 3.08
> gearset (with a compensating lower first-gear 4-speed to retain driveability)  and
> Fiero 2.8 EFI on my '66 Corvair 140.  The one time I checked the fuel  economy,
> I got 29.7 mpg at a steady 70 mph.  The head temp runs around  275-300 and
> the plugs are light brown.
> 
> The cam is a stock 110/140/180 "304" cam, the heads are modified for .032
> squish,  9.25 true C/R, and the car has headers.  Very fiesty and  thrifty too.
> One of these days I'm going to try the 140 "high-torque" cam  setup as found
> on a PG140.  While the addition of EFI greatly increased the  area under the
> torque curve, I think I'm still leaving some torque "on the  table" with that
> 304 cam.  Thoughts?
> 
> Craig Nicol
> 66 Monza 140/4/3.08 EFI
> 65 Corsa 140/4/3.27 EFI
> 67 Monza 140/4/3.08 with PG cam mod (Econorun champ at 38.9 but not
> realistic result)
> 
> The issue is that my itch says that a Corvair should get 30+ mpg on  regular
> gas and one of the first issues is that to move the necessary air  should
> require less than 2 hp, 2.5 with losses. So when I hear that an  electric
> fan pulling 20 amps at 12v is working, that sounds about  right.
> 
> Next issue is that 3500 rpm at 70 which is at least 1,000 rpm too  high is
> another so I am going to do some playing there, with tires  initially, once
> I have a car. Reinforcing that is the note that the 3.08  ratio was
> developed for the Pure Oil trials. For this, after studying the  torque
> curves in Bob's book (yes, I do buy books - has nothing to do with my
> posting on the web) it appears that the 110 hp engine is best suited for
> this.
> 
> Not at all sure where this is going to wind up but will note that  the
> 2.8/3.1 Chev 6 cyl used in cars in the 80s (just got out of Fieros)
> produces almost identical torque (170 lb-ft ) and gave 30 mpg. True carbs
> are "poorly controlled leaks" but with the right tools can do quite a bit
> there also.