seanof30306

I'm curious about the rear fender flares on the redz. Do you know what they are?

Of all the cars I've owned, my absolute favorite was my beloved '73 Gremlin X, especially after the 304 puked and we put in a 401. The factory rearend was a Chrysler unit; unfortunately not a Dana 44 or 60. The 9" rearend out of a 69 Mustang was a direct bolt-in, as the Gremlin was designed around the '69-'79 Mustang floor pan/rear subframe assembly. AMC got a great deal on the dies and jugs as Ford redesigned the Mustang for '71. Both the 304 and the 401 came with FoMoCo/Holley 4bbl carbs, The ignition was Chrysler. The transmission was a T-10 with a Ford bolt pattern. A Hurst shifter for a '69 Mustang was a direct bolt-in, and 20 bucks cheaper. The clutch disc and pressure plate were Chevy-pattern. Ordering them for a Chevy saved 50%; they were the same thing. Automatics for AMC V8s were Chrysler 727 Torqueflights. The driveshaft used Mustang u-joints in the rear, Challenger/Cuda u-joints in the front (I think. not sure, but I know they were mismatched from other manufacturers) The blower motor was a Chrysler, as were most of the switches in the dash. The fact is, AMC saved a lot of money by raiding other automakers' parts bins. It was often cheaper to pay the licensing fees for parts than it was to design their own. I don't think that is bad. In their day, the AMC dog-leg port heads for the 390 and 401 flowed more air, and made more power than any other manufacturers' small block heads. It wasn't till the Chevy Vortec head, which came out more than 20 years later, that the other manufacturers began to catch up. I loved the fact that my Gremlin had superior engineering in it's AMC-specific heads, and cherry picked the best from other manufacturers. That Chrysler ignition was better than GM or Ford's. That Ford Super T-10 was bulletproof. I always preferred Chevy-style diaphram pressure plates to Ford 3-arm ones. Finding a 9" posi out from under a 69 or 70 Mustang wasn't that tough, it bolted right in, and no C-Clips to worry about. I miss that Gremlin to this day. Before I changed directions, I was keeping my eyes open for a Spirit to stuff a 401 in. I saw one at a Year One show in Braselton a few years back, and was amazed by how good they look when you fix the nose-high stance. They also weigh 2500 lbs with the same wheelbase the Gremlin had, and they're not nearly as ugly. As far as the 4.0 into a Z? I don't get it. Right before I left Atlanta, I went to the Friday night test and tune at Atlanta Dragway one last time. While I was waiting in the staging lanes, I started talking to a guy in the next lane with a 71 240. He'd transplanted the engine, tranny, and rearend out of a late 70s, early 80s Z. Liiking under the hood, it was nothing special, Although it was a FI Turbo) and he swore it was stock. We ran down together. I pulled him out of the hole and cranked off a 12.90 .... he passed me at the 1000 foot mark and ran a 12.60, or 70, I believe. And he'd driven the car down from Greenville! My point is, with so many much easier choices, I just can't see going to all the trouble to fit an engine that only makes 190 hp. I love the 4.0 in my Jeep .... but I love it in my Jeep, not anything else. You might love a stripper when you're at the club stuffing dollar bills in her underwear, but at Thanksgiving dinner with your family? Not so much.

Why put in an LS1? I saw a barely leaned on 280 ZX turbo run low 12s with street tires a few years back. If i'm not mistaken, that engine/tranny is virtually a direct bolt-in, isn't it? Why go to all the trouble to go to a V*, etc. when you can get the same performance by modding a z-6 cylinder? If it's perfectly acceptable for enthusiasts to swap to another engine entirely in their quest for individualism and a hobby/challenge when their goal is more horsepower, why is it so incomprehensible that someone would want to do it when their goal is mpg?

Do you know gas is up over 30 cents a gallon, on average, since I started this thread? How many of us think we'll ever see 2.00 per gallon gas again? How many of us think we'll ever see 3.00 per gallon gas again? There is one car I'd actually prefer to a Z-Car for a hypermiler; a Fiero with an Iron Duke 4 cylinder. The 88 models had the best suspension and brakes, and TBI fuel injection. You can find them all over really cheap, and they really handle well with just a few mods. The non-GT nose in that year looks almost exactly like a C4 Corvettes, and it wouldn't be hard to swap over to the GT rear panels for a great looking car. They're light, and 40 mpg highway isn't uncommon, despite the fact that the iron duke has 2.2 litres displacement. Swapping to a later-model head, some chip burning, and hypermiling driving techniques could easily give 45 mpg. One little problem ........ I don't fit. Not even close. Back to the Eco-Z drawing board. I had a PM from someone who said the L and Z series would bolt up to the standard transmission; that they're essentially the Z-car engine with two cylinders lopped off. That would seem to be a big deal, making a swap pretty easy. I think a 1600 L-series engine with fuel injection ought to do pretty well in a Z-car. I was at the parts store the other day, and started talking to the guy who works there. He has an early-model Miata that he swears he gets 38-40 mpg out of. The old EPA mpg figures were 24/30; the new "recalculated" figures are 21/27. He's getting a lot better than that, and he's not doing any real hypermiling; just driving it easy. If his mileage is real, that 1.6 Miata motor is definitely a candidate. Especially since it's also aluminum, MPFI, and MAF, and mates to a 6 speed transmission. The Miata's GVW was 2700+ lbs, so in a Z-car that weighs 2500 lbs with a cast iron I6, you could be looking at a weight as low as 2200-2300 lbs. Even better for fuel economy.

LS1 Camaros, Firebirds and Corvettes are all readily available, too. Cheap. And they launch at the drag strip.

I have a '96 Cherokee, and I love it. The engines in those things run forever, and make fine power and torque. Most of the mods you're going to see for that 4.0 will be torque oriented, and that's what off-roaders want. The best head for that engine is the '94, '95 model. They dropped compression steadily in that engine. The best intake for that engine is the rounded '99-'01 intake (earlier models are squared off). As compression dropped, they maintained the power rating by steadily improving induction. That intake and head were wort 24 rwhp on my Jeep.

That's why hypermilers shut the car off at stoplights, etc. It make a difference. The ideal hypermiler has a button on the steering wheel to interrupt the ignition (without turning off the PCM), and a start button on the shifter so you can shut the car off and start it back up again without having to take your hands off the wheel and shifter. An Eco-version of HOTAS. To address a few other things that have popped up here in the past few weeks: Get a CRX, etc: The truth is, the simplest way to achieve the 40+ mpg goal would be to get a really solid CRX for 3-4 grand. The guys doing the B18 swap all yank out the HF 1.5 litre motor, and transaxle with the really tall 5th gear, so they're abundant, cheap, and a direct bolt in. The thing is, I don't want a CRX, I want a Z-Car. I've been doing research for an LS2 swap into a 240Z for over a year and a half. I've read every thread on LSx swaps on here. Not once, in all those threads, did I see anyone telling the people wanting to do the swap that they can pick up '98 and newer Camaros and Firebirds with LS1s all day long for 3-4 grand, that they can pick up 2002 SS Camaros, the best of the line, for 5-6 grand, and any one of them will have ABS brakes, cruise control, etc., too. Anyone who wants to do that swap already knows it would be easier and cheaper to just buy a Camaro or Firebird. People wanting to swap to a Ford 5.0, or 4.6 already know it would be easier and cheaper to just buy a Mustang. The thing is, they want a Z-Car So do I. About four years ago, I lined up against a 240Z at the drag strip. I clicked off a 12.90, and he smoked me on the big end. I was pretty suprised. I walked over to his car after the run, and was blown away to learn all he had in it was a 280ZX turbo I6 and a 5 speed. He said all he'd done to it was a cam and injector swap, put on an upgraded turbo, and done some tuning. Like me, he was on street tires, and he'd driven the car over 100 miles to the track! The point is, if you can get that kind of power out of an I6 that is a direct bolt-in, it makes no logical sense to swap to a V8, SR20DET, etc. The reason people do it is because they want to personalize their cars and do something unique with them. What I don't get is, why no one feels the need to point out that glaring logic to those swappers, but so many people seem determined to piss on mine. I don't want a CRX as my hypermiler, I want a Z-Car. Get a Miata, and don't give me that crap about not fitting: I have been living in this body all my life, and am quite capable of determining what I fit into, and what I do not. I've driven a Miata as recently as last week. When you sit in a convertible with the top up, and your head rubs the underside of the top; you do not fit. When you sit in a car, and your legs are smashed against the door and the sides of the console, and actually interfere with your ability to turn the wheel; you do not fit. The bottom line is, regardless of what some know-it-all thinks, I do not fit in a Miata. More importantly, I do not want a Miata, I want a Z-Car. The aerodynamics aren't good, etc.: I currently drive a Jeep Cherokee as my daily driver. It has the drag coefficient of a brick. Anything is an improvement. More importantly, if my only concern was aerodynamics or maximum MPG, I'd get an Insight. I don't want an Insight, though, I want a Z-Car. I will definitely look into doing things to improve the Z-Car's aerodynamics that do not compromise the aesthetics of the car for me, but a Z-Car is what I want. It just blows me away that I would come to an enthusiasts' forum for swapping other engines into Z-Cars and get so much crap about an engine swap I want to do in a Z-Car. It's like going to the N.O.R.M.L. forum and being told smoking pot is bad for you. I sat in my first 240Z in 1973, and fell in love. My best buddy had a beautiful 77 that we spent the late 70s and early 80s going to the discos in, and it was a blast. Every time I've seen a Z-Car since, I've stopped and looked. They've never lost their beauty to me. The only car I like better than a 240Z is a C4 Corvette. The difference is, I fit in a 240Z, and I don't fit in a C4 Corvette. I found I could fabricate new seat brackets and fit pretty well in a 3rd generation Firebird, so that's the way I went at the time, but I have decided I am going to return to my first love with my next project and get an S30. That is what I want. I understand there are cars that already get the gas mileage I want, but, I want a Z-Car. I understand there are cars that have better aerodynamics, but, I want an S30. I just can't understand why so many people feel a need to argue about my choice of cars, the concept of hypermiling, etc. Please, if you have any thoughts on how to accomplish the goal, please share them. if you think the whole idea is BS, then just move on.

Because I want to build a Z to be an economy car. If you don't agree with that, it's certainly your right, but, that is my choice. If you have some advice or opinions on how to achieve that, I would love to hear them. I'm not interested, however, in having to defend whether I should do it, or not, which economy cars I should buy, instead, etc. What I'm interested in exploring is ways to achieve the goal I've set.

The LSx IS amazing. I don't think there's any other engine that delivers that much power, with that much economy, especially at the price you can get it at. More specifically, the LSx head is amazing. I originally had a set of ported iron Vortec heads on my Firebird's 383 Gen I small block. After a lot of tuning, I got it to 367 RWHP, and got a best of 26mpg on the highway, all on 87 octane. For a TBI, that is VERY good. When AFR came out with their Eliminator, with LSx style combustion chambers, I grabbed a set and spent six months tuning to take advantage of their amazing airflow. So far, I've gotten 402 RWHP, with a torque band as broad and flat as Texas, and a best of 30 hwy MPG. A full tank of mixed driving (without putting my foot in it), is good for 22-23 mpg. That combustion chamber design makes a ton more power, and allowed me to go a lot leaner on my part-throttle fuel tables. The thing is, I believe we're only going to see gas go up and up, and while the mileage I'm getting is very good for what it is, it's not good enough, especially when you consider the fact that my Firebird decreases in value, and the potential buyers' market for it grows smaller with every increase in the price of gas. My plan is to get ahead of the curve, selling the Firebird while I can still get a decent price for it, and getting into eco-modding before the prices get too high. I could well be wrong, but I've gone as far as I can go with my Firebird, anyway (without an engine change, or induction/FI change), so it's time to look for another project. If I'm wrong, and the gas situation changes dramatically in the future, I can alway pull the 4 banger out and stuff an LSx in, so it's not that big a deal to go in this direction.

A couple of questions: Earlier, someone mentioned "L" and "Z" series engines. What are they? In trying to learn more about the SR20DE, I came across a reference to an SR20DEe, the "e" referring to "LEV". I think that is an economy version of the SR20DE, but I can't find anything more about it, and don't know what "LEV" means. Does anyone know more?

Why not get a Corvette or a Camaro instead of swapping an LSX into an S30? And the whole point is to feel like you're strapping into a TIE fighter, to get excited when you walk across the parking lot to the car, to love the way the car looks when you drive down a street and see it in reflective plate glass windows .... AND get mileage close to what you could get driving a clapped out econobox. It's having your cake, and eating it, too.

I'm sorry my decision as to what I want to do with a Z offends you, but it is my decision, not yours. If you don't like it; if it somehow offends your sensibilities that someone is interested in hybridizing a Z for efficiency, rather than horsepower, then I'd suggest you don't follow this particular thread, as it will only further enrage you. Also, I'm sorry you don't like my decision to stay with a gasoline powered engine, but, that is my decision. If you don't like it; if it somehow offends your sensibilities that I choose to run a gasoline powered engine, rather than a diesel, then I'd suggest you don't follow this particular thread, as it will only further enrage you. Thank you. That said, I am looking for discussion and advice on how one might build a hybrid Z to get 40 mpg, with a gasoline-fueled engine. I figured hybridz.org was the best place to discuss that. Go figure.

My main problem with diesel is the price differential. Right now in Tulsa, for example, 87 octane regular is 3.69 per gal. Diesel is 4.39 per gal. So, if you get 50 mpg out of your diesel, your cost per mile at 4.39 per gal is 8.8 cents per mile. If you got only 42 mpg out of your gas powered car, your cost per mile at 3.69 per gal is 8.8 cents per mile. In years gone by, diesel was cheaper than gasoline. It's now more expensive largely due to 3 factors, which will likely cause the price differential to grow even greater 1) Sulfur requirements. Since the government began requiring deisel to have less sulfur, the additional refining required and lower yield per processed barrel of crude has caused the price to go up. Sulfur requirements are scheduled to continue to adjust downward over the next several years, which should cause the price to rise even more. 2) Refining capacity. No new refineries have been built in this country in 30 years. Diesel refining capacity has been maxed out for most of that time. As people buy more deisel-powered cars, the demand for diesel should go up, and so therefore should the price. 3) Heating oil demands. Over the past several years, heating oil has experienced increased popularity in new construction in colder climates, which is causing more competition for the same fuel oil used to refine diesel fuel, home heating oil, and jet fuel. A lot of guys will mention bio diesel, and it is a relevant choice. I have a neighbor who goes around to restaurants, gets the used fryer oil they normally have to pay to have removed, and runs it in his deisel pickup. The thing is, if this takes off, it'll only be a matter of time before entrepeneurs begin to pay restaurants for their used cooking oil and begin selling it. Get enough of those entrepeneurs together, and you've got a lobby. A lobby that could esily make the point to our wonderful elected representatives that those bio fuels are untaxed. It's not an unreasonable outcome to see it made illegal to process your own biofuel in the future. Even if it's not, it's entirely reasonable to expect to see the free fuel source go away as entrepeneurs put the restaurants on contract. Then there's the environmental issues. Even with the new soot filters, diesels burn a lot dirtier, and my idea of an Eco-Z would be one that puts out less emissions than it used to, not more. My personal opinion is that ethanol is the future for IC engines. While I'm 100% against the corn ethanol program we're currently on, cellulose ethanol is on the horizon, and I believe it's the answer. I'd want my Eco-Z to be able to run on ethanol, if that is the way it goes. Now, I know there are plenty of opinions on this stuff, and I'm not suggesting I'm right, and anyone else is wrong. I'm only putting this in to explain the reasoning behind my choices, for my project. If that's inappropriate, just let me know and I'll take it out. So, the ultimate point is, I want to stay with a gasoline engine for my Eco-Z. John, with that caveat, what would your recommendation be? Also, since you've done the SR20DET swap, what do you think specifically about an SR20DE?

John, a) what about that would cause the thread to be closed? clearly, you have a lot of experience with fabrication and S30s in general (that super lightweight front suspension upgrade is AMAZING!) and swapping in SR20DETs. Where would you weigh in on what the best choice for an Eco-Z might be? c) would this thread be better placed in the 4cyl forum?

I didn't come up with the name, dude. That's what the people who do it call it. I can tell you there's a lot more to it than driving like a granny. The concept I'm batting around is having a gas miser daily driver that is: a) gooooood lookin cool c) fun to drive d) (most importantly) fits my 6'5", 250lb frame. D. Is the reason I was originally thinking about an LSX Z. Even though I've fabricated lower seat brackets that place the seat further back than stock, too, I still don't fit my Firebird. After a lot of research, I've found the early Zs are the only sports cars that I do fit in. With where the price of gas is, and where it's going, I've decided to think about going in a different direction.

I thought the whole concept behind hybrid z was anything goes. I wasn't aware of the fact that some swaps are approved, and some are not. Please forgive me for daring to think outside the box.

Looking at your sig, you clearly have quite a bit of expereince. I certainly didn't come on here to be argumentative, and this is really off-topic anyway, but I just think that is wrong. If you ran a car on a set course, at a constant speed and rpm, you would use a certain amount of fuel. If you ran that course again at a leaner AFR, but maintained the same speed and rpms as before, you would use less fuel. The leaner you make it, the less fuel you use, everything else being the same. The challenges are the mechanical limits each engine design represents. Once you reach those limits, it's not generally a question of running poorly, it's a question of damaging the engine. Honda's lean-burn engine? Which one? The Civic was introduced in the 70's with Honda's first lean burn engine, the CVCC (Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion). The name Civic was actually derived from the name of the engine. The CVCC burned fuel so efficiently it could pass all US emissions requirements (even California's) with no catalytic converter, air pump, etc. Honda didn't begin putting cats, etc. on cars with the CVCC engine until the US governement made them after US automakers complained that not having to put expensive pollution controls on their cars gave Honda an unfair pricing advantage. Honda's latest lean burn technology, which goes as high as 22:1, uses very high speed PCM processors to ensure ultra-precise fuel metering, a linear air-fuel sensor, and a swirl port combustion chamber design which causes the mixture to be richer nearest the spark plug tip, and leaner further away. Load is absolutely relevant. If you were standing straight up, and I handed you a bowling ball, you'd be able to hold onto it with no problems. If you were bent at the waist and leaning over as far as you could, arms outstretched, though, and I handed you that same bowling ball, you would fall over. I could hand you a bowling ball half the weight of the one I handed you when you were standing up straight, and over you'd go. Leaning the fue mixture out does essentially the same thing to your car, "stretching it out", so to speak, making it much more vulnerable to being affected by even light loads. The leaner the mixture, the higher the combustion temperatures, and the more easily you find yourself with detonation. At some point, you can lean a mixture out so far that there's detonation under no load at all. The closer you are to that point, the more vulnerable the engine is to a sudden change in load. If the processor isn't fast enough, you've got trouble. This is ascerbated by the knock sensor. Older ones, like the ones on the GM TBIs I'm referring to, are very sensitive to false positives; reading valvetrain noise, etc as detonation. A cam, rocker arm, etc change often requires the knock sensor sensitivity to be turned down, creating a situation where the FI system's ability to react to the sudden change in load is even further reduced. Now all my experience with FI tuning has been with GM V8s, but I can absolutely tell you that a GM V8 with a slow 7737 processor, the stock knock sensor and iron heads can absolutely experience catastrophic detonation when running A/F ratios greater than 20:1 and subjected to sudden increases in load, I've helped tear two of them apart.

Long stroke for the torque? My only experience with aftermarket EFI is systems for American V8s; Accel DFI, F.A.S.T., etc. The issue with those is expense; a bare minimum of 3 grand. Are the better aftermarket EFIs appropriate for this project that expensive? Most of my daily commute is highway, however, this project is clearly a compromise. if maximum mpg was the only criteria, it would be much simpler (and cheaper!) to buy a crx or geo metro. The idea is to have a hypermiler that looks so good, and feels like you're strapping into a fighter cockpit every time you get into it. Also, since we're going from a 6 cylinder to a 4, we'll be able to close off some of the air intake area in the nose without risking an overheating problem. From what I've read, that (along with an air dam) will do a lot to improve the aero, won't it?

I don't know. Maybe a 2 litre is just too big for this application. Maybe a better solution is to go back to one of the older, smaller engines from the 70's-early 80s before they went on the horsepower craze. A cumbustion chamber designed for maximum power is not necessarily going to be the most efficient for MPG. For example, in it's 5.0 V8, GN utilized swirl port heads, which were great for MPG, but sucked for power. One of the first things you'd do on an L03 (the TBI 5.0) was swap on a set of TPI 5.0 heads. The combustion chambers were the same size, but they weren't of a swirl port design. That swap alone was worth at least 20hp, but you took a MPG hit doing it. I just don't know enough about non-American, non-V8 engines to know which 4cyls would be the best candidates for this swap. Also, would this thread be better placed in the 4cylinder forum?

Saw this on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Parts-Accessories_Car-Truck-Parts-Accessories__95-98-Nissan-240sx-JDM-SR20DE-SWAP-Complete-swap_W0QQitemZ170218703126QQddnZPartsQ20Q26Q20AccessoriesQQadnZCarQ20Q26Q20TruckQ20PartsQ20Q26Q20AccessoriesQQddiZ2811QQadiZ2865QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item170218703126& What is it about the JDM SR20DE that makes it preferable to a domestic US model? Also, I looked on fueleconomy.gov. This SR20DE is for a 95-98 240sx. that shows 19/26 mpg and say it requires premium fuel. I don't think that'd be a good candidate for a hypermiler.

My friend, I have been thinking about an LSX Z for some time, and still have not given up on that. But, with gas going the way it is, a hypermiler is on the project list for now. If I'm gonna have a car that gets 40 mpg, why not see if it makes sense to do it with a Z-Car? It'd be a lot more fun to drive than a CRX! I've been drag racing, autocrossing, circle tracking and road racing since I was in my teens. Hypermiling doesn't give you the thrills that those do, but, it does re-engage you in the process of driving. You have to pay attention to hypermile! I find myself driving with the radio off most of the time now, paying much closer attention to the road ahead, the drivers around me, etc. This isn't an either/or proposition. There's no reason why you can't still race, the place where you're hypermiling is in your daily driving, you (hopefully) don't race then, anyway. Hypermiling is just another form of performance driving; just one that saves you money. I'd also bet a hypermiler would still do OK on an autocross course. An aluminum 4 cylinder engine not only weighs quite a bit less than the iron 6 that came in the Z, but it's about 1/3 shorter as well, moving the CG even further back. With that setup, no bumpers, fiberglass fenders and a carbon fiber hood, you could easily be looking at a 2000-2100lb Z car with 50/50 weight distribution! And thanks for the welcome. I'd love to get a look at/ride in your z sometime. I'm in Brookside, what part of town are you in?

What models/years were available in the us with the RWD SR20DE?

Once again, I'm not following you. "Tuned port" refers to the length of the intake runners. Longer runners = more torque, shorter runners = more hp. GM, for example, made Tuned Port Injection in both MAF and MAP incarnations. TPI was batch fired, but that was caused by the limitations of the ECM, not anything inherent in the tuned port design. Nothing I've discussed above has anything to do with tuned port. And with TBI, you are still mixing fuel and air in the plenum, an inherently inefficient design. Now, all of my experience is with American V8s, so maybe there's something I'm missing here, but I still can't see the sense of going to the work and expense of adapting a TBI injection system when there are so many other more efficient designs available.

I don't really follow this. Here's what I was saying. If you go to fueleconomy.gov, you can look up the EPA fuel economy of various cars. Having done this quite a bit, I have noticed that the higher tech models tend to get worse mileage. For example, a 1998 Honda Civic 1.6 SOHC manual shows 27/34 mpg. The 1.6 SOHC VTEC manual Civic shows 25/32. I don't recall seeing any of the higher-tech models getting better mileage than comparable low-er tech models. The problem with that is the turbocharger adds significant restriction to the exhaust system. The same engine with a turbo would get worse mpg, even if you kept your foot out of it. Each intake valve is only open during one revolution out of 4; 25% of the time. During the other 3 revolutions, the intake valve is closed. With TBI, fuel is constantly being mixed with air in the intake plenum and travelling down the intake runners. During the 3 out of 4 revolutions that the intake valve is closed, that fuel re-liquifies and pools around the valve, only to fall into the combustion chamber on the intake stroke in liquid form. It is partially re-atomized during the compression stroke (the higher the compression, the better the re-atomization), but it is not an efficient burn of the fuel. Even in some direct-port injection systems, there are problems. Batch fire injection fires the injectors twice per four revolutions. Pooling still occurs, but less so, SFI (Sequential Fire Injection) is the most efficient, by far, as it only introduces fuel into the individual cylinders at the precise moment when the intake valve opens, delivering a perfectly atomized spray directly into the intake port. That is the reason why SFI is able to deliver such impressive MPG at such low emissions, when compared not only to carbs, but to TBI and batch fire direct port injection. TBI was a great improvement over a carb, and I have spent considerable time working with it, but, in 2008, it just doesn't make sense to look at transplanting technology that has been outdated for over 20 years into a project vehicle whose goal is efficiency when there are so many better choices readily available. It would be one thing if you had a donor car sitting in the back yard, but to go out and get a TBI FI setup for this project is like going out and buying an ATARI to play video games on. Also, as far as GM TBI processor speed? The '7747 ecm found in third gen Camaros and Firebirds has a baud rate of 8200. I would point out that that is slower than canine offal, but I don't want to run afoul of the mods.

That's not exactly correct. Highest efficiency is achieved at or near the torque peak. Modern cars cruise in overdrive well below the torque peak. My 383 Firebird, for example, has a torque peak at 3400 rpm, but, in 6th gear, I cruise at 1600 rpm at 60 mph, and get 31 mpg doing it. I guarantee you covering the same distance in 4th gear at 3400 rpm will not yeild anywhere near that economy. Maximum efficiency can actually be calculated using the bore/stroke ratio. I have the formula somewhere, but can't find it right now. Torque, however, is important in a hypermiler, and has a seat at the table. The more torque an engine has, the less throttle it takes to motivate it. The less throttle it takes, the better the mpg. So, I'm thinking the ideal engine for our Hyper-Z would have a broad, flat torque curve, low in the rpm band.