Author Topic: Still learning - Carb sizing Mild build 340  (Read 1576 times)

Offline CRuss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Still learning - Carb sizing Mild build 340
« on: October 04, 2015 - 07:57:48 AM »
I've read through a few posts here and still have a newbie question on carb sizing/ performance/ fuel economy and their relation to each other.

I have recently had the pleasure of buying my dream car after waiting to do so for over 30 years and its far more of a gas guzzler that i would have first anticipated.

Initially i though the engine may have been over carbed as all of the web pages i have been looking at for details give me numbers between 600cfm and 650cfm, my question is are the engine mods the main culprit or is the engine over carbed and just wasting fuel?

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated before i buy a new carburetor using money that could go to other engine bay upgrades.

340 with some mid range upgrades:

 - .030 honed out
 - align and hone mains and cam
 - ARP crank shaft main stud kit
 - comp magnum cam kit - 106 deg
 - edlebrock RPM aluminum heads
 - Super Comp Ceramic headers
 - comp rocker shafts
 - comp rockers
 - comp  hyd lifters
 - Moroso low profile oil pan / oil pump and pick up
 - Performer RPM Air Gap dual plane aluminum intake manifold
 - Quick Fuel 780 carb vac secondary carb
 - bench dyno at 408hp at 5700rpm


 
Clint
Barracuda 1973 / 340




Offline Bullitt-

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12167
  • Better Things To Come Member Since 2/16/06
Re: Still learning - Carb sizing Mild build 340
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2015 - 08:58:08 AM »
Welcome to the board   :wave:   beautiful car
Back in the '70s when my '73 was my daily driver all stock 340/auto with I believe a 750 Thermoquad 3:23 rear gear the absolutely best I ever saw was 18MPG strictly interstate driving at 55-65 MPH(remember the 55-limit?).  Around town maybe 12 although keeping my foot out of it was not my specialty and usually didn't do that well.   

So what were you expecting to get vs what are you getting?  I'd say the rear gear would be a determining factor...  Folks say tuning with an air/fuel meter will maximize performance. 
Wade  73 Rallye 340..'77 Millennium Falcon...13 R/T Classic   Huntsville, AL
Screwed by Photobucket!

Offline blown motor

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3013
Re: Still learning - Carb sizing Mild build 340
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2015 - 09:51:14 PM »
I have a 340 bored .060 with tti headers, stock intake, lunati cam and a 650 edelbrock. I get 16-18 mpg with 3.23 gears.
In search of the eternal buzz!

Offline CRuss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: Still learning - Carb sizing Mild build 340
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2015 - 10:40:47 PM »
Currently i am getting +/- 12 MPG Hwy with 3.55 gearing in the rear, I was anticipating something in the range of 15-17 MPG HWY and in the 10-12 around the city.

HWY speeds around 110/km (70mph) hr so not really working it very hard for the fuel mileage... just cruising really.

After reading the responses to the thread perhaps the gear ratio may be a bigger contributor than the carb size...?

« Last Edit: October 05, 2015 - 05:48:17 AM by CRuss »
Clint
Barracuda 1973 / 340

Offline Bullitt-

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12167
  • Better Things To Come Member Since 2/16/06
Re: Still learning - Carb sizing Mild build 340
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2015 - 06:29:30 AM »
Rear gear & tire diameter are a factor... the difference in a 3:23-3:55 isn't huge
    Here's a fun calculator to show you the differences
http://vexer.com/automotive-tools/speed-rpm-calculator
Wade  73 Rallye 340..'77 Millennium Falcon...13 R/T Classic   Huntsville, AL
Screwed by Photobucket!

Offline Chryco Psycho

  • Administrator
  • C-C.com Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 36620
  • 70 Challenger R/T SE 70 tube Chassis Cuda now sold
Re: Still learning - Carb sizing Mild build 340
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2015 - 09:21:43 AM »
More details about the actual cam would help , but it looks like it has lots of overlap / low idle vacuum & is probably the main culprit .
 Any idea what compression ratio the engine has ? I would run a compression test . if the numbers are low you may be wasting fuel with not enough heat / pressure especially with alum heads the cam can also affect this with long duration bleed off pressure  , also were the heads port matched , these are notorious for horrible core shift , a friend of mine worked at a speed shop & went through 10 sets when they first came in & bought the best 2 heads & showed me how badly cast they are.
 The carb is oversized ,,, I almost never say that , ideally 2x the CI is right so around 700 cfm but this is not the cause of bad fuel mileage especially with vacuum secondary as the engine will only use what it can draw in , QF is a great carb & tuned well should give great fuel mileage so that is the last part I would replace in your combo .
 Tuning will get you a long way so start there , you want timing set to 16* @ idle with 36* @ 3000 rpm . take your engine vacuum at idle in gear , probably in the 8-10" range , make sure you have approx 4.5 " power valve . how do the plugs look , tuning with an O2 is far more accurate , you could be over jetted & wasting fuel .
 Awesome car BTW  :2thumbs:

Challenger - You`ll wish You Hadn`t