I'm in the opposite situation. My rally bugeye's 1380 had a DCOE45
before I pulled the engine for a temporary race engine. When the
1380 goes back in (in a few weeks) it will have the HIF6 on a really
nice manifold (Russell Engineering). I'll report back on any difference.
As for mpg, on the club's economy run (a road navigation rally where the
sole competitive goal is fuel economy), the 1380, 286 cam, DCOE45
got a wonderful 45mpg!!! I did drive for economy though, which on a weber
means avoiding the accelerator pump as much as possible - i.e. steady
on the throttle.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Clarici <spritenut@Exit109.com>
To: Daniel1312@aol.com <Daniel1312@aol.com>
Cc: ridleymj@bis.on.ca <ridleymj@bis.on.ca>; autox@earthlink.net
<autox@earthlink.net>; Spridgets@autox.team.net <Spridgets@autox.team.net>
Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: DCOE v SU, was Re: 1.5" SUs
>Daniel1312@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Comments welcome
>
>>
>1.75 SU vs 45 DCOE Weber.
>
>I have both carbs. But not on the same state of tune 1275s.
>I can tell you that a 1.75 SU is far superior to a down draft Weber.
>But as for the same state of tune 1275s, I have a buddy running a Mini
>1275 about the same as my (old) bugeye 1275. He runs a 1.75 SU
>I run a 45 DCOE. Both cars are about equal in pick up and top end.
>The DCOE sounds better than the SU but the SU gets much better mileage.
>About 5 MPG more.
>Eventually I will try the 1.75 in place of my DCOE and will report first
>hand any differences on the same engine.
>The Mini owner used to run a DCOE but now he is strickly SU.
>
>My observations
>Frank (DCOE for now)
>
|