The grand adventures of a trusty "billy-goat" Wagon!

Any MPG numbers yet?


Derek

 

Clean inside and out! (Re: Trusty "billy-goat" Wagon!)

Dear Jim, Derek, and fans of da' trusty wagon,

This morning, I bought Biquette back from Orinda Motors after a quick stay to change the oil (Joe Gibbs of course,) straighten out the wipers (almost needed them,) and double check the wiring to the Vintage Air heater control valve. I'm fairly certain that valve is malfunctioning and that is why the heater cuts out on the freeway. She has gotten a little grungy, so I give her a quick "bubble bath:"



Believe it or not, but washing the car might have been illegal. I'm not sure I understand governor "grandpa moonbeams" drought state of emergency. However, we are supposed to get some rain tonight, so sufferin' succotash leave me alone!

Thanks Jim! I definitely didn't expect that the car would be so different to drive. Somehow I thought that the zip would disappear with the rear-end ratio being so tall. However, da' zip is definitely still there!! :3gears:

I haven't drive the car enough to be able assess that really. Her second tank of gas brought the gas mileage up to 15.2 MPG. That's already a significant improvement, but I can tell that the EZ-EFI system is taking longer to self-tune than you would expect. I believe the reason is that contrary to Greg's belief, the attempts to self-tune without the exhaust installed weren't lost. So it is taking a long time for the self-tuning algorithm to discount that bad data. Every time I've driven the car, the experience is better than the previous time, so the self-tuning process is working.

I can see that I'm going to have a logistical problem finding out exactly how fuel-efficient Biquette can be. As I have been driving around, I've been noticing that the "right foot" has been more active than one would expect - because it was needed! I live in what are called the San Francisco East Bay Hills, and they don't call them hills for nuthin'!! The grades on the freeways are quite steep for freeways and the surface roads are as you would expect. So the local topography isn't very suitable to making long distance runs at a steady engine load. There is an even more challenging obstacle: overcrowded roads. On the freeway, I'm using that "right foot" a lot to cope with the traffic. So given the really challenging conditions and incomplete tune, 15.2 MPG doesn't sound bad at all.

What I really need to do is get out of a long stretch of comparatively quiet freeway like highway-5 outside of Sacramento. The trouble with that is that it would take me 2 hours to even reach what used to be a quiet stretch. Since I haven't been on that road in a decade, I don't know exactly how far I would have to go to find quiet. Since the health issues in the house are limiting the amount of time I can spend away. It may be a while before I can make a really definite run to see how thrifty this combination can be. Still, just driving the car makes me very confident that the right combination is in place. When Biquette is moving at a smooth steady speed, the engine is quiet and the engine RPM is way down. If you can just keep there, I'm sure the engine will be very thrifty indeed.

Thanks for your support!!

Cheers, Edouard :beer

 

Forum software work-around (Re: Trusty "billy-goat" Wagon!)

Dear fans of da' trusty wagon,

I just added a posting, but it isn't showing up on the New Posts listing for some reason.

So if you want to see what's new, click here:

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.p...-billy-goat-quot-Wagon!&p=2295441#post2295441

Cheers, Edouard :beer

 

As I've said, I don't even track around town mileage due to the bazillion variables in driving conditions. 15.2 sounds pretty dang good to me for around town though. My old '69 Firebird averaged around 17mpg around town and 25-28mpg on the highway, so I'd say you are on your way to 20-21'ish mpg on the highway once the EZ-EFI gets to spend some time at a steady state cruise to adjust.

 

Aiming for more pleasant road trips (Re: Trusty "billy-goat" Wagon!)

Dear Randal and V-8 Buick road-trip warriors,

I agree and I'm reasonably sure that will get nudged up at least a bit. EZ-EFI system is really getting better and that last tank of gas was burned with a lot of the self-tuning adjusts were still going-on.

Actually the goal of this whole exercise isn't really raw fuel-economy, but more improved range. If I got no better than 15 MPG, that still translates into an improvement of range of of 40 miles. That's another 40 minutes of driving time at 60 mph. 20 MPG would mean you could drive for another 1-1/2 hours on the same tank of gas.

In the 60s when cars only had a range of 200-300 miles, there were many more gas stations so it didn't matter. Oddly, having to fill-up more often was part of why life moved more slowly and rood-trips had a more relaxed pace. Unfortunately, when the oil-crises of the 1970s hit, I assume that part of the problem was distributing the scarce fuel to such a large network of gas stations. Stations that were harder to reach got less gas. By the time more fuel-efficient cars hit the streets, the process of culling gas stations how now well underway. So when I was driving my trusty wagon between Northern and Southern California in the 1990s, you needed to learn where you could find gas or risk being left on the side of the road.

Today things are better. You can download apps for a smart phone to give you an idea where you can find gas, so you aren't traveling blind like we all used to. Even so, it is unpleasant to fill-up the car and start worrying about finding the next gas station within 1/2 hour. So all this work on my trusty wagon should make her a much more pleasant road-trip machine!

Cheers, Edouard :beer

 

I want to get my Skylark to at least 25mpg because then I could go 500 miles on a tank. Then I thought more about that, that's 8 hours of driving without a stop. I'm not sure I could do that! :laugh:


*It's 475 miles from my house to my parents house, and thought it'd be nifty to make it without stopping. 19.5 is the best I've done with the racy engine and 23 with the docile Centurion engine in the Skylark.

 

Ya' know . . . . . . . (Re: Trusty "billy-goat" Wagon!)

Hi Randal and V-8 Buick . . . . . . maturing males . . . . . :Brow:

Ya' know . . . . maybe having all those gas stations in the old days was a very good idea . . . . whether or not you needed gasoline!!! :laugh:

Cheers, Edouard :beer

P.S. Good thing that at least in California they put in some rest stops along the freeways!!

 

Real wagon werk! (Re: Trusty "billy-goat" Wagon!)

Dear loyal followers of da' trusty wagon soap opera,

Life is getting closer to normal for Biquette. During her long period of being inoperable, some jobs that she has traditionally done simply didn't get done. One of her traditional chores was to haul the fluorescent tubes and associated "hazardous waste" over to regional recycling center for such things. This morning I made the run and as you can see, the cargo area was quite full:



It was another chance for Biquette to collect a few thumb's-up. The fellow running the recycling center was very impressed as were a folks I passed along the way. Since it was a nice day, I took a some photos:



Here is another view:



Mission was accomplished and a nice drive was had by car and owner! :3gears:

Thanks for your support!!

Cheers, Edouard :beer

 

Re: "Just desserts" - Biquette's first two "kill" stories . . . (Re: "Billy-goat" Wag

Hope your EZ-EFI is still running as well as mine. From past experience with a fresh tune the best way to smooth it out is not necessarily varying conditions but a good long (200+ mile) road trip with lots of highway time. Not sure why but EVERY time I've reset the tune the highway trip has done it more good than anything else. About the only real drivability issue I've experienced was a weird tip in stumble from idle. Adding accell fuel helped but it actually seemed to learn the stumble back. Last year along with the roller cam I hooked the vac advance back up and the tip in stumble went away and did not return all year. I will probably leave my car alone this year but I'm considering a 200-4R for 2015.

Regards

 

it's good to hear that after a point where you were getting noticeably frustrated that you are now enjoying the car you worked so hard on. Basque in that sense of reward.

 

Feels more like shakedown. (Re: Trusty "billy-goat" Wagon!)

Dear Ken, Adam, and fans of da' trusty wagon.

I agree with you that freeway time seems to be the best sort of learning experiences for the EZ-EFI system. Unfortunately it isn't practical for me to go as far as I would prefer with my trusty wagon. I do believe you that Biquette would be better off if I could give her an overnight expedition with lots of freeway time.

I certainly do like the addition of the 200-4R. I think that folks on the board are correct that this is one of the best upgrades you can make to make your car more pleasant on the road.

Well, honestly I was frightened more than anything else. I had made so many changes to the car that I was wondering if all these pieces would ever work together. It is definitely looking a whole lot more like a long list of manageable problems. It make take a while to sort though everything, but nothing looks impossible. Hurray!!

Thanks again for everybody's support! :TU:

Cheers, Edouard :beer

 

Re: And the answer is . . . I don't know!! (Re: trusty "billy-goat" Wagon!)

DEVASTATING CAR & MOTOR!!!

:beers2::3gears:

 

How is my favorite wagon doing?

 

The sad story (Re: The grand adventures of a trusty "billy-goat" Wagon!)

Dear Sean, Peter, Randal, and fans of what was supposed to have been an "assertive" billy-goat wagon.

Alas, no things are not well with the engine at all. The tale of woe goes all the way back to last winter. As you may recall, the engine had a number of leaks, and negotiations with Jim to find a way to fix them didn't go well. Jim's final offer was to fly out one weekend, take my wagon to a friend house that had some lifts and fix all the leaks then. Unfortunately, I had previously contacted TA-Performance with a question about head gaskets and even before I could ask my question, I got a stern lecture from Tim that the TA-Performance torquing procedure needed to be followed to the letter and that the head bolts needed to be torqued in a procedure taking 3 days.

Having studied philosophy and logic, I found the contradiction between the TA-Performance recommendation and Jim's plan rather distressing. Being the conservative sort of person that I am, I decided it was best to swallow my pride and have Orinda Motors replace the gaskets at my expense. Unfortunately, when the dropped the oil pan they found - this . . . .



There was a magnet on the oil filter, so the shards in the oil pan were most likely a non-ferrous metal. Most likely diagnosis: some sort of bearing failure. At this point my faith in Jim had reached record lows. The only place that seemed to be left that might be able to help me was TA-Performance. So I called them and asked if they would be willing to attempt to repair the engine, once more at my expense. I was so anxious to avoid a confrontation with Jim that I asked Mike Tomaszewski not to tell Jim about this. However, Mike went against my wishes and told Jim about the situation.

As a result, Jim ended up giving one tongue-lashing insisting that the engine was perfect when it left his shop and the only possible explanation was either some sort of installation error or I was abusing the engine.

Well, this seemed unlikely on the face of it, but having had many months to ponder this disaster, I've come to the conclusion there is some truth to Jim's position. The true genesis of this mess started earlier.

Before asking Jim to build this engine, I had tried to organize a local effort to build fuel-efficient and powerful tow vehicle engine. It became very clear that I was completely over my head in this project and that's why I decided I needed to hire an expert like Jim. Still, I had done a lot of research and had consulted with other Buick performance fans on this forum and the Team Buick forum.

It was a thread on the Team Buick forum that I fear cast the die for this disaster:

http://www.teambuick.com/forums/showthread.php?20059-The-quot-epic-quot-430-rebuild-caper!

I started the thread with a proposed parts list that included the TA-Performance RV cam. That seemed like a reasonable choice to me. After all, the goal was to get my wagon to pull an Airstream travel trailer. The load of wagon plus trailer was comparable to an RV - wasn't that the correct cam choice?

On Team Buick is a fellow who goes by the handle of Dr. FrankenBuick. He had some engine simulation software and compared the various cams by simulating a dynamometer run. Like all dynamometers, the simulations started at about 3000 RPM. There was no denying it. The simulations suggested that a more aggressive cam would provide better power and performance with what appeared to be no downsides. Dr. FrankenBuick recommended the TA-Performance 212 cam, and that became the intended cam until I lost my nerve with the whole project.

When I contacted Jim, I then made the fateful mistake. Instead of having him start from scratch trying to come up with an engine meeting my actual goals, I shared with him the parts list from the failed attempt to build an engine locally. I told explicitly that I had no idea if these components were a reasonable choice, but the result is plain. Jim, like most guys on this forum, dearly wanted to build an engine with the high-end components I had selected. My actual goals went out the window, instead, what was built is precisely what excites most of you so much: a super muscle car engine.

At the time the engine was delivered, I naively hoped I could have my cake and eat it too. I thought I could get great fuel-economy, a quiet car, great pulling power, and muscle car thrills to boot. Once I started driving the car, clearly something was wrong - but I didn't know what.

There is a thread on V-8 where the crisis came to a head, but I can't find it right now. In concerned rear-end ratios, and I found myself constantly being told I should increase the rear-end ratio to get the car to run better. I stubbornly resisted this because I could see what would happen if I did that. My goal was to at least get better fuel-economy than the old 300 cid V-8. However, the recommended rear end ratios would have made the 448 run at a higher RPM than the 300 did. Well, a bigger engine, spinning faster than a smaller engine was going to use more gas than the smaller engine. The very reason for spending all this money had gone up in smoke.

Finally this year, I posted a question on an Airstream enthusiasts forum asking about what sort of an engine was suitable for towing a vintage Airstream. The replies recommended a OEM or RV cam. Nobody over there was towing an Airstream trailer using a vintage muscle car.

I can't be sure, but my suspicion is that engine performance under 3000 RPM is very nonlinear. The reason why truck and van engines accelerate poorly because you cannot get low end torque without seriously sacrificing performance. What everyone on this forum sees in their daily lives is the truth: you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you have a tow engine or a muscle car engine, you can't have both.

Biquette's engine has been sitting in a box at TA-Performance in the long queue of other engine projects waiting there. I have no idea what can be done to turn this engine into something I really want to have under Biquette's hood.

I have to be honest about this. I'm very disappointed in the way all the forum communities have treated me. I was as green as they get, but nobody ever bothered to try to really understand what I wanted. People were exacted this project because they wanted to live out their fantasies through this engine. Nobody pointed out for example that between 1968 and 1972, the Jeep Cherokee was powered by the Buick small-block. Now there is no way my wagon could ever pull a trailer heavier than a period Jeep Cherokee - so why on earth did I need an engine any more capable than that?

Sorry guys, you need to do a little soul-searching . . .

Edouard

 

Who's paying for TA to work on the motor?

 

Not a happy ending. If you need to...or decide to build a mostly stock 455 with stock manifolds for your application I will contribute some used parts for free. A stock 455 with a very mild cam and Qjet will pull your camper all day!

 

I'd be interested in whether the engine was run on a dyno prior to shipment. I expect it would have been. If all the functions were nominal, something could have happened after delivery. All the time the wagon sat in the shop, etc., could be a contributing factor. I'm not accusing anyone, but another potential problem could have been someone taking your ride out for a little fun which might have gotten out of hand. Given the time that your ride was out of your control, anything could have happened. I'm sorry that this happened, it is really unfortunate.

 

I've been watching your build quietly. This is a very sad turn of events. do you know what the failure is yet? where was the oil leaking and how bad?

 

I'm very disappointed to hear this. I'm not convinced it was the engine design that had the issue, unless it was having detonation issues from low octane fuel (which gearing would aggravate if the case), which I'm not sure it should of had given the parts.

Root cause in my mind go back to the initial start up issues involving the timing and distributor, something got out of whack there between Jim's place and yours. That's just my two cents from my arm chair.

Again I'm saddened to hear this, I was really hoping you'd been driving it all summer

 

wow..
That's a shame Edouard.
I'm sorry to know of your bad luck with the wagon.
I hope you'll get a turnaround in luck, and be towing the airstream soon.