<VV> Effect of Reduced Quench on Jet Size and Timimg

[Mikeamauro at aol.com]

> I've recently modified a 110, whereas the compression ratio remained
stock,
> but the quench height was reduced to .032. I'm now on a quest to improve
gas mileage from the current 15-mpg..
> Mike Mauro
**********
Hi, I run a stocker 110 with 8^ initial, otherwise a stock curve ... it's a
4sp/3.55 rig, but I get 20 to 30 mpg  ( no air ) ... it's a manual, but that
should be offset because of the 3.55 rear.

15 mpg ... sounds like a turbo (g) ... is your vacuum system advance working
ok?  anyone else out there get 15 mpg on a 110 stocker ???  Geeeze with #49
jets it seems you should be getting a lean 30 mpg or so ..

puzzled in iowuh, ken campbell

Ken...well, actually, my 64 turbo gets BETTER mileage than the 67 110. I have 
and use an advance timing light and Mighty Vac; all facets of the stock curve 
are in the nominal range. I had the converter reworked for a higher stall 
speed--though not by more than a few 100 rpm--but I know the converter mod will 
be hurting the economy, some. Before jetting smaller I may try a fuel pressure 
regular. Thanks for the response...
Mike Mauro