Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now

Now available from EcoModder: ScanGauge II fuel economy gauge.  Click for details.  

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-14-2008, 02:34 AM   #21 (permalink)
EV Wannabe
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 303

The Booger - '92 MX-3
90 day: 23.86 mpg (US)
Thanks: 21
Thanked 30 Times in 22 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
The vacuum that is at the throttle means diddly, its the vacuum at the top of the piston that is creating drag.
This is making me think that disabling 1/2 of the intake valves would be a stupid idea. It would make the vacuum on the piston much higher and more efficiency would be lost than gained. What we need is a very good breathing engine with an extremely short duration camshaft....like 200/200 degrees seat duration or less, as opposed to the 280/290 or so as is. Peak torque @ <2500. That would rule. Would my engine management system know the difference? Or would the CEL come on, throwing this whole thing into an open loop nightmare?


(Support Ecomodder.com & get rid of these annoying ads!)      
 
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2008, 05:18 PM   #22 (permalink)
94 Acura Vigor "FlexFuel"
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 26
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I really don't think retarding the valves (open later) would move peak torque down lower in the rpm range....it may reduce pumping losses and provide for a larger throttle opening for the same power. Advancing the cams moves peak torque lower...in fact I think I moved mine below 2000rpm by advancing the cam 9-degrees...this was probably too much. If I cut that advance in half and make a cam key that allows for a 4-5 degrre advance I think it would be much more optimal....boosting low end torque, but moving peak torque closer to cruising rpm range, not below it. Too much advance most likely hurts pumping losses too much at cruise rpms.
__________________

E85 ~$3.17/gal.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 09:05 PM   #23 (permalink)
amateur mech. engineer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 105

Sporty Accord - '88 Accord LXi
90 day: 23.25 mpg (US)

Dad's Camry - '01 Camry CE
90 day: 22.81 mpg (US)

Artie's Camry - '98 Camry
90 day: 37.3 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechman600 View Post
This is making me think that disabling 1/2 of the intake valves would be a stupid idea. It would make the vacuum on the piston much higher and more efficiency would be lost than gained. What we need is a very good breathing engine with an extremely short duration camshaft....like 200/200 degrees seat duration or less, as opposed to the 280/290 or so as is. Peak torque @ <2500. That would rule. Would my engine management system know the difference? Or would the CEL come on, throwing this whole thing into an open loop nightmare?
Honda seems to think it's a good idea to close half the intake valves. Their VTEC-E engine uses one intake valve for low speed operation and both intake valves for high speed operation. I'm not sure what RPM activates the second valve. I would think it might be about 4000 RPM. This engine is very fuel efficient and I think the closed intake valves give it an economy boost. The faster air flow into the cylinders helps to speed up combustion and that will cause more of the energy in the gasoline to make mechanical work instead of exhaust heat. The extra restriction doesn't do much to change the vacuum on the piston except at full throttle and high RPM. A little extra restriction at the intake valves can be compensated for by opening the throttle a little more. Then you don't have a higher vacuum at the pistons. At high RPM you need the other intake valves working to get maximum power.

A short exhaust duration will help low RPM torque and fuel economy but a long intake valve duration combined with an increased compression ratio can give a big improvement in fuel economy, especially with a large engine. The late closing intake valve reduces low RPM torque but may increase high RPM torque if it isn't very much later than normal.

I remember reading a story in Hot Rod magazine about this concept about 1982 or so. They built a Chevrorolet 350 engine with a very high compression ratio by using taller domed 327 pistons and then grinding the heads so there would be enough room for them. I think the compression ratio was about 14.5:1. They also got a custom camshaft with very late intake closing events. That allowed a normal cranking compression pressure. They used the engine in a tow truck pulling a heavy trailer. The result was a big gain in miles per gallon. I think it went from about 9 to about 16. In another issue they installed the Crower Mileage System in a Chevy V8 engine and put it in an old Hot Rod, something like a 1929 Chevy. The axle ratio was high, maybe 4.11, and they used extra fat rear tires. That seems like a big mistake if they were interested in fuel economy. They reported that the car would often achieve over 25 MPG. That's a very high number for a car with a V8 and an automatic transmission without lockup torque converter or overdrive.

I think I still have those magazines and could probably dig them out. I remember that they did a dynomometer test and reported some amazing BSFC (engine efficiency) numbers at low RPM. The power was lower than normal, probably a little over 200 HP. Torque was pretty low but increased at higher engine speeds.

Changing camshaft timing, especially the intake valve closing event much will disturb the fuel injection calibration if your engine uses a MAP (manifold absolute pressure) sensor. It probably will turn on the check engine light. On my Honda Civic with the worn timing belt I needed to connect a resistor to the MAP sensor output and ground to avoid a rich fuel mixture. If you have fuel injection with an air flow sensor (like Bosche systems on european cars) then it will be more compatible with altered valve timing. All the engines I used for camshaft timing adjustments had carburetors. Carburetors may run a little rich at low RPM when the intake valves close late because of a more pulsating air flow.

It would be possible to reduce compression pressure by having intake valves close very early instead of very late but then the power would be reduced severely. This would only be practical for an engine running with a limited speed range or an engine with variable valve timing.

Last edited by Andyman; 07-15-2008 at 09:15 PM.. Reason: added another paragraph
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 06:11 PM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 480
Thanks: 3
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andyman View Post
Honda seems to think it's a good idea to close half the intake valves. Their VTEC-E engine uses one intake valve for low speed operation and both intake valves for high speed operation. I'm not sure what RPM activates the second valve. I would think it might be about 4000 RPM. This engine is very fuel efficient and I think the closed intake valves give it an economy boost. The faster air flow into the cylinders helps to speed up combustion and that will cause more of the energy in the gasoline to make mechanical work instead of exhaust heat. The extra restriction doesn't do much to change the vacuum on the piston except at full throttle and high RPM. A little extra restriction at the intake valves can be compensated for by opening the throttle a little more. Then you don't have a higher vacuum at the pistons. At high RPM you need the other intake valves working to get maximum power.
The closed valve at low rpm keeps the velocity across the valve up at low speeds. Not sure where I saw it but aparently as the flow approaches sonic it does amazing things for atomizing the air fuel mix.

I partially see your point about low engine load, but I dont agree that retarding the intake event will reduce pumping loss. Widening the LDA will reduce the overlap and internal EGR which will increase pumping losses.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 07:31 PM   #25 (permalink)
amateur mech. engineer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 105

Sporty Accord - '88 Accord LXi
90 day: 23.25 mpg (US)

Dad's Camry - '01 Camry CE
90 day: 22.81 mpg (US)

Artie's Camry - '98 Camry
90 day: 37.3 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
The camshaft retarder

I just found something that shows that Cam Dynamics experimented with valve timing and found that retarding the camshaft improved fuel economy. They apparently were thinking about selling something called the "camshaft retarder". My guess is that it would retard the camshaft during light load operation. Check this link:

Energy Citations Database (ECD) - - Document #5538464

This is the important part from that page:

Recognizing that camshaft design in the modern automotive engine is at best a compromise for overall performance, Mark Heffington of Cam Dynamics, Inc. set out to maximize gas economy through the utilization of variable cam timing.^The initial question was whether gasoline economy could be improved upon through varying the value timing over the operational range of an automotive engine.^The testing procedure duplicated the load conditions that the automobile would be experiencing during operation.^We tested gasoline consumption from IDLE up through 60 mph in 10 mph increments.^Without question, variable valve timing is a realistic means for improving fuel economy in today`s automobile.^Further testing and development need to be done to work with the pollution controls which have an effect on the results.^The camshaft retarder is an excellent device to alter the valve timing of the standard camshaft in order to achieve better fuel economy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 08:10 AM   #26 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,533

Blackfly - '98 Metro
Team Metro
90 day: 67.07 mpg (US)

ForkenSwift - '92 Metro EV
90 day: 125.37 mpg (US)

U.F.O. - '00 Insight
Team Honda
90 day: 85.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 302
Thanked 1,019 Times in 568 Posts
FYI, in addition to lower lift & duration, the Metro XFi cam is also reportedly advanced, compared to the non-XFi cam (this from the guy who does economy cam grinds):

Quote:
"6 degrees advanced from the stock cam, based on measurements of intake centerline."
Note the Metro is SOHC.

Everyone who has done the XFi cam swap, myself included, has reported improved low-end torque / driveability, which should contribute to reduced fuel consumption. Impossible to say how much of this is due to valve timing vs. the lift/duration changes.

Coyote X did an (admittedly not perfect) cam retard/advance experiment and noted these results. He also re-adjusted his ignition advance to maximize it (without ping) after each cam adjustment.

__________________
Latest project: removable Geo Metro boat tail
Latest test: Massive cardboard air dam on a Geo Metro


www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 09:43 AM   #27 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Big Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Steppes of Central Indiana
Posts: 1,101

The Red Baron - '00 F-350 XLT
90 day: 27.99 mpg (US)

Impala Phase Zero - '96 Impala SS
90 day: 21.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 52 Times in 37 Posts
If you are gonna monkey with the camshafts, why not get a grind that make it Atkinson cycle. Why monkey with halfway measres when you know of something that works?
__________________
2000 Ford F-350 SC 4x2 6 Speed Manual
4" Slam
3.08:1 gears and Gear Vendor Overdrive
Hard Tonneau and Rugged Air Dam
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 09:52 AM   #28 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,533

Blackfly - '98 Metro
Team Metro
90 day: 67.07 mpg (US)

ForkenSwift - '92 Metro EV
90 day: 125.37 mpg (US)

U.F.O. - '00 Insight
Team Honda
90 day: 85.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 302
Thanked 1,019 Times in 568 Posts
I wouldn't argue with that - going Atkinson.

Though I don't think there's anyone debating whether or not the XFi cam works better for FE compared to the garden variety cam.


(Support Ecomodder.com & get rid of these annoying ads!)      
 
__________________
Latest project: removable Geo Metro boat tail
Latest test: Massive cardboard air dam on a Geo Metro


www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why I'm Choosing a Civic Over a Metro Wayneburg General Efficiency Discussion 43 03-02-2011 05:11 PM




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com