WAI A-B-A test (design and execution) - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum

California98Civic · 04-14-2011, 12:04 AM

I think I am almost ready to do a test that a few posts on this forum have called for but it seems none yet has tried or written up. I want to ABA test my WAI against the stock intake. I want to make it as effective a test as possible, so this thread is first to ask the forum for input/advice on how to do it, and then I will post my results. I have become a bit more skeptical of the WAI as I have been choosing my gauges and displays. Briefly, coolant temp and intake temp do not seem very clearly to correlate with G/H. Well, coolant temp does somewhat. Sixty-eight degree coolant this morning seemed to mean .40 G/H at idle. A warmer engine meant a lower G/H reading. But IAT does not seem to correlate as closely. I have seen .14 G/H with an IAT of 96. I have seen .14 with an IAT on 114. And also at 129. Though I think maybe the lower G/H figures are more frequently reached at warmer IAT readings, I wonder how much of a difference this really makes.

My plan for the test is simple enough. I have an 8-10 mile stretch of freeway to drive at a lower traffic time. It's quite flat and in good shape. I figure I'll drive the northbound and south bound loop once with the WAI (since it is installed) for an "A" then remove it to drive the loop for a "B" and then reinstall the WAI for another "A" loop.

Tips? Warnings? What am I not understanding about executing the test reliably?

pounsfos · 04-14-2011, 12:17 AM

piping over to the exhaust manifold, im assuming your engine is a crossflow engine.
just run some piping and you will be sweet

test at different speeds and remember, the more trips you do with WAI on the more believable your data is, i would also try a CAI and see which one comes off best.

i will be watching this thread and your progress

California98Civic · 04-14-2011, 09:44 AM

Interesting, and thanks. I could see doing two loops on each "A" and the "B". BTW, you think a CAI might be better for FE because it is thought to boost HP?

jedi_sol · 04-14-2011, 12:48 PM

To cut out another variable (your right foot biased towards wanting your mods to work), you should also use your cruise control. Also try to get in as many ABABABABABA as possible to get more concrete data.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html

It's a sticky in this forum

SentraSE-R · 04-14-2011, 01:10 PM

See my WAI thread. My testing was pretty thorough, and showed no benefits from a WAI.

California98Civic · 04-14-2011, 01:55 PM

Thanks for these responses. And SentraSE, thanks for the link to your very thorough prior test. I had only searched EM for tests. Question: was the MAF a factor in your results? My 1998 Honda does not have one, so my results my provide valid and totally different results, no?. Was the lack of a heat shield a factor in your results? My exhaust manifold is in the front... maybe I have that "natural" heat shield one poster to your test described? What I don't have is cruise control, but I have found a very flat section of freeway which I will double to the same 20 miles you drove. After that... I have throttle position and engine load readings on the Ultra Gauge as well as a very steady foot on a car I have driven for ten years. That'll have to do. In the end bias in favor of my mod is not something I am concerned about because I want FE much more than a WAI. If the WAI works for FE, I want to keep it, and if it does not work for FE, I want to eliminate it. I also will seek a section of roadway to run a slower speed test too, as suggested. Most importantly, thanks for your assistance.

BHarvey · 04-14-2011, 02:53 PM

If there is NO benefit, then why does the UG read .18 gph @ 120AIT and .35 gph @60AIT?

If the UG is reading lower gph then I would think it is using less.

California98Civic · 04-14-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BHarvey

If there is NO benefit, then why does the UG read .18 gph @ 120AIT and .35 gph @60AIT? If the UG is reading lower gph then I would think it is using less.

I think you are correct that this is an indication of reduced use, but the question I have is whether the WAI is responsible. I have noticed gph decrease from .40 to .25 even as IAT remained basically stable. What had changed most rapidly was coolant temperature, from about 68 to about 160. Meaning perhaps coolant temp was responsible for the decrease in gph.

BHarvey · 04-14-2011, 07:25 PM

I have my UG setup on one page that has gph, mpg, coolant F, AIT, short and long trim.

Once my coolant temp is up to 185, my AIT just over ambient, and my gph at .3-.35 depending n the ambient temp.

The warmer the AIT gets the lower the gph at idle. I have yet to see the AIT get over about 145F.

I am running a grill block so my AIT takes longer than I would like to come up. Summer time will help that.

SentraSE-R · 04-14-2011, 07:57 PM

CACivic,

Yes, my MAF may be a factor. The WAI faithful's last stand is that WAIs work on MAP systems, since Darin's and my WAI tests on MAF systems show no improvement. Trouble is, no one has done controlled testing proving WAIs are beneficial on any vehicle. If you go ahead with thorough ABA testing on a MAP system, you'll be the first to do it, and give us the real answer. Please do it, for all of us!

No. lack of a heat shield didn't hamper me, as I got my intake air temperatures >65 degrees above ambient for testing.