Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
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 12-18-2012, 10:54 PM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
BamZipPow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 1,126

BZP T-100 (2010) - '98 Toyota T-100 ext cab - 3.4L/auto SR5
90 day: 20.99 mpg (US)

BZP T-100 (2011) - '98 Toyota T-100 ext cab - 3.4L/auto SR5
Last 3: 23.66 mpg (US)

BZP T-100 (2009) - '98 Toyota T-100 ext cab - 3.4L/auto SR5
Last 3: 19.01 mpg (US)

BZP T-100 (2012) - '98 Toyota T-100 ext cab - 3.4L/auto SR5
90 day: 19.68 mpg (US)

BZP T-100 (2013) - '98 Toyota T-100 SR5
90 day: 20.6 mpg (US)

BZP T-100 current (2014) - '98 Toyota T-100 SR5
90 day: 20.79 mpg (US)
Thanks: 801
Thanked 494 Times in 376 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to BamZipPow Send a message via AIM to BamZipPow Send a message via MSN to BamZipPow Send a message via Yahoo to BamZipPow
Just picked up broken induction burner off of eBay. They said the top was broken and the electronics should be working. We'll see when it gits here.

So I had this crazy idea...install a stainless steel box under the oil pan and plumb it into the cooling system. With the induction coil installed under the coolant box, it should heat up the coolant and the oil at the same time and keep the burner from "frying" the engine oil. My engine bay belly pan should keep anything from puncturing the added coolant box. Heck...it might even keep the oil temps from rising too far, too!

Not sure how I'm gonna mount it to the bottom of the oil pan though. I'm not sure that I should try to use any of the oil pan fasteners to secure it to the engine.

__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 03:38 PM   #22 (permalink)
.........................
 
darcane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Puyallup, WA
Posts: 1,052

Ninja 650R - '06 Kawasaki Ninja 650R
90 day: 52.02 mpg (US)

B*tch - '01 Honda Civic HX
Team Honda
90 day: 44.83 mpg (US)
Thanks: 130
Thanked 212 Times in 144 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BHarvey View Post
If your car is designed around a 8.5cst (xW 20) oil at an oil temp of 212f, then at 104f the oil is 30-48 cst, or WAY thicker than even a xW60 at 212f.
Too thick and it kills mpg...
When I was in college (late 90's) we had done a lab experiment with engine oil viscosity. IIRC, we used a conventional 10W-30 and a synthetic 10W-30, chilled both to -45F (We just left them outside overnight...) and measured the viscosity as we slowly heated to 212F.

Even though both were the same viscosity rating, there was a huge difference at extreme temperatures. I've forgotten the numbers exactly, but remember the synthetic being similar in consistency to honey at -40F, but the conventional oil was VERY thick, almost a solid, kind of like Silly Putty.

Even at room temperature, there was a big difference between synthetic and conventional. It wasn't until it got close to boiling (of water) that they were about the same.

Last edited by darcane; 12-19-2012 at 03:50 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 11:01 PM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 1,407

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 545
Thanked 267 Times in 213 Posts
I was an original member at BITOG. In a discussion years ago on oil pan heaters the concern was raised about cooking the oil (hot spot) and, IIRC, the admonition was to avoid temps above 150F as well as careful control of time. This advice was from one of the brainy types who left long ago (there is a lot of junk to wade through over there now). I would be (and will be, as one of these is on my list) careful about overheating. Just getting the oil above 100F evenly (how to measure, the problem) would be enough, IMO.

Yes, it takes quite a few miles to get engine oil to op temp. And the oil-to-coolant exchangers are also in place to quickly rid the oil of heat spikes which otherwise reduce lubrication effectiveness. That is likely a more important function as it is "life saving".

I would be cautious about pushing pre-heating too far. Not much. I've looked at the immersion heaters and would carefully consult about size and use with the manufacturer prior to purchase.

.
__________________
2004.0 DODGE Ram QC/LB 2500 2WD/NV-5600 305/555 ISB. 7,940-lb. Stock. 192,000 miles/4,900-hrs @ 39-mph average. 35' 9k GVWR TT. 14.6-cpm solo & 25-cpm towing; 21-mpg average past 44k-miles

Fuel Log
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to slowmover For This Useful Post:
BamZipPow (12-20-2012)
Old 12-22-2012, 02:53 PM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
BamZipPow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 1,126

BZP T-100 (2010) - '98 Toyota T-100 ext cab - 3.4L/auto SR5
90 day: 20.99 mpg (US)

BZP T-100 (2011) - '98 Toyota T-100 ext cab - 3.4L/auto SR5
Last 3: 23.66 mpg (US)

BZP T-100 (2009) - '98 Toyota T-100 ext cab - 3.4L/auto SR5
Last 3: 19.01 mpg (US)

BZP T-100 (2012) - '98 Toyota T-100 ext cab - 3.4L/auto SR5
90 day: 19.68 mpg (US)

BZP T-100 (2013) - '98 Toyota T-100 SR5
90 day: 20.6 mpg (US)

BZP T-100 current (2014) - '98 Toyota T-100 SR5
90 day: 20.79 mpg (US)
Thanks: 801
Thanked 494 Times in 376 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to BamZipPow Send a message via AIM to BamZipPow Send a message via MSN to BamZipPow Send a message via Yahoo to BamZipPow
Got the broken induction burner in and started taking it apart. I think it's gonna work just fine...

Broken ceramic/glass top...


Top removed...


Induction coil and temp sensor removed...


Bottom of induction coil and temp sensor...


Thickness of the induction coil...


I should be able to hook up some extra wire to the induction coil. It looks like 12 or 10 gauge wire and a simple 2 wire connector should work. This will allow me to only place the induction coil under the item I want to heat up (oil pan or coolant pan) and keep the electronics portion out from under the hood.

I'm thinking of using two glass cutting boards to sandwich the induction coil with so the coil won't git banged up as I'm moving it in/out of the area. I guess I could use some Luan pieces instead since the coil won't need to "cook" anything...
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 07:28 PM   #25 (permalink)
radioranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canton CT
Posts: 442
Thanks: 140
Thanked 37 Times in 30 Posts
I wouldnt worry too much , because where your sender is might be cooler , hard to figure exactly where to mount one, because the temp will never be the same though out the engine, I am thinking the main reason your milage goes up is the oil pump itself takes quite a bit of power to spin , another reason low revs are good , but good info all around, i like the idea of wrapping the oil filter, seems logical and not too radical , otherwise the only way out is to install an oil cooler which on most cars now is tricky to run properly ,
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 09:15 AM   #26 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 111
Thanks: 9
Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts
oil temp

For years I have felt that allowing the engine to run for a minute or so (no a half hour!) before driving in cold weather delivered better FE. I have no way to prove it under controlled conditions and have to rely on observing MPG / conditions. Many argue that allowing an engine to idle is a pure waste because it is burning fuel without moving the vehicle. While this is true, there may be a synergistic effect that isn't so obvious like warming the oil and reducing engine drag.

I often think of the winglets on the ends of an airplanes wings. They provide no lift, they increase drag, but they make the wing as a whole more efficient. Interactions can be less than obvious some times.

Does anyone have the time / equipment / inclination to determine air temp, oil temp, fuel consumption rate vs time? That might show some huge insight into what we all are fighting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 11:51 AM   #27 (permalink)
tru
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: FL
Posts: 126

tru - '05 Ford Focus ZX3
90 day: 39.46 mpg (US)

the truck - '02 GMC Sierra Denali
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Did anyone ask the OP how and where he measured the oil temp? this could be why they are not seeing the oil temp increase over a long or short distance.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 12:06 PM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
RobertISaar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: camden, MI
Posts: 289

MC SBX - '95 Chevrolet Monte Carlo LS
Last 3: 29.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4
Thanked 39 Times in 32 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbrowning View Post
For years I have felt that allowing the engine to run for a minute or so (no a half hour!) before driving in cold weather delivered better FE.
using fuel to do no work(beyond heating up the heads/block) will result in more fuel consumed.... that being said, idling for 60 seconds and taking off on a ~50 mile trip, the difference is probably within the margin of error for calculating fuel economy based on full tank fills/empties. idling for 60 seconds, then driving for 60 seconds, you could see a ~30% increase in fuel usage....

it's all relative.



i would much rather idle for 60 seconds(probably more) after startup when cold and be assured that enough oil is getting where it needs to be than starting and being mobile within 5 seconds of letting go of the key. a lot easier to replace some fuel than it is to replace the engine.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 12:20 PM   #29 (permalink)
radioranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canton CT
Posts: 442
Thanks: 140
Thanked 37 Times in 30 Posts
This is one area where adding the two cycle oil will help since it leaves a film of lubricant that should help on start up on the piston rings etc, my ranger seems smoother on cold start now since adding it to the fuel .
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 07:29 PM   #30 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 111
Thanks: 9
Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts
oil temp vs fuel consumption

I guess the question I would like to see a definitive answer to is:

Is the fuel consumed in running an engine at idle for a minute more than offset by the reduction in fuel consumed because of the warmer oil?

Yes, obviously the fuel consumed is "wasted" because it doesn't move you down the road, like the example of the winglets on the airliners. They add drag, they produce no lift therefore they are bad, right? Wrong, they improve the lift by keeping the airflow over / under the wing without it slipping off the end of the wing. Can the fuel burnt by idling the engine a minute improve the efficiency when the engine is under load enough to pay for itself?

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread

Thread Tools





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com