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 10-14-2011, 12:48 PM   #1 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orange Country, CA
Posts: 101

Fiesta - '12 Ford Fiesta SE
90 day: 31.45 mpg (US)
Thanks: 36
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
VE%

I was going through my Ultragauge and found the Volumetric Efficiency gauge. I did some research and for most cars the average 80-100%. In my car, going a constant speed it stays at 75%, so only 3/4 of the total space of the cylinder is being utilized, which seems lousy. The closer the percentage is to 100 the more power the engine produces, but would that mean more FE?
If so what are some ways to increase VE? Like would a better air filter help?

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2011, 02:24 PM   #2 (permalink)
V8 guy
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico
Posts: 2,353

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 38
Thanked 302 Times in 229 Posts
Regearing or going to a taller tire would boost VE at a lower RPM.
End result, better fuel milage.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1985 chevy camaro mostly stock.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2011, 05:22 PM   #3 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,274
Thanks: 127
Thanked 171 Times in 135 Posts
Open the throttle all the way; that will help VE.

Pressurize the intake. A supercharger or a turbocharger are very good at this.

Note that with any of those you will be making more power, so you'll wind up accelerating. For going a constant speed, your VE is going to be lower.

-soD
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2011, 06:10 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 396

Sweetie - '11 Hyundai Sonata GLS
90 day: 42.4 mpg (US)

My Miles - '03 Combo GLS/KLX/Ninja
90 day: 48.47 mpg (US)

Sipper' - '04 Kawasaki Ninja 250
90 day: 73.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 35 Times in 27 Posts
Only time my VE shows that high at steady speed is on cruise going uphill.

But, at idle it shows 49 so not much difference.

The higher the VE the better your motor is at making power, but unless tuned for 1-2K rpm's at 100% VE, the higher number will equate to less MPG.
__________________
This ain't a war, anymore than a war between men and maggots. Or, dragons and wolves. Or, men riding dragons, throwing wolves at maggots!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2011, 12:19 AM   #5 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 488

1996 geo metro - '96 geo metro base
Thanks: 2
Thanked 95 Times in 69 Posts
can not Measure VE


note on the graph , at high flow calculated and actual air flow are very close , differences measured on the grid on the right , but at low flow , calculated and actual are much farther apart - differences can be huge , depending on the system -
you can measure change in efficiency by measuring calculated load at WOT under consistent condition s , a higher value of calculated load at WOT means you have improved your systems ability to flow
air

the system above is in very poor condition as on that system , calculated load should peak close to 150% at WOT as it is a turbocharged AWM engine
during this test , fuel trim should be within +/- 5% from zero , the system above is in heavy add indicating an under reporting MAF sensor OR restricted fuel to or through the injectors
, on a normally aspirated engine calculated load or engine load of 100% is the goal but real world values will be closer to 90%

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5058/...6c2b9636_b.jpg
an NA engine with an under reporting MAF sensor , fuel trim is adding over 15% mac engine load is 80% , defective new MAF sensor

an increase in calculated load is always an improvement in flow IF and only IF test conditions are IDENTICAL.
so
if you wish to test your system
use calculated load or engine load at WOT ,
never use Absolute load , it will always be 100%

you can not measure VE accurately at any throttle position besides WOT so
i would focus on something else

when doing these "tests" , use a copilot to monitor scan data - so you remain alive to post your "test" results
------------------------
using VE graphed at WOT with good and a bad MAF sensor , same car , same test conditions
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/...d0ce6789_b.jpg

Last edited by mwebb; 10-15-2011 at 12:31 AM.. Reason: proof read
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2011, 08:18 AM   #6 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: williamsburg, virginia
Posts: 4,270

Mag Pearl - '11 Ford Fiesta SE Hatch
90 day: 51.01 mpg (US)

Slick - '97 Ford Ranger XL
90 day: 31.83 mpg (US)

GEEZEE - '04 Suzuki GZ250
90 day: 80.93 mpg (US)

Sinatra - '92 Nissan Sentra XE
90 day: 38.03 mpg (US)

Super Cub - '65 honda 50
90 day: 170.73 mpg (US)
Thanks: 491
Thanked 1,155 Times in 744 Posts
In an old article by a gent who was rebuilding a dyno at the University of Maryland, he found that using a mid 80s GM 2.5 4 cylinder, when you increased the load from 20 to 50 HP the fuel consumption only increased by 50% while the power generated increased by 150%.

That's the "majic of high VE", an operational tactic that uses as close to possible to a 0 manifold vacuum or 100% MAP as possible under all of the vehicle operatinal parameters, without enrichment.

In order to do this you must incorporate some form of energy storage to separate engine load from vehicle speed, but this is where you incur losses that in most systems eliminate the advantage of an all or noting max VE tactic.

This is the reason I advocate hydraulics for storage and application. Since max VE can more than double the power per BTU in energy conversion, and hydraulic systems are at close to 80% right now, and have been for a decades, the development of new designs that increase that efficiency beyond 80% would have a dramatic effect in overall mileage from just a few percentage points in increase.

Pulse and glide maximises VE by employing an all or nothing engine operation. The real secret in the future will be to do exactly the same thing, WITHOUT A CHANGE IN VEHICLE SPEED. This requires storage and application of energy in an environment of constantly changing storage pressures with infinitly variable ratio machines. Accumulators can reach 99% efficiency and pumps are close to that as long as you keep their RPM below 1000 (wheel speed works great).

It's getting very close to reality.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2011, 11:16 AM   #7 (permalink)
EcoModding Newb
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,296

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 27.72 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 15.9 mpg (US)

Camry - '98 Toyota Camry
90 day: 31.2 mpg (US)
Thanks: 382
Thanked 244 Times in 175 Posts
i don't know the conversion efficiency of an internal combustion engine to electricity and batteries, but this is the whole idea behind series hibrid systems. The engine is run constantly at peak effeciency, and it charges a battery. The vehicle is ultimately powered by electric motors.

Trains are series hybrids, and I often wonder if it's a good system for tractor-trailer big rigs.
__________________






Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2011, 07:02 PM   #8 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Old Tele man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,051

'04 Vibe - '04 Pontiac Vibe Base (1ZZ-FE)
90 day: 29.19 mpg (US)

'14 Prius - '14 Toyota Prius Four (2XR-FXE)
90 day: 46.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 90
Thanked 803 Times in 601 Posts
...a series of automotive EQUATIONS worth studying:

T = 5252*HP/RPM

HP' = T*RPM/5252

HP" = (AP*CR*VE*CID*RPM)/(5252*150.8)

HP = (T*RPM/5252) = (AP*CR*VE*CID*RPM)/(5252*150.8)

VE = (T*150.8)/(AP*CR*CID)

...where:

T = torque, lb·ft
HP = horsepower
RPM = engine speed
AP = air pressure, psi (~14.7 psi)
CR = compression ratio
CID = engine cubic-inch-displacement
VE = engine volumetric efficiency, %

...use the HP@RPM and T@RPM values for your engine and backsolve for its' VE at those two operating points (remember it's not a constant, but varies with engine load and rpm).
__________________
• 2014 Toyota Prius 1.8L eCVT < new >
• 2009 Pontiac Vibe 1.8L/SFI 4A
• 2004 Pontiac Vibe 1.8L/MFI 4A

• 2011 Chevrolet LTZ Cruze 1.4LT 6A < old >
• 1971 Dodge Charger 318 3A
• 1970½ Plymouth AAR 'Cuda 340/6BBL 4M
• 1968 Dodge Charger 383 3A
• 1967 Plymouth Barracuda Formula S 383 4M
• 1965 Plymouth Barracuda Formula S 273 4M

Last edited by Old Tele man; 10-15-2011 at 07:15 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2011, 08:52 PM   #9 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 488

1996 geo metro - '96 geo metro base
Thanks: 2
Thanked 95 Times in 69 Posts
Kiss

KISS
bottom line
Calculated load is directly related to fuel consumption
monitor calculated load and reduce your calculated load at a consistent vehicle speed and you reduce
fuel consumption

you can reduce calculated load by improving the efficiency of the ability of the engine to pump air - but most people have no way to do much that could have any effect at all on VE on a modern day fuel injected engine -

the engine has already been engineered and produced and installed in your car

you can also reduce calculated load by reducing aerodynamic drag and by reducing rolling resistance

  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