View Single Post
Old 09-18-2010, 11:01 AM   #49 (permalink)
ShadeTreeMech
Basjoos Wannabe
 
ShadeTreeMech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 870

The Van - '97 Mercury Villager gs
90 day: 19.8 mpg (US)

Lyle the Kindly Viking - '99 Volvo V70
90 day: 25.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 32 Posts
The reason I mentioned the NEED to change what the o2 sensor is seeing is due the the excess o2 from the disabled sensors. Of course it will work fine, it will read too much o2 and start to dump in the fuel to compensate. This isn't conjecture but fact based on experience and my understanding of engine electronics.

Frank, I've heard you refer to this idea as a guaranteed failure on many occasions, and while my own expirementation wasn't a complete sucess in that the fuel was getting dumped into the oil, I did manage to increase my mpgs by about 10 to 20%--had I not been wasting fuel by over fueling the running cylinders, I would have done better.

I'm in the same boat as saand, I have limited resources and have a strong desire to save money on fuel. The ideal solution would be a way to disable half the engine at the crank instead of the fuel, but that is much more complicated and pricey.

This bit here seems odd.....
Quote:
So is it worth it for a possible fe improvment of up to likely less than 20% and maybe even an fe decrease? (Your car 29 x 1.2 = 34)
We've got people shaving off their door mirrors and removing windhshield wipers for much less than 20 or 10 or 5 percent increase. I don't understand why this particular mod rubs you the wrong way?
__________________
RIP Maxima 1997-2012


Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that it's not rational to do either speed or fuel economy mods for economic reasons. You do it as a form of recreation, for the fun and for the challenge.
  Reply With Quote