View Single Post
Old 04-15-2008, 09:59 PM   #153 (permalink)
AndrewJ
Awesomeness personified
 
AndrewJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 642

Harold - '94 Honda Civic CX
90 day: 54.51 mpg (US)

Margot - '08 Surly Big Dummy
Thanks: 0
Thanked 28 Times in 18 Posts
Send a message via AIM to AndrewJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by reformed View Post
I've read on here that intake air temps of above around 110 can possibly hurt FE. I know nothing of this, so I'm curious if you had any results from the WAI alone. I actually just flipped my "intake" (the little endcap with the square on the one end) to the way you have it facing but I havent run any duct work yet.
Yeah, I've heard the same kind of thing... however.... I've also done some reading on the interwebnets that suggests that high IAT's aren't really bad at all (except for making power)
I've only really looked at info about Honda IAT's, but I believe that there was a thread on GS about putting resistors on the IAT to "trick" the computer into reading REALLY high IAT's (like in the 220-240 range) with no ill effects.
Basically, the effects of the resistor mod netted gains for some, and a wash for others.

As for my HAI (I'm calling it an HAI from here on out because it's normally 140º or above, and that's pretty hot) I think it has definitely contributed a bit to my mileage. My last tank jumped up 2mpg, and the new mods during that tank were the HAI and the partial bellypan with trimmed airdam.

I don't think that 2mpg is attributable to the bellypan/airdam changes because I would have had to notice a significant increase in coastdown ability, and I haven't.

So, that leaves the HAI to attribute it to, in the form of reduced pumping losses by opening up the throttle more for the same power. I definitely noticed that this was the case after installing the HAI. I now have to press the gas pedal down significantly further to get the same power out of the engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by avitet View Post
assuming you have a 1.5 which makes 70 hp at sea level you only have 33 at 1800 ft sorry if someone else has already made this statement i havent reached the end of the thread yet http://www.webcalc.net/calc/0757.php

Wow, didn't realize there would be that big of a disparity with elevation gain.

Well that explains quite a bit


And Daox:
Yeah, a battery charger is in the works. In transit to be specific. I got a cheapie smart-charger off of the ebays. I couldn't find a decent one around here for less than $100 so I have to wait on shipping from Indiana...


Edit:

Back to the horsepower loss thing. Anybody know at what elevation manufacturers rate their engine's horsepower at? Seems like it would prolly be sea-level, but damn would all those sports-car buyers in Denver be getting the shaft.
__________________
"I got 350 heads on a 305 engine. I get 10 miles to the gallon. I ain't got no good intentions." - The Drive By Truckers.

  Reply With Quote