Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
See right there is the major fault in your premise that this actually accomplishes anything eco. To extract x amount of throttled power the engine NEEDS to be restricted x amount. The source of the restriction for eco purposes is irrelevant.
Show us a watertight A-B-A.
|
Frank,
You are almost correct in what you’re saying, but you’re confusing restriction(CFM) and vacuum. Higher vacuum is what gives you more gas mileage. Not higher restriction (lower CFM). The reason for the vacuum is the engine trying to suck air through a partially open throttle body. Because I have deleted the air intake muffler I have better flow to the throttle body; therefore I don’t need to open the throttle body more to get the same acceleration I did before the mod. Because the throttle body isn’t open as much the throttle position sensor ( or TPS) isn’t sending the computer the signal to inject more fuel into the engine.
My modification doesn’t deal with decreasing vacuum it deals with increasing flow measured in CFM. By getting rid of the restriction it can have more flow to the throttle body.
For example, in the world of head porting and polishing the object of the porting/ gasket match is to open up the intake and exhaust runners increasing CFM. Before and after the porting the technician measures the flow. Of course there has to be a constant or a control to see how much more CFM is flowing in and out of the cylinders. That control is vacuum. Let’s say a regular unported 350 head flows 180 CFM at 28 inches of vacuum before the porting. Then after the porting the technician has to have the correct vacuum to make a good comparison of the CFM gain. It’ll still be 28 inches of vacuum.
As far as the watertight A-B-A, this vehicle is to go to work and back which is 20 miles so I use a more realistic test like driving until the tank gets down to 1/4 tank then fill it up and calculate the results.
That will be in about 2 weeks... Can you feel the tension rising?
