Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-28-2010, 01:58 PM   #51 (permalink)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post

You shut off half the cylinders and that improved fe?
A simplistic statement for a slightly more complex procedure. I put in a switch that disconnected the ground to half the injectors, which I would activate when low power was needed, even at idle. It would be gutless, but had the power to move the truck and could even maintain cruise on a flat road. Problem was, the o2 sensor read a "lean" condition and the injectors on the running side were pumping in way too much fuel, causing excess fuel to wash into the oil pan--bad news. So I disconnected it.

If I were to reroute the exhaust piping so only one side was read by the o2 sensor it might actually work as desired. If I also separated the intake and had the comp only read one side of the engine I'm sure it would work. Even considering the extra fuel being dumped into the running side I used less fuel per tank. I got an extra 2-3 mpg regularly (I was getting an average of 15) and one tank of nearly 20 mpg.

__________________
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
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 06-28-2010, 02:26 PM   #52 (permalink)
The road not so traveled
 
TheEnemy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 679

The Truck - '99 Nissan Frontier xe
90 day: 25.74 mpg (US)

The Ugly Duck - '84 Jeep CJ7 Rock crawler
Thanks: 18
Thanked 64 Times in 55 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobAziza View Post

Plus, mass tends to cause the impact: 1/2 the weight = 1/2 the braking distance = no impact. No impact > "winning" impact
The weight/stoping distance thing is way more complicated than that.

Yes typically the heavier the vehicle the longer it takes to stop, but it is also very dependant on the brakes, suspension, and tires. My pickup is the lightest car we own, it also has the longest stoping distance despite having good tires on it. My wifes 05 Accord can't quite out stop my Jeep despite having a supierior braking system and suspension. And thats with the rear brakes on the Jeep still not working 100%.

Yes, if the lady had a smaller car she might have fit without causing a wreck, but my argument isn't that larger cars are or aren't safer. My statement was concerning Frank's belief that he is a good enough driver to avoid anything, even a distracted driver that isn't paying attention to what they are doing. I used to believe the same way until the realities caught up with me.

The whole roll over thing is in most cases overstated. Yes there were a few models built that were less stable than my 25 year old Jeep, and it didn't help that the cheap tires they put on them were prone to failure, even when properly inflated. I have yet to roll either my pickup or my Jeep (just a matter of time), and I have done some rather interesting things with both.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2010, 03:13 PM   #53 (permalink)
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
I suppose there are 3 schools of thought. Make a vehicle light enough to avoid an accident, make it strong enough to "win" the accident, or build it assuming it will be involved in a bad accident and the passengers must survive.

I propose filling all cars with a lightweight metallic foam or metallic bubblewrap, and have carbon dioxide be the gas contained therein, or some other fire retardant chemical that is lightweight. The crumple zones would have to be engineered for a crash at survivable at much higher speeds than are currently enforced. And research into making carbon fiber much cheaper would be a gov't mandate, to the end that all cars would use it to make the vehicles lighter. Yes, a light car is better, but it should also make sure the passengers will survive a horrific accident.
__________________
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
Old 06-28-2010, 04:35 PM   #54 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,741

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,573
Thanked 3,510 Times in 2,197 Posts
move along, nothing to see here

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech View Post
A simplistic statement for a slightly more complex procedure. I put in a switch that disconnected the ground to half the injectors, which I would activate when low power was needed, even at idle. It would be gutless, but had the power to move the truck and could even maintain cruise on a flat road. Problem was, the o2 sensor read a "lean" condition and the injectors on the running side were pumping in way too much fuel, causing excess fuel to wash into the oil pan--bad news. So I disconnected it.

If I were to reroute the exhaust piping so only one side was read by the o2 sensor it might actually work as desired. If I also separated the intake and had the comp only read one side of the engine I'm sure it would work. Even considering the extra fuel being dumped into the running side I used less fuel per tank. I got an extra 2-3 mpg regularly (I was getting an average of 15) and one tank of nearly 20 mpg.
It's a proven fail.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2010, 04:44 PM   #55 (permalink)
The road not so traveled
 
TheEnemy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 679

The Truck - '99 Nissan Frontier xe
90 day: 25.74 mpg (US)

The Ugly Duck - '84 Jeep CJ7 Rock crawler
Thanks: 18
Thanked 64 Times in 55 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech View Post
I suppose there are 3 schools of thought. Make a vehicle light enough to avoid an accident, make it strong enough to "win" the accident, or build it assuming it will be involved in a bad accident and the passengers must survive.

I propose filling all cars with a lightweight metallic foam or metallic bubblewrap, and have carbon dioxide be the gas contained therein, or some other fire retardant chemical that is lightweight. The crumple zones would have to be engineered for a crash at survivable at much higher speeds than are currently enforced. And research into making carbon fiber much cheaper would be a gov't mandate, to the end that all cars would use it to make the vehicles lighter. Yes, a light car is better, but it should also make sure the passengers will survive a horrific accident.
I think your taking it too far, (I'm guessing your being sarcastic though)

All things considered building cars is an exercise in compromise. Small and light in many ways improves safety, it makes it easier to make it have good performance and agility. Larger and heavier while not as able to avoid an accident has more room to crumple while still keeping its occupants safe. Heavy unyeilding tanks are a loose loose type of construction, they don't crumple, so if they hit something of equal or greater mass the occupants feel the full instatainious impact, and if what they hit is smaller, that one looses.

Building cars is an exercise in compromise, keep it light pushes toward smaller cars with thinner materials, while safety pushes for larger thicker materials. More modern materials can make the same safety but at a higher cost.

All that and Automobile manufacturers still have to keep an eye on what the majority are wanting and willing to pay for that year.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2010, 03:22 AM   #56 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 808 Times in 592 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEnemy View Post
My statement was concerning Frank's belief that he is a good enough driver to avoid anything,,,
Mine is just the flip side of that: of course you can't aviod EVERYTHING, but you can avoid some things. And it's a fact that the only accidents I've ever been involved in were me getting rear-ended while sitting in a line of stopped traffic, which I think count as unavoidable by any reasonable definition.

Quote:
The whole roll over thing is in most cases overstated. Yes there were a few models built that were less stable than my 25 year old Jeep, and it didn't help that the cheap tires they put on them were prone to failure, even when properly inflated. I have yet to roll either my pickup or my Jeep (just a matter of time), and I have done some rather interesting things with both.
Not overstated: if anything, the risk of rollover is understated. Take those cheap tires: I've had several high-speed blowouts in sports/muscle cars, which were perfectly controllable, just noise, vibration, and a bit of drag. It's not particular models, either, but just simple physics: give something a higher center of gravity, and it rolls easier.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2010, 04:59 PM   #57 (permalink)
The road not so traveled
 
TheEnemy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 679

The Truck - '99 Nissan Frontier xe
90 day: 25.74 mpg (US)

The Ugly Duck - '84 Jeep CJ7 Rock crawler
Thanks: 18
Thanked 64 Times in 55 Posts
I have also had several high speed blow outs, on my pickup, one of which the only indication was the noise of it going. Yes a vehicle with a higher center of mass is going to have a greater chance of rolling, but all the hype I hear makes it seem as though any SUV is going to roll over if the driver so much as sneezes.

Metro: can you give some examples of how to avoid being rear ended, especially at a light?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 08:52 PM   #58 (permalink)
AJI
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 117

Rallye - '98 Peugeot 106 Rallye
90 day: 39.01 mpg (US)

Pesos - '96 Toyota Paseo ST
90 day: 38.69 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
I'd suggest that one way of avoiding being rear-ended is brake in plenty of time for lights to make sure the car behind you has chance to do the same.

Another suggestion is to keep your foot on the brake pedal at a stand still until you're sure the car behind has enough space to stop (for greater visibility obviously)... and keep the car in gear and leave a gap to the car in front, so if the car behind has left it too late, you still have a couple of meters to move forward to give yourself space to avoid an accident.

Pretty much all driving is about planning ahead, and that doesn't necessarily mean that your planning has to be whilst on the move - often planning in traffic can be equally useful.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2010, 03:28 PM   #59 (permalink)
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
I can recall 2 instances of my parents getting rear ended, or nearly so in one of them.

The first one, my mom was at a downhill stop light in Colorado during a snowy day, and saw in the rearview a car coming in too fast. She knew being rear ended was unavoidable so she moved as close to the vehicle in front as she dared to minimize damage; it worked, the car barely had a scratch on the front and the car in front of her was nearly unscathed.

Another time, my dad came to a stoplight on a highway with a 55 mph speed limit. He stopped, and in the rear view saw a semi barreling in way too fast, so he cursed a bit and pulled off into the turn lane. The semi's front bumper stopped a few feet in front of our front bumper, good thing he was in the other lane.

Both times disaster was averted by paying attention to surroundings. In the second story, I'd have likely been killed had my dad not reacted as he did. But having a margin for error in the worst case scenario is always preferrable.
__________________
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
Old 11-16-2010, 10:21 PM   #60 (permalink)
home of the odd vehicles
 
rmay635703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere in WI
Posts: 3,329

Silver - '10 Chevy Cobalt XFE
Thanks: 351
Thanked 665 Times in 497 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech View Post
A simplistic statement for a slightly more complex procedure. I put in a switch that disconnected the ground to half the injectors, which I would activate when low power was needed, even at idle. It would be gutless, but had the power to move the truck and could even maintain cruise on a flat road. Problem was, the o2 sensor read a "lean" condition and the injectors on the running side were pumping in way too much fuel, causing excess fuel to wash into the oil pan--bad news. So I disconnected it.
Many cars have 2 O2 sensors, maybe spoofing one and using the other would work? Or maybe reading how much the O2 was off voltage wise and correcting it a bit

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Electric Cars Push Japan Engine Parts Makers to Crisis Mode tjts1 The Lounge 14 12-23-2012 01:47 PM
Fiatís Small Cars to Take Over America, Too? SVOboy EcoModder Blog Discussion 0 01-28-2009 07:01 AM
Article: the 10 cheapest cars in the world MetroMPG General Efficiency Discussion 0 03-06-2008 11:22 AM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com