Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Success Stories
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-06-2016, 10:47 AM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mcrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,523

The Q Sold - '02 Infiniti Q45 Sport
90 day: 23.08 mpg (US)

blackie - '14 nissan altima sv
Thanks: 2,203
Thanked 659 Times in 474 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
Fair question.

Top gear on the dead 42RLE had a ratio of 0.69. Top gear on the replacement NSG370 has a ratio of 0.84. This represents about a 21.7% increase in propshaft rotation speed, for a given vehicle speed. If I were to have left the original 3.636 rear end in place, that should have resulted in a definite increase in fuel consumption.

The FDR was 3.636, while it is now 2.87. This represents about a 21.1% decrease in required pinion input speed, for a given vehicle speed.

These two changes almost cancel each other out, and the net decrease in engine speed (about 3.9%) does not account for the 10.1% decrease in fuel consumption.

Put it another way - Engine speed at 60 MPH was about 1850. Now, it's about 1780. There is no way that this change in engine speed (~3.9%), by itself, would have resulted in the measured decrease in fuel consumption.



Because I forgot? I only regarded the rear end swap as a necessary adjustment to counter the larger top gear ratio of the installed NSG370, nothing more. I figured that the 3.9% drop in engine speed that I calculated back in April of last year, would have given me a very modest 2% decrease in fuel consumption. This is based on the rule of thumb that a percent change in fuel consumption will be about half the percent change in the rear end ratio. The 2% change would have been rather hard to measure as it is just above noise.

You do bring up an interesting idea - What if I had left the original 3.636 rear end in place? Engine speed would have been about 2250 RPM at 60 MPH, which would have resulted in a net increase in engine speed of... 21.7% from when the 4-speed was still installed. I would have expected a 10.9% increase in fuel consumption just from swapping in the NSG370, if I were to have treated the engine speed increase as a result of swapping in a (nonexistent) 4.43 rear end.
I like a man who can run the numbers!!

__________________
MetroMPG: "Get the MPG gauge - it turns driving into a fuel & money saving game."

ECO MODS PERFORMED:
First: ScangaugeII
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...eii-23306.html

Second: Grille Block
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...e-10912-2.html

Third: Full underbelly pan
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...q45-11402.html

Fourth: rear skirts and 30.4mpg on trip!
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post247938
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mcrews For This Useful Post:
JRMichler (01-06-2016), t vago (01-06-2016)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-06-2016, 06:02 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,545

Volt, gas only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 38.02 mpg (US)

Volt, electric only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 132.26 mpg (US)

Yukon Denali Hybrid - '12 GMC Yukon Denali Hybrid
90 day: 21.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 165
Thanked 342 Times in 237 Posts
If i remember correctly, the intrepid (42le) with 3.66 gears was 2000 rpm @ 60 and with 3.89 and 215's instead of 225's i was running about 2200@60. I still brushed 30mpg average with the 3.89's.
__________________




  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2016, 06:05 PM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,545

Volt, gas only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 38.02 mpg (US)

Volt, electric only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 132.26 mpg (US)

Yukon Denali Hybrid - '12 GMC Yukon Denali Hybrid
90 day: 21.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 165
Thanked 342 Times in 237 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
The Jeep Wrangler used this transmission on the 3.8L V6 engine (which was what made this swap possible - the 3.5L and the 3.8L V6 bellhousing bolt patterns are nearly identical). The Chrysler Crossfire also used this transmission, but with a radically different bellhousing bolt pattern.

The first gen intrepid came stock with a 3.3, same as 3.8
__________________




  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2016, 07:46 AM   #14 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 8,149
Thanks: 0
Thanked 889 Times in 788 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
Not sure if transmission weight itself would have played much of a part. I lost maybe 50 lbs or so from the swap.
Sure it's not the most important reason for that mileage improvement, but is not to be neglected at all.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2016, 03:31 PM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 907
Thanks: 194
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
Drag racers certainly would think it significant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr View Post
Sure it's not the most important reason for that mileage improvement, but is not to be neglected at all.
I can't remember what the rule of thumb was for performance gained from weight reduction.

I should quit driving around with my wife. She's 100 pounds.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2016, 07:46 AM   #16 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 3,881

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,617
Thanked 1,748 Times in 1,129 Posts
A navigator/commo/spotter that only costs 100 pounds is golden.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2016, 11:05 AM   #17 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,766

The Karen-Mobile - '05 Dodge Magnum SXT
Team Dodge
90 day: 26.72 mpg (US)

Fiat Dakota - '00 Dodge Dakota SLT RWD Quad Cab
90 day: 16.67 mpg (US)

The Red Sled - '01 Dodge Durango SLT 4WD
90 day: 16.96 mpg (US)
Thanks: 799
Thanked 681 Times in 437 Posts
Well, made a few discoveries since last posting -

I had flashed the Magnum with a DiabloSport canned performance 93 octane tune a few years ago, and left it in there for up until a few days ago. I found out that this canned tune had caused my cold idle speed to be about 3000 (three thousand) RPM, and warm idle to consume about .55 gallons per hour.

I reverted the Magnum's tune back to stock, then played around with the stock tune with the limited tweaking capability built into the Predator. Basically, I advanced ignition timing by 8 degrees from 0-4000 RPM, and experimented with lowering the idle engine speeds (idle in P/N w/ no AC, idle in R/D/3/L w/ no AC, idle in P/N w/ AC on, idle in R/D/3/L w/ AC on).

Turns out that advancing stock ignition timing does wonders with fuel economy, above and beyond with what the performance 93 canned tune did. I got 28 MPG on a mostly-highway 29 mile drive last night, then got 25 MPG on a 6.5 mile city drive about an hour later.

Also learned that messing with the stock idle speeds is counterproductive, even with lowering the speeds by 50 RPM. When warm, the Magnum would attempt to idle at the lowered idle speed, then somehow the engine computer would experience some sort of underflow condition and cause idle speed to jump up to about 2000 RPM. I returned the idle speeds back to stock settings, and that solved the idle speed problem. I am also consuming about 0.35 gallons per hour in idle, now.

Also, the performance 93 tune messed with DFCO. The Magnum is now more willing to enter DFCO when I let off the gas.
__________________
The Fiat Dakota


The Karen-mobile


The Red Sled
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to t vago For This Useful Post:
Fat Charlie (01-15-2016), Xist (02-04-2016)
Old 01-15-2016, 12:10 PM   #18 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 3,881

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,617
Thanked 1,748 Times in 1,129 Posts
Nice work!
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2016, 07:45 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,470

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 31.31 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)
Thanks: 318
Thanked 433 Times in 307 Posts
I feel like it's been left out than an Auto on it's last legs may have had issues that caused poor economy. I had a 1.3 Suzuki with dead trans that struggled to get 25mpg.

A manual swap+ EOC would have sent that into the 60's.
__________________






  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2016, 12:25 AM   #20 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,766

The Karen-Mobile - '05 Dodge Magnum SXT
Team Dodge
90 day: 26.72 mpg (US)

Fiat Dakota - '00 Dodge Dakota SLT RWD Quad Cab
90 day: 16.67 mpg (US)

The Red Sled - '01 Dodge Durango SLT 4WD
90 day: 16.96 mpg (US)
Thanks: 799
Thanked 681 Times in 437 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile View Post
I feel like it's been left out than an Auto on it's last legs may have had issues that caused poor economy. I had a 1.3 Suzuki with dead trans that struggled to get 25mpg.
It's certainly within the realm of possibility. I did not consider it as a factor, however, because
  • Out of 58 model year 2005 Dodge Magnums being tracked on Fuelly for gas mileage, mine made the top 5, with an average of 22.7 MPG, at the time the transmission died;
  • The torque converter locked up normally and showed no signs of slippage;
  • The transmission clutches all had normal measurements at the time the transmission failed (OD=125,UD=37,L/R=43,2/4=46);
  • The transmission fluid was not burnt when I drained the transmission upon initial diagnosis; and
  • The rear carrier assembly of the transmission had literally shredded itself into two separate pieces, once I took apart the old transmission to find out what had failed.

Here's the part that failed. It's part of the rear carrier assembly, the part that transmits engine power through 2nd, 4th, and reverse. Part of this rear carrier assembly is still inside the transmission. In the background, you can see the rear annulus, front carrier assembly, and a couple of large snap rings.



Here's a picture of a complete and unbroken rear carrier assembly. The part I'm holding in my hand is the bottom of the complete assembly.


__________________
The Fiat Dakota


The Karen-mobile


The Red Sled
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to t vago For This Useful Post:
Xist (02-04-2016)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




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