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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-03-2012, 10:46 AM   #221 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,237

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.07 mpg (US)

Winter beater Metro - '00 Chevrolet Metro
90 day: 61.98 mpg (US)

Fancy Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 58.72 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,796
Thanked 6,655 Times in 3,447 Posts
Did you try a Google Image search? A quick search revealed this gasoline turbo BSFC map:



via: Turbo and BSFC - CleanMPG Forums

Not particularly helpful without seeing the comparable non-turbo though.

In that vein, I also saw the map for the naturally aspirated version of your 1.4L engine on the gm-volt forum:



http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread....let-Volt/page7

__________________
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: Oops, I did it again! Bought another cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage. Mods in progress...
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-03-2012, 11:49 AM   #222 (permalink)
Eco-ventor
 
jakobnev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,567

Princess - '92 Mazda MX-3 GS
House of Tudor
Team Mazda
90 day: 53.54 mpg (US)

Shirubāarō (*´ω`*) - '05 Toyota Prius Executive
Team Toyota
90 day: 54.88 mpg (US)

Blue Thunder - '20 Hyundai IONIQ Trend PHEV
Team Hyundai
Plug-in Hybrids
Thanks: 68
Thanked 643 Times in 407 Posts
Send a message via MSN to jakobnev
270g/Hph doesn't look like a reasonable sweet-spot value for a modern engine. How was this chart generated?

(If it was 270g/kWh it would be more believable.)
__________________




2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 10:24 PM   #223 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast USA
Posts: 22
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Hi MetroMPG, yes I did the internet image search without much success. I was surprised how difficult it was to find a small turbo engine BSFC chart. I did see the Acura 2.3L turbo BSFC, but it did not apply. I really wanted a smaller displacement, economy car turbo BSFC chart. The Acura is a "luxury-performance" engine, less emphasis on economy and more on performance.

The Acura engine seems strange to me: The torque curve is very peaky(big turbo requiring more exhaust flow to get full boost?), mine is much flatter(small turbo for minimum lag and good low-end). The peak torque occurs at 4500 RPM out of a 6500 RPM redline, that's really high for a turbo engine! The efficiency island also seems too high up the load axis. The turbo should negate the pumping losses at lower loads, allowing the island to drop 20-30%(my guess). So unfortunately I didn't think this one applied.

I'm only talking about very light turbo boost -2 to +2psi, just enough to overcome the pumping loss. This also allows me to short-shift, I rarely go above 2000 RPM. One person on CleanMPG stated that you need to stay out of the boost for efficinecy, that's where I disagree, 'mild' boost recovers some of the lost energy in the exhaust.

I did also see the Volt NA engine, however in this case it doesn't apply because it is tuned to run over a very narrow operating envelope. As you know, it is not coupled to the drive wheels, so the engine control forces it to operate only along the red line on the chart.

Thanks for the effort, but it looks like there is no small turbo engine BSFC charts that are easily available.

Rich

P.S. I am in awe of you real modder guys! Awesome projects! I'm just a hack, got the grille blocker, thinking about smoothing out the nose & extending the rear spoiler over the hatch to make a longer Kammback! It takes a lot of work to make real gains...
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 09:27 AM   #224 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,237

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.07 mpg (US)

Winter beater Metro - '00 Chevrolet Metro
90 day: 61.98 mpg (US)

Fancy Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 58.72 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,796
Thanked 6,655 Times in 3,447 Posts
Roll your own: a few years ago we had a member who was working on a method of converting data logged from the OBD-II interface into a BSFC map. I had a look ... but couldn't find the thread I'm remembering.
__________________
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: Oops, I did it again! Bought another cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage. Mods in progress...
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 05:21 PM   #225 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
ever_green's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 263

Blueberry - '17 Mazda Mazda3 GS
90 day: 32.56 mpg (US)

EVO - '08 Mitsubishi Evolution MR
90 day: 23.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 77 Times in 32 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
Did you try a Google Image search? A quick search revealed this gasoline turbo BSFC map:

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1001/rdxbsfc.png

via: Turbo and BSFC - CleanMPG Forums

Not particularly helpful without seeing the comparable non-turbo though.
hey metro just wanted to add that chart i made above that you linked is not actually based on real world testing. it was based on honda i-vtec BSFC charts and A/F ratio tables for my car. after some recent real world testing i have found that chart to be inaccurate. It seems that turbocharged engines, specially mine, tend to run very rich above 70% engine load and/or 3000rpm. for example at 2500rpm and 80% load my RDX hits 13:1 AFR. At 90% load it's 12:1 rich and beyond 3000rpm full rich. anyway here is a much more accurate BSFC i found (i did not make this). it basically confirmed my suspicion that moderate loads (60%) and little to no boost are best for turbo BSFC:

Mazda 2.3L turbo:


and the AFR chart:


in comparison NA hondas do not enrich mixture too much below 3500rpm, some like my subaru stay stoich no matter what unless you're operating at high engine speeds. Turbocharged engines are more eager to enrich mixture to prevent knock. little to no boost along with low RPMs are best for turbo engines because as you can see from above charts AFR is actually related to BSFC.
__________________

Last edited by ever_green; 02-17-2013 at 05:41 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 05:06 PM   #226 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast USA
Posts: 22
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
Roll your own: a few years ago we had a member who was working on a method of converting data logged from the OBD-II interface into a BSFC map. I had a look ... but couldn't find the thread I'm remembering.
MetroMPG, I just had an idea on how I could gather the data for a BSFC chart. I have a Ultra-Gage that I could set up to show:
Fuel gallons/hour
RPM
Commanded AFR
Torque**
Boost Pressure

**Torque is not the real number, but I can scale it to known values

Here's where my lack of electronics knowledge and skill comes in:
I was thinking I could mount my GoPro Hero camera looking at the UG display (which updates every 1/2 second). I could record runs at different throttle settings and go back thru the videos to pull out data every few seconds. Runs in taller gears would let things change more slowly, but runs to high RPMs in higher gears could get me introuble with the law. Maybe do the runs in lower gears on steep hills.

So once I figure out how to scale the Torque number to something reasonable, I could calculate hp from Torque and RPM. I'm thinking I could have lines of constant boost pressure on the BSFC as well... I could also create an AFR plot.

I could run both 87 and 93. My intercooler is currently blocked off, so I'd have to open that up.

Lots of potential problems, any comments?

Last edited by richierocket; 02-20-2013 at 10:09 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 05:52 PM   #227 (permalink)
Do more with less
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North Eastern Missouri
Posts: 917

OD - '05 Ford Econoline
90 day: 18.64 mpg (US)

Joetta - '86 Volkswagen Jetta Turbo Oil Burner
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 49.71 mpg (US)

Benzilla - '85 Mercedes Benz 300D
90 day: 28.08 mpg (US)
Thanks: 62
Thanked 167 Times in 105 Posts
I have been getting the parts ready to put an industrial 1.9 cam in my 1.6 vw TD.

Any thoughts on how this might run. I don't have any data just a hunch.
__________________
"A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits."
Richard M. Nixon


"The reward of suffering is experience."
Harry S. Truman

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Ayn Rand
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 05:30 PM   #228 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
ERTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 120

Bu - '08 Chevrolet Malibu LS
90 day: 32.29 mpg (US)
Thanks: 51
Thanked 65 Times in 31 Posts
From an sae paper l'm currently reading:

Tuning: characterised by increased volumetric efficiency...but decreased bsfc.

Anti-tuning: characterised by decreased VE...but reduced bsfc.

Also, fuel consumption is proportionately correlated with pumping work.

I was considering disconnecting half of my engine valves, and in consideration of this info, i would double my pumping loss and potentially increase VE - hurting fuel consumption.

Late intake valve closing does wonders for efficiency - the toyota 2.5L is 37% thermally efficient - and gives the turbo lag feel. It seems that a large engine with the performance of a small one may be better than a small engine with the performance of a larger engine. Fwiw downsizing more than 30% hurts transient response, and turbo engines aren't as fuel efficient as they're marketed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 05:45 PM   #229 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
ever_green's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 263

Blueberry - '17 Mazda Mazda3 GS
90 day: 32.56 mpg (US)

EVO - '08 Mitsubishi Evolution MR
90 day: 23.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 77 Times in 32 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERTW View Post
Late intake valve closing does wonders for efficiency - the toyota 2.5L is 37% thermally efficient - and gives the turbo lag feel. It seems that a large engine with the performance of a small one may be better than a small engine with the performance of a larger engine. Fwiw downsizing more than 30% hurts transient response, and turbo engines aren't as fuel efficient as they're marketed.
My mom has a 2003 Acura TL with a 3.2L V6 VTEC engine and it uses less gas than my RDX with a 2.3L Atkinson cycle turbocharged engine with all the latest honda gizmos like variable valve lift and timing (intake & exhaust). Of course the turbo car is a 500lbs heavier suv with 4WD and tighter gear ratios, so it's not a fair comparison. But look at the jetta hybrid with 1.4L turbo gas that gets you 42mpg city and 48mpg highway. pretty impressive for +180ft-lbs of torque. It does better than the TDI (turbo diesel) models which is epa rated at 42 highway and 30 city.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 06:14 PM   #230 (permalink)
Do more with less
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North Eastern Missouri
Posts: 917

OD - '05 Ford Econoline
90 day: 18.64 mpg (US)

Joetta - '86 Volkswagen Jetta Turbo Oil Burner
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 49.71 mpg (US)

Benzilla - '85 Mercedes Benz 300D
90 day: 28.08 mpg (US)
Thanks: 62
Thanked 167 Times in 105 Posts
I can appreciate having a higher bsfc. I want the tallest part of the curve to be at 2ooo rpm, why would having a cam set up for higher performance be a benefit. I probably never ever make my car put out more than 40 horse power or what 80 ftlbs of torque at 2700 rpm, 60 mph. I can get 55 mpg with the current set up. Could care less if the car will go 80 although it will run 95 now.

Well that is my plan I can read about it or I can try it.

__________________
"A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits."
Richard M. Nixon


"The reward of suffering is experience."
Harry S. Truman

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Ayn Rand
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com