Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-20-2008, 07:51 PM   #1 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oregon coast
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Change your V-8 to a 4 banger

or you could change your six-cylinder into a four-cylinder, or a three cylinder. Or if you're not feeling so courageous, you can change your V8 into a six-cylinder.

this isn't exactly a new idea, but a quick look at the board I didn't see it listed. It would be really nice if you could yank that biggie engine out, and saw off half of the cylinders. But that would be a heck of a lot of work, and I'm inclined to believe that without four of the Pistons you would have a major inbalance problem. So the answer is simply this: INACTIVATE THEM.

Doing this is simplicity itself, and on most of your V. eights, readily reversible if you don't like what you've done. Simply pull the valve covers, and remove the push rods. If you have a fuel injection, you will also want to pull the wire's at the fuel injectors.

I told you this isn't a new idea. Cadillac used it back in the 80s. They called it 4- 6 - 8 . Honda uses it now, they call it "active cylinder management" of course those guys all use computer control, but what we're doing we could call "inactive cylinder control"

At this stage of my life, both of my vehicles have four-cylinder engines, and I'm not quite ready to rob them. I would have to grind the camshaft lobes, since they're both overhead cams. I would want someone else to make that experiment.

Best wishes, Tom

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-20-2008, 08:21 PM   #2 (permalink)
Hi-Tech Redneck
 
Johnny Mullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ashtabula, Ohio
Posts: 1,436
Thanks: 6
Thanked 49 Times in 42 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Johnny Mullet Send a message via MSN to Johnny Mullet
This was discussed here before, but I can't find the thread.

My conclusion is that under-powering an already heavy vehicle will actually cost more efficiency than save since they have to work harder.
__________________

GeoMetroforum.com - got mpg?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 09:23 PM   #3 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bono, AR
Posts: 170

Daily Driver - '01 Ford Explorer Sport
90 day: 18.12 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Send a message via Yahoo to Tony Raine
do you remember the 4-6-8? utter disaster.

plus, your running cylinders would be out of balance, and would have to lug around extra pistons. and don't forget spark and fuel delivery. its a cool idea, but would have to be electronically controlled, like the dodge "displacement on demand." otherwise you are driving around a big-underpowered truck that can't do what its designed for. might as well buy a car.



food for thought:
a few years ago, gm offered a $6000+ discount on 3/4 ton pickups ordered with the 4.3 v-6. heavy-duty chassis, but not enough power to use it. major failure. no i don't have any on-paper proof. my work buys odd no-option work trucks all the time. they passed that one up. (for example, we have a 93 dodge ram 3/4 ton dually with the small v-8 and independent front suspension, and a 2008 ford f-350 dually with the 5.4 v-8 )
__________________
My Intro
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 10:43 PM   #4 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: illinois
Posts: 72

EP3 - '03 Honda Civic Si
90 day: 31.73 mpg (US)

Scooter - '93 Honda Elite 80
90 day: 74.87 mpg (US)

Ape - '07 Aprilia Sportcity 250ie
90 day: 66.97 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
The 4-6-8 thing failed due to bad design. The new systems work well and improve the fuel economy. they do this by only shutting down the cylinders while at a steady low load, like cruising on the highway at a sustained speed. Honda has this with some of their v6's, Chevy has it on their new v6 impala(my friend has one), and dodge has it as well. There may be others, but those are the ones that come to mind. In my opinion, if you have to have the ability to tow a bajillion punds and have 300 horses, good for you, but it seems dumb to be cruisin on the highway to work in a behemoth doing 65mph and getting 14mpg when the little car next to you is doing the exact same thing and getting 30mpg. Why not only use the power when you need it? More companies should do this. Instead we have xfe versions of suvs now that get +1 mpg. Yeah, on big vehicles every mpg counts i know and its like a 7% increase, but why don't they just use their brains and design a variable displacement system so they gain 5 or 6 mpgs under no load and then have the powere when they need it? Sorry for my rant....I do that sometimes lol.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 10:52 PM   #5 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bono, AR
Posts: 170

Daily Driver - '01 Ford Explorer Sport
90 day: 18.12 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Send a message via Yahoo to Tony Raine
this is a bandwagon i wish ford would jump on. my little 2 door suv, with a (properly contolled) "2-4-6" would be beyond awesome.
__________________
My Intro

Last edited by Tony Raine; 08-20-2008 at 11:02 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 12:05 AM   #6 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 28
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ditto with my Ford Escape. I'm cursed...CURSED mind you...with too much power.

I disagree that you have to seal the valves. If you just turn off the injectors, the cylinders would pump cold air. Pumping losses remain the same. It would not be as good as closing the valves, but better than status quo. The problem is whether or not pumping cold air will quench the catalytic converter. Both my V-6's fire alternatively front to back. So making them three cylinders involves killing the cylinders on the front bank. I have a scheme that would divert the exhausted cold air from the dead bank to a small muffler so the cat would only get fed from the hot cylinders.

Right now, I have a surplus car because my daughter is away at school. Who's going to be sacrificed?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 12:19 AM   #7 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: southern, wv
Posts: 353

Johnny 5 - '81 Honda Cm400e
90 day: 42.86 mpg (US)

Da bike - '06 Honda Shadow Vlx deluxe
90 day: 59.47 mpg (US)
Thanks: 18
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
chevy does it by using push rods that turn and shorten.
u can see a big jump on the instant read off.
__________________
.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 12:56 AM   #8 (permalink)
Depends on the Day
 
RH77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kansas City Area
Posts: 1,761

Teggy - '98 Acura Integra LS
Sports Cars
90 day: 32.74 mpg (US)

IMA - '10 Honda Insight EX
Team Honda
90 day: 34.76 mpg (US)

Tessie - '06 Acura TSX Base
90 day: 28.2 mpg (US)
Thanks: 31
Thanked 41 Times in 35 Posts
First welcome...

Next -- I tried this 3 years ago by running my 4-cyl as two, by switched injector deactivation. Forget it if you're running an oxygen sensor, it will not work. An engine swap would be easier...

RH77
__________________
“If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research” ― Albert Einstein

_
_
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 03:03 PM   #9 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oregon coast
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
hi Johnny,

You're right,under power in a heavy vehicle is not the way to go. I knew a guy that put a falcon engine in a school bus, he got horrible gas mileage. That said, most of the cars on the road today are totally overpowered. Any time you have a 400 plus engine in a half ton pickup your miles per gallon are going to be seriously compromised. so, what I'm trying to do is give the guy that's stuck with one of those pigs another option, at least until he can afford something smaller.

RH77, you've got my respect and admiration. it takes a lot of guts, for most people to even think about going from the V8 down to four, but from four to two , that's a big jump. It gets me thinking, my old Volvo has at least twice as much power as it really needs. hummmmmmmmmmmmm. I would probably have to grind off the cam lobes. If I decided I didn't like it, I'd have to buy a new camshaft, and then reset all of the valves. I guess that's why I'm reluctant to try it, I'd rather experiment on an old beater.

piper,I think it would be better to close off the valves. This is why, because you would still be compressing on the compression stroke, and sucking on the intake stroke.that would take a lot more energy than simply pumping the same air up-and-down. but, I think your car would be the perfect candidate for it.

Best wishes, Tom
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 04:27 PM   #10 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 87

Brown Bus - '98 GMC Sonoma X-Cab SLS
90 day: 31.37 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Keeping the rotating assembly may make for a balanced motor in terms of rotational/oscillating mass. However, you'll never account for the fact that your power strokes will now become unevenly spaced.

Tell me this. Why can a smaller displacement motor generally create the same amount of power than a larger motor while doing so at higher efficiency? This is a comparison of a smaller motor and a larger one at the same power level.

It's because of pumping work. An engine is a pump. It's pumping air from intake manifold pressure to exhaust manifold pressure. Any time you pump from low pressure to high, you have to input energy. The difference is that the smaller engine, in order to keep up at a lower power level is running at higher manifold pressure. Therefore in terms of pumping work, gas engines are more efficient when they are working closer to their maximum volumetric capacity. So a 10L engine working at 10% throttle is less efficient than a 1 L engine working at 100% in terms of pumping work. This is one reason why it's more efficient to "shift early and use more throttle" in manual cars. Delta P is smaller.

This is one of the reasons for EGR. By introducing non-volitile air, you can cut back the fuel to air ratio, raising intake pressures at a given power output. Pumping work falls. Delta P is smaller.

This is one of the driving forces behind BMWs efforts to eliminate the throttle plate and use variable timing and duration intake valve actuators. They get to keep the intake manifold near zero vacuum and control the charging of the cylinders with the intake valve. No pumping losses because they are changing the charge volume rather than the charge pressure of the cylinder. Delta P is zero.

If you totally deactivate cylinders your motor is going to shake and wrattle like crazy. If you deactivate cylinders and still leave the valves active, you're going to put extra oxygen into the exhaust and cause the computer to dump extra fuel into the active cylinders - serving only to reduce economy, throw a MIL, and burn up the catalyst.

If you want to do this, remove the pistons and rods from the undesired cylinders. Redesign a new cam and crank around a rebalanced firing order. Reprogram the computer, and drive off into the sunset.

__________________
Meh Truck
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Conversion idea, 2L inline 4 -> piston boosted 1.0L 2 banger? Warning....Long thread JoJotheTireMan EcoModding Central 56 06-12-2011 03:09 AM
Oil change guys under-inflated my tires Formula413 The Lounge 26 06-20-2010 08:46 PM
mods-data-% change or Cd change( installment#5-roofline data) aerohead Aerodynamics 3 09-26-2009 02:01 PM
mods-data-% change or Cd change ( installment#4-Rooflines( quotes)) ) aerohead Aerodynamics 0 05-24-2008 02:49 PM
Article: CAFE Change Looks Likely SVOboy General Efficiency Discussion 0 12-05-2007 12:24 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com