EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   Introductions (https://ecomodder.com/forum/introductions.html)
-   -   David in Australia with Renault Scenic (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/david-australia-renault-scenic-35222.html)

ar5boosted 06-06-2017 04:47 AM

David in Australia with Renault Scenic
 
Hello guys,

I have a Renault Scenic which is not so economical. More of a track car really and a Celica GT-Four.

The Scenic was meant to be an around town 'slow' car. Then the engine blew and I upgraded it to a RenaultSport engine and it now goes as well as a lot of Turbo cars.

That's ridiculous but true.

Last week I got back from Japan and they are into Toyota Prius. omg, such bodykits and extra things they add to them there.

I guess that made me remember about this site.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 06-06-2017 05:55 AM

Is that a 1st generation or 2nd generation Scenic? And what was its stock engine?

ar5boosted 06-06-2017 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr (Post 542025)
Is that a 1st generation or 2nd generation Scenic? And what was its stock engine?

Technically, it's a facelifted Gen-I. It is auto and came with a stock 2.0L 100Kw engine. Long gone now.

The new and current engine is a RenaultSport Clio-172 130Kw engine, pretty much stock It's plenty powerful. Definitely the opposite of eco-modding at the moment.

I've got eco-modding plans for it, but we'll see how it goes.

In the past I Water-Injected my L300 Mitsubishi van and got substantial (~33%) fuel economy improvements. But that was carby not efi.

ar5boosted 06-06-2017 09:03 AM

I got to five posts so now I can share a picture:

http://ar5boosted.com/users/david/DSC_0077.JPG

My Scenic is the big car at the front. The ones behind had trouble keeping up - lol.

Daox 06-06-2017 09:15 AM

Welcome to the site.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 06-06-2017 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ar5boosted (Post 542036)
Technically, it's a facelifted Gen-I. It is auto and came with a stock 2.0L 100Kw engine.

Was it available only with the 2.0L engine in Australia? Here in Brazil there were 3 engine options, the early 8-valve 2.0L, then a 16-valve 1.6L and a 16-valve 2.0L, and 1.9L turbodiesel versions for export to Argentina and Uruguay. IIRC only the 2.0L 8-valve and the turbodiesel had never been available with automatic transmission.


Quote:

In the past I Water-Injected my L300 Mitsubishi van and got substantial (~33%) fuel economy improvements. But that was carby not efi.
How did you get that fuel economy improvement in the L300? Adjusting the carburettor to run leaner or keeping lower RPM in a taller gear?

ar5boosted 06-06-2017 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr (Post 542096)
Was it available only with the 2.0L engine in Australia? Here in Brazil there were 3 engine options, the early 8-valve 2.0L, then a 16-valve 1.6L and a 16-valve 2.0L, and 1.9L turbodiesel versions for export to Argentina and Uruguay. IIRC only the 2.0L 8-valve and the turbodiesel had never been available with automatic transmission.

I don't know about the 8-valve engines but the 1.6 and 2.0 16V were both available here and I actually had both. The 1.6 was a K4VM and the 2.0 was the F4R that was mated with the Auto. Having had both I actually prefer the 1.6 K4M but they are cheap crappy engines and the mechanics hate them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr (Post 542096)
How did you get that fuel economy improvement in the L300? Adjusting the carburettor to run leaner or keeping lower RPM in a taller gear?

https://plus.google.com/+DavidLyon/posts/MW1qzbFfsDU

I had an electric water pump and a switch. I'd pump water into the carby with a spray module. It was calibrated to work best at 1100 rpm which was low speed driving.

https://plus.google.com/+DavidLyon/posts/jFrdmiMZexL

Due to the increased torque I could drive in the next higher gear.

I found that I could run 50% water by volume and that would give 30% fuel saving going from 14L/100km down to 9L/100km. It also got a lot more power so the life of the vehicle was extended by an extra 10 years over what it was designed for.

A closeup on the next car:
https://plus.google.com/+DavidLyon/posts/3DKGmaFEPvN

It was great to own and drive. I didn't have a good enough system for it to be saleable but it suited what I needed it for.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 06-08-2017 09:53 AM

I haven't seen so many complaints against the K-series engines in general. But anyway, by now it's been mostly replaced by that Nissan QG engine.

MetroMPG 06-08-2017 02:17 PM

Belated welcome!

Quote:

I Water-Injected my L300 Mitsubishi van and got substantial (~33%) fuel economy improvements. But that was carby not efi.
Would EFI not adapt to this approach as well? There are a couple of manufacturers doing H2o injection these days, but as a means of avoiding detonation in high output engines, not for efficiency. (I'm sure I've read about a BMW with it.)

Quote:

future - probably a Prius
Have you driven one yet? I ask only because the driving experience is SO different from the cars you've mentioned.

ar5boosted 06-08-2017 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG (Post 542259)
Belated welcome!

Would EFI not adapt to this approach as well? There are a couple of manufacturers doing H2o injection these days, but as a means of avoiding detonation in high output engines, not for efficiency. (I'm sure I've read about a BMW with it.)

I put it on a Suzuki but then I had some tuning issues - best described as a fail on my part. I never was able to duplicate the economy improvements on the EFI engine due to lowered engine temperatures. I injected too much cold water and blew the Head-Gasket. My enthusiasm declined after that although I do have reflections on how I could have done better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG (Post 542259)
Have you driven one yet? I ask only because the driving experience is SO different from the cars you've mentioned.

No, but I get where you're going with that - :turtle:

http://www.performancemag.net/news-images/585/eco03.jpg

but the bodykits that are available for them in Japan make them look so fast.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 06-10-2017 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ar5boosted (Post 542293)
I put it on a Suzuki but then I had some tuning issues - best described as a fail on my part. I never was able to duplicate the economy improvements on the EFI engine due to lowered engine temperatures. I injected too much cold water and blew the Head-Gasket. My enthusiasm declined after that although I do have reflections on how I could have done better.

The colder air stream and the higher concentration of oxygen might have fooled the ECU to enrich the mixture instead of leaning it. Maybe if you got it injected after the MAP and temperature sensors, it could have increased the fuel economy in a similar level to what you hve experienced with the carburettor-fed Mitsubishi van.

ar5boosted 06-10-2017 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr (Post 542400)
Maybe if you got it injected after the MAP and temperature sensors, it could have increased the fuel economy in a similar level to what you hve experienced with the carburettor-fed Mitsubishi van.

I could feel the familiar feeling of the extra torque of the water going in.

It was just disappointing when I didn't get a big improvement in fuel economy from the water-injection and then sometime later the car got crashed. I discovered that pre-heating the water made a big difference. Water viscosity is very important. I got the car from around 400km/tank to 650km/tank (40l) so I was somewhat happy but nothing that would really impress anyone on this forum much.

If there was an open source fuel-economy ECU project that anyone knew of I'd be interested in hearing about it. I think I'm getting ready for a fuel-injector remap computer because I suspect that there are a few deficiencies with the logic in most ECU's especially in relationship to thermal management.

I'm setting about to rear-mount turbo-charge this car. We'll see what happens then.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 06-17-2017 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ar5boosted (Post 542414)
I discovered that pre-heating the water made a big difference. Water viscosity is very important.

Interesting. It's more usual to see claims that a colder water would lead to higher improvements, even though a higher temperature would lead to an easier vaporising of the gasoline and decrease pumping losses due to a slight decrease on the dynamic compression.


Quote:

I got the car from around 400km/tank to 650km/tank (40l) so I was somewhat happy but nothing that would really impress anyone on this forum much.
How would you say that 62.5% improvement wouldn't impress anyone?


Quote:

If there was an open source fuel-economy ECU project that anyone knew of I'd be interested in hearing about it. I think I'm getting ready for a fuel-injector remap computer because I suspect that there are a few deficiencies with the logic in most ECU's especially in relationship to thermal management.
Have you never heard about those programmable ECUs such as FuelTech? Even though they're more focused on performance applications, there are some folks doing some interesting efficiency-oriented projects with them.


Quote:

I'm setting about to rear-mount turbo-charge this car. We'll see what happens then.
The only downside with a rear-mounted turbo is the increase on turbo-lag, but it doesn't seem totally bad since it allows the compressed air charge to decrease its temperature naturally a little before it reaches the intake manifold, mostly avoiding the need for an intercooler.

ar5boosted 06-24-2017 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr (Post 543093)
Interesting. It's more usual to see claims that a colder water would lead to higher improvements, even though a higher temperature would lead to an easier vaporising of the gasoline and decrease pumping losses due to a slight decrease on the dynamic compression.
.

True.

My take on this is that the colder the water the more heat that it will need to absorb.

The downside of colder water is that it is 'harder' or denser. So I'm convinced that it led to blowing a head-gasket. Probably because there was too much water going in one particular cylinder. Sometimes what goes on in an engine is mysterious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr (Post 543093)
How would you say that 62.5% improvement wouldn't impress anyone?

I guess so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr (Post 543093)
The only downside with a rear-mounted turbo is the increase on turbo-lag, but it doesn't seem totally bad since it allows the compressed air charge to decrease its temperature naturally a little before it reaches the intake manifold, mostly avoiding the need for an intercooler.

Hope so.

Picture: (Garrett was installed this week)

http://ar5boosted.com/users/david/DSC_0278.JPG

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 06-25-2017 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ar5boosted (Post 543798)
My take on this is that the colder the water the more heat that it will need to absorb.

The downside of colder water is that it is 'harder' or denser. So I'm convinced that it led to blowing a head-gasket. Probably because there was too much water going in one particular cylinder. Sometimes what goes on in an engine is mysterious.

Then it would be better to just use a smaller amount of water, or to blend it with a small amount of ethanol to make it evaporate easier, and also the spraying pattern is important. Thinner droplets would increase the surface area in contact with the air in order to absorb heat and evaporate more effectively. Anyway, it doesn't sound so likely that a bigger amount of water in one particular cylinder would lead to a blown head gasket.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com