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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-16-2012, 12:17 AM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,168
Thanks: 1,723
Thanked 579 Times in 396 Posts
Amazing! Man... makes me want to start looking for 1.8 cams for my 2.0 again...

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 05-16-2012, 01:36 AM   #12 (permalink)
Has two Insights
 
Gasoline Fumes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York State
Posts: 1,212

CRXFi - '88 Honda CRX XFi

Insight 256 - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights

Insight 5342 - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 77.7 mpg (US)
Thanks: 635
Thanked 534 Times in 310 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ang84Indy View Post
I had no idea that you could run a 4-valve head with a 2-valve cam! I'm very interested!
I'm actually still running the 16v cam, just half of the rocker arms. The cam swap was not possible due to the cam lobes hitting the oil retaining wall on the cylinder head. I don't know how different that wall is on the HF head. I probably could notch my head a little to clear the cam.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Gasoline Fumes For This Useful Post:
Cobb (02-24-2013)
Old 05-16-2012, 08:43 AM   #13 (permalink)
Has two Insights
 
Gasoline Fumes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York State
Posts: 1,212

CRXFi - '88 Honda CRX XFi

Insight 256 - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights

Insight 5342 - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 77.7 mpg (US)
Thanks: 635
Thanked 534 Times in 310 Posts
A video!
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 11:08 AM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 105

The 'Vic - '96 Honda Civic DX
Team Honda
90 day: 39.3 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 18 Times in 15 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gasoline Fumes View Post
I'm actually still running the 16v cam, just half of the rocker arms. The cam swap was not possible due to the cam lobes hitting the oil retaining wall on the cylinder head. I don't know how different that wall is on the HF head. I probably could notch my head a little to clear the cam.
The 8V cam probably has significantly higher lift than the 16v cam. Curious to see how this comes out, the FE system will still assume 16 V and the associated airflow and fuel accordingly. Maybe the decrease in power will improve driving habits more than anything, although I would accuse my 106 hp 16v Civic of being too powerful.
__________________


Civic Build Thread
Your grammar is appreciated.

3.788 Civic CX final drive, air dam, 1st gen HCH 14" wheels and Michelin Defender 175/65R14 LRR tires
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to hawk2100n For This Useful Post:
Gasoline Fumes (05-17-2012)
Old 05-16-2012, 02:23 PM   #15 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
Unfortunatley, I have no use for a 350 LOL.

Anything diesel laying around? Or bikes, scooters, etc...
__________________
"ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 04:52 PM   #16 (permalink)
Saturn Freak
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond
Posts: 51

Freddy - '95 Saturn SL2
Team Saturn
90 day: 34.25 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7
Thanked 16 Times in 8 Posts
I wonder if you would be able to achieve better efficiency by leaving the second exhaust valve functional, like the first stage on the 3-stage VTEC engines. If I had a SOHC rocker-arm setup like yours, I would think it worthwhile to play around with disabling one intake valve, then one exhaust valve, then one of each, and see which works best. They all seem like they would have their advantages, but I'm not sure which one seems the most advantageous.

2 intake, 1 exhaust = increased EGR effect from decreased exhaust flow, but higher VE from better intake flow
1 intake, 2 exhaust = lets less air into the engine for reduced consumption, but removes some exhaust restriction for better performance
1 intake, 1 exhaust = less total flow, still balanced like the 4-valve. Definitely way less power with the 4-valve lift, as you've seen.

I'm not sure which of these would result in the best fuel economy. As I said, there's some reasoning to support each concept, and it probably depends on your driving style.

Last edited by orangustang; 05-16-2012 at 05:43 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to orangustang For This Useful Post:
Gasoline Fumes (05-17-2012), robertwb70 (06-04-2012), snakedog (06-19-2016), t vago (05-16-2012)
Old 05-16-2012, 06:11 PM   #17 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mechman600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 1,225

Colorado - '04 Chevrolet Colorado
90 day: 22.98 mpg (US)
Thanks: 190
Thanked 271 Times in 165 Posts
SUBSCRIBED. Great thread. Finally, real world testing of an idea the rest of us are too scared to try!

Unfortunately, the 1ZZ-FE in my wife's Toyota has a shim under bucket valvetrain, so no rockers to omit.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 10:24 PM   #18 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
I might have a junk 16V head laying around if you want to practice clearancing it for the HF cam... You can have it if you want.
__________________
"ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 11:54 AM   #19 (permalink)
Has two Insights
 
Gasoline Fumes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York State
Posts: 1,212

CRXFi - '88 Honda CRX XFi

Insight 256 - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights

Insight 5342 - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 77.7 mpg (US)
Thanks: 635
Thanked 534 Times in 310 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ View Post
Unfortunatley, I have no use for a 350 LOL.

Anything diesel laying around? Or bikes, scooters, etc...
I have a few old mopeds....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ View Post
I might have a junk 16V head laying around if you want to practice clearancing it for the HF cam... You can have it if you want.
Thanks, but I actually have a spare head I can play with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by orangustang View Post
I wonder if you would be able to achieve better efficiency by leaving the second exhaust valve functional, like the first stage on the 3-stage VTEC engines. If I had a SOHC rocker-arm setup like yours, I would think it worthwhile to play around with disabling one intake valve, then one exhaust valve, then one of each, and see which works best. They all seem like they would have their advantages, but I'm not sure which one seems the most advantageous.

2 intake, 1 exhaust = increased EGR effect from decreased exhaust flow, but higher VE from better intake flow
1 intake, 2 exhaust = lets less air into the engine for reduced consumption, but removes some exhaust restriction for better performance
1 intake, 1 exhaust = less total flow, still balanced like the 4-valve. Definitely way less power with the 4-valve lift, as you've seen.

I'm not sure which of these would result in the best fuel economy. As I said, there's some reasoning to support each concept, and it probably depends on your driving style.
I've been wondering the same thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk2100n View Post
The 8V cam probably has significantly higher lift than the 16v cam. Curious to see how this comes out, the FE system will still assume 16 V and the associated airflow and fuel accordingly. Maybe the decrease in power will improve driving habits more than anything, although I would accuse my 106 hp 16v Civic of being too powerful.
It's running in closed loop, but I don't know if that can fully compensate for the reduced airflow.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2012, 01:01 PM   #20 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 21,126

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

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 53.67 mpg (US)

Winter beater Metro - '00 Chevrolet Metro
90 day: 73.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,914
Thanked 5,763 Times in 2,980 Posts
Any more news? I noticed you posted a fuel log entry since doing the valve work (and your new side skirts):

2nd best tank for you so far - 60 mpg.

Quote:
First full tank with the side skirts. The 16-valve to 8-valve conversion was done during this tank. I'm very happy with the MPG considering that this tank included some heavy-footed testing of the new 8-valve powerband, using the car as a battery charger and some non-hypermiled driving.

__________________
Latest mods test: 15 mods = 15% MPG improvement: A-B test, 2007 Honda Civic 1.8L, 5-speed
Ecodriving test:
Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown: Nissan Micra 1.6L



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
The Following User Says Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:
robertwb70 (06-04-2012)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com