Efficient Engine Design ???

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by Christ

Haha. Man, I wish you were closer, so I could just sneak a peek "without your knowledge" .

I guess I'll have to do some old-fashion research, eh?

Do you have any patents or writings that were particularly helpful in your design, but are considered part of public domain.

I wish you were closer also I would just invite you over to see what I have going on.

I don't really have any writings I went off of. Its a fairly new idea.

Let me think about it for a while.

[pgfpro]

Update...

Engine is back in. Started the mock up on the D16 with a custom top mount and a HE 351CW turbo. It will have a dual purpose 4" up-pipe (open verses closed) I'm building a 4" v band flange cap that will be easy to remove at the drags then put back on for the drive home. It will have a 2 1/2" down pipe to the regular exhaust. It will also have wastegate controlled EGR valve for fine tuning. Lots of welding ahead

[Christ]

That thing looks evil...

Did you ever get any pics of the inside of the motor?

[naturalextraction]

Hey pgfpro, so I read your first post and grazed through some of the posts. First a very nice job on your compilation and systematic approach to your information. You've done a good job with it all and have learned quite a bit. Have you ventured a look to some of the papers written by Dr. Heywood regarding lean burn systems? They're a little more obtainable dollar wise from the S.A.E. site. I think you've been able to prove some varying differences with some significance through your adaptations. Just my own opinion based on my experience, I'd keep your compression where you had it (didn't see if that changed or not) related to pumping losses and the VE that takes place bringing up AP through your compressor. For your lean Cruise it's imperative your engines reciprocating parts meet with least resistance.
Keep in mind the engines overall inefficiencies due to it's design. I realize you do via the technical changes you've made thus far. It's all about incorporating/bringing up efficiencies at any point within the entire system. Good job amigo!!!
btw does your turbine have a split inlet?

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by Christ

That thing looks evil...

Did you ever get any pics of the inside of the motor?

I did I'm still trying to put a whole write pic deal together.

Originally Posted by naturalextraction

Hey pgfpro, so I read your first post and grazed through some of the posts. First a very nice job on your compilation and systematic approach to your information. You've done a good job with it all and have learned quite a bit. Have you ventured a look to some of the papers written by Dr. Heywood regarding lean burn systems? They're a little more obtainable dollar wise from the S.A.E. site. I think you've been able to prove some varying differences with some significance through your adaptations. Just my own opinion based on my experience, I'd keep your compression where you had it (didn't see if that changed or not) related to pumping losses and the VE that takes place bringing up AP through your compressor. For your lean Cruise it's imperative your engines reciprocating parts meet with least resistance.
Keep in mind the engines overall inefficiencies due to it's design. I realize you do via the technical changes you've made thus far. It's all about incorporating/bringing up efficiencies at any point within the entire system. Good job amigo!!!
btw does your turbine have a split inlet?

I have a copy of "Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals" by John Heywood. I use it as a guide, but I wish there were more on lean burn engines. So I might have to get his SAE papers also.

Your right I have done something different then what the status quo is by running a lower compression engine. I have to thank you for the final help on my project by advising me that the turbo is producing more heat and pressure at cruise speed and how it will help with the fuel itself. This is a must needed part of the equation when running a low compression engine.

The turbo is a single T3 undivided turbine inlet. I might have made a big mistake by going to a larger frame turbo. I had a friend do some testing with the same engine with this turbo and the results were good. My reasons for messing with a perfectly good combination is I want to make over 450whp while being able to drive down the road with no hypermiling skills and get over 80MPG and have a driving range of 800 miles. This turbo will get me the performance I need to walk away from any stock ZO1 Corvette or Tesla with a long range ability. I cant help it. Its the performance side of me I get tired of people saying you can't have performance and fuel mileage in one package. You must take one road or the other. Thats BS you just need to make your own road.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

I did I'm still trying to put a whole write pic deal together.



I have a copy of "Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals" by John Heywood. I use it as a guide, but I wish there were more on lean burn engines. So I might have to get his SAE papers also.

Your right I have done something different then what the status quo is by running a lower compression engine. I have to thank you for the final help on my project by advising me that the turbo is producing more heat and pressure at cruise speed and how it will help with the fuel itself. This is a must needed part of the equation when running a low compression engine.

The turbo is a single T3 undivided turbine inlet. I might have made a big mistake by going to a larger frame turbo. I had a friend do some testing with the same engine with this turbo and the results were good. My reasons for messing with a perfectly good combination is I want to make over 450whp while being able to drive down the road with no hypermiling skills and get over 80MPG and have a driving range of 800 miles. This turbo will get me the performance I need to walk away from any stock ZO1 Corvette or Tesla with a long range ability. I cant help it. Its the performance side of me I get tired of people saying you can't have performance and fuel mileage in one package. You must take one road or the other. Thats BS you just need to make your own road.

The bold part - That's the part that determines why I say things like "dynamic compression" rather than static. There's a big difference, and to me, static compression means not a damn thing, because you can build engines with huge static compression numbers (or, in your case, smaller compression numbers) that don't act anything like "the book" says "they should".

Of course, having read anything by Widmer, you're already aware of that.

[naturalextraction]

First off, Christ, I agree and my opinion is that, depending on what your goals are with any engine, static compression is just a baseline.
Pgfpro, I'm glad I could help. In today's world of I.C.E.'s making any marked improvement is difficult as they have been tested and reformed to death. There's only so much you can do with this currently inefficient design. So what small improvements get made along the way and are always welcomed.
So welcome to the "high performance high mileage club". I don't see it any other way. As you may have seen on my site the 72 Duster prototype engine, in which I've done the same in regards to turbo frame enlargement to get higher performance.
Making changes of course is critical. Knowing what your compressors output will be at lower rpm, your cruise and what it will need for input on the turbine side is significant to maintain your optimum lean burn numbers you have now. This may also be compensated or regulated by compressor and or turbine trim, A/R ratio, etc. That's why I asked if you had a divided inlet on the turbine side. It may provide a little more turbine spin at lower rpms. Particularly if you feel your at your optimal combinations. I've made my own device that helps do that while not loosing my mid and higher exhaust output efficiencies to the turbine wheel. If you find that you run into a low rpm issue due to compressor out put being to low, I will share that information with you. A divided inlet doesn't completely cure that thus why I devised this inlet device.
Sometimes you need the larger turbo combinations to get that extra performance, especially if you want to increase pressure, but you may sacrifice at cruise. Again I don't know what the specific differences are from your previous turbo to this one. My rambling may be a muet point as your combination may be just fine!
I'm glad to see you do the home work and I think you have something valid in your work! KUDOS!

[greasemonkee]

A while back Widmer's article "It's difficult to make hard heads soft" had sparked my attention in his work, and as to be expected years down the road his teachings, methods, and techniques still don't win the popularity test among "in the box" advocate gear heads. Seems like more would notice there's something extraordinary floating in the midst of his exhaust fumes.


Naturalextration and Pgfpro you both have inspired me in this discussion. As a result I'm putting together a rather inferior version myself with the intent of it being 90% economy and 10% performance since have been forced to abandon my "gofast". These are lamenting times enduring acceleration withdrawal, but there lies a spark of hope that something over mediocre will be reborn of this. The subject is a vtec-e and IHI RHB5 turbo, and I am thankful that the information and sources of data have been presented.

Keep the progress rolling and the info posting.

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by Christ

The bold part - That's the part that determines why I say things like "dynamic compression" rather than static. There's a big difference, and to me, static compression means not a damn thing, because you can build engines with huge static compression numbers (or, in your case, smaller compression numbers) that don't act anything like "the book" says "they should".

Of course, having read anything by Widmer, you're already aware of that.

I couldn't have said it better.

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by naturalextraction

First off, Christ, I agree and my opinion is that, depending on what your goals are with any engine, static compression is just a baseline.
Pgfpro, I'm glad I could help. In today's world of I.C.E.'s making any marked improvement is difficult as they have been tested and reformed to death. There's only so much you can do with this currently inefficient design. So what small improvements get made along the way and are always welcomed.
So welcome to the "high performance high mileage club". I don't see it any other way. As you may have seen on my site the 72 Duster prototype engine, in which I've done the same in regards to turbo frame enlargement to get higher performance.
Making changes of course is critical. Knowing what your compressors output will be at lower rpm, your cruise and what it will need for input on the turbine side is significant to maintain your optimum lean burn numbers you have now. This may also be compensated or regulated by compressor and or turbine trim, A/R ratio, etc. That's why I asked if you had a divided inlet on the turbine side. It may provide a little more turbine spin at lower rpms. Particularly if you feel your at your optimal combinations. I've made my own device that helps do that while not loosing my mid and higher exhaust output efficiencies to the turbine wheel. If you find that you run into a low rpm issue due to compressor out put being to low, I will share that information with you. A divided inlet doesn't completely cure that thus why I devised this inlet device.
Sometimes you need the larger turbo combinations to get that extra performance, especially if you want to increase pressure, but you may sacrifice at cruise. Again I don't know what the specific differences are from your previous turbo to this one. My rambling may be a muet point as your combination may be just fine!
I'm glad to see you do the home work and I think you have something valid in your work! KUDOS!

Thanks again. Your opinion, Christ and Greasemonkee mean a lot to me. I feel like a misfit on her sometimes and I'm not to sure if I'm even on the right forum??? (performance+ Fuel economy = LOVE)LOL

As for the turbo time will only tell if it will work or just be another good/bad idea on paper.

Originally Posted by greasemonkee

A while back Widmer's article "It's difficult to make hard heads soft" had sparked my attention in his work, and as to be expected years down the road his teachings, methods, and techniques still don't win the popularity test among "in the box" advocate gear heads. Seems like more would notice there's something extraordinary floating in the midst of his exhaust fumes.


Naturalextration and Pgfpro you both have inspired me in this discussion. As a result I'm putting together a rather inferior version myself with the intent of it being 90% economy and 10% performance since have been forced to abandon my "gofast". These are lamenting times enduring acceleration withdrawal, but there lies a spark of hope that something over mediocre will be reborn of this. The subject is a vtec-e and IHI RHB5 turbo, and I am thankful that the information and sources of data have been presented.

Keep the progress rolling and the info posting.

Thanks Man!!! That makes me want to keep doing what I'm doing.