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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-05-2012, 06:44 PM   #11 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: winterpeg, manisnowba
Posts: 211

clank - '99 jeep tj sport
90 day: 17.32 mpg (US)
Thanks: 9
Thanked 18 Times in 18 Posts
Smile

not to mention you, can't increase static pressure without slowing down the air. ram air is a pipe dream; pontiac used it as a marketing gimmick, air flow over and around a car that is tight to the car skin is low pressure. and you'd need to be traveling faster then highway speeds allow in north america

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to baldlobo For This Useful Post:
t vago (05-05-2012)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 05-05-2012, 06:46 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ellington, ct
Posts: 830
Thanks: 44
Thanked 104 Times in 80 Posts
tvago is right. a throttle is there to regulate power. ramming more air simply means you must close the throttle a bit more to arrive at X airflow, or more accurately X oxygen flow. A WAI makes the air less oxygen dense which means you have to open the throttle further which lowers throttle loss.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 07:08 PM   #13 (permalink)
Corporate imperialist
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,266

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 273
Thanked 3,569 Times in 2,833 Posts
Ram Air isn't for FE on gasoline engines.
On a diesel it provides more of both, FE and power.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 07:31 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JRMichler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 1,018

Nameless - '06 GMC Canyon
90 day: 37.45 mpg (US)

22 Maverick - '22 Ford Maverick XL
90 day: 47.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 192
Thanked 467 Times in 287 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by itjstagame View Post
I did 1 run to/from work with HAI, then 1 with RAM and today back to HAI. I have numbers but they are not super telling:
Code:
Date of Run	Direction		Mins	Gallons		Miles 	MPG		Idle gal/hr	AVG IAT		Mode IAT	Max IAT	AVG Boost	Mode Boost	Max Boost
5/2/2012	To Work		HAI	60	1.002		54.6	54.49101796	0.2		122.9		122		136.4	-7.528		-10.784		0.239
5/2/2012	From Work	HAI	45	0.7238		37.802	52.22713457	0.209		129.26		127.4		156.2	-7.392		-10.784		0.09385
5/3/2012	To Work		RAM	45	0.825511111	38.281	46.37248304	0.22		78.46		78.8		95	-7.44		-10.639		-0.05
5/4/2012	To Work		HAI	68	0.924584444	49.42	53.45103987	0.188		166.29		168.8		185	-7.6153		-10.639		0.239
This test was so uncontrolled that the results don't say anything one way or the other. There's some good suggestions here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html

Unless, of course, you would rather just have fun playing with changes for the sake of making changes...
__________________
06 Canyon: The vacuum gauge plus wheel covers helped increase summer 2015 mileage to 38.5 MPG, while summer 2016 mileage was 38.6 MPG without the wheel covers. Drove 33,021 miles 2016-2018 at 35.00 MPG.

22 Maverick: Summer 2022 burned 62.74 gallons in 3145.1 miles for 50.1 MPG. Winter 2023-2024 - 2416.7 miles, 58.66 gallons for 41 MPG.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 12:34 PM   #15 (permalink)
Transient
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Thomaston, CT
Posts: 23

Commuter Plus - '98 Saturn SW2
Last 3: 37.12 mpg (US)

Rover - '07 Land Rover LR3 HSE
Last 3: 17.6 mpg (US)

Blackie - '16 Ford Focus Titanium Hatchback
90 day: 33.25 mpg (US)

Bertha - '11 Four Winds Chateau 31a
90 day: 7.79 mpg (US)

Van - '15 Honda Odyssey EX
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Yes I knew the numbers were pretty useless, I don't really have the time to do ABA testing as I don't get home until almost 7pm most nights and weekends are always busy, so I do what I can and log what I can. Again this wasn't to show the outcome of a lab test really, I was experimenting to see if it was even worth considering somekind of ABA test or if it was even useful. As shown it didn't even make sense to attempt ram air and even if the numbers aren't controlled enough to prove one way or another, I think it's pretty clearly it was the wrong thing to attempt. I think a lot of people start with experiments, see if it 'feels' better and then do and ABA to prove whether it is or not.

I know I didn't include weather conditions but can you think of anything that would cause a 6mpg drop? I think that is fairly significant, but like I said the numbers don't matter as much to me as I could tell by watching the gauges that FE dropped and so did power.

I do understand the point between warm air and cold air and yes I now see what you mean, about the ram air. Increasing pressure would require less throttle opening and therefore more pumping losses (or equal losses since the point is at less throttle we should have same vacuum/pressure/oxygen as before without 'ram'). It would only work without a throttle restriction, so at WOT or in a diesel (which has no throttle plate), in which case increased pressure would decrease pumping losses. I guess I fell in to the 'less throttle is good' and completely forgot the point of my WAI.

That said, it may still have a use (if it worked) just as CAI can have a point. Anything that can increase the efficiency of my 60-70% throttle pulse should be useful since otherwise my engine should be off anyway.

That said, I always wish I had a gauge like MPG/s or something so I can find for a given acceleration or power output what is the most efficient. For instance, maybe 4th gear at 4-5krpm on the DOHC is actually more efficient than 70% throttle at 2k rpm in 5th gear. I'm not sure, but the point would be even though 4th gear clearly gives worse MPG, it should really just be what uses the least fuel to pulse from 50-60mph. So if higher rpm was more efficient; then even if it got half the MPG as pulsing in 5th it should take LESS than half the time. Again, we can read about BSFC for a given engine, but I wish I could think of some gauge or some test to show in a given environment installed in a car what the most efficient acceleration is.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






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