EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   The Unicorn Corral (https://ecomodder.com/forum/unicorn-corral.html)
-   -   Has anyone seen or installed a DynoValve? (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/has-anyone-seen-installed-dynovalve-19414.html)

SecondNature 11-08-2011 01:30 PM

Has anyone seen or installed a DynoValve?
 
I'm considering purchasing and installing one of these products, which is an electronically controlled replacement for a car's PCV valve. The "results" posted by the company and by the few reviews I've read seem impressive, but I'm sort of skeptical due to the scarcity of published empirical evidence. The device has won an award or two (including the Green and Health Expo's Emerald Award for most outstanding product), and claims to reduce emissions while boosting mpg and engine life. The company, however, is very small, and I have yet to read a real, blunt third party review of the product by an auto magazine or anything of the like. I figured if anyone has tested it out and knows what's what, its someone on this board. So, does it work? Is it worth the money? and if nobody has tried it, does it look worth trying?

The company that makes the product is called SaviCorp and is based out of Santa Ana, CA.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

NeilBlanchard 11-08-2011 01:49 PM

Welcome to EM.

Sounds like it needs to be parked next to a unicorn?

EdKiefer 11-08-2011 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondNature (Post 269388)
I'm considering purchasing and installing one of these products, which is an electronically controlled replacement for a car's PCV valve. The "results" posted by the company and by the few reviews I've read seem impressive, but I'm sort of skeptical due to the scarcity of published empirical evidence. The device has won an award or two (including the Green and Health Expo's Emerald Award for most outstanding product), and claims to reduce emissions while boosting mpg and engine life. The company, however, is very small, and I have yet to read a real, blunt third party review of the product by an auto magazine or anything of the like. I figured if anyone has tested it out and knows what's what, its someone on this board. So, does it work? Is it worth the money? and if nobody has tried it, does it look worth trying?

The company that makes the product is called SaviCorp and is based out of Santa Ana, CA.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

ok, you should of posted link to company/product but anyway .

After looking at the product and what it is doing , I would have to say i don't think much of it as they do on bettering the PVC system .

lets first look at a properly running PVC system , whether its a orifice or spring loaded valve , the PVC draws from crankcase into the engine IM but it also is pulling fresh air from the vent tube on valve cover to aircleaner/intake tube .

So unless you have really bad blowby that OEM PVC can't pull anymore than the valve lets in i don't see much to opening it up more .

On to what happening, well if you remove the restriction of PVC at low speeds it means your bypassing the throttle body air as your letting in more through valve.
This is where mpg comes from as on injected motor the throttle sensor is now not seeing extra air so in affect it could be leaning and affecting ignition timing depending on how its programed (OEM ECU )

Why don't they show some emission readings before an after ? . That would be first thing I would show on a device like this .

[ links removed - just google the company if you want]



mcrews 11-08-2011 02:38 PM

he can't post links or pics because he is a first time poster.

why didn't you post a link if you saw it?????

ConnClark 11-08-2011 02:51 PM

I can't tell what their device does different than a PCV valve. So I can't call BS on it just yet. I am very very skeptical though

EdKiefer 11-08-2011 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 269401)
I can't tell what their device does different than a PCV valve. So I can't call BS on it just yet. I am very very skeptical though

right, I can see at certain rpm it maybe able to flow more flow depending on vacuum but at 399$ thats is a lot to re-cope .

Also with OEM going electronic EGR, Purge control , I find it odd if any big gains why this is not stock.
Its just a simple flow solenoid with pulse modulation .

Mustang Dave 11-08-2011 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard (Post 269391)
Welcome to EM.

Sounds like it needs to be parked next to a unicorn?

The same thought crossed my mind when I read the post.

t vago 11-08-2011 08:59 PM

I concede that it might be possible for this Dynovalve to work as advertised. However, I'd have to test it myself in order to be sure, one way or another.

It might well be a more aggressive form of PCV valve, and it might actually induct air through the engine itself. If so, it could effectively partially bypass the throttle body, which would reduce pumping losses somewhat.

But it does have a whiff of unicorn-ness, though.

Frank Lee 11-08-2011 10:14 PM

IF it did partially bypass the throttle body, would you not simply let up on the pedal to compensate, leaving the engine with exactly the same pumping losses as before?

t vago 11-08-2011 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 269454)
IF it did partially bypass the throttle body, would you not simply let up on the pedal to compensate, leaving the engine with exactly the same pumping losses as before?

The driver would likely let up on the gas pedal to compensate, but that does not mean the engine would revert to the exact same pumping losses as before.

A throttle valve gives throttle control at the expense of a pressure loss induced across the throttle valve itself. There's no way around it. At the actual opening point in the throttle valve itself, the sonic velocity of the fluid (air in the case of a butterfly throttle for a gasoline engine) limits the flow through the throttle valve. Small openings will only admit small amounts of the fluid to be passed, and the passed fluid will expand in volume once it gets past the actual throttle valve opening. That incurrs a throttling loss by itself.

Now, along with this unavoidable loss, there is an additional loss incurred with butterfly valves because the butterfly valve is itself an inherently high-drag device at low throttle settings. The air past a butterfly valve forms eddies and regions of higher vacuum right past the butterfly plate. It's exactly the same principle as with the rear ends of cars as they pass through the air at speed.

Poppet valves are more efficient at throttling than butterfly valves, but they do not give as wide a range of throttling control that butterfly valves give. In order to maintain a fine amount of control using only poppet valves, many different-sized poppets are needed, and a cam mechanism is needed to schedule opening each poppet valve in sequence to give fine throttling control. This is a common form of control on steam turbine-powered ships.

Now, if you combine a butterfly valve with a small electrically operated poppet valve (such as this nifty Dyno-whatsit gadget), the small poppet valve can be cycled open at light loading, allowing less air to pass through the butterfly valve, reducing the drag losses through the butterfly valve while retaining desired part-throttle control. Keep in mind there'd still be losses due to maintaining a high intake vacuum, and there'd be losses because of the actual throttling action taking place, but the aerodynamic drag losses through the butterfly valve would be minimized.

However, that's a rather complicated arrangement, and it would take a fair amount of genius to incorporate that into a gasoline engine without having its engine computer throw a fit of some sort.

Hm... I might experiment with this. I have 6 vacuum valves laying around my garage.

Frank Lee 11-08-2011 11:13 PM

Ummm.... OK.

Not seeing how a poppet is any improvement, as the flow, once past the poppet, encounters turbulence like a butterfly valve or the aft end of any blunt body in flow.

Besides, this device is not an intake; it's only for crankcase gasses. I think if there is too much breeze going through the crankcase, separating the oil out could become problematic.

t vago 11-08-2011 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 269461)
Not seeing how a poppet is any improvement, as the flow, once past the poppet, encounters turbulence like a butterfly valve or the aft end of any blunt body in flow.

One way to find out... It's rather tempting to rig something up for my own testing purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 269461)
Besides, this device is not an intake; it's only for crankcase gasses. I think if there is too much breeze going through the crankcase, separating the oil out could become problematic.

See? You burn less gas by... burning more oil! :D

Frank Lee 11-08-2011 11:26 PM

I doubt breathing through the crankcase is more aerodynamic (less lossy) regardless of valve style. Imagine the flow path through the crankcase vs that of an intake system.

Quote:

See? You burn less gas by... burning more oil!
Reinventing the Opel Shell Economy Competition Vapor Engine???

t vago 11-08-2011 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 269464)
I doubt breathing through the crankcase is more aerodynamic (less lossy) regardless of valve style. Imagine the flow path through the crankcase vs that of an intake system.

It depends. If overall mass flow through the engine (valvetrain, baffles, possibly the block itself) is low, then there might not be that much in drag loss, even though the engine internals would not be aerodynamically shaped.

In any case, I am not about to pay $400 for a solenoid poppet valve and a $10 microcontroller. That particular aspect of the Dyno-whatzit is what makes me lean toward classifying it as unicorn fodder.

Frank Lee 11-09-2011 12:00 AM

You can figure out how much flow there'd be by multiplying displacement by rpm.

Ex 350 cid x 2000 rpm = 700000 cu in/minute, or 405 cu ft/min or 6.75 cu ft/sec.

t vago 11-09-2011 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 269471)
You can figure out how much flow there'd be by multiplying displacement by rpm.

Ex 350 cid x 2000 rpm = 700000 cu in/minute, or 405 cu ft/min or 6.75 cu ft/sec.

That would be assuming full throttle, right? What is that at 5% throttle?

Frank Lee 11-09-2011 12:07 AM

throttle position irrelevant for steady state operation. well system efficiency has to be figured in too...

t vago 11-09-2011 12:16 AM

See, that's the funny thing about calculating a volumetric flow rate of air. What's its pressure? What's its temperature?

Volumetric flow rate by itself is meaningless when throttling is considered. It's the mass flow rate that actually matters, and if you have a large volumetric flow rate at 20 inHg vacuum on one side of a throttle valve, it's equivalent to about about a 2/3 slower volumetric flow rate at atmospheric on the other side of the throttle valve. In both cases, though, the mass flow rate is the same - it has to be.

Frank Lee 11-09-2011 12:20 AM

All I had in mind when I made my comment was a way to visualize, or get some idea, of how much air is passing or could be passing through an engine. So, can you imagine 6.75 cu ft of air passing through a crankcase every second? I'm thinking, that's a gale force wind! Also thinking there's no way a pcv tube with what- .3" typical i.d.- can flow anything but a very small percentage of that.

It would be like feeding the exhaust pipe into the crankcase, no?

t vago 11-09-2011 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 269476)
So, can you imagine 6.75 cu ft of air passing through a crankcase every second?

No, but then again, that wouldn't happen anyway. To me, letting up on the gas pedal to allow more airflow through the engine using this Dyno-thingy is not the same as completely closing the gas pedal and allowing the Dyno-thingy to completely control airflow into the intake manifold.

Frank Lee 11-09-2011 12:29 AM

When does it go on then?

t vago 11-09-2011 12:34 AM

Some of the air goes through the throttle, and some of the air goes through the PCV system. The Dyno-doodad apparently just allows more airflow than the traditional PCV valve.

Hm...

user removed 11-09-2011 08:53 AM

The source of the air flow won't change the mixture ratio. I can't see the mileage claims from changing the PCV flow. Crankcase blow by, the source of pressure increases as the engine slowly wears and ring leakage increases. mwebb's idea of a balloon over the dipstick tube shows there is no more blow by to bring into the manifold in a properly operating system unless ring leakage is excessive. Maybe they were comparing it to a malfunctioning PCV system where the excess blow by would push oil past the rings.

The difference in pumping losses can not account for the claims of increased mileage. Actually increased EGR flow provides additional combustion chamber pressure without additional fuel, since the oxygen content in the exhaust gases is low. Maybe they rationalise that the unburned fuel in the blowby would be consumed on the extra trip through the cylinder. If you were loosing 20% of your fuel that way, you would have some badly diluted oil and an engine on it's last gasp.

I know in the old MB sedans in the early 80s a vacuum leak in the central locking system would allow the engine to run on the air passing through a 1.5 MM ID vacuum line in one of the doors. In 82 they eliminated the throttle butterfly in all of their diesels and claimed a 7% increase in efficiency from eliminating all manifold vacuum completely.

Unicorn.

regards
Mech

EdKiefer 11-09-2011 08:56 AM

It would act like a idle control valve , bypassing the throttle-body . only thing at low speeds, idle it suppose to work like stock, same vacuum .
On some of the vehicles the vacuum goes down lower at 2500 rpm so the valve is less restrictive than OEM PCV .
Thing is that would mess with map sensor as any extra flow would really be vacuum leak except it still gets metered if there is a MAF sensor used .

There is 1 review on there forum and in the end, longer time testing he got same mpg .

I don't like the fact the valve is closed for 2 min either, not good IMO ,if in fact it is totally closed .

ConnClark 11-09-2011 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic (Post 269516)
I know in the old MB sedans in the early 80s a vacuum leak in the central locking system would allow the engine to run on the air passing through a 1.5 MM ID vacuum line in one of the doors. In 82 they eliminated the throttle butterfly in all of their diesels and claimed a 7% increase in efficiency from eliminating all manifold vacuum completely.

Unicorn.

regards
Mech

Ahem, the reason why the Mercedes diesel sedans in the late 70s and early 80s would continue to run with a vacuum leak is that they used the vacuum to shut off the engine. A severe leak would drop the vacuum enough it couldn't pull the injector pump to the off position. There was no butterfly valve on the diesels. The diesels had a dedicated vacuum pump. The gains made in 82 were due to an improved cam with more lift that allowed the engines to breath more.

EdKiefer 11-09-2011 01:39 PM

This won't work on turbo engine or SC either, as OEM spring loaded PCV closes off when IM enters boost condition . Then your using the vent connection from valve cover to intake to remove any combustion gases during boost .

They would need to sue another controller with MAP sensor to close off at boost or maybe add check valve but that defects the propose as that is all most PCV are ..

ConnClark 11-09-2011 03:54 PM

Before computers and O2 sensors on cars I know some fuel saving gadgets did bleed air in with the crank case gases to lean out the mixture. These devices had minor improvements to economy and reduce unburnt HC and CO but tended to increase NOx. Their improvements were nothing like the claims these guys are making.

IF what this does improves air flow through the PCV valve then a minor improvement will be made by the increased vacuum in the crank case. This is because the bottom of the pistons aren't moving as much air around in the crankcase. There will not be as big of benefit as these guys are claiming though.

user removed 11-09-2011 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 269564)
Ahem, the reason why the Mercedes diesel sedans in the late 70s and early 80s would continue to run with a vacuum leak is that they used the vacuum to shut off the engine. A severe leak would drop the vacuum enough it couldn't pull the injector pump to the off position. There was no butterfly valve on the diesels. The diesels had a dedicated vacuum pump. The gains made in 82 were due to an improved cam with more lift that allowed the engines to breath more.

Ahem, the information I provided was from very ancient memory, when I was working for Mercedes in Houston Texas in 1982. It was a factory bulletin, so while you may disagree with me the information was provided by MB. Now memory is a fickle thing when age starts to degrade the mental pathways, but I do remember Mercedes (not me) claimed a 7% increase due to the improvements made around 1982. Part of the improvement was due to the elimination of the throttle plate.

Engine braking or drag? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum

Sounds like this fellow knows what he is talking about. I remember they started using a vacuum pump driven by the timing chain around 1982. Again old memory. After that they just controlled engine speed and power through the injection pump exclusively. Not saying the camshaft was not a part of the improvement just saying what I remember from the factory bulletin covering the changes from the previous model year.

Maybe you have better information than a factory service bulletin?

I was working at Intercontinental Motors on Kuykendahl road which ran parallel to the Interstate running north from Houston. I 15 if memory serves.

regards
Mech

ConnClark 11-09-2011 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic (Post 269606)
Ahem, the information I provided was from very ancient memory, when I was working for Mercedes in Houston Texas in 1982. It was a factory bulletin, so while you may disagree with me the information was provided by MB. Now memory is a fickle thing when age starts to degrade the mental pathways, but I do remember Mercedes (not me) claimed a 7% increase due to the improvements made around 1982. Part of the improvement was due to the elimination of the throttle plate.

Engine braking or drag? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum

Sounds like this fellow knows what he is talking about. I remember they started using a vacuum pump driven by the timing chain around 1982. Again old memory. After that they just controlled engine speed and power through the injection pump exclusively. Not saying the camshaft was not a part of the improvement just saying what I remember from the factory bulletin covering the changes from the previous model year.

Maybe you have better information than a factory service bulletin?

I was working at Intercontinental Motors on Kuykendahl road which ran parallel to the Interstate running north from Houston. I 15 if memory serves.

regards
Mech

Looks like we both need schooling.

Why a throttle plate on a diesel engine? - PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum

In 1982 and after, the 240Ds had a throttle plate for increased EGR flow. Years prior to 1976 had a throttle plate for vacuum for the injection pump governor. The 300Ds, 300SDs, 300CDs, and 300TDs didn't.

treebark 01-25-2012 11:55 PM

The DynoValve works
 
The DynoValve does work. I get that people are leary that it's a gimmic. The mileage improvement will depend on which vehicle you install it in. It works the best for vehicles that get poor mileage, but the benifit to this planet is worth it for everyone. There is also a pretty great boost in power as well. I know a lot about this product and no I don't work for the company. I live in Wisconsin and they are in California. I will be receiving my new version of the DynoValve any day now for my Honda Accord and to see how the improvements perform.

t vago 01-26-2012 12:03 AM

We'll be waiting with baited breath for your A-B-A testing showing that this thing actually works as advertised.

treebark 01-26-2012 01:59 AM

DynoValve
 
And you won't get it. I'm just a customer that found this product to work. I came across this site and found that people say it doesn't work when they haven't tested it, talked to someone who has one, or have even seen one in person. I have found it to be a wonderful product period and have no wish to get into a pissing match with anyone over the validity when I know the results are real and you don't.

t vago 01-26-2012 02:27 AM

Boy, that's a really good way to convince people to try this thing. Use arrogance combined with a dismissive attitude. Where's your Gadgetman Groove buddy?

treebark 01-26-2012 02:34 AM

Typical
 
It's just that. I don't work for the company and have nothing to prove and could care less if you believe me. I saw a disservice to the product and stepped up. Isn't it great that people can blast the company with zero knowledge of the this product you jump right on board, but when someone who has one says it actually works you have nothing good to say?

iceQuity 01-26-2012 02:48 AM

I have one... Works Great!

t vago 01-26-2012 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treebark (Post 282493)
It's just that. I don't work for the company and have nothing to prove and could care less if you believe me. I saw a disservice to the product and stepped up. Isn't it great that people can blast the company with zero knowledge of the this product you jump right on board, but when someone who has one says it actually works you have nothing good to say?

Let me get this straight... you buy things - only because other people have come to the conclusion that said things don't work based on empirical evidence at hand?

And rather than post actual, verifiable observations of your own that would show whether or not said things would actually work, you'd rather engage in what you claim not to want to engage in, namely a "pissing match?"

Wow. Just... wow.

iceQuity 01-26-2012 02:53 AM

What do you guys want to know? What a PCV Valve is and does? Look it up!

Crankcase ventilation system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crankcase ventilation system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links
Pollution Control System-Electronically Controlled PCV DynoValve USPTO Application#: #20100180872
Pollution Control System

treebark 01-26-2012 02:59 AM

Let me get this straight... you buy things - only because other people have come to the conclusion that said things don't work based on empirical evidence at hand?

Where did you get that from? I don't remember saying anything like that. You are so big on proof so show me where I said that. Oh and here's some proof for you. You don't believe me call the police chief and accuse him of lying.

Sunday, January 22, 2012


Santa Ana, Calif. (Jan. 23, 2012) -- SaviCorp’s (Pinksheets: SVMI.PK - News) East Coast sales team retrofit the Stallings, N.C. police department with the fuel saving DynoValveŽ, in the last months of 2011. DynoValve was installed in the 25-vehicle fleet, and is gaining a positive reputation with end users.



“[My police officers] are the ones talking about the increased performance,” said Michael Dummet, Stallings’ Chief of Police. “My average mileage on my 2010 Ford Crown Victoria went from 19 mpg to 25 mpg, that’s a 31% increase. The DynoValve has increased the fuel economy; and the vehicles have better performance.”



The sale coincides with the implementation of SaviCorp’s government-targeted marketing plan, which began toward the end of 2011. “I feel that we are building our reputation with municipalities,” explained Serge Monros, SaviCorp CEO. “It appears our government clients are now able to see positive results for themselves. And it’s opened up a whole new market to identify and fulfill their mandates for emissions reduction, and fuel savings.”



SaviCorp is seeking to assist government agencies in achieving their federal mandates to make all government vehicles a greener and more efficient fleet. SaviCorp’s East Coast sales team operates out of Charlotte, N.C. through Advanced Auto Systems. DynoValve is the first and only, electronic positive crankcase valve (PCV) shown to reduce emissions in vehicles by 50% to 90%, with a by-product of reduced maintenance and fuel costs. DynoValve has an executive order D-667 from the Air Resources Board of California.



“Anybody that’s green out there, that really wants to reduce their carbon footprint, this is the best product there is,” explained Monros in a live radio interview Thursday with Stock Trader Talk radio. To hear the entire interview of SaviCorp’s CEO Serge Monros, please visit [link removed - google it if you wish]


iceQuity 01-26-2012 03:05 AM

SVMI Savicorp can be a billion dollar company over night - in my opinion...

SVMI is @.0087 at SVMI.0174 you make 100% on your investment...

Its a real company, with a game changing patented product...

For less then a penny...

What else do you need to know?

t vago 01-26-2012 08:49 AM

Great... a pair of spammers for this company.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com