Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Introductions
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-24-2017, 01:41 AM   #11 (permalink)
Cyborg ECU
 
California98Civic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coastal Southern California
Posts: 6,092

Black and Green - '98 Honda Civic DX Coupe
Team Honda
90 day: 66.42 mpg (US)

Black and Red - '00 Nashbar Custom built eBike
90 day: 3671.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,307
Thanked 2,025 Times in 1,380 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin762 View Post
... therefore, is a heated air intake a thing? is it better? oh man i need some ideas.
Yes. Maybe. There is disagreement on this site. It is often called a WAI, "warm air intake." In theory, it works because of reduced pumping losses, not leaner or better atomized fuel/air mixes. The ECU will respond to any lean condition and compensate. But when the intake air is warmer and the ECU compensates, you accomplish the same power by opening the throttle plate more. Therefore you reduce pumping losses. I was a believer for a long time. I sorta still am. But work on my car meant I took my WAI apart. My FE has not suffered (a fact that proves nothing).

__________________
See my car's mod & maintenance thread and my electric bicycle's thread for ongoing projects. I will rebuild Black and Green over decades as parts die, until it becomes a different car of roughly the same shape and color. My minimum fuel economy goal is 55 mpg while averaging posted speed limits. I generally top 60 mpg. See also my Honda manual transmission specs thread.



  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to California98Civic For This Useful Post:
mmartin762 (01-24-2017)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-24-2017, 03:16 PM   #12 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Pottstown, PA
Posts: 9

Green Machine - '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer

Green Machine - '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Can you explain reduced pumping losses? My TB has a coolant line running to it to protect it from EGR temps. If I dabbed up an aluminum intake pipe, I could route the return line around it in a coil like a pre heater. What do you think?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2017, 03:17 PM   #13 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Pottstown, PA
Posts: 9

Green Machine - '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer

Green Machine - '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
*Fabbed*
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2017, 03:21 PM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Pottstown, PA
Posts: 9

Green Machine - '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer

Green Machine - '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Also, in your experience, is there a point where power and efficiency cross paths? Like if I put an intake spacer to get more air in between the plenum and the manifold, could I get more efficient by just keeping a light foot on the pedal? I currently keep my rpms below 2000 in daily driving to media every day, and try to stay below 1500 if possible.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2017, 03:27 PM   #15 (permalink)
Administrator
 
Daox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 11,135

CM400E - '81 Honda CM400E
90 day: 51.49 mpg (US)

Daox's Grey Prius - '04 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 49.53 mpg (US)

Daox's Insight - '00 Honda Insight
90 day: 64.33 mpg (US)

Swarthy - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage DE
Mitsubishi
90 day: 56.69 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,444
Thanked 2,494 Times in 1,506 Posts
Your engine is essentially an air pump. For a very basic example, think of a vacuum cleaner that is running. Your throttle body is a valve on the front of that vacuum cleaner. If you close the valve, the vacuum cleaner has to work harder to try and still suck the same amount of air through it. The harder it has to suck, the more pumping losses that occur. The engine is essentially the same thing. This is why engines are actually more efficient when run closer to wide open throttle. This is also why the pulse and glide technique works so well. For more info on that check out the brake specific fuel consumption charts in our wiki.

Thinning out the air via heating it makes you need to open the throttle more to get the same amount of air into the engine. Larger throttle opening means less pumping losses.
__________________
Current project: A better alternator delete
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 02:09 PM   #16 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 8,436
Thanks: 0
Thanked 917 Times in 812 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin762 View Post
ANOTHER QUESTION: I should preface this by saying i am 21 years old.
Everyone I know says cold air intakes are the way to go. "cold air intake bro!" "power and efficiency bro" you know.
I'm 27 now but I can still relate to that. When we're younger we usually get that illusion that power is the way to go even if it's available only at a higher RPM band, while low-end torque is more valuable efficiency-wise since it leads to a more relaxed cruising with a lower RPM and a higher gearing. Must also remember that, with a colder intake stream, the higher oxygen concentration is leads the EFI to increase the amount of fuel injected to keep the air-fuel ratio.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 08:13 PM   #17 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Pottstown, PA
Posts: 9

Green Machine - '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer

Green Machine - '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr View Post
When we're younger we usually get that illusion that power is the way to go even if it's available only at a higher RPM band, while low-end torque is more valuable efficiency-wise since it leads to a more relaxed cruising with a lower RPM and a higher gearing.
Wait so low end torque is not valuable efficiency wise?
Since high rpm band is not really a thing for me, (engine never really gets above 3500 EVER) and since ive mostly been involved with the off road community, low end torque has always been my goal. I always thought the less i have to step on the gas the better, right?
I did always think it odd that aside from differential gear ratios, there's not a whole lot of aftermarket parts that advertise: BIG TORQUE GAINS until a car salesman friend of mine told me car owners buy horsepower, but drive torque. I think that means horsepower is just a flashier word, while torque is what you actually feel when driving.
like i said earlier, im trying not to regear, because while it will get me up to speed faster, I think it will limit my efficiency at cruising speed. it will be like being in low gear all the time will it not?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 08:27 PM   #18 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 8,436
Thanks: 0
Thanked 917 Times in 812 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin762 View Post
Wait so low end torque is not valuable efficiency wise?
I actually meant to say that low-end torque is a valuable asset efficiency-wise, but it seems that you misunderstood me. I don't blame you for that, since I'm not a native speaker of English.


Quote:
Since high rpm band is not really a thing for me, (engine never really gets above 3500 EVER) and since ive mostly been involved with the off road community, low end torque has always been my goal. I always thought the less i have to step on the gas the better, right?
Now you got it right. The less you have to step on the gas, the better.


Quote:
I did always think it odd that aside from differential gear ratios, there's not a whole lot of aftermarket parts that advertise: BIG TORQUE GAINS until a car salesman friend of mine told me car owners buy horsepower, but drive torque. I think that means horsepower is just a flashier word, while torque is what you actually feel when driving.
Carroll Shelby used to say that horsepower sells cars and torque wins races.


Quote:
like i said earlier, im trying not to regear, because while it will get me up to speed faster, I think it will limit my efficiency at cruising speed. it will be like being in low gear all the time will it not?
If you get a lower final drive ratio, that would be quite like stucking on low range, but if you were going to rebuild the engine focusing on low-end torque improvements you could get a higher differential ratio to keep the cruising speed at a lower RPM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 09:28 PM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Pottstown, PA
Posts: 9

Green Machine - '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer

Green Machine - '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr View Post




If you get a lower final drive ratio, that would be quite like stucking on low range, but if you were going to rebuild the engine focusing on low-end torque improvements you could get a higher differential ratio to keep the cruising speed at a lower RPM.
Do you have any experience with cam in block engines with non-variable valve timing? I wish to know about advancing the cam. I have a double roller timing chain set with 3 keyways: 4* advance, 0*, 4* retard. I am told a 4* advance brings max the torque point down in the rpm range. Will this hurt my fuel mileage as a side effect? I cant seem to get a straight answer. I know most camshafts have a degree built in. If it will hurt my fuel economy, i simply wont do it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 12:20 AM   #20 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 8,436
Thanks: 0
Thanked 917 Times in 812 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin762 View Post
Do you have any experience with cam in block engines with non-variable valve timing? I wish to know about advancing the cam. I have a double roller timing chain set with 3 keyways: 4* advance, 0*, 4* retard. I am told a 4* advance brings max the torque point down in the rpm range. Will this hurt my fuel mileage as a side effect? I cant seem to get a straight answer. I know most camshafts have a degree built in. If it will hurt my fuel economy, i simply wont do it.
I've had more experiences with OHC engines but I never tried advancing or retarding stock cams. Anyway, simply setting the peak torque point down in the RPM range won't do any "miracle" efficiency-wise, unless those torque figures are higher enough to justify running at a higher gear with a lower engine RPM. You may know, as a rule of thumb the gear ratio means not just how many times the engine must spin for the wheels to do a complete turn, and it's also how many times the torque is going to be multiplied. So, let's consider two engines with the same displacement, one rated at 250lb.ft. at 3000 RPM and the other rated at 300lb.ft. at 2500 RPM, the one with the lower torque rating at a higher RPM would not just spin 20% faster but also require a lower gearing to keep the same effective torque at the wheels while driving at the same speed.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com