Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Success Stories
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-18-2019, 09:22 AM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JRMichler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 1,012

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

22 Maverick - '22 Ford Maverick XL
90 day: 41.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 188
Thanked 465 Times in 286 Posts
Those of us who understand ecomodding eliminate that source of loss by:

1) Shifting to a higher gear to reduce manifold vacuum.
and
2) Shutting the engine off and coasting.

That gives us the gas mileage benefit of a hybrid without the cost of a hybrid or the complexity of an intake manifold vacuum energy recovery system.

__________________
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
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JRMichler For This Useful Post:
Ecky (02-26-2020), Galvatron1 (12-03-2019)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 11-19-2019, 07:06 AM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
teoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 1,245

A3 - '12 Audi A3
Thanks: 65
Thanked 225 Times in 186 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
the concept is valid.
That is how Lolo Ferrari died. Her enhanced breasts put a burden on her lungs and she died in her sleep.





Same may apply to a car
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to teoman For This Useful Post:
Galvatron1 (12-03-2019)
Old 02-25-2020, 01:09 AM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1,756

spyder2 - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Thanks: 104
Thanked 407 Times in 312 Posts
Roots blower won't do it, the efficiency is too poor. I had this idea before (two Roots blowers, bypass one of them and shut off the air supply to turn the second one into a turbine, open the bypass to provide supercharging).

Given that this happens at very low load, you need a really tiny turbine to provide sufficient restriction.

It's far easier to just avoid the power loss by increasing EGR.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2020, 07:48 AM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5,004

ND Miata - '15 Mazda MX-5 Special Package
90 day: 42.54 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,865
Thanked 2,499 Times in 1,546 Posts
Aside from reducing RPM and increasing engine load (easily the best way to improve this), I would think another way would be to just reduce the volume on the other side of the throttle plate(s). One could:

1) Reduce plenum volume
2) Reduce runner length/volume
3) Advance the intake cam considerably, so the valves close early, meaning more of the vacuum production would be inside the cylinder and less in the intake manifold (smaller volume)
4) Individual throttle bodies (ITBs)

  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2020, 11:45 AM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 27,547
Thanks: 7,731
Thanked 8,546 Times in 7,035 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuderi_engine
Quote:
The Scuderi engine, formally called the Scuderi Split Cycle Engine, is a split cycle, internal combustion engine invented by Carmelo J. Scuderi (April 13, 1925 – October 16, 2002).[1] Scuderi Group, an engineering and licensing company based in West Springfield, Massachusetts and founded by Carmelo Scuderi's children, is testing a working prototype of the engine that was officially unveiled to the public on April 20, 2009.[2][3][4]
The inventors heirs rode this one into the ground. I think it could have worked as a box four. They sunk all their investment capital into a proprietary inline four block, that wasn't modifiable for test purposes.
__________________
.
.
Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster

____________________

I love the smell of irony in the morning -- Elon Musk
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2020, 11:42 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: 12,548
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,622 Times in 1,447 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
Individual throttle bodies (ITBs)
It seems to be a good approach, but in this bean-counting era I wouldn't hold my breath to see it becoming available in any newer production car with a naturally-aspirated engine. Assuming it's unlikely to work in a turbocharged engine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2020, 04:44 AM   #17 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1,756

spyder2 - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Thanks: 104
Thanked 407 Times in 312 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
Aside from reducing RPM and increasing engine load (easily the best way to improve this), I would think another way would be to just reduce the volume on the other side of the throttle plate(s). One could:

1) Reduce plenum volume
2) Reduce runner length/volume
3) Advance the intake cam considerably, so the valves close early, meaning more of the vacuum production would be inside the cylinder and less in the intake manifold (smaller volume)
4) Individual throttle bodies (ITBs)

1,2,4 are all basically the same thing. Only 4 would have a noticeable effect, and it would still be small. Once you have a plenum, there's a big enough path to other cylinders that the pressure becomes fairly stable. ITBs only trim a small % of the pumping losses (e.g. at runner volume = 1/2 cylinder displacement I'm estimating around 7% pumping loss reduction at typical idle, but that number gets better if you can drop the runner volume more). They also don't reduce pumping loss as much if you have LIVC.

3 has the obvious problem of residual exhaust. Every previous gen DI engine used internal EGR and were limited by the ~20% charge dilution limit. If you don't care about high end power, you can regrind the cam for very little duration to get EIVC, but it's better to go the opposite way and use LIVC like every OEM does, since that preserves top end power, and reduces pumping loss.

Last edited by serialk11r; 02-29-2020 at 05:12 AM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to serialk11r For This Useful Post:
Ecky (02-29-2020)
Old 02-29-2020, 06:08 AM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5,004

ND Miata - '15 Mazda MX-5 Special Package
90 day: 42.54 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,865
Thanked 2,499 Times in 1,546 Posts
I'm fairly certain BMW uses EIVC, but I suppose there also have infinitely variable lift.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to be to have two cam profiles, perhaps one very low RPM profile with a switchover as low as 2500RPM, which is intended for EIVC.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2020, 09:19 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1,756

spyder2 - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Thanks: 104
Thanked 407 Times in 312 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
I'm fairly certain BMW uses EIVC, but I suppose there also have infinitely variable lift.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to be to have two cam profiles, perhaps one very low RPM profile with a switchover as low as 2500RPM, which is intended for EIVC.
That's right, Multiair, Valvematic, Valvetronic, and VVEL are EIVC, since they reduce lift and duration together.

What you see with the Honda R18 and K20C2 is 1 LIVC and low lift cam and 1 normal duration cam. The R18 would use the normal cam all the way to the rev limit but the K20C2 uses the big cam at >6100rpm for powah.

LIVC without excessively high lift is better for pumping losses than EIVC since you draw air through a bigger opening, and there's also a little less negative work from compressing air heated by the cylinder walls. Ideally, you'd be able to close the intake valve at 300 degrees ATDC while idling.

Last edited by serialk11r; 03-01-2020 at 02:11 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2020, 06:41 PM   #20 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Bicycle Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: N. Saskatchewan, CA
Posts: 1,803

Appliance White - '93 Geo Metro 4-Dr. Auto
Last 3: 42.35 mpg (US)

Stealth RV - '91 Chevy Sprint Base
Thanks: 91
Thanked 459 Times in 327 Posts
If you have a bad muffler, you can hear wasted pressure bursting past the exhaust valves whenever you reduce manifold vacuum substantially. You have to start the compression stroke well below atmospheric pressure to wind up with a heated charge not much above it. Any audible bang is an inefficiency alarm, however glorious they may sound in rapidly rising succession.

I think that the easiest way to test this is with an Eaton electric roots supercharger. It has about the right pressure differential range, but might want some high-vac oil. It could be rigged to go from idle vacuum right into boost if you wanted to, either producing or drawing power. However, doing that would make a variable compression ratio even more desirable. At high manifold vacuum, we should have a very high compression ratio to take full advantage of the charge not detonating. It might be best to never run even wide-open, and build the engine lighter. Such an engine would have a power density more suitable for air cooling, and I hear that 3-D printers make much better fins than casting.

__________________
There is no excuse for a land vehicle to weigh more than its average payload.

Last edited by Bicycle Bob; 03-12-2020 at 06:51 PM.. Reason: Air Cooling addendum
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Tags
electric generation, intake vacuum, pumping losses

Thread Tools




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