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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-01-2009, 06:43 PM   #11 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,534

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 54.46 mpg (US)

Appliance car Mirage - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage ES (base)
90 day: 57.73 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,082
Thanked 6,979 Times in 3,614 Posts
Fortunately, the Suzuki 993cc engine in the Metros are non-interference.

__________________
Project MPGiata! Mods for getting 50+ MPG from a 1990 Miata
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: 70 MPG in my ecomodded, dirt cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage.
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-01-2009, 06:58 PM   #12 (permalink)
nut
 
Coyote X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southen West Virginia
Posts: 654

Metro XFi - '93 Geo Metro XFi Convertible
90 day: 62.17 mpg (US)

DR650SE - '07 Suzuki DR650SE
90 day: 55.26 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 37 Times in 26 Posts
Send a message via MSN to Coyote X
One of the things I am planning when I finally get around to the head swap in my car was getting weaker springs. With the way the engine is tuned right now I can't really get the engine to redline anyway the top end is totally weak. I get the best power shifting at 3500 so if I find a set of springs that will float at 3750 I am set

I have a pile of Metro springs sitting around I just have never measured one to see what size they are so I know what to order to replace them. If it ever gets warm here I might get out there and work on something.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Coyote X For This Useful Post:
aerohead (11-23-2015)
Old 02-01-2009, 07:42 PM   #13 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
Fortunately, the Suzuki 993cc engine in the Metros are non-interference.
Even so, spring bounce is a bad thing. Pains must be taken to hold revs below that threshold. That probably means an electronic rev limiter of some sort.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
aerohead (11-23-2015)
Old 02-02-2009, 12:31 AM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Big Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Steppes of Central Indiana
Posts: 1,319

The Red Baron - '00 Ford F-350 XLT
90 day: 27.99 mpg (US)

Impala Phase Zero - '96 Chevrolet Impala SS
90 day: 21.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 186 Times in 127 Posts
Desmodromic valve actuation is a maintenance nightmare. Also running two valve trains probably exerts more drag than stiff valve springs.

You probably could lighten up the springs if you slowed the engines down from the howling RPM most small engines turn.
__________________
2000 Ford F-350 SC 4x2 6 Speed Manual
4" Slam
3.08:1 gears and Gear Vendor Overdrive
Rubber Conveyor Belt Air Dam
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 01:24 AM   #15 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
That raises the question: how much internal friction or HP savings is there with lighter springs?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 01:49 AM   #16 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 531
Thanks: 11
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
That would depend on if were talking flat tappet lifters or roller lifters.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 01:51 AM   #17 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
OK even so...
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 06:29 AM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria , Australia.
Posts: 499
Thanks: 20
Thanked 46 Times in 33 Posts
The Ducati Desmodromic system can be spun on the test bench with a snap of the fingers...literally.
Inertia keeps the valves moving quickly enough to seat fully even at idle speeds to eliminate the need for springs which the Mercedes cars used in the late 1950's.

Maintenance isn't a headache BUT you must know what you are doing , it take a lot of time AND it is very easy to get it wrong.
For the consumer this means higher service costs which not all are prepared to pay.

For Ducati it is as much a sales tool as it is an efficiency concern.
Look at the number of bikes not using it and that becomes very clear.

At the moment Ducati are the only builders using that system.

Pete.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 06:37 AM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria , Australia.
Posts: 499
Thanks: 20
Thanked 46 Times in 33 Posts
Frank ,

I recall reading a statement giving the numbers around 25% of engine power but I am unable to find the source.

Pete.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 06:47 AM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria , Australia.
Posts: 499
Thanks: 20
Thanked 46 Times in 33 Posts
OK Found it after all.
The numbers are lower than 25% and are reported as 19%
A quick copy / paste of the abstract is below:

Engine friction lubricant sensitivities: A comparison of modern diesel and gasoline engines
R. I. Taylor
Shell Research and Technology Centre, Chester, UK

Abstract
Engine friction models have been developed that take account of the variations in lubricants with temperature, shear rate, and pressure. These models have been used to study the lubricant sensitivities of modern diesel and gasoline engines. Total engine friction losses for a Perkins Phaser four-cylinder, 4.0 l, turbocharged, inter-cooled diesel engine, operating at 1300 rpm, with an SAE 15W-40 lubricant, were estimated at approximately 2 kW, with the piston assembly contributing 46%, the bearings 49%, and the valve train 5%. Total engine friction losses for a Mercedes Benz M111 2.0 l gasoline engine (used in CEC sludge and fuel economy engine tests) operating at 2500 rpm, and medium load, for an SAE 15W-40 lubricant, were estimated at 1.5 kW, with the piston assembly contributing 42%, the bearings 39%, and the valve train 19%.

Pete.


Last edited by Peter7307; 02-02-2009 at 06:59 AM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Peter7307 For This Useful Post:
seifrob (11-24-2015)
Reply  Post New Thread




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Honda IACV explained TomO Off-Topic Tech 16 12-21-2015 02:49 AM



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