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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-08-2014, 08:19 PM   #11 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Cincity, Ohio
Posts: 96
Thanks: 29
Thanked 27 Times in 21 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgfpro View Post
They're factoring in base timing, so what ever cell is high-lighted that's what your true timing is on this system.

The factory timing map is very factory safe when it comes to the 4g63 turbo engine. Large gains can be made by just increasing timing numbers on the 4g63 engines.
Same with the Hondas


  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 04-12-2014, 10:23 PM   #12 (permalink)
In Lean Burn Mode
 
pgfpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,553

MisFit Talon - '91 Eagle Talon TSi
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 63.95 mpg (US)

Warlock - '71 Chevy Camaro

Fe Eclipse - '97 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS
Thanks: 1,315
Thanked 602 Times in 391 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobb View Post
Interesting comment about rpm and air flow. Many gen 2 insight owners find you can be fairly agressive up to 2500 rpms and still get pretty high mpg vs accelerating like a little old lady at 1500. Ive wondered about that.

Any idea how delaying closing of the intake valve to reduce pumping losses would effect this?

One of the main differences I notice with higher octane fuel is I can accelerate briskly at 4700 rpms on 93 vs 5600 on 87. Turning 900 rpms slower should account for some savings if you must make those type of moves for 10 seconds several times a tank for merging into traffic.
I just realized my response to your question never posted.lol

To answer your question, I'm not to sure on the delayed intake valve type engines? LIVC will help with pumping losses, but to what to degree is the question??? Sorry don't have a answer on that one.lol

Very good question though!!!
__________________
Pressure Gradient Force
The Positive Side of the Number Line

  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 12:45 PM   #13 (permalink)
In Lean Burn Mode
 
pgfpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,553

MisFit Talon - '91 Eagle Talon TSi
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 63.95 mpg (US)

Warlock - '71 Chevy Camaro

Fe Eclipse - '97 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS
Thanks: 1,315
Thanked 602 Times in 391 Posts
This is my goal for this year.
3000 rpm @ 225*F+ IAT
-0.01 inch/hg or 100 kpa (W) no pumping loss
4.53 lbs/min of air (N/A)
14.7 bsac (W) more power from air
25 engine cycles/sec (W) high air velocity, no pumping losses, highest kpa at the intake valves
30 a/f ratio (W) lowers pumping losses
15.7 whp (W) more power needed for higher mph
0.49 bsfc (W)
28.8 fps piston speed (W) great air/fuel mixture
47 mpg @ 70 mph (W)


I'm building a high temperature air injection unit that will inject air 2" in front of the intake valves. I will be able to adjust the injection injection angle at the intake port. I'm also building a adjustable cool air EGR flow valve. This will be up-stream from the high temperature ports. My EGR system will will have its own cooling system so I will be able to control EGR temperature.
On my car the stock EGR was just along for the ride. It never was enable from the factory. The 1991 California Talons were the only cars with active EGR systems.

I also have a electric vacuum pump that will keep the vacuum brake's happy so I will always have a stock feel to the break-pedal.
__________________
Pressure Gradient Force
The Positive Side of the Number Line


Last edited by pgfpro; 04-14-2014 at 06:21 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 07:23 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,643
Thanks: 1,502
Thanked 279 Times in 229 Posts
47 mpg at 70mph?!?!?!
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 09:59 PM   #15 (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 pgfpro View Post
I just realized my response to your question never posted.lol

To answer your question, I'm not to sure on the delayed intake valve type engines? LIVC will help with pumping losses, but to what to degree is the question??? Sorry don't have a answer on that one.lol

Very good question though!!!
First of all holy smokes 10000 rpm limit on that engine? Nice.

So if you assume that combustion quality is more or less as good as it can be by say 3000rpm, you can find dyno charts for very crazy cammed motors like the 3S-GE with TRD power kit, dyno charts for the 1NZ-FXE and 2ZR-FXE, etc. and infer how much air is being bled off by LIVC based on the specific torque.


vs.

vs.


The torque on the 1NZ at 3000 is 105Nm, for a specific torque of 70Nm/L, and at 4000 it's off the chart but if you extrapolate you land somewhere around 115 or 78Nm/L ish. I think the intake cam is something like 280 degrees, but at maximum retarded timing the peak lift happens later than on the 3S example. The stock 3S-GE I would guess has something like a 260* intake cam, which is what you tend to see on a dual-cam-phasing single cam profile engine with that kind of torque curve. The replacement cam is a 296*, but half of the extra duration goes to overlap not delayed valve closure, so if my guesses are right it should have a similar specific torque curve to the 1NZ. The graph seems to show ~160Nm at 4000rpm for 80Nm/L, similar to the 1NZ.

Anyways, 80Nm/L should mean the VE is less than 80% of torque peak since the efficiency should be a little bit higher at that point. The unknown is how much lower that number can go from VVT adjustment, but it looks like you might be able to get in the low 60s at 3000rpm.

I only have my own car to go off of, but Torque reports 30% load on the freeway, 18% at idle, and at freeway speed my engine is at its torque peak (stupid gearing). If the engine only ingested 75% as much air, it seems like I should be able to save 25/70=36% of pumping loss. Taking the hypothetical situation a little further if I ran 18:1 AFRs that would bring the air necessary to produce power up from 30% of peak VE to 36% of peak VE, and so my pumping losses would be reduced by 31/70=44%. If the engine ingested 70% as much air at WOT, the savings increase to more than 50%. Not bad! Bump the compression ratio up to 13-14 and the mpgs should be astonishing. For engines run at really inefficient speeds, LIVC seems like it can help considerably, as each percent torque you lose buys you more than 1% savings in pumping loss while giving you more horsepower at the top end too. I certainly wouldn't mind if my car were as slow as a typical econobox until I rev it past 4.5k if it increased my gas mileage by a lot.


Last edited by serialk11r; 04-15-2014 at 10:14 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to serialk11r For This Useful Post:
pgfpro (04-16-2014)
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