Recovering lost heat energy in engine coolant...

[Fingie]

it takes more heat? Innnnnteresting.

The ethanol contains oxygen molecules itself.

Well, we're going off-rails here. The War wagon thread is where we can continue.

[gumby79]

Back in my track days you could always tell when an IMCA car was running Methanol Vs race gas . Race gas 114 octane open air filter sticking through the hood to help cool the motor through the carb. Methanol they would run the hood over the air filter , pulling air through the glowing headers.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Fingie

So do you people think WAI would help with FE, as ethanol is "leaner stuff) than gasoline and thus needs to be injected more.

Some older Chevrolet trucks made in Brazil with the 292cu.in. (4.8L) straight-6 in a dedicated-ethanol variant had a different muffler that allowed the driver to adjust manually the intake temperature much like it's done in small aircraft to prevent carburettor icing. Anyway, since much of the tech applied to your Lada seems to be originated from Fiat, it's worth to remember that the earliest engine range made by Fiat in Brazil for almost 30 years had its intake manifold heated by the engine coolant flow either in the gasoline-powered and the dedicated-ethanol versions, while other automakers such as Volkswagen and Chevrolet have resorted to heated intake manifolds in some of their dedicated-ethanol cars.

[bandit86]

[Fingie]

well, I definitedly have room for piping (same type of car, mines green lol)

[serialk11r]

Yea on alcohol fuel, this could work. A lot of engines will ping on a hot day, and a warm air intake is like simulating a hot day. The thermal efficiency at full power will drop even without pinging because of the higher temperatures, but if you are just cruising down the freeway this could buy you a few % more gas mileage.

I wouldn't do it on a car that isn't flex fuel (aka, has way too low of a compression ratio for E85) or natural gas (very high octane fuel). Maybe block off the intake during winter so it sucks engine bay air rather than cold outside air, but that's it.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by gumby79

Any progress or is this project one for the bad idea pile. I hope progress.

The Karen-Mobile has been running very strong for the past several years with this warm-air intake. I modified the WAI a little at the tail end of 2014, by fabricating a block-off plate from coroplast, that effectively forced all the intake air through the installed heater core itself. Earlier this summer, I re-arranged the inlet plumbing by using black pipe that is routed out of the existing coolant temperature sensor hole, which replaced the plastic tee in the radiator inlet hose that I had misgivings about. There's a tee in the black pipe where the coolant temperature sensor sits in now.

These past several days have seen remarkably warm outside temperatures, with daytime temperatures reaching 60 F (~15 C). As a result, the Karen-Mobile has been seeing some truly awesome gas mileage figures. Right now, the Karen-Mobile's MPGuino shows a tank fuel economy reading of about 29 MPG over a stretch of about 50 miles since last fill-up, which is the highest it's ever been. Instantaneous fuel economies have been observed to reach 50 MPG in areas where I'd normally see about 32-35 MPG.

From reading the multi-page thread about vapor carbs, I have hypothesized that the main benefit from the WAI is its ability to cause the gasoline to vaporize more readily. The gasoline vaporizes when its vapor pressure reaches that of the surrounding air, and the vapor pressure is of course dependent on the gasoline temperature. Now, when you spray a mist of gasoline into a mass of warm air, its temperature will quickly rise to that of the surrounding air, and as it does, the gasoline's vapor pressure will also rise to the point where it will vaporize. This raises the pressure of all of what's actually being sucked into each cylinder, causing the engine to work a bit less at drawing in the air/fuel mixture than it would otherwise.

Now, I know that what we consider to be gasoline is actually a mixture of many different chemicals that have differing vapor points, but for purposes of tracking what happens from the brief amount of time when the gasoline is sprayed into the intake port as a fine mist to begin with, to where the more volatile components actually change into gaseous form, to where it gets sucked into the cylinder, I'm going to consider this process to be where the gasoline is effectively turned into a vapor.

I am going to figure out how to add a secondary heater core, placed before the air filter. It should be fairly easy to do. Ideally, I'd like to be able to heat the air to about 110 F (43 C) wintertime/140 F (60 C) summertime. I figure that between summertime and wintertime gasoline blends, I should see this vaporization occur more reliably than now.

[Hersbird]

Just to throw a possible wrench in your gears, to be really scientific you need A-B-A type testing where the driver doesn't know what is A and what is B. Psychology goes a long way to make things happen the way you hope they will. Maybe even A-B-A testing where there is no difference between A and B just to be sure.
I do believe there is merit to reducing power to increase throttle to reduce pumping losses.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Just to throw a possible wrench in your gears, to be really scientific you need A-B-A type testing where the driver doesn't know what is A and what is B. Psychology goes a long way to make things happen the way you hope they will. Maybe even A-B-A testing where there is no difference between A and B just to be sure.

My wife serves in this purpose. She likes the idea of getting good gas mileage, but she does not have the same depth of knowledge that I do, with regard to mechanical principles underlying operating cars.

I also think a good substitute for single-blind testing, is driving under conditions where it's not really possible to modify driving technique to skew the results in favor of showing a perceived increase in fuel economy. For instance, commuting to work on an interstate with heavy traffic near rush hour. It'd be kind of hard to use pulse-and-glide or driving-with-load under those conditions.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I do believe there is merit to reducing power to increase throttle to reduce pumping losses.

Indeed. I am all in favor of reducing pumping losses where and when I can.

[Hersbird]

I wish manufacturers would be allowed to try stuff in the EPA test cycle. Like an economy button with different shift points and tunes, or even something like this. They have to run the test in the normal mode. They can't make the normal mode the gutless mode or they get hammered in road tests and by the general public. By not allowing them to show you just what they could do while still retaining the 'fast and the furious' wannabe ability I think makes them not as interested in trying. That and the EPA will sue them even at any opportunities even if it doesn't affect emissions.