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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-05-2008, 10:56 AM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ryland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Western Wisconsin
Posts: 3,903

honda cb125 - '74 Honda CB 125 S1
90 day: 79.71 mpg (US)

green wedge - '81 Commuter Vehicles Inc. Commuti-Car

Blue VX - '93 Honda Civic VX
Thanks: 867
Thanked 434 Times in 354 Posts
I have not had a chance to compare a metro xfi muffler to a normal metro muffler, but I have been able to compare a crx hf muffler to a normal crx muffler and the higher mpg crc hf has smaller exhaust pipes all around, and that would appear that the people who designed it read the same types of books as I have on the shelf that say that just like air intake, you don't want to large around if you plan to run low rpm's, it's not restriction, it's a matter of maintaining air velocity as air velocity in a proper sized tube like a exhaust pipe is kind of like having the air equivalent of a fly wheel that is helping to pull that exhaust gas out of the engine.
the only way I've seen a cherry bomb muffler help with gas mileage is tha they are so loud people drive less and hey drive slower so they don't get a ticket.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-05-2008, 12:03 PM   #12 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: MidEast Atlantic
Posts: 57
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Just thinking here but what about SuperTrapp: Performance Exhaust? Apparently they are very tunable, like all the way down to stock. Using a scangauge you could probably nail down to a high degree of accuracy the best amount of backpressure.

Last edited by an0nymous; 07-05-2008 at 06:32 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 03:18 PM   #13 (permalink)
Renaissance Man
 
Formula413's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In the Northeast dreaming of the Southwest
Posts: 596

Aegean C - '17 Honda Civic LX
90 day: 42.21 mpg (US)
Thanks: 20
Thanked 31 Times in 24 Posts
As has already been said, a low restriction exhaust will really only provide benefit at high RPMs, which is basically irrelevant to FE. A simple explanation would be that under light loads the engine does not have to push very much exhaust gas out the exhaust, so whatever restriction exists in the exhaust is likely not hurting efficiency, while under heavy throttle at high RPMs there is much more exhaust gas being produced, and a low restriction exhaust means the engine will not have to work as hard to push all this exhaust gas out. There are other factors that come into play but that is the simplest explanation. This is why I have left my Escort's exhaust unchanged, but have added a very low restriction muffler to my Firebird. Doing this produced no noticeable change in FE but did improve power. Plus it sounds cool.

I have heard it suggested that running an exhaust with too large a diameter for a given application will actually allow atmospheric pressure to work against the engine. I have no idea whether this is true or not.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 05:31 PM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 13
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula413 View Post
As has already been said, a low restriction exhaust will really only provide benefit at high RPMs, which is basically irrelevant to FE. A simple explanation would be that under light loads the engine does not have to push very much exhaust gas out the exhaust, so whatever restriction exists in the exhaust is likely not hurting efficiency, while under heavy throttle at high RPMs there is much more exhaust gas being produced, and a low restriction exhaust means the engine will not have to work as hard to push all this exhaust gas out. There are other factors that come into play but that is the simplest explanation. This is why I have left my Escort's exhaust unchanged, but have added a very low restriction muffler to my Firebird. Doing this produced no noticeable change in FE but did improve power. Plus it sounds cool.

I have heard it suggested that running an exhaust with too large a diameter for a given application will actually allow atmospheric pressure to work against the engine. I have no idea whether this is true or not.
Very nice explaination.

A different way to look at it is that mufflers are rated (big rig ones are anyway) for flow rate at a specific pressure drop across the muffler. More flow and less drop = less energy wasted pushing the piston UP the cylinder on the exhaust stroke. If you have 5 psi in the exhaust pipe for instance and a 4" diameter piston you have 12.5" of area and 5 psi so basically 60 pounds of force holding the piston back. That means you need to burn fuel equal to 60 pounds force extra (times the number of cylinders) to overcome the exhaust back pressure.

But as Formula413 correctly pointed out, running for high mpg's means you are only using the minimum fuel and generating a minimum amount of exhaust gas. So the pressure is very close to zero and the force is very close to zero. So the gains from the exhaust are also close to zero.

High HP and High rpm engines generate more exhaust, so the pressure is higher and the gains can be significant.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 09:36 PM   #15 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Katmandu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 52
Thanks: 2
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula413 View Post
As has already been said, a low restriction exhaust will really only provide benefit at high RPMs, which is basically irrelevant to FE. A simple explanation would be that under light loads the engine does not have to push very much exhaust gas out the exhaust, so whatever restriction exists in the exhaust is likely not hurting efficiency, while under heavy throttle at high RPMs there is much more exhaust gas being produced, and a low restriction exhaust means the engine will not have to work as hard to push all this exhaust gas out.
That is EXACTLY right on the money.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 09:40 PM   #16 (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
Well then what is so damned cool about taking the muffler off?
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 10:48 PM   #17 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Katmandu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 52
Thanks: 2
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Well then what is so damned cool about taking the muffler off?
Since you don't know. You must not be cool.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 11:33 PM   #18 (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
Thnx for the help
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 12:07 AM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: md
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
this is weird for me to read a thread like this. I have been into getting more performance out of my cars since I started driving. Getting the best MPG forces me to throw out most of what I have learned.

On my NX2000, it has been proven that with a custom intake plenum, the right cam profile, you can make power naturally aspirated with up to a 3.5 inch exhaust. But with the logic in this thread I would have to go back to the stock 1.9 inch pipes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 12:13 AM   #20 (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
I'd venture to guess that those of us who are willing to putter around at 2000rpm or less would benefit from smaller than stock pipes.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diesel Metro? michigandiesel EcoModding Central 22 05-13-2013 01:42 AM
Which Version of the Metro was most Fuel Efficient? Wayneburg General Efficiency Discussion 4 05-02-2008 08:10 PM
Metro Hoarding 101 - also: Metro pickup trucks! Cowspots Introductions 28 04-14-2008 08:26 PM
ForkenSwift.com mailbag: another potential forklift based Metro? MetroMPG Fossil Fuel Free 0 03-18-2008 11:59 AM
Radical Metro Aero Mods? Coyote X Aerodynamics 8 01-01-2008 05:05 PM



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