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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-06-2008, 12:34 AM   #21 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Motor City
Posts: 89
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
No, there's no FE BENEFIT from smaller pipes or more backpressure, it's just that putting in low restriction stuff yields no additional benefit over stock.

Having said that, it's possible for an engine to be "over-scavanged" if all sorts of things come together just right, but again for FE driving that's not going to happen. When it does, raw air and fuel are swept right out of the exhaust valve during the valve lift overlap period, so some additional backpressure could help limit that. But again, not an issue for what we're doing.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-06-2008, 12:41 AM   #22 (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
woont ya get better low end torque?
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 12:45 AM   #23 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Motor City
Posts: 89
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
woont ya get better low end torque?
No, adding backpressure won't add crankshaft torque. But we're talking small gas flows here, compared to the max. design point (full load, at full speed), so small increases or decreases won't count for much.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 12:47 AM   #24 (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
no, not backpressure, improved low rpm scavenging from the small pipe
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 12:53 AM   #25 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Motor City
Posts: 89
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
no, not backpressure, improved low rpm scavenging from the small pipe
Ah! Yes, if the higher speed increased the gas' momentum enough, then it could reduce avereage pressure at the valve ports. Good catch, and it would make an interesting dyno test.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 02:03 AM   #26 (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'm surprised this is still a topic that is being talked about, it has been studied, books have been written about it, exhaust pipe size should be chosen based on engine size and RPM, the smaller the engine or slower the speed the smaller the pipe should be, it's not about restriction, it's about fluid dynamics, science and math.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 02:43 AM   #27 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Motor City
Posts: 89
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I think it's being talked about because the question is if it's worth mod'ing the stock system for better low end torque w. smaller pipes. I have seen nothing about how to calculate the "best" pipe size, but I suspect it gets into acoustic and other issues. Complicated stuff.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 12:02 PM   #28 (permalink)
Power tuner gone eco
 
whatthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 33

Prudence - '93 BMW 325 i
90 day: 36.64 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I would try to build a custom header if you really want to help things out. It does start getting into period of valve opening, wave tuning, etc..

As these guys have said, the backpressure from the factory muffler is not likely to be a concern at cruising speeds and I would expect little gain to be had for any muffler at fuel economy rpm/throttle levels.

If it's turbocharged that's another story.
__________________
1992 - Suzuki Swift GT
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 03:58 PM   #29 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Motor City
Posts: 89
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I'd think a model built with GT Power could help calculate both the gas dynamics (momentum) and acoustic effects. It would be interesting to see how one could tune the exhaust to get best torque at a given cruising speed.

That is an issue, of course. All tuning gives one sweet spot speed, and unless you're at that speed you may actually make things worse than an untuned stock system.

  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