The Scrapcento (new: Kamm 2.0, wheel covers)
 

Mods:
- Kammback
- Kamm 2.0
- Tire spats
- Full wheel covers

=====

Hi all,

I'd like to introduce my primary transportation, namely the scrapcento. It was a happy little 900ccm (39hp) Fiat Seicento :snail: which I decided to swap for a mighty 1.2 litre (I can see some laughs coming here :p ) from mk1 Punto (75hp stock). During the swapping I used to be a regular visitor at local scrap heaps, hence the nickname :thumbup:

The car is obviously not tuned for FE, it had the cam timing adjusted 1 or 2 deg. for better top-end HP (supposedly; hasn't seen a dyno yet) and a somewhat rough idle (100% confirmed) :rolleyes: The gearbox is a short one from the so-called "sporting" version. It's supposed to be my Auto-X toy and the daily driver at the same time (I commute by public transport though, so not a lot to do for the 'cento).

As for FE abilities and equipment - it came stock with a partial grille block (pic). Also the car has been lowered approx. 3cm (1.2" ?) and has a bit stiffer, but still not truly "sport", shock absorbers. It's missing the partial belly-pan (or rather engine cover) that I believe was stock - IIRC the oil pan sticks out more to the bottom in the 1.2 and the cover could not be fitted. Not that I cared at the time anyway.

Cx is somewhere around 0.33 IIRC and I haven't found any data for frontal area. Still, you can imagine it's not that big ;)

Since I regularly drive it only twice a week for a total of ~60km (<40mi?) with some small trips (up to 150km) now and then, I'm not planning any costly mods as they would never pay for themselves (see next post - coming up).

The first two mods might turn out to be both the most efficient and the cheapest. To no surprise they are (roll drums):

1. Adjusted nut behind the wheel
2. Pumped up tires

The third one is the Carefully Crafted 'Cento Cardboard Kamm-back with added Magical-Anti-Coanda-Strips, aka CCCCK+MACS. I've just finished it a few hours ago :thumbup:

All the pieces of carboard were carefully waterproofed* with power tape so that they would survive unfavourable conditions.

The Kamm-back's angle vs the roof is exactly umpteen degrees, providing optimal attached flow ;) (note to self: compare it to the template some time!).

The MACS look to be angled quite a bit towards the center of the car and I'm almost sure no attached flow will be present there. Oh well.

Tuft testing was planned for today, but the weather turned bad and due to constant rain I'm not sticking my nose out of home.

The fourth "mod" was repairing a piece of plastic wheel-well cover that somehow broke and twisted, sticking out right into the air flow. In the finest thereifixedit.com fashion, this was alleviated with quite a lot of duct tape :thumbup:

* - the waterproofing might have turned out to be less careful than I'd like to think, as after the rain the Kamm-back is somewhat soft/mushy. I may need to reinforce it with something truly waterproof... or scrap it (pun intended).

Welcome to the site. It'll be interesting to see what kind of mileage that car can get.

welcome!!!
Well you started right!!

'T&N' (Tires and Nut!)
THe cheapest and most productive mods.

33% increase in engine displacement is no laughing matter ;)

Welcome to ecomodder.

Yeah, about that... currently I'm struggling to get the consumption down from 7.7 - 8 L/hkm (29.5-30.5 US mpg) that was normal for me when not smashing the loud pedal a lot. When having fun and/or Auto-X'ing this could go up to 10 L/hkm (23.5 mpg).

The last two tanks, while trying (learning) to hypermile I've been able to get an average of 7.4 L/hkm (31.8 mpg) and the current tank looks promising (refill coming soon), but not really ground-breaking. I have to note that the mileage figures are from fill-ups vs mileage only. The car has no instrumentation whatsoever. I just have the speedo and the odo (without secondary/trip odo! Have to write down the total mileage at fill-ups :mad: ). No rev-meter either, so I don't really regret not knowing the BSFC curves ;)

There's no EPA rating or in fact any data on fuel consumption for my specs, as this engine was never present (stock) in the 'cento. I've come across, however, figures in the region of 8 to 10 L/hkm from users' own experience. That's quite a lot for the engine size and car weight, isn't it? Of course probably anyone who puts an oversized engine in a car does so to have fun and bash the hell out of it :D , but still...

Not ideal, since the pic isn't from the best angle:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1346008896
(Seifrob's online template tool)

I see lots of Cinquecentos and Seicentos in Warsaw and have always wondered about how to go about aeromodding one, but always gave up with a "Nah!". Good for you for actually doing it! :thumbup:

Do you still use the 'cento for fun? Any plans for more mods, like warm air intake, engine kill switch, etc.?

Thanks for the overlay. As expected, it's not very close to the template, but I will try this on a different photo that I have on my computer. Still, hope to get the tuft testing done and confirm that the CCCCK is worthless at its current angles. Good thing is that I can adjust the shape when I decide to reinforce it, as now it's so soft.

I intend to continue using the car for fun, but don't have that much spare time go to events every other week.

As for additional mods, those would have to be:
a) cheap (and I mean REALLY cheap. The ones I've done were 200% the planned budget, because I had to buy a second roll of duct tape ;))
b) not detrimental to performance

So WAI is a no-no for both reasons, the kill switch is too hardcore for me at the moment (and my tinkering craftsmanship is a bit on the crude side if you haven't noticed :rolleyes:, so I'd have to pay someone to do it for me). I'm thinking air dam, tire spats and/or partial pans some time in the future. Maybe mooncaps, but where do I get those perfectly-sized pizza pans..?

One mod that is definitely going to happen is the rev-meter, as I have one sitting on a shelf. This will not count towards the FE budget as I bought it for Auto-X'ing for optimal gear changes. Is that creative accounting yet? :D

Thread moved at maczo's request (from Success to EcoModding Central).

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

Thanks!

Ironically, after today's refill I can say that it's now officially a success story :D The refill of 24.02 litres after 366 kms means that the avg. fuel consumption was equal to 6.56 L/100km (35.8mpgUS) :cool: Versus the previous numbers of around 7.7 (30.5 mpgUS) that's roughly a 15% improvement. I don't want to know what the avg. speed was compared to my driving-before-hypermiling though :turtle: . The GF used to complain about me driving too fast... not going to happen any time soon, I guess :p

I tried to do tuft testing of the aero mods, but didn't have the proper material - the string that I had was too stiff and it would show attached flow when the car was stationary :rolleyes: I found a better one but had to leave by then, and so the testing is delayed once more.

I did have time to compare the Kamm'ed 'cento to The Template. I'm not sure the photo is good enough for template matching, but I decided to apply the template to the nearer edge of the car (as it stands in the picture, this would be the left edge). Actually the shape of the 'cento was pretty good to start with, my Kamm is a bit too steep though. So I attempted to measure what the angle between the Kamm and the roof is. The measurement isn't very accurate, but it is around 10 deg. I have to note that somehow the pictures don't do the Kamm justice, it always looks like it's steeper than in reality.

Sooo... is around 10 deg deviation from the roofline an acceptable amount? I recall a paper on pick-up bed caps that suggested optimum angles around 12 degrees. Am I totally in the dark or might the Kamm actually be of some potential value here?

10° is a relatively small angle - 12 or 15 are still OK.

To get a good photo to start from, take one from a considerable distance, using a telephoto lens.

Next target : under 6L/100 km (over 39mpg) or a more ambitious under 5L/100km (over 47mpg) ?
For such a small car, both should be possible. ;)

Your fuel log is headed in the right direction:thumbup:

A 10°, or even 12-14°, angle from horizontal is good, but adding that to your roof's slope may be too much. Also, what you need is a smoother transition between roofline and Kammback.
Make a template of the transition with the correct angles and tape it to a level ruler:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...8&d=1246610724

BTW, have you considered an MPGuino or other instrumentation?

Remember that the small car has a huge (for it) engine under its hood - Seicentos came with a 900 or 1100 cm3 engine, Maczo squeezed a 1200cm3 engine with almost twice the power of the original:eek:

As for theory of photography - I knew that. I only have my phone with a camera, so I tried to move back somewhat and keep the car in the center of view. Just as with so many things, I took a half-a**ed approach and the result was what it was... :rolleyes:

I'd love to see 6L/100 km but I'm not too optimistic as to whether this is likely to happen.

Thanks for the tips. I knew I was missing something and the word "horizontal" put things in the right perspective :o

The transition is of course sloppy, I think I'll have to re-do the mod with something more durable anyway. But that will come after the tuft testing, I want to have at least some data (even if it's not really positive) from the mod first.

The engine itself is not really physically huge, actually the block of the 1.2 is hard to distinguish from 1.1! The 1.2 does run different for sure though; a mere head swap (1.2 head onto a 1.1) gives instant umpteen bhp (well, 10 maybe, up from 55). I think my 1.2 has some FE potential, but I'd need to re-adjust the timing back to stock or even a deg. or so in the other direction, so it has more punch in the low RPMs. For now it's just not meant to be a FE machine.

As for instrumentation - AFAIK the car does not have an OBDII interface, just some "3-pin FIAT" one, which will require an adapter, which will not only require $$$ for the adapter itself but also for installation (wouldn't want to hurt myself now, would I?). Then there is the instrumentation itself - either SG/MPGuino/UG or the Torque app - again all costing $$$. With me driving as little as I do, I think it doesn't make much economical sense. I know there are a few guys here that would do it anyway just for the fun / out of curiosity, but my priorities are different.

Anyway, I'm pretty busy at my new job (first week coming to an end; it's tough!) and there are serious chances that the engine will need solid repairs (think: AndrzejM's Berta), so I might not be reporting back in a while.

Thanks for the interest and tips again!

Great news
The engine is not dead. The low oil pressure warning that made me panic was caused by a faulty sensor, not the engine dying \o/

Good news
Since the engine is OK, I'm heading for Rally Wyszkow 2012 this weekend :turtle:

Edit: I just found this on the interwebs: footage
I sure hope I can beat those guys if they show up this year :D

Also, I finally got the tachometer installed. I knew I could get away with low RPMs with my oversized engine and short gearing, but now I learned that most of my driving is in the 1500-1900 RPM range. And that I can maintain a steady 45 km/h in 5th gear at ~1300RPM :cool:

I had a chance to do a street sprint vs a friend's 1.6 (115hp?) Ford Focus (station wagon) and it was a close call (I had a slightly better start, then he was slowly gaining on me). Pretty much what I'd expected :thumbup:

Did an antenna delete. Partly to optimize aero (yeah, I can see those instant gains coming), partly because it looked funny/lame/stupid.

Bad news
No tuft testing of the Kamm. It got even softer and started to collapse on itself, so I took it off and threw it away :( Lesson learned: do the waterproofing perfectly or don't bother at all.

Trivia
I can find this thread by googling for my car. Hey, my first ever google #1 result \o/
But seriously, is there an option for finding the threads that I started?

That delivery Škoda definately has worse aero than your Scrapcento, and its weight is greater and centered higher.
You could ask the Rally's organizers to add points for whoever uses the least amount of fuel:D

1. Click on Advanced under the search box. At the top right is "Search by User Name". Enter the user name and change the box under it from "Find Posts by User" to "Find Threads Started by User".
   Or,
2. Go to your public profile, click on "Statistics", and then "Find all threads started by maczo"

Good luck then :thumbup:
Btw. I know the driver from this white Felly :)

If you can work on selecting and actually hitting apexes, and on not "getting behind" the car, you should have a chance. I'm pretty sure I saw at least a second and a half that the driver in that video "left on the course".

-soD

Piwoslaw, thanks for the tips. :thumbup:

We succesfully completed Rally Wyszków. Yay.
Top 10 in our class. Yay.
There were 10 cars total in our class. Boo.

OK, so I managed to not be the last, finished 7th, but mostly because of others getting penalties. I really need to work on my pace. Sometimes I thought I was really taking the best lines, but it turns out that it was possible to take them at greater speeds :rolleyes: Ultimately I was barely faster than a stock-looking 1.1 Punto from a lower class (it's heavier AND less powerful) and only because they fudged the very last "Super-Stage" by several seconds.

Me being slow. Also, turning on the wipers

The white Felicia didn't show up, but I managed to beat another one that was in my class. Close enough.

Random Felicia being even slower

There were at least two quite powerful cars, an Impreza and an early 90's (late 80's?) Supra. The Impreza was too big for the tight final super-stage and so I can boast that I was faster :D . The Supra was borrowed by a driver who had only driven FWDs and so he wasn't very quick. But surely he had lots of fun:

Supra being even slower

I must say the fun of rallying is really great and the people are ever so friendly. And I missed out on some marshal party action

Marshals bouncing. Cool moves :)

The most important part - fuel consumption - is a bit of a mistery to me now. I was distracted when leaving the pump and I don't know how much I've refilled. I'm waiting for the gas payment to go through the banking system, then I can work out the amount because I remember the price per liter.

Man, rally is fun. Looks like you had a good time though.

If I may, it appears you're losing some time in the slalom- once you find the car's rhythm it should go smoother. And don't be afraid to clip a cone! Also, make sure you're apexing late and coming into the turn wide so you don't have to make those mid-corner adjustments (1:10). Just my humble thoughts :)

Excited to see the Kammback come together. In constructing, it is helpful to clamp a known 15 degree angle onto a level sawhorse. That way you don't have to rely on photos to determine your angles.

Good luck with Scapcento! I'm sure you can go as low as 4.5l/100km avg (52.27 mpg US) without big effort. And if you don't want to invest big bucks maybe you should go for vacuum gauge? That would be the cheapest FE gauge, and it's good enough to give you proper feedback. MPGUino is not expensive too I can help you to build one if you wish. Right now I'm building new one for Berta and that will be probably first MPGuino in diesel car (correct me if I'm wrong) :)

Anyway it's good to know that ecomodding becomes more popular in Poland.

Yes, lots of fun :)

And yes, by all means, do comment on my driving! I'm still getting to know the car but somehow I feel I cannot squeeze much more out of it. I hope to get into its rhythm, but I'm not sure what to do (except for driving, driving and then some more driving) to get there. On my defense I can say that the slalom part was pretty tight, but yes, it felt kind of sloppy there.

http://ak-centrum.pl/zdjecia/2012/06...a/IMG_0079.jpg

Thanks for pointing out the mid-corner correction, it was something I also noticed when reviewing the footage.

As for the Kamm-back - I've tossed it in the garbage but I will be remaking it some time in the future.

Well, I already know that is not the case, sadly. I've really struggled to get FE to its current point (6.5 ltr / 100km) and for the last 2 tanks it's been rock-steady (6.54 vs 6.58 or something like that). I really hope I can improve on it, but surely not that much, at least not "without big effort".

Thanks for the help offer, but I won't be pursuing the 'guino in the foreseeable future. BUT when you build yours, I'd be curious to see it and hear about the total costs :)

That vacuum gauge is probably the first thing I will consider if/when I consider additional instrumentation.

Yeah, more driving should help. Forgot to say one thing. I don't know if you're doing it or not, but when you pass each cone you should already be nearly pointed at the next one, apexing each in succession. This helps your rhythm, as you've now got time and space to make corrections more smoothly.

Thanks, I will try to remember that the next time :thumbup:

Finally I have the FE numbers. We did 404 kms, filling up with 28.26 ltrs of fuel for a final FE of exactly 7.0 ltrs / 100 km or 33.6 MPGus.

What's more interesting is the split FE for each day:
- Day 1 = 284 kms and 7.2 ltr/100km. This included going to Wyszków, quite a lot of thrashing the car and then getting back to Warsaw
- Day 2 = 120 kms and 6.55 ltr/100km. This included going to Wyszków, 2 very short runs and going back to Warsaw at a steady 80km/h. There was a traffic jam when entering the city, but other than that - just taking it easy at 80 km/h on the expressway (getting passed by literally everything, from other 'centos through buses to long-haul trucks).

What this means for me is that getting less than 6 ltr/100km is going to be VERY hard. What's better for FE than a constant-low-speed-top-gear ride for several kilometers? (well, ok, perhaps P&G, but I'm not going to do it for several kilometers, in traffic, on an expressway)

What's better for FE than a constant-low-speed-top-gear ride for several kilometers?

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/i...-geo-metro.jpg

:thumbup:

(Ok, I'm done bugging you)

I'm very surprised by your numbers. I was making 6l/100km in VW Polo 1.4 without any effort, and less than 5l/100km with basic ecodriving techniques.
I'm almost sure that there's something wrong with your engine, maybe lambda sensor is messing up? Have you tested exhaust gasses recently?
You’ve mentioned that you have close ratio gearbox. Can you tell me what’s the engine speed let say at 100km/h?

True :)
But I was addressing the possibility of getting 4.5 ltr/100km without effort. So your answer is disqualified :p

Well, that may very well be the case. The lambda hypothesis should be verifyable with a voltmeter, shouldn't it? I haven't checked the gasses, I couldn't even get the shock absorbers checked when I asked for it. That sort of control station :rolleyes:

I will check the RPMs during the weekend and get back to you. Thanks.

I found that I talk to myself on the track. The main thing I was saying was:
"Look ahead look ahead look ahead look ahead look ahead..."

The apex next to you is no longer important. The next apex is the important one. Always know where the next one is, and be looking at it!

-soD

I dig, but look at the long term... aero works so you don't have to. Put in a couple weeks then drive however you want.

Hah, I say, "GO GO GO SH*T SH*T GO GO GO GO GO AGHHHH!" :snail:

Good advice on looking ahead.

I checked the RPMs today. I was not able to go faster than 90km/h (short route in the city center), but I noted down the RPMs for that speed: ~2600 RPM.

I have to note also, that:

1. I've seen 7-10 l/100km stated as the normal FE for a 1.2 8v 'cento (on forums and allegro.pl)
2. My exhaust is custom (since the 900ccm one was too restricting) and it may be quite far from optimal.

2600 is pretty high, but I've seen worst. Anyway Punto with your engine has 5.3 l/100km average, by the factory, so your Scrapcento shouldn't be worst. Have you tried to P&G?

Yes, the sporting gearbox is definitely shorter. And yes, I've tried moderate P&G, traffic permitting. Mostly pulsing from traffic lights and coasting to the next ones, to sharp turns, speed bumps etc. Nothing extreme, really. But I think it helped a lot to get 6.5 l/100km in mixed driving. When compared to the same 6.5 achieved mostly on the expressway it seems quite nice.


Anyway, I was on my way today to the "Festival of Science", where I wanted to attend a lecture on aerodynamics of fast cars, then suddenly:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1349030713

Quiz for the observant: What is wrong with this picture?
Hint: I didn't make it to the lecture and my wallet is lighter by $80 just for getting the car to the mechanic.

Does your driveshaft came out the gearbox?

Correct!

The left engine mounting broke and the engine and the gearbox rotated down and right on the other mounts, making the left drive shaft loose and fall out. And all this after I ran over some minor irregularities of the road... Looks like the mounting had a hard time at Rally Wyszków and was on its last legs.

Only minor? Where in Warsaw did you find a road in such good shape? ;)

Still, 6.5 L/100km seems like a lot for a small engine / small car.

Do you coast - either with the engine off or on ?
If not, give it a try.

I agree completely! I'm thinking maybe that's because of that camshaft which is set up for top end power that maczo mentioned before. Maybe it should be adjusted for low end power and torque then Scrapchento should be more fuel efficient. Maybe ignition timing should be slightly advanced too.

Yes, as mentioned above, I try to coast whenever practical (engine-on). If I'm on a one lane street with traffic behind me I just maintain constant 50-60km/h. If I see a red light far ahead, I coast. If there's a 2nd gear turn in a few hundred meters and no one right behind me, I coast. Whenever seriously slowing down (not coasting) I do engine braking, keeping the revs relatively high. It's not like the 6.5 came with a snap of the fingers :rolleyes:

Well, I agree completely too :) But engine and car size are really not the only parts of the equation and I think the mentioned valve timing, "loose" exhaust, short gearing - they all may contribute to high baseline fuel consumption. And then there's the most important argument that other 1.2s burn even more fuel ;) (and I mean 'centos, not the Punto)

Of course I cannot rule out a mechanical problem (and I know the brakes are notorious for stuck calipers). I will ask the mechanic to check the lambda since the car is already at his workshop. :rolleyes: Maybe the injectors are worn out and pour fuel instead of spraying? What other problems might there be?

Bottom line is - maybe there's something to fix mechanically and I'd love to figure out what that might be. But then again if there's nothing to fix I wouldn't be very surprised.

I know what you mean :) This was the last place that I'd expect to cause such damage. Relatively new asphalt with just one big patch that started to cave in irregularly. Nothing special when compared to some surprises that you can encounter here ;)

Aaaaand the car is back from the mechanic.

What is not faulty:
- lambda
- brakes (not stuck)

What is not faulty, but causes bad FE. This time not my opinions, but the mechanic's. I didn't give him hints on what to check, apart from the lambda and injectors. Here it goes:
- re-programmed computer with altered ignition timing and fuel dosage. This is a small surprise, because I cannot recall that detail from the swapping process. But the ECU was indeed bought used from someone with a 1.2 'cento, so it kind of fits.
- exhaust too loose (and I don't mean the mounts ;) )
- intake (current is semi-CAI, cone filter)

So now I feel partially excused for getting mediocre FE ;)

The big question is: what now? Kill-switch + aero to coast longer? WAI? (I could probably isolate the filter from sources of fresh air).

Any and all suggestions welcome :confused:

WAI, aero mods, as much as you can, LRR tyres inflated to max sidewall, DRLs to reduce alternator load, fixed ECU...

You've mentioned that you have camshaft adjusted for top end power, you should set it back to factory. You may think of longer (custom made maybe) intake mainfold to lower max torque revs.

And the most important thing, get some FE instrumentation! Vacuum gauge, MPGuino, ScanGauge or UltraGauge. I can help you with MPGuino - I have some practice.

OK, my bad. Not all mods welcome, I will restate that I don't want to compromise performance.

WAI could be de-installed quickly for events.

How much of a gain would DRLs give me?

I'm thinking more and more about the vacuum gauge. Am I right that the rule to follow is:
a) when accelerating, aim for the least possible vacuum (small negative numbers)
b) when maintaining speed (i.e. on highway), aim for most vacuum (large negative numbers) in top gear
Right?