DIY displacement on demand system project - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-05-2008, 10:57 PM   #21
Registered Member
 
v6camrydriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13
Country: United States
Quote from 1997 Haynes Engine Management book:
?A weak (fuel) mixture with a high level of O2 is good for the efficient oxidation of CO and HC. On the other hand, a relatively rich mixture with some CO aids the reduction of Nox. A compromise is reached by adjusting the air-fuel ratio of the catalyst-equipment engine to the stoichiometric ratio of 14:1. This means that the engine is perhaps adjusted slightly richer than desirable??. ?A catalyst needs to reach a minimum temperature of 300?C before it begins to work efficiently, and a working temperature of 400-800?C is more desirable. As the temperature rises over 800-1000, the precious metals will begin to break down. Above 1000?C, the catalyst will melt.??. ?Excess fuel due to misfires causes overheating. Leaded petrol and excessive oil residue also destroys the catalyst.?
So. more oxygen in the exhaust dosen't lead to CAT destruction.
Bit for the critics:
This my be a bit hair-brained but if anything else it is interesting to study about...I'm learning heaps about engine managment.
At best if it works it works, at worst I've leant something and given it a go in the process.
__________________

v6camrydriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2008, 06:18 AM   #22
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,652
I've looked at all the threads I can find here about this kind of thing and all I see is the same kind of FUD you get about putting more air in the tires, and dismal failures with 4 cylinder vehicles that were marginally powered in the first place. GM through abject incompetence appears to have "proved" it impractical, much as they "proved" diesel engines aren't for cars, EVs are baaaaad, and as they seem to be "proving" that hybrids are impractical and unsellable due to offering a system in the same class as the conventionally powered Elantra that gets less mpg....

So, all the nay-sayers that say it's been proved not to work, are you gonna point out a particular example of a 6 or 8 cylinder motor that someone has gone to all lengths to get this working on, and failed??? It's a given you've got to fight or fool the engine computer, failures in that regard will not be regarded as proof.

I'd admit I might be skeptical, if I hadn't known of a guy who was getting 40mpg highway in a '89 voyager with an injector kill switch. He tried to tell people how to do it, but got much the same closed minded reaction as seen here.
__________________

__________________
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
GasSavers_RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2008, 06:54 AM   #23
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadWarrior View Post
GM through abject incompetence appears to have "proved" it impractical
Actually, I think their latest attempt with "AFM" is working fine. I hang out on a GM forum where many users have AFM and they don't seem to be having any problems with it. There is some FUD but I don't recall any reports of actual problems.

They did do a bad job with diesel cars, but AFAIK the only problem their hybrids is the price. They proved that EVs are good, not bad; just ask anyone who had the GM EV1, all the reports I've read say that people were sorely disappointed to give them up.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2008, 07:12 AM   #24
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
They proved that EVs are good, not bad; just ask anyone who had the GM EV1, all the reports I've read say that people were sorely disappointed to give them up.
I was meaning more the spin they put on the whole thing. It appears to be inconvenient that the people who had them liked them.
__________________
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
GasSavers_RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2008, 03:00 PM   #25
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,652
Pumping and frictional losses together consume about 20% of rated output at peak output, i.e. high rpm, it's a square law thing so round about 3000 rpm cruise, they'll be a grand total of about 5%..... OMG IT'S LIKE A BRICK WALL!!!!!
__________________
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
GasSavers_RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2008, 10:52 PM   #26
Registered Member
 
v6camrydriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13
Country: United States
Roadwarrior, do you have any more info on the guy getting 40mpg out of his Voyager...I'd be interested in the details of his setup...thats pretty impresive.
Good point on the pumping losses...would be good to get rid of them as much as posible by closing off valves but if it's only 5% or so then why bother with that extra complication...
v6camrydriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2008, 03:26 AM   #27
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher View Post
I will spell it out one last time: pumping losses. If it was as easy as simply shutting some injectors off, every new car on the road today would already have it.
Check the difference between coast down times in a FI manual trans car w/ the engine off during WOT and closed throttle. More to the point, trapping exhaust gases in the cylinder keeps things pretty hot. Just how cold would the block, pistons, mostly importantly IMO, rings get w/ this system if there was new air at whatever the ambient temp is being cycled in and out? Drop temps enough and we'll see accelerated wear IMO. Granted, manufacturers could somehow cycle exhaust gas back into the deactivated bank (maybe not if they deactivated two cylinders on an I4), but even then, w/ all that energy via hot air, I think that the closed pistons would be better "springs" than those filled w/ air at ambient temps. Just my opinion of course.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 03:36 AM   #28
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6
Country: United States
omgwtfbyobby: I seem to remember an engine safety feature on my mom's old GMC Yukon. It had the 4.3L V8, and if it overheated, it'd alternate firing cylinders. Maybe this is a better option here? Of course, with a v6, you'd have to figure out a better way of 'alternating' cylinders, maybe cycle is a better word.
optix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2008, 08:48 AM   #29
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 280
Country: United States
It twinning the O2 sensors together doesn't work you could at least trigger open mode my removing or setting the coolant temp sensor low (depends on vehicle). This should be better than limp home mode.

As for the rest of it, definately I3 should be ok because most V engines share opposite banks on the same spot of the crank (I say most because I don't think the VR6 engines do), but definately stay away from I4. Lateral force (that is unbalanced perpendicular to rotation) would be very bad and potentially bend the crank.

For the rest of the idea, my friend thought once of somehow installing a valve in the spark plug hole so you could decide when to remove compression. I think the best way would be to add another valve in the head that wouldn't interfere with the piston that you could open either with cable or electromagnets or whatever. I think best would be to hook this to a central plenum between all 'dead' cylinders and then as one went up another would come down and all pressure forces should cancel and wouldn't pull fresh air or pull on exhaust flow but would eventually cool down and may cause the other issues mentioned by others.

The other thought would be to somehow drop out the compression and power strokes and just always intake-exhaust-intake-exhaust. This provides no compression, but causes issues with fresh air in the exhaust and it would be pretty hard to do, you'd need two cam profiles.

I am really curious if it's even worth it though. It just doesn't make sense to me that compression without ignition would cause much of a loss. As said before it's basically a spring, any time spent compressing is returned on the power stroke. I feel like the biggest loss (at least the biggest drag when turning by hand) is the valve train. Next would be friction and last would be compression.

If I fully seal my valves and install the head I can still spin the crank on my CRX very easily but it's a real pain to spin the camshaft.

I've always wanted to explore a rotary or electric valve system but that's a whole nother discussion.
__________________

itjstagame is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
higher Octane = Better MPG JBW General Fuel Topics 9 04-04-2012 12:54 AM
Anyone near Tuscon? Hasbro General Fuel Topics 5 07-26-2008 05:09 PM
ECT Analyzer/manual TC lockup GasSavers_Bruce Transmissions and Running Gear 60 04-01-2008 11:37 AM
Using heavier viscosity oil to increase fuel economy? jamescartagena General Fuel Topics 66 08-21-2007 07:14 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.