IAT Sensor Mod Experiment - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-11-2007, 08:03 PM   #21
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 107
Country: United States
IAT mod rules! I've been averaging 34 MPG per tank previously. 41.1 MPG tank today with the IAT mod done midway through this tank of gas!

I unplugged the IAT sensor and put two 1/4-watt "470-ohm" resistors paralleled into the IAT connector. Scangauge reports IAT 198F. Car drives the same as before, though I keep RPM's below 3500 just to be safe. Ignition timing is the same so there doesn't appear to be any compensation of the timing by the ECU because of the high IAT temp reading. With the engine running leaner now (less consumption), I'm not going to put the engine under and undue strain. Shifting at 2500 RPM. Driving for enconomy!

I found that a 4700-ohm resistor sets IAT to 55F. Perfect for the 47F temp today. IAT is 5 to 10 degrees warmer than ambient temp at-speed anyway. Saves unnecessary disconnect/reconnect of the IAT sensor in A-B-A testing. One resistor for "normal", the other for "super MPG". I need to put in a switch so I can select low/high resistor. IAT 55F, MPG dropped to the high 30's. Set the IAT back to 198F with the 230 resistance and MPG jump to the high 40's, even 52 MPG.

I'll check the spark plugs after a few days to check for signs of "severe lean-burn"

Yesterday, Today, and Current Trip reporting with ScangaugeII...
http://s139.photobucket.com/albums/q...-IAT-52MPG.flv
__________________

davidjh72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 11:41 AM   #22
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 107
Country: United States
3-15-07
So much for improving MPG with the IAT resistor mod. ScanGauge under-reported gas usage at 7.0 gallons, a whopping 1.465 gallon error. While SG showed 44.3 MPG, I actually got only 36.50. So I've put the IAT sensor back in place.

3-19-07
64 mile commute to work each way. 36 miles country roads, stopping at regularly spaced stop signs every 4 to 5 miles. 26 miles @60 MPH freeway. 65 MPH max. With IAT un-modded, I get the usual MPG and closer reporting of the ScanGaugeII to the actual gallons used. SG reported 9.6 gallons used (35.5 MPG). FE about the same as the last tank, IAT-modded. Proves that at least with my Saturn, tricking the ECU into thinking the engine is breathing hotter air that it actually is, only affects my SG to make me think I'm getting way better FE, until I gas up. SG honest with an un-modded car. Trick it out, and SG tricks the owner!
__________________

davidjh72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 04:45 PM   #23
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 358
Country: United States
When I tried it in my Accord, it murdered my FE. FE dropped to almost 30 mpg at 55 on the highway, which is about what I used to be getting at 80 mph with the AC on!
repete86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 05:00 PM   #24
FE nut
 
diamondlarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,020
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidjh72 View Post
3-15-07
So much for improving MPG with the IAT resistor mod. ScanGauge under-reported gas usage at 7.0 gallons, a whopping 1.465 gallon error. While SG showed 44.3 MPG, I actually got only 36.50. So I've put the IAT sensor back in place.

3-19-07
64 mile commute to work each way. 36 miles country roads, stopping at regularly spaced stop signs every 4 to 5 miles. 26 miles @60 MPH freeway. 65 MPH max. With IAT un-modded, I get the usual MPG and closer reporting of the ScanGaugeII to the actual gallons used. SG reported 9.6 gallons used (35.5 MPG). FE about the same as the last tank, IAT-modded. Proves that at least with my Saturn, tricking the ECU into thinking the engine is breathing hotter air that it actually is, only affects my SG to make me think I'm getting way better FE, until I gas up. SG honest with an un-modded car. Trick it out, and SG tricks the owner!
I think that once the Team Challenge is over that I may return my IAT back to stock to test this on my car. I'm getting great mileage now and I would hate to jeapordize that.
__________________
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall, torque is how much of the wall you take with you.

2007 Prius,



Team Slow Burn
diamondlarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 02:08 AM   #25
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1
Country: United States
This isn't gonna work for most cars. If you have a O2 sensor, the computer probably will override your new mixture settings. This sounds a lot like an oxygen sensor mod I did on a Eagle Talon. It would go like raped batsh*t, but running that rich screwed up the cat converter. It got 12mpg city, but I didn't care.

That's the whole point of this system. To keep the cat converter from getting unburned gas through it. Clogs em up tighter than a drum. 2 cat converters in 3 years taught me the error of my ways.

I think if I was gonna try this, I'd make sure it had a switch for overriding it most of the time. This would give you control over your fuel mixture, if the O2 sensor doesn't override your trickery.

So, if I figure this right, you could either rich the engine out or lean it out with this trick. Being too lean will burn valves. Being too rich will clog the cat converter up. Neither is going to pass DEQ.

If you guys want to really beef up your fuel injected stock rods, you should use a bigger throttle body. It's pretty much "bolt on" 25 hp. I got an aftermarket one for my Lincoln for $200.

Kevin
retrovision.tv
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 04:23 AM   #26
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,138
Country: United States
I think I know what you are saying as far as the O2 sensor and closed loop mixture control. However, I think that the thought is that some ECUs will allow a leaner condition at some IATs than at others. For example, my ECU might say it's okay to run lean when the IAT is 80 deg, but not when it's 30 deg. So on a 30 deg day, the mod gets me to a lean-burn condition that I would not have otherwise been able to achieve.
__________________
Bill in Houston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2007, 04:13 AM   #27
Registered Member
 
Jim Dunlop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 125
Country: United States
Why not just remove the IAT from the airbox/intake and move it closer to the engine?
__________________

Team: Right Lane Rollers
Jim Dunlop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2007, 05:34 PM   #28
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 557
Country: United States
The VW TDI diesels apparently respond to increased resistance (colder apparent temperatures) by advancing the initial injection. These are direct injection engines with the fuel injected into the combustion chamber at or very near to TDC, not duty cycle dependent injectors spritzing into the intake tract before the intake valve. This difference (injection timing vs. duty cycle) may be why the colder apparent reading in the TDI is desired for improved mpg, rather than warmer temps for gassers. This TDI version was developed from owners of converted TDI running on heated veg oil discovering a reduction in fuel economy related to retarded injection timing as the waste fat fuel heated up.
I'm still not entirely sold on the idea, although for the admission price of a pack of five resistors, it's a cheap experiment. I'll post if I think it's worthwhile after a suitable trial phase.
Details on the TDI "FAT" Fuel and Air Temperature mod, also known as "KFC" Kerma's Fuel Cooler can be found by using the search feature at www.TDIClub.com
Lug_Nut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2007, 08:13 PM   #29
Registered Member
 
Snax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 758
Country: United States
This page illustrates the output behavior of a wideband sensor, and that would be the place to start if you want to start hacking signals on an OBDII car. A simple adjustable voltage divider would allow tuning how the compter responds.
__________________
LiberalImage.com

I think, therefore I doubt.
Snax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 08:25 AM   #30
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 183
Country: United States
this is the same stuff I did a year ago. best economy i can get is with actual intake air temp about 160 (preheated intake) and resistance set for 242 degrees IAT. I had to use a switch because although these settings improved fuel economy by about 15% on the road, they make it hard to start when cold.
__________________

cheapybob 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
Incorrect mileage calculation? tonedepear Fuelly Web Support and Community News 6 04-04-2011 01:04 AM
Export fuel-ups angelolopes Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 08-04-2010 02:46 AM
RSS feed for Fuel Tip Page randomic Fuelly Web Support and Community News 3 08-22-2008 11:55 PM
Motocycle Data pb Fuelly Web Support and Community News 12 08-18-2008 07:06 AM
WTB: HX or VX Wheels GasSavers_DaX Wanted to Buy 6 07-12-2006 10:50 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:44 PM.


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