Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by jeffie7, Jun 13, 2008.
Clackamas engineers' heater improves fuel economy- OregonLive.com
Yes. Clearly it is feasible because it has been proven to work. The real trick will be implementing it into major manufacturers production design and schedule. Most automakers plan models several years out so to get this into cars within the next 2 is going to be interesting.
He'll be dead in a week.
IIRC, my 89 dodge daytona TBI had a coolant heated intake manifold for better mileage. however, it was a 2.5L 4 cyl that made 100hp. and it always had weird driving characteristics and throttle response.
My 350Z has a coolant heated intake manifold, I believe most new cars have it, depending on how you look at it, it does not help with mpg, it helps the car run smoother when its very cold out. Cold starts do eat mpg, so helping heat the intake to help the car run smoother before the car is fully up to temp would help increase MPG, however, once the car is up to temperature it shouldn't help any.
I ran my Turbo's water lines off my intake coolant hoses.
You don't think cycling cool liquid through your intake manifold will effect your engine's efficiency at all?
Yes. ExxonMobil will send a brute squad, complete with Andre the Giant.
All of our engines have coolant through the intake manifold. It's been standard practice since 1987.
It's done to improve emissions at lower engine temperatures.
This article sucks, this guys idea sucks and it completely negates anything about "cold air intake". By adding calories to the media, you're removing potential for energy being carried in it to the top of the piston.
There is , or was, an australian development team that got the ACTUAL results when they ionized the intake air. The air intake path was really long, and the end result was that they could pack more ionized air into the A/F mixture. If the vapor was ionized post-mixture, they could pack in more of both fuel and air - but the space it had to be performed in broke the mixture down before entering the combustion chamber.
The idea when last I read about it was to use a Miller cycle engine in reverse - To pre stage the mixture. Nothing else heard on it.
With all of this shit, all you're doing is gold plating a turd anyway. Giving us 30% increase in fuel efficiency is nice, but like the article said - We've been giving engines huge increases in efficiency throughout the decades. It hasn't done shit for the overall problem.
The real problem here is found in human behaviors - These fucking SUV twats that floor it at every green light, one ignorant piece of shit assclown sitting in an SUV all by him / herself because they feel they are safer in it at the cost of everyone around them. Dirtbag parents who buy things based on their precious little snotbag offspring being so pseudo-important that they need "big boy gear".
We need to get real and let the truckers have the fucking gas. We can work on something else - such as nuclear or wind power (One wind turbine in a town will take care of all that town's electric car needs) for our personal machines. Keep a project car around for reduced use throughout the week.
Then we drill domestic lands for domestically kept oils. Reduced production for american use in shipping and production - Processing and pumping those oils at a reduced rate to maintain some semblance to sustainability. Keep gas prices around $3 a gallon or inflation adjust.
There. Solution found. And no zeropoint physics or tin foil hats necessary.
The problem with this, as well as other solutions, is that there is no money to be found in answers. Wind power is better for us, but doesn't put the money in pockets that ethanol lies do. Nuclear requires a long (LONG) term commitment in maintainance with reduced money coming in. You're asking about 100,000 executives to take a pay cut. This is a major problem in ALL of these money saving devices. The only solution to that is that we take to the streets with flaming torches and eat them.
So in conclusion and review, The answer is right in front of everyone. A major cultural revolution. This will only happen with a World playing field war against the middle east, against Islam and against tyranny. Then a civil war on the US homefront like Russia is so used to - a homegrown riot where the entire bored, cold, and hungry populace takes to the streets. We'll never do it fat and happy.
it seems doubtful that someone in his barn could achieve what the huge car companies have been trying all this time. Their idea dos not seem to be making the car more efficient; instead, it merely reduced gas consumption at the price of power.
We've also been PROVEN TO that car companies have this technology. The moment their bottom line is affected (Car sales dropped off due to fuel consumption) did you notice that within a few months they were re-tooled for alternatives ?
This is proof positive that the stuff is out there. In order to introduce it, money has to exchange hands. And large amounts of it.
I would also like to point out that I have a great memory. And I've been doing this economy thing since 1981 or so, when gas was at it's highest. Our cars in my family (in 1981 was a 79 Celica and a 1976 Mustang Cobra) were both averaging about 30 mpg (The mustang got 25 or so.. it actually had 5 fewer horses than the Celica)
My CRX got up to 52 mpg in 1999. It routinely got 40-45 with spirited driving. The RX7 got 30 mpg, the Supra got 25 and 28. My Celica was getting 25, and my dad's jeep was getting 25. Then, over time, all of these cars started falling. At the end, my Supra was getting 19 mpg, the RX7 about 23. The CRX about 30 on a good day. The jeep was down to 22. Now my dad's 87 4.2 carbbed Wrangler is getting 12 mpg. Supras are getting about 17, non-turbo. My 4Runner did Colorado to CT at 30 mpg. At the end I was getting 18 or so.
Fuel is changing. Big time. It's being watered down in ways that are mind boggling. They are doing it to make more money, year after year.
I'm willing to bet that if someone had perfectly preserved fuel from the 80s or even 70s, and ran it in a 2008 car it would get 80 mpg or more, and have a load more power.
And if you really wanna feel a difference in the crap gas out there, ride an old motorcycle. Mine performs pretty well (It's like holding onto a Patriot missile, so I can't tell what's happening at the upper limits) but I get constant loading and have to "blow it out" every few days or else it sputters and collapses.
Since the removal of MTBE (Methyltributylethanol) and the replacement of Ethanol (Corn squeezin's) we've been blinded by the sustainability and cost savings (Funny how none of that cost savings has reached us) of Ethanol, we do need to remember that in lab environments, it takes twice the amount of molecules to bond to air to make stoich combustion. That means more consumption. Granted, it's "just about renewal" (We're learning that soil can't support the "renewability" that we once thought it could) but it's consumption is so quickly accelerated, that when you see a tanker truck carrying fuel through Kansas you're looking at a GROSS deficiency in the delivery and production of that gasoline, and thus dramatically screwing the pooch on your, mine, and all of our Carbon Footprint.
The key is less consumption, don't care who you are. Right now it's tough, because our civilization doesn't really allow for this change - If you can work from home sometimes and find another hobby that doesn't involve fuel consumption - then you may be good.
If you like Drifting, autocrossing or motorsports, then you may not be able to take that same car to work, and still be in a position for improvements in weekly expenses. IF you are using the same car for sport and work, then you can absorb the cost difference this year - but what if we see $10 next year ? What about $20 a gallon ?
Both are within the realm of possibility.
Myself ? I'm investing in firearms and shooting sports. Next year roving gangs of gas theives will be seen, my posessions will be in worse risk than ever before, and I'll need to camp out and snipe the Yaris like it's a south african executive.
Ethanol is debated a lot, just watch CNBC you should see something at least once aday about Ethanol and corn prices, then some gov guy debating why we're using it. Clearly it wasn't the right choice.
As far as heating your intake, it's one thing to heat up the gas, it's another thing to turn the gas into a vapor before it enters your engine, anyone whos played with matches and gas knows just how violent gas vapors are. Gas in liquid form isn't all that explosive.
As far as your older cars and gas mph going down.
Ethanol = less mpg,
Cheap gas stations can add up to 10% water to their gas, I've seen a gain in MPG by using only BP fuels, most high end gas stations have posted minimums listed somewhere on their website about what water content they allow. dig around.
Also, the main reason why you're seeing a dip in MPG.
My parents bought a toyota truck brand new in 86, the truck got almost 30mpg (yes they drive slow) by the mid 90s the truck could only manage around 18-20mpg no matter how you drove it. at the same time that truck was getting 18-20mpg the new civic we had was knocking out 35+mpg...
Sucks getting old, but unless everything is up to 100% it's hard to say where your mpg is going, from a warn wheel bearing that isn't spinning freely, sludge in the motor, bad sensors or a dirty carb.... list goes on and on as to why you might see lower mpg.
All I have to say is how come if I'm making a point to drive nice, I can knock out 30mpg in my 270hp TL? sounds like I should get around 20 based on what you're saying. BTW best on avg I could get with cheaper gas "wawa/xtra mart/discounted fuels" was 28 and that was very hard, shifting at 2200rpm and never getting over 70mph, with somewhat normal driving it sat around 25mpg.
Also with normal driving with BP fuel I'm able to easily with out even trying, get 28mpg.
Car companies are hindered by sound. Want a 10-20% increase in fuel mileage for ~600? Bullet proof?
Intake / Header / Exhaust. No fancy name brands necessary, just good functional products. And don't drive like an asshole. All these power upgrades we do are mostly, in reality, "efficieny" upgrades. Now, if you take the same upgrades, apply them to a vehicle, and drive it with a conscious effort to save fuel, you will do so over a stock setup, because it is far more efficient.
They need to borrow many of the tricks from racing. Some drag racers have one-piece front ends. Seamless, more aerodynamic. A lower vehicle will have less of a drag coefficient than a standard height vehicle. The slicker the better.
Weight: Reduce the weight of a car, and you improve fuel efficiency, acceleration, braking, and handling.
High end engine builds: Built for maximum strength and minimum friction. Perfectly matched bearings, perfectly balanced rotating assemblies, As mentioned previously Intake and exhaust are designed for absolute maximum efficiency. Less friction = win.
How about tires? skinny, hard compound tires with maximum inflation will get good mileage. How a bout a tread that is designed to give minimum friction to the road?
Now to reality: Car makers won't do the above things.
Skinny/hard tires will mean more iddiots losing control and crashing.
Well built/balanced engine in a mass manufaturing envornment is a cost nightmare.
Efficient intake and exhaust systems make more noise. God forbid your car has a sound to it.
Trading power windows/locks/insulation/sound deadening material, etc for fuel mileage? blasphemy!
How about tighter manufacturing specifications to close up some of those body gaps? Nope. That would mean higher end machinery and better trained workers.
So the big manufacturers are looking for a magical cure. It'll come along some day, but until then, cost and mass manufaturing is what is killing mileage. Not a lack of technology.
I can't believe that with that in your head, you own a Harley and a Jeep.
Or is that how you learned all of these things
Harley's are know for making great mpg/power I heard this from a HD guy so it could be bullshit,
my take on it... HD = no power so it should make great mpg.
Knowledge is one thing. Application is another. I've had my fair share of mpg projects. A geo metro, a crx, and an eg civic to name a few. I do own an integra that I use for long trip driving, and it has a k&n intake/filter and a type R suspension under it. The intake was for fuel mileage, the suspension was for fun. /shrug.
With fuel costs going back up, I'm leaning heavily toward a crx hf project. I suggested it to B in his "19 cars feasable for one person??" thread. 80hp/60mpg. It can be done, and 80hp will kick out enough power to get you around without flare. You'll be able to break any posted speed limit with it, anyway.
Edit: My harley was an 883. 55mpg, and slightly more power than a scooter. Piss poor technology in that bike. I will never own a harley ever again. Horrible power, poor/sloppy build, etc. Its a name that you buy, certainly not a bike.
for the record my 2000 doesnt have any coolant cycling through the intake manifold. just the throttlebody.
Just for the record, this was invented in Oregon and it involved U of O alumni
that's Nike and now high fuel economy, suck it bitches, Ducks own!
Separate names with a comma.