The Smokey 15% MPG increase question?

[BoyntonStu]

The Smokey 15% MPG increase question?

I have gotten a 15% increase by air restriction. (100% positive)

Another got 15% with EFIE adjustment. (I believe him)

Another got 15% increase with water vapor. (I believe him)

Another got 15% increase with great sparkplugs and great wires.
(I believe him)

And another got 15% increase with hho. (I am not so sure that it was hho, it could have been water vapor or efie)


Are we all seeing the same 15% 'slack' built into every engine?


Why is it that the 15% increases do not add up to 30% increase or more?


BoyntonStu

[Gary Diamond]

The Smokey 15% MPG increase question?

I have gotten a 15% increase by air restriction. (100% positive)

Another got 15% with EFIE adjustment. (I believe him)

Another got 15% increase with water vapor. (I believe him)

Another got 15% increase with great sparkplugs and great wires.
(I believe him)

And another got 15% increase with hho. (I am not so sure that it was hho, it could have been water vapor or efie)


Are we all seeing the same 15% 'slack' built into every engine?


Why is it that the 15% increases do not add up to 30% increase or more?


BoyntonStu

Its time to fire up your 3 wheel bike, and give us some real data

[Painless]

Stu,

I suppose it all comes down to the ECU at the end of the day. It seems to be the case that they will only allow a certain percentage of fuel trims before they either refuse to go any further or light up the CEL indicator.

I've noticed this in some tests that I've done:

I've tried cruising at 55 mph and adjusting my MAP with my vehicle stock. The fuel trims on my scangauge go to a maximum +33 both short and long term. If I hold this for too long a 'too lean' code is thrown. What is basically happening here is the MAP is saying "less load, go leaner!" then the O2's are saying "too much O2, go richer".

Once again, our battle is the good old ECU.

When we adjust MAP, MAF, IAT or CTS sensors, the ECU adjusts the fuel trim values in response to the warmer air / reduced load or whatever else we are fooling it into thinking its seeing. The ECU then notes that the exhaust gas is showing more O2 and richens up the mixture again.

We can get around this by fooling the O2 readings with an EFIE, however, the ECU will still only allow the negative fuel trims to go so far.

This, I believe, is the answer to your question.

Russ.

[BoyntonStu]

Stu,

I suppose it all comes down to the ECU at the end of the day. It seems to be the case that they will only allow a certain percentage of fuel trims before they either refuse to go any further or light up the CEL indicator.

I've noticed this in some tests that I've done:

I've tried cruising at 55 mph and adjusting my MAP with my vehicle stock. The fuel trims on my scangauge go to a maximum +33 both short and long term. If I hold this for too long a 'too lean' code is thrown. What is basically happening here is the MAP is saying "less load, go leaner!" then the O2's are saying "too much O2, go richer".

Once again, our battle is the good old ECU.

When we adjust MAP, MAF, IAT or CTS sensors, the ECU adjusts the fuel trim values in response to the warmer air / reduced load or whatever else we are fooling it into thinking its seeing. The ECU then notes that the exhaust gas is showing more O2 and richens up the mixture again.

We can get around this by fooling the O2 readings with an EFIE, however, the ECU will still only allow the negative fuel trims to go so far.

This, I believe, is the answer to your question.

Russ.

Russ,

My ZX2 has been running with an air estriction and no codes for over 1,000 miles.

My other car, threw a "Service Engine Soon" in about 10 minutes of air restriction.

I stopped the car and I removed the restriction.

We continued for about 80 miles with the code light on.

Strange enough, the car never got as high MPG as that trip.

The ECU seemed to remember the setting.

The next morning, I disconnected the battery, reset the code, and the car was as before, less MPG.

If the ECU cannot allow less than a certain gas restriction, we are all fooked!

Is there any way around it?


For example, are the ECU's able to run a car at 12,000 feet altitude?

There is MUCH less air in La Paz Bolivia than in Florida.

BoyntonStu

[Gary Diamond]

I think the answer is to be able to change, and be able to reprogram the car computer with a new chip, that will accept HHO as a good thing, not try to fight it.

[Painless]

This is one of those things that has been on the back burner of my mind for some time.

Gary is correct about reprogramming, however, that is a dark art. Megasquirt may be a good answer, but I feel it would take a long time just to replicate the factory system first.

Russ.

[Q-Hack!]

I am sure that it's the same reason that folks who are trying to increase power on their engines have. A cold air intake will gain 15% power, a high performance exhaust will gain 15% power, an MSD ignition system; 15% gain... etc...

However all three together will net you about a 20% gain in power. It is a question that has been pontificated by many on the various performance forums. All we know for sure is that the more performance enhancements you add the harder it is to make any gains.

Engines are funny things...

[Gary Diamond]

This is one of those things that has been on the back burner of my mind for some time.

Gary is correct about reprogramming, however, that is a dark art. Megasquirt may be a good answer, but I feel it would take a long time just to replicate the factory system first.

Russ.

Russ it seems that there is a lot of people selling reprogramed chips for there car computers to increase power, what if we can invite some here, if they can produce a chip for us, we win and they make a fortune, its a win, win

Gary Diamond

[Painless]

That's an option, Gary. The problem is that ECU re-chipping is going to need doing on a model by model and probably model year by model year basis. That's a lot of work.

I also fear that these people will only have knowledge of the vehicles favoured by the tuners.

The way I see it, the ECU will only enrich or lean to a certain percentage. We need to find ways to reduce fuel input that the ECU cannot see.

For example, if we reduced the fuel rail pressure and adjusted the O2 signals back to normal with an EFIE, the ECU would be none the wiser. There would possibly be a fuel rail pressure sensor we would also need to fool.

If a method such as the above could be made to work right, it would be a lot simpler in the long run.

Stu,

I have a suggestion for an experiment on your ZX2, seeing as it responded fairly well to the restriction. I would be interested in what results you would get by removing the restriction and redirecting the intake air so that your engine takes air from directly around the exhaust manifold. The point here is to get the intake air up to approx 200 F. This should have the same effect as the restriction in addition to improving the thermal efficiency of combustion.

Russ.

[daddymikey1975]

Russ,

My ZX2 has been running with an air estriction and no codes for over 1,000 miles.

My other car, threw a "Service Engine Soon" in about 10 minutes of air restriction.

I stopped the car and I removed the restriction.

We continued for about 80 miles with the code light on.

Strange enough, the car never got as high MPG as that trip.

The ECU seemed to remember the setting.

The next morning, I disconnected the battery, reset the code, and the car was as before, less MPG.

If the ECU cannot allow less than a certain gas restriction, we are all fooked!

Is there any way around it?


For example, are the ECU's able to run a car at 12,000 feet altitude?

There is MUCH less air in La Paz Bolivia than in Florida.

BoyntonStu

Stu.. may i suggest an experiment if one is possible..

(i'll start off with this disclaimer.. I don't know for sure if it's possible to test this theory, so don't flame me for a brainstorm HAHA)

is air FLOW the same or relative to DENSITY ??

on your ZX2 it's an 'older' designed car without all the over engineered electronics (such as Russ' cursed truck) you never did tell us what your 'other car' is..

What i propose is an experiment (Again, if it's possible) where we consider (or prove) the relation to density and flow.

My belief is that you have restricted the FLOW on your ZX2 and the computer has just assumed that your air filter is clogged up and somehow has allowed MPG increase (that's 100% confirmed).

This flow reduction (again, IMO) isn't synonimous with less density.

The vehicle's MAP sensor would determine density.. (hence absolute pressure) and the MAF sensor determines air flow.

I believe the ZX2's were 'pre-MAF' .. in Ford's time, they weren't very keen on MAF sensors.. however the O2 sensors could compensate for the reduced FLOW by detecting the extra fuel (loss of 'air') and adjusting accordingly.. I believe your specific situation is luck (with the computer)

On a newer vehicle, they've incorporated MAF sensors to 'see' how much air is flowing to more 'efficiently' adjust the A/F trims, or at the least, light a CEL when the dang air filter gets clogged up.. (hence the light when you restricted the air flow on your other car)...

what i propose is an experiment (if it's possible) to determine the relationship between air flow and air density.

don't ask me how we'd try it, because, as i said before, i'm just a brainstormer LOL...

just my .02
mike