My FE/Performance Project

[pgfpro]

I built my entire engine around fuel efficiency and performance. When I started this project over ten years ago I made a list of major factors that would aid in the engines efficiency.

Here's my list in the order of importance.

1) Low numerical "Throttled BSFC" numbers.
2) Lean Burn Technology.
3) Fast-Burn Head design.
4) Reduced Pumping Loss Engine design.
5) High Fuel Atomization.
6) Programmable EGR system.
7) Advanced PCV system.

My list of modifications to reach these goals.

1) Low numerical "Throttled BSFC" numbers.

My goal was to be able to reach a BSFC number of
.35 or better (.35 BSFC is based in lbs) at part throttle. At one point I had the idea to decrease the engine size to under a liter and use a smaller engine and run at a higher load with a better BSFC number to help with FE. But then after talking to Ben Strader of EFI University and a few others, I decided against it.

I understand that car manufacturers base their engines BSFC at high load or part load. This will give them a better BSFC number, but it doesn't tell the whole story as far as the consumer driving down the freeway at light load.
IMO very light load freeway driving is by far the most used by the consumer.

One other thing I would like to address on this subject is I see a lot on other forums that ones thoughts are you will achieve your optimum BSFC at heavy load. So we feel like we need to run the engine at a higher load to get a better BSFC number.

I agree to some extent , but keep in mind all EFI systems have accelerator pump values that are read off the TPS. The accelerator part of the EFI program does what carburetors did with their accelerator pumps in their day. It adds fuel based on the speed of the throttle plate being opened to prevent a lean back fire. Usually the EFI throttle pump system will have three RPM opening points with a decay setting on all three. It will also have a coolant base adjustment built into it. All three will add to fuel injector opening time base on %.

So back to my point if you are trying to to get to the ultimate BSFC number with high load your also dumping more fuel in through the throttle pump part of the program. Something that is not included in the posted BSFC charts of different engines.

Now lets look at the BSFC WOT and or high load part of an engine. All engines have to rely on the fuel for thermal management. Incoming fuel is one of the largest factors for cooling down the combustion temperature that takes place durning the intake cycle. So at high load or WOT the engine is wasting a lot of fuel just for cooling purposes only. This kills BSFC numbers. Plus at high load you burn more fuel due to a higher VE. So more fuel results in more heat, more heat means more fuel that's needed to cool combustion temps.

One other factor is at a high load the air velocity is much slower. Slower velocity means less atomization of the fuel. So now more fuel is needed to make up for poor atomization due to lean spots and overly rich spots in the combustion chamber.

So as you can see I was left with a problem when I wanted to introduce my next modification "Lean Burn" There was no way i could run 20:1 + A/F at high load and keep the engine from detonation. So I had no choice then to concentrate on light load great BSFC design.

So that brings us to...

2) Lean Burn Technology.

Lean Burn Technology goes hand in hand with great BSFC numbers. My thoughts were to use as little fuel possible to produce 20whp. To do this I would need a BSFC number around .35 so lean burn was my only option.

I came up with a prechamber design that would be able to ignite and start combustion with A/F ratios in the stock combustion area around 25:1 to 30:1.

At these A/F ratios the heat is reduced (good) and flame speed slows down drastically (bad). Plus NOx levels increase(bad). One thing I found out is at very lean conditions atomization improves a ton.

But back to heat. I noticed in my data logs that my water temps drop when it goes into lean burn. This was a relief because the higher A/F ratio requires a slight higher load. This is also where the turbo comes into play. With a higher load with an turbo engine makes more boost and reduces pumping losses.(good)

But now the bad, flame speed decrease and now I have to start the ignition timing sooner.

So that brings us to...

3) Fast-Burn Head design.

My Honda multi-valve pent-roof design has a fairly fast burn rate when it comes to head design. This helps with increasing flame speed so less ignition timing is required.

So that brings us to...

4) Reduced Pumping Loss Engine design.


My main contributor to helping with pumping loss is the turbo.

Plain and simple it creates a higher then ambient pressure so as the piston cycles downward its being aided by pressure acting on it durning the intake stroke. But what about the compression stroke? High compression engines will take more energy then lower compression engines when it comes to the compression stroke.

My engine is around 7.5:1. You can turn it over to where it feels like there isn't any spark plugs in it. So at very light load it would turn very easily.

One other thing I think that is happening is there are some left over exhaust gases that will aid in NOx from a very low compression engine.

So that brings us to...

5) High Fuel Atomization.

All I have done here is I'm running a higher then normal fuel rail pressure 60psi. to help aid fuel atomization.


6) Programmable EGR system.


7) Advanced PCV system.

These two items are what I'm working on now.

The programmable EGR system will be where I can control how much I want to recirculate.

The advance PCV system will have an electric evac system to reduce crankcase pressure down to almost a vacuum.

This will help with sealing the lose ring pack and reduce pressure in the crank case that will help when the pistons are cycling downward.

Well this is my own home brew engine design and so far it has been successful. I have gone against the grain on a few other ideas. But sometimes thinking outside the box is necessary no matter what the out come good or bad.

My goals are to achieve 75mpg @ 65mph. So far my personal best has been
74mpg@58mph.
Make over 450+ whp. I have made 418whp.
Run a 10 second ET in the 1/4 mile. Personal best of 11.8@130mph street tires. Of course it doesn't get great mileage when its running in a performance mode.

My mod list.

Chassis:
1993 Honda Del Sol S
Polyurethane Spoon replica front lip
OEM 14' steelies

Stock port
New Skunk2 intake manifold
New Zex Stage 2 cam (59300)
New Supertech valve springs
New Supertech valves
OEM 60mm LS throttle body
New ARP headstuds
New OEM valve seals
New OEM retainers
New OEM valve keepers
New OEM headgasket
New OEM valve cover gaskets
New OEM cam seal
New OEM timing belt
New OEM timing belt tensioner
New OEM alternator belt

D16z6 block
New 75mm YCP vitara pistons
New Eagle rods with big bolts
New ACL main bearings
New ACL rod bearings
New OEM main seal
New OEM oil pan gasket
New OEM water pump
New OEM oil pump
New OEM oil pickup
New OEM main bolts

Drive-train:
D16z6 tranny with 1st gen OBX LSD
New Action 2md clutch
New OEM axle seals (located on tranny)
OEM resurfaced flywheel
New Energy Suspension shifter stabilizers

Brake and Suspension:
GSR front brakes*
GSR rear sway bar/LCA's*
Strut bar welded into trunk*
Koni Yellows*
H&R Race springs*

Exhaust:
Top mount turbo manifold w/custom up pipe down pipe.
Holset HE351CW Turbo
RRP 2.5 inch ECUTOUT for track and then connected to STOCK exhaust for quiet street drive

Turbo Setup:
Holset HE351CW Turbo
Ebay intercooler
Ebay SSQV BOV
Ebay intercooler piping
Hallman Pro MBC

Fuel Management and other MISC:
P28 with Neptune RTP
PLX wideband with gauge
New Motorola 2.5 bar map sensor
New Precision 780cc injectors
OEM resistor box
Walbro 255LPH and inline 255walbro for E85
Autometer Boost gauge
Autometer Oil pressure gauge

Also keep in mind that this engine is not anywhere near stock anymore.

1)I'm running a very low compression around 7.5:1 to help with pumping loses.

2)Thermal-Coated bowl shape pistons. To keep heat from transferring into the piston and the bowl shape to help create swirl and centralize the flame front. To help with the boundary area of the piston.

3)Extremely loose piston to cylinder wall clearance. Better mechanical efficiency.

4)Large piston ring gaps. Better mechanical efficiency.

5)Modified combustion chambers for lean burn. To provide a fuel rich area to help ignite the fuel and air.To increase the size of the flame kernel. To accelerate flame speed durning lean burn.

As for city driving. I haven't a clue. I'm still working on light load freeway driving. I want the car to give the same results no matter who's driving (very user friendly) without the need for Hypermiling.

[pgfpro]

I got some more work done. Clean up pics and welded a new return 12AN in the oil pan and O2 bungs welded in.





Built a 4" v band flange flange cap.

[GasSavers_JoeBob]

A couple questions...they may sound dumb, but bear with me.

How large of piston ring gaps? I can remember a car I had years ago with large piston ring gaps, (about 1/8"), gas mileage wasn't bad...Plymouth with a 383 ci engine, about 18 mpg, about 30 miles/quart of oil.

Also you mention extremely loose piston to cylinder wall fitting. Any piston slap? How will this affect longevity of the engine?

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by JoeBob

A couple questions...they may sound dumb, but bear with me.

How large of piston ring gaps? I can remember a car I had years ago with large piston ring gaps, (about 1/8"), gas mileage wasn't bad...Plymouth with a 383 ci engine, about 18 mpg, about 30 miles/quart of oil.

Also you mention extremely loose piston to cylinder wall fitting. Any piston slap? How will this affect longevity of the engine?

These are great questions I have been on a few different forums and I'm really surprised that know one has ask this before?

The piston ring gaps are .018 on the top comp ring and .019 on the second ring.

The cylinder to wall clearance on this setup is .006. This will affect long term engine life and is one of the hurdles I'm trying to figure out what to do? As of right now I need the extra piston to cylinder clearance and ring gap for the HP I'm running. It doesn't use any oil between oil changes (every 2K) but I know it won't be your typical Honda and run for 200,000+ miles. I plan on building another engine like this one but it will be a 1.5L and with more stock type clearances. But the 1.5L will only make around 250whp.

Oh and to answer your question on piston slap.. YES it sounds like a diesel on start up. I'm going to install a engine block heater and run it all year round. LOL

[imzjustplayin]

So you decreased the compression ratio yet improved the overall mileage?? So tell me, how DID you achieve that 75mpg while cruising at 58mph? What kind of mpg can you get at 65mph? Any aerodynamic mods? Were you doing pulse and glide? The reason I ask is that it seems counter intuitive to go a lower compression ratio opposed to a higher one. Did you choose a lower compression ratio because you knew you couldn't modify the computer's programming? Or can you? I ask this because the Insight and the Geo Metro both have very high compression ratios (11:1) so you going the opposite direction seems strange. Yes I am aware that you have the low compression ratio for the turbo but 7.5:1 seems awfully low and usually cars run 8.5:1 when turbo equipped, maybe even 9:1.

[theholycow]

Wow, that's quite a project. It sounds like you've really put the effort into studying this stuff that most of us would never do!

I agree to some extent , but keep in mind all EFI systems have accelerator pump values that are read off the TPS. The accelerator part of the EFI program does what carburetors did with their accelerator pumps in their day. It adds fuel based on the speed of the throttle plate being opened to prevent a lean back fire. Usually the EFI throttle pump system will have three RPM opening points with a decay setting on all three. It will also have a coolant base adjustment built into it. All three will add to fuel injector opening time base on %.

Can you elaborate on this? My understanding was as follows:
- At (or very near) WOT, EFI will go to open loop, ignore O2 sensors, using rich static fuel tables instead of trying to measure perfectly
- At any other throttle level, EFI will try to keep the air/fuel ratio perfect

I haven't been able to experiment with that because my car doesn't seem to ever go to open loop or enrich, reportedly because its wideband O2 sensor allows the EFI to always stay in closed loop. Either way I can't argue with results; I slam the gas pedal to the floor after every shift and get great fuel economy. I don't think the way I do it would work with most other cars.

The advance PCV system will have an electric evac system to reduce crankcase pressure down to almost a vacuum.

This will help with sealing the lose ring pack and reduce pressure in the crank case that will help when the pistons are cycling downward.
{...}
3)Extremely loose piston to cylinder wall clearance. To help with pumping loses.

4)Large piston ring gaps. To help with pumping loses.

Wouldn't those things result in a lot of blow-by?

Also, how would 3 and 4 reduce pumping losses? If you mean piston-cylinder friction, I consider that as a separate issue from pumping loss.

One other thought: Are your pistons and connecting rods lightweight to reduce reciprocating loss?

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by theholycow

Can you elaborate on this? My understanding was as follows:
- At (or very near) WOT, EFI will go to open loop, ignore O2 sensors, using rich static fuel tables instead of trying to measure perfectly
- At any other throttle level, EFI will try to keep the air/fuel ratio perfect

I haven't been able to experiment with that because my car doesn't seem to ever go to open loop or enrich, reportedly because its wideband O2 sensor allows the EFI to always stay in closed loop. Either way I can't argue with results; I slam the gas pedal to the floor after every shift and get great fuel economy. I don't think the way I do it would work with most other cars.
?

Does your car have throttle by wire? Because I've noticed that TBW cars don't ever go into open loop mode except for when they can't read from the o2 sensors because they're not warmed up. My S60 will go out of open-loop and into closed loop after only 10 seconds of warmup but my civic takes several minutes before it's in closed loop mode. I can floor the accelerator in the S60 and it will never go into open loop but on the Civic, depending on how quickly I pushed on the throttle, past 3/4 the car goes into open loop mode every time, regardless of the conditions. In case you weren't aware, my civic is not TBW.

[theholycow]

Yes, it does have throttle by wire. That would be the first time I've heard of throttle by wire being credited with not using open loop, but it certainly sounds as reasonable as the wideband O2 explanation. As with your S60, my Rabbit is only open loop for a few seconds after a cold start.

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by *************

So you decreased the compression ratio yet improved the overall mileage?? So tell me, how DID you achieve that 75mpg while cruising at 58mph? What kind of mpg can you get at 65mph? Any aerodynamic mods? Were you doing pulse and glide? The reason I ask is that it seems counter intuitive to go a lower compression ratio opposed to a higher one. Did you choose a lower compression ratio because you knew you couldn't modify the computer's programming? Or can you? I ask this because the Insight and the Geo Metro both have very high compression ratios (11:1) so you going the opposite direction seems strange. Yes I am aware that you have the low compression ratio for the turbo but 7.5:1 seems awfully low and usually cars run 8.5:1 when turbo equipped, maybe even 9:1.

Yes I decreased the compression ratio to 7.5:1. But there are a lot of other factors that are working with the lower compression. I can say if you just drop the compression ratio on any other engine and that's all you do you would lose efficiency.

My O2 is just along for the ride and does nothing other then give me real time readings and data logs.

The 75mpg was on a road trip over 500 miles of driving at a steady state cruise condition with no pulse a drive.

Yes I can and have altered my stock ecu settings using Neptune engine management. My engine runs in open loop all the time by running off my preprogrammed fuel and timing etc. maps.

My sons car has the same engine but with stock 9.8:1 compression and with him running at 17:1 A/F and me running at 17:1 his mileage is not as good as mine. But of course when I take it up to 22:1+ mine is way better.

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by theholycow

Wow, that's quite a project. It sounds like you've really put the effort into studying this stuff that most of us would never do!



Can you elaborate on this? My understanding was as follows:
- At (or very near) WOT, EFI will go to open loop, ignore O2 sensors, using rich static fuel tables instead of trying to measure perfectly
- At any other throttle level, EFI will try to keep the air/fuel ratio perfect

I haven't been able to experiment with that because my car doesn't seem to ever go to open loop or enrich, reportedly because its wideband O2 sensor allows the EFI to always stay in closed loop. Either way I can't argue with results; I slam the gas pedal to the floor after every shift and get great fuel economy. I don't think the way I do it would work with most other cars.


Wouldn't those things result in a lot of blow-by?

Also, how would 3 and 4 reduce pumping losses? If you mean piston-cylinder friction, I consider that as a separate issue from pumping loss.

One other thought: Are your pistons and connecting rods lightweight to reduce reciprocating loss?

Can you elaborate on this? My understanding was as follows:
- At (or very near) WOT, EFI will go to open loop, ignore O2 sensors, using rich static fuel tables instead of trying to measure perfectly
- At any other throttle level, EFI will try to keep the air/fuel ratio perfect

Your right this is how most pulse and glide people are getting great results. But I guess I need to explain my situation. My engine is running close to 22:1 A/F ratio at light load. For me to go to WOT to achieve a better BSFC it would detonate because of the very lean A/F starting point. So in my throttle pump table I would have to dump a ton of fuel to over come this making it worse then running a steady state cruise.

Wouldn't those things result in a lot of blow-by?

Also, how would 3 and 4 reduce pumping losses? If you mean piston-cylinder friction, I consider that as a separate issue from pumping loss.

One other thought: Are your pistons and connecting rods lightweight to reduce reciprocating loss?

I have very little blow by.

I need to fix that it should have read greater mechanical efficiency through friction loss.

My pistons are lighter but the rods are heavier. So combined they come out to be a little heavier.