Megasquirt thoughts.

[shadow88]

I have a megasquirt controlled 1997 neon dohc turbo 5 speed as a winter car. My goal is better fuel milage, not more power. I was wondering what anyone would suggest for safe lean a/f ratio. I'm running forged 8.6:1 pistons and I have knock detection. I'm only after fuel milage. How lean can you go? 15.9:1? in the 16's?

Those lean a/f ratios are for part throttle, hyway speed cruise. Normally, it's in the mid 15's , but I'm trying to lean out the cruise mixture.

[turbovanman²]

Pics or it didn't happen, :p

Seriously though, I would say 15.5:1 would probably be the leanest you can go, I know when my van gets into the mid to high 15's and beyond, you can feel it lag so to speak. What are your current AF ratio's at idle, cruise and part throttle boost?

What MPG are you getting now?

[cordes]

In all of my gas mileage tuning I found much more mpgs in the part throttle timing in vac than I ever did in leaning it out. I do agree with Simon that around 16:1 you start to lose power and thus mpgs pretty rapidly.

[shadow88]

Pics or it didn't happen, :p

Seriously though, I would say 15.5:1 would probably be the leanest you can go, I know when my van gets into the mid to high 15's and beyond, you can feel it lag so to speak. What are your current AF ratio's at idle, cruise and part throttle boost?

What MPG are you getting now?

Pics later. If you really need to see something, then here. It's pretty old, but the same car, just re-purposed.http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?22156-2.0L-dohc-turbo-neon-project&highlight=

Idle is difficult to control, but it's around the 14.7 range.
WOT is well into the 12's so no worry there. Along with the 87 octane required, very little ignition timing advance.
Part throttle, I've been as lean as 16.3:1, but it's difficult to keep steady.
Today was about 15.4:1 cruise at 115kph on the hyway

Cordes, you mentioned timing, and I'm running an indicated 44-50 degree advance at part throttle cruise. Running about 15 inches of vacuum. It varies with load, but it's pretty advanced.

Right now, I don;t have an accurate MPG reading because I just got this 2 weeks ago and it ran like poop. I've adjusted something almost every day. So far the range isn't as good as I had hoped, but I wanted to know how lean I could get without damaging anything.

What would fail, or what could I check for if I have been running too lean? I can look at plugs, knock sensor output, a/f ratio. It actualy runs ok in the high 16's a/f ratio.

[GLHNSLHT2]

My 2.5 turbo with a stock head and intake would get 34 around town and 40+ on the freeway running 16.3 a/f's at idle and cruise.

[turbovanman²]

Pics later. If you really need to see something, then here. It's pretty old, but the same car, just re-purposed.http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?22156-2.0L-dohc-turbo-neon-project&highlight=

Idle is difficult to control, but it's around the 14.7 range.
WOT is well into the 12's so no worry there. Along with the 87 octane required, very little ignition timing advance.
Part throttle, I've been as lean as 16.3:1, but it's difficult to keep steady.
Today was about 15.4:1 cruise at 115kph on the hyway

Cordes, you mentioned timing, and I'm running an indicated 44-50 degree advance at part throttle cruise. Running about 15 inches of vacuum. It varies with load, but it's pretty advanced.

Right now, I don;t have an accurate MPG reading because I just got this 2 weeks ago and it ran like poop. I've adjusted something almost every day. So far the range isn't as good as I had hoped, but I wanted to know how lean I could get without damaging anything.

What would fail, or what could I check for if I have been running too lean? I can look at plugs, knock sensor output, a/f ratio. It actualy runs ok in the high 16's a/f ratio.

Trouble is, keeping it that lean without better control so to speak, then your risking detonation, damaging valves, melting pistons, popping head gaskets etc. Honda had a lean burn engine years ago but they used a wideband to control it and other gadgets. Honda also has the time and R@D to do it right so it lasts.

If you take out timing to run shitty gas and leaner mixtures, then you go backwards as timing does lead to MPG, hence why vacuum advance's on carb engines add 20-30 degs at cruise.

[shadow88]

The low timing advance is only under boost. As it passes the line from boost to vacuum, the timing increases quite a bit.

I remember Honda's 12 valve being a lean engine (if that's the one you mean) but how lean?

So far, I have seen zero detonation on the knock sensor's output using the drb3.

[turbovanman²]

The low timing advance is only under boost. As it passes the line from boost to vacuum, the timing increases quite a bit.

I remember Honda's 12 valve being a lean engine (if that's the one you mean) but how lean?

So far, I have seen zero detonation on the knock sensor's output using the drb3.

I think your thinking of the old 1500 CVCC engines back in the late 70's.

The Civic I am talking about is mid to late 90's, it ran around 17:1, I've only seen one and I had to fix it for our smog tests, it failed.

I wasn't saying your timing is bad, just saying that if you or whomever retard it to run leaner then you kinda go backwards.

[cordes]

I've run my omni pretty lean (16 or 17:1) for extended periods with no ill effects detected.

[glhs0426]

To help me see it correctly, I printed a copy of both the timing table and the fuel table since they did not use the same x and y steps. The cruise area was monitored between 45-75mph and highlighted on the paper copy. I then would raise the timing values in these areas until the engine would surge or knock then backed down 2 degrees. After the timing was set I would lean out those areas of the fuel table from 14.7 to XX.X until the engine would surge or misfire. On a junk 2.2 the timing was 50+ degrees, but I could only lean it out to 15.2-15.5 before it would surge or misfire with the timing set so high. There may be better methods to find the best combination of spark and fuel for mileage, but I was always taught: set to stoich, run up the timing as high as you can, then lean it out as much as you can.

One area I had great difficulty was below 45 and light throttle. The AFR table did not have enough rpm resolution in this area (I should have changed the x and y values to better match the timing and fuel tables). The AFR required for idle and the AFR required for a lean cruise were very different. I ended up smoothing the map stoich to lean at the 45mph and up area since this was where most of the cruising took place. What I am trying to point out is:

bias your tables for the cruise area; they don't have to be a smoothly stepped rpm scale
make the timing, fuel, and AFR maps mirror each other on the x and y axis as much as possible

Which version of MS are you running? I, II, III? MS&S, HiRes, Extra?

[Ondonti]

I have run 18 and 19:1 by tricking OEM computer (lying about narrowband signal). OEM computer does not like that and if you need to "scoot" then you will have no power available until you get enough TPS signal to switch into open loop fueling mode.

With megasquirt, you don't have that problem. When load is super low, you can go super lean. When your load increases, you can set your fueling to come back on and give you the power you need in that spot. Easy with Megasquirt :) I never spend any time perfecting it but I cruised above 15 on my MS car and would go to 20 in super low load situations if I could get away with it.

[shadow88]

It's megaquirt 2, pretty basic system. I'm taking Cordes advise and going for much more timing.
So far, 53 degrees advance if it's between 2400 and 3000 rpms and about 17-14 inches of vacuum.
I have only had the car for 2 and a half weeks so I don't have any MPG baseline so far. The first week was a nightmare to get it "close", then the following week is fine tuning the a/f ratio. Now I'm onto the timing advance. This tank looks like it should be in the mid to low 30's with mixed city/hyway.

There's a little something going on at these settings, not sure if it's a miss or what, but I'll keep at it and try not to be as lean as I was.

[glhs0426]

There's a little something going on at these settings, not sure if it's a miss or what, but I'll keep at it and try not to be as lean as I was.

A little like a surge and a little like a miss? If so, it's too lean. On my 2.2 I had add fuel to make the misfire go away. No amount of timing reduction seemed to help, so, I added the timing back and added a little fuel.

You could try adding a little dweel to the coil, but the default setting in the Neon manual seems to be the best compromise between life of the MS coil drivers and spark energy.

[black86glhs]

To offset the lean surge, you might be able to put on a high output coil. Might ignite the leaner mixture and take some of the misfire away. You could also run a bit more plug gap, but I can't remember if you want more gap or less.

[zin]

Remember the goal is optimizing ignition timing or, more specifically, where peak cylinder pressure occurs, not just a big number. More efficient burning requires less timing for optimum performance (HP or MPGs).

During EGR (charge dilution) and/or when Lean Mixtures are being burnt, it will be more difficult to ignite the mixture (and keep it lit) and require more time for the flame front to travel across the chamber. This is mostly because the fuel molecules are further apart, kind of like having to hop from one stepping stone to the next (lean/diluted mix), rather than just walking on a sidewalk (rich mix). Adding a small amount of gaseous fuel (propane/hydrogen) will help speed things up by helping to connect the dots so to speak. It can also help prevent misfires, a common problem with lean mixtures. Another way to help ensure ignition is multiple sparks, incidentally this is why MSD (Multiple Spark Discharge) Ignitions came to be, they (the engineers that started the company) needed an ignition that would reliably ignite lean burn mixtures.

Typically 17:1 yields best mileage, but leaner mixtures can/have been run, but the optimum mix will vary wildly with all the variables.

I think a turbo engine is a great foundation for a lean burn engine, they are generally stronger and so will deal with detonation better, which will be fairly likely, though not nearly as destructive as it would be happening at part throttle and with much less energy/fuel involved. They also have exhaust valves made to deal with high heat, another likely side-effect of a lean burn...

I really can't wait till I'm at the point where I can program my own cals and explore this area myself... I think there will be quite a bit that can be done once we unburden the calibration of all the emissions BS and possibly add the gaseous fuel/accelerator and possibly adding full-time water injection, although I'm think it may be a fine line on the water injection, it may increase the chance of misfire, especially if no gaseous fuel is added...

Sorry for the book, hope it's more helpful than clutter!

Mike

[shadow88]

Mike, I always like your answers. There's something good in every one.
This engine is egr delete. It's part of its past as a part time drag racer. The car's best was a soft launch 14.1@104, but that's no longer my intentions.

I'm Pretty sure the slight misfire was lean, in the 17's, corrected to the 16's and all is good. Still adding timing and removing fuel to try to get the best of my fuel energy. I should have a video and pics this weekend.

[shadow88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvtbT-Kn5lg

A little drive up the hyway last weekend. So far it's looking like Cordes was absolutely right, ignition timing will play a bigger role in improving MPG's than leaning the mixture.

So far, at cruise of 70 mph I'm showing around 15.3:1 a/f ratio and 58 degrees ignition advance and it's looking like a good tank of gas so far. Thanks for your ideas and I'll update once I get a good hyway run this upcoming weekend.

I'm sure things would improve even more if I had a 3.55:1 diff transaxle, but I'm stuck with the 3.94 non r/t trans.

[glhs0426]

Success is sweet! Where are you going to post the msq. when you are comfortable with the tune?

I don't remember which tune is the good one for the 2.2 or I would have posted it for others. It's easy to get wrapped up in the moment and forget to document success. Failure seems to leave evidence.

IIRC the R/T and DOHC cars used 3.94 and the SOHC used 3.55.

[shadow88]

What's an msq? The actual timing chart and fuel map? Any time is good with me. I'll do minor corrections above 75mph due to a sudden rich condition and I'll probably add a little more timing to the boost area but I'll keep it slow with the 87 octane gas. I'm pretty bad with computers and I use the laptop only for the car, so if you want to see the mpas, I'll have to take a picture and post it?

I had a 1995 single cam neon and I miss those MPG's. I'm on the lookout for the transmission.

I don't mind making my failures known because it might help someone out who's trying the same thing.

[glhs0426]

The msq is the tune file. I think anytime you make a change to the tune the program automatically saves the changes as a new file unless you manually overwrite the current tune.

Start a new thread for Megasquirt msq's and use the basic idea behind the MS forums (http://www.msextra.com/doc/general/forum_posting.html).

[cordes]

Another big jump in mileage I got was going from 93 octane to 87. There's a ton more BTUs per gallon in 87.

[zin]

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. The base stock for all grades is the same, with only additives being changed to modify the octane rating, so it's hard to believe the energy content could be materially altered.

That said the burn characteristics could be, with the 87 likely burning faster, which might account for the change ... MPGMike would probably be able to clarify ...

Mike

[cordes]

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. The base stock for all grades is the same, with only additives being changed to modify the octane rating, so it's hard to believe the energy content could be materially altered.

That said the burn characteristics could be, with the 87 likely burning faster, which might account for the change ... MPGMike would probably be able to clarify ...

Mike

From what I've read there seems to be about a 10% spread in the BTUs per gallon of gasoline depending on what it is. It has been a while since I've looked into that though. A quick search just came up with a ton of results which would seem to confirm that, but I didn't look for a truly credible source either. I do know that I picked up 1-2mpgs when I switched to 87 from 93 octane with no other changes that I can think of.

[zin]

Interesting... I wonder if you tried going back to 93 but upped the timing a bit if it would have close to the same effect?

If the 87 is burning faster, I doubt you'd be able to get all of it back with timing as more timing means there is more time the burning mixture is fighting the upward travel of the piston, assuming both fuels are tuned to attain peak cylinder pressure in the same "sweet spot" of 15-20* ATDC, but it might get you something... Not that it would be worth it if the engine has no need of the higher octane (assuming the 93 is burning slower), in this case it truly would be wasted money! But, if they both have close to the same burn rate, you should be able to get the same or better MPG, but that would seem to not be the case as you did see a difference with only a fuel change...:o

Mike

[cordes]

Interesting... I wonder if you tried going back to 93 but upped the timing a bit if it would have close to the same effect?

If the 87 is burning faster, I doubt you'd be able to get all of it back with timing as more timing means there is more time the burning mixture is fighting the upward travel of the piston, assuming both fuels are tuned to attain peak cylinder pressure in the same "sweet spot" of 15-20* ATDC, but it might get you something... Not that it would be worth it if the engine has no need of the higher octane (assuming the 93 is burning slower), in this case it truly would be wasted money! But, if they both have close to the same burn rate, you should be able to get the same or better MPG, but that would seem to not be the case as you did see a difference with only a fuel change...:o

Mike

I highly doubt that I've optimized the timing in vac though. I'm really happy with the gas mileage the car gets and it's my DD so I don't mess with it anymore.

[zin]

I saw you were in the mid to low 50s in vacuum, which seems right, especially if your engine uses EGR... Still working on that magic tool to indicate where peak cylinder pressure is happening... They do exist, but are big $$!

Mike

[shadow88]

So an update.... On my road trip this weekend, I averaged 32.3mpg. The speed a stay around on the hyway is 105-115 kph or 65-72ish mph. There was the occasional run into the 80mph range, but mostly it was a steady 70. Also my friend went for a quick boot to see how the car felt with 7psi boost.

I see there's still little tweaks to be made as I near the epa rating for that combo (dohc 5 speed)of 35mpg hyway. The sohc 5 speeds were rated at 39mpg hyway I think due to the taller diff gearing.

Here's the fuel table followed by the ignition table. Yes, that's 63 degrees advance.

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j61/shadowt2/neon/IMG_2765.jpg
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j61/shadowt2/neon/IMG_2764.jpg

[cordes]

For reference, what RPM are you turning at that MPH? Tire size?

[shadow88]

About 2900 at 70. Tire size is 195/70r14. I just swapped them this weekend and there's a 5% speedometer error and that was factored into the mpg rating I calculated.

[cordes]

About 2900 at 70. Tire size is 195/70r14. I just swapped them this weekend and there's a 5% speedometer error and that was factored into the mpg rating I calculated.

That's pretty good gas mileage for those RPMs IMO.

[shadow88]

You can see why I'm looking for a 3.55:1 transmission from a single cam gen 1 neon. I could possably run 2500-2600 range.

[cordes]

That's the way to go. We didn't gain much if any mileage when we changed out the transfer gears in our Neon, but we were able to get the same mileage at 10MPH faster speeds due to the reduction in RPM. I'm hoping that the 95' cam will get us a little more torque where we cruise so that we pick up 1-2MPGs.

[shadow88]

That's the way to go. We didn't gain much if any mileage when we changed out the transfer gears in our Neon, but we were able to get the same mileage at 10MPH faster speeds due to the reduction in RPM. I'm hoping that the 95' cam will get us a little more torque where we cruise so that we pick up 1-2MPGs.

That's surprising the rpm drop didn't net you any better mpgs. I used to own a 95 5 speed neon and it was undoubtably quicker than all the other year single cam 5 speeds. If I had to guess, I'd suggest the airbox design, the lighter 3 piece clutch, and the cam made the difference of about 5-10 foot pounds of torque.

I just ran through a mixed hyway/ city tank and got 27.2 mpg with no changes to the fuel or timing settings. I also found a 3.55:1 trans and I get it next wednesday, maybe it'll be in next weekend and hopefully the mpg numbers improve.

[cordes]

That's surprising the rpm drop didn't net you any better mpgs. I used to own a 95 5 speed neon and it was undoubtably quicker than all the other year single cam 5 speeds. If I had to guess, I'd suggest the airbox design, the lighter 3 piece clutch, and the cam made the difference of about 5-10 foot pounds of torque.

I just ran through a mixed hyway/ city tank and got 27.2 mpg with no changes to the fuel or timing settings. I also found a 3.55:1 trans and I get it next wednesday, maybe it'll be in next weekend and hopefully the mpg numbers improve.

I think it just doesn't make enough torque to pull the car along without lugging it at lower RPM these days. It doesn't drop gas mileage when you go from 50 to 70mph and I chalk that up to the higher RPM. I've read that the 95' air box is good for 1-2HP so that is something I'll keep an eye out for. I'm just glad I finally found the cam. I really think that will be the difference. I plan on installing it over the Christmas break so we'll see soon enough.

[shadow88]

Back with the 3.55:1 transmission.

I found a/f ratios leaner than about 17.2:1 cause a missfire with a steady hyway load applied, so I'm anywhere from 15.3-16.2:1 a/f ratio at cruise without issue. Ignition timing is still in the low 60 degree range indicated on the laptop.

The taller gears return about 400 rpm less hyway rpm at the same 70mph, for a total of about 2550 rpms at 70.

Now the good part. I acheived 32.6 mpg combined city and hyway this week. Traffic has been pretty bad the last couple days, and it's been hovering around the freezing mark in the mornings and that eats into the cold enrichment. I still need some more discipline keeping it out of boost and being easy on it.

I'm sure it's going to improve in the spring but I'm pretty happy about this last tank.

[cordes]

Back with the 3.55:1 transmission.

I found a/f ratios leaner than about 17.2:1 cause a missfire with a steady hyway load applied, so I'm anywhere from 15.3-16.2:1 a/f ratio at cruise without issue. Ignition timing is still in the low 60 degree range indicated on the laptop.

The taller gears return about 400 rpm less hyway rpm at the same 70mph, for a total of about 2550 rpms at 70.

Now the good part. I acheived 32.6 mpg combined city and hyway this week. Traffic has been pretty bad the last couple days, and it's been hovering around the freezing mark in the mornings and that eats into the cold enrichment. I still need some more discipline keeping it out of boost and being easy on it.

I'm sure it's going to improve in the spring but I'm pretty happy about this last tank.

That's pretty darn good. I was thinking about this thread on my way home so I'm glad to be met with an update.

[Aries_Turbo]

what kind of mileage are you getting with your neon Brian?

i usually only get 28 with mine but its flogged 100% of the time and lots of hills.

on the highway, i get 34mpg. 1997 sohc atx.



as for how lean you can go.... as lean as it will go without knock and missing and stuff like that.

as some have said, it can backfire with going too lean but if you add power with timing and flow efficiency i bet going leaner will amplify the results.

Brian

[cordes]

I'm getting about 36mpgs last I checked in the neon. A small mix of city with mostly highway miles. Dead flat around here. SOHC ATX with .91 transfer gears. I'm hoping the cam swap will help with mileage a bit.

[black86glhs]

I wonder if 185/75r14 tires would help get more mileage? Probably not much but if tires are needed, might be worth it to try it.

[cordes]

I wonder if 185/75r14 tires would help get more mileage? Probably not much but if tires are needed, might be worth it to try it.

I've read that they don't fit very well. I think we have 175/70r14s on there now which is a bit taller than the 185/65s. 185/75 is quite a bit taller than stock.

[Aries_Turbo]

I'm getting about 36mpgs last I checked in the neon. A small mix of city with mostly highway miles. Dead flat around here. SOHC ATX with .91 transfer gears. I'm hoping the cam swap will help with mileage a bit.

do you have the ethanol pee pee gas?

i lost mileage at some point on all my cars a few years ago when NY changed something about the mix that the state gets.

Brian

[cordes]

do you have the ethanol pee pee gas?

i lost mileage at some point on all my cars a few years ago when NY changed something about the mix that the state gets.

Brian

Yes, it's all 10% ethanol.

[black86glhs]

I've read that they don't fit very well. I think we have 175/70r14s on there now which is a bit taller than the 185/65s. 185/75 is quite a bit taller than stock.I was more referring to shadow88's car having the 195/70's on it, however since we are on that subject, what do you guy think would be the best size for mileage and traction?
I like the 185/65R14s or 175/70R14s.

[cordes]

I was more referring to shadow88's car having the 195/70's on it, however since we are on that subject, what do you guy think would be the best size for mileage and traction?
I like the 185/65R14s or 175/70R14s.

For stock gearing the 175/70 will net you a lower cruise RPM which is pretty vital on the freeway IMO. In the snow I bet they will have the advantage too since the darn things are so light. This will be our first winter with the narrower tire on there. I don't drive the car hard, but I'm sure that the 185/65 would win out in the handling department. Anything must be better than a 70 series tire.

[black86glhs]

For stock gearing the 175/70 will net you a lower cruise RPM which is pretty vital on the freeway IMO. In the snow I bet they will have the advantage too since the darn things are so light. This will be our first winter with the narrower tire on there. I don't drive the car hard, but I'm sure that the 185/65 would win out in the handling department. Anything must be better than a 70 series tire.I know what you mean. My 88 has the 205/70R15 base tire option. Supertankers react to steering inputs faster.

[shadow88]

I was more referring to shadow88's car having the 195/70's on it, however since we are on that subject, what do you guy think would be the best size for mileage and traction?
I like the 185/65R14s or 175/70R14s.

The tires on there now look big. They fill up the whole wheel well and there's very little clearance between the tire and the spring perch. They weren't installed for fuel economy, but rather, they were free snow tires from my ex, so I installed them. They probably help fuel economy just because they lower the hyway rpms a little. They also weigh less than srt-4 wheels with 205/40zr17's Those are heavy!

For maximum mpg's I would use something much narrower and go as tall as you can get., Like 165/80r14 sort of thing. I have no idea if that size fits, but it would help the rolling resistance.

[shadow88]

Tiny little update. This weekend, I went on a 300 km all hyway drive and IF I could stay on the hyway for a full tank (60-65 mph) I'm certain I would get 36 mpg.

It's capable of mixtures as lean at 18:1 without any issues, and a whole lot of indicated ignition advance of 60 degrees.

I'm thinking of a few other changes and wondering what they're worth if anything.
I was thinking of a warmer inlet air source and possibly pre-warming the fuel. Anybody tried either of those?

[zin]

Both work. The trick is to not over-do it. Pre-heating the fuel will give the best results, but will be the most difficult to implement without causing vapor lock, pretty much needs to be a non-return type fuel system before before the heat exchanger, which makes controlling the heat a bit difficult.

Heating the air is done pretty much just to normalize it and make it easier to maintain air fuel ratios, but isn't used much on non-carb engines as the computer can adjust, and warmer air is less dense, not that it's critical, but it will have a small negative effect on pumping efficiency.

If you want to try the warm air part, I'd just grab the heat stove and air valve from a carb'd car in the JY,if you can find one! You'll also want to grab the temp control inside the air cleaner, possibly the coolant temp vacuum switch as well.

Mike

[shadow88]

There's a factory srt-4 heat sheild around this factory srt-4 turbo. I might be able to modify it to help ingest warmer inlet air, or just run the air filter above the turbo. I think the intercooler will probably negate any heat I introduce into the inlet side of the turbo. I'm not sure if I want to be rid of the intercooler yet because this still sees 9 psi boost from time to time.

Even though this megasquirt system has an intake air temp sensor, I cannot find any tables to adjust the fuel trim based on intake temps. This one is a very basic system.

For fuel, It's already a non return fuel system, So I was thinking of a fuel line that wrapped around the upper rad hose a few times before getting to the rail? I know there's an inherent safety issue with this type of system.

[zin]

There's a factory srt-4 heat sheild around this factory srt-4 turbo. I might be able to modify it to help ingest warmer inlet air, or just run the air filter above the turbo. I think the intercooler will probably negate any heat I introduce into the inlet side of the turbo. I'm not sure if I want to be rid of the intercooler yet because this still sees 9 psi boost from time to time.

Even though this megasquirt system has an intake air temp sensor, I cannot find any tables to adjust the fuel trim based on intake temps. This one is a very basic system.

For fuel, It's already a non return fuel system, So I was thinking of a fuel line that wrapped around the upper rad hose a few times before getting to the rail? I know there's an inherent safety issue with this type of system.

For the hot air, you'll want to limit that, the best way I can think of is to use the themo-switch off of an carb'd air cleaner (the vacuum switch on the inside on the "clean" side of the air filter. It should break the vacuum to the air door feeding the hot air into the intake stream... Actually, thinking about it, the intercooler (if it's a good one) would pretty much take that heat right out, so you may want to look at using coolant in some kind of a heat exchanger (water to air intercooler in "heat mode") comes to mind, or something similar, plumbed in after the intercooler. Nice thing about this set-up is that since it uses vacuum to add heat, as soon as you go 0"vacuum, it will automatically cut off and let the intercooler do its thing normally.

Wrapping a hard line around the radiator hose would be a pretty safe way to go, some of the one's I've seen/familiar with actually ran the line on the exhaust manifold! The radiator hose will help ensure temps can't get much over 200*F, though that temp might be a bit much in the end... Also be sure to use flexible hoses to and from the hard line, don't want things waving around, that'll lead to metal fatigue and a possible car-b-que...

Might shoot a PM to MPGMike for an optimum fuel pre-heat temp, too much temp might encourage varnish build up on the injector tips, a bit of Sea Foam in the tank will cure that if it becomes an issue... Check out this tread for some "everything including the kitchen sink" MPG tricks: http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?61884-X-Prize-Daytona

Mike

[shadow88]

Great link!! How did I miss that when it was current? I'm thinking fuel heater first. Possibly different injectors with different spray pattern.

I kinda remember the facotry injectors have 4 orrifi and the ones in ther now (stage 1 srt-4??) have just one. I wonder which is better?

[zin]

So long as they atomize well, and the pattern doesn't hit anything but the back of the valve (for the most part) you'll be fine. But verify the pattern, some are designed for multiple valves and split the stream to each valve. And the number of holes doesn't always indicate what's the pattern.

Mike.

PS that is a very interesting thread isn't it?

[shadow88]

Ok, so I have a few new things to report. This is turning into more of a MPG thread, but that's kinda how the car is pointing me.

I swapped to stock fuel injectors and a stock rail about 3 weeks ago and adjusted the fuel trim accordingly. To try to keep things even, I filled up the fuel tank until it spilled out, as I did on the last trip. I drove at an indicated 100 to 105 kph and when I approached a hill, I held the throttle at no less than 5 inches of vacuum.

In short, I was trying to drive conservatively and in a style that is repeatable, including fuel level. I drove to see my friend, almost entirely hyway driving, and I travelled 296kms from door to door. I took a picture of the intrument cluster for an accurate fuel level and trip odometer reading.

2 weeks ago, I made and installed a fuel heater. It's made of 5/16" fuel tubing wrapped 7 times around the upper rad hose, then to the stock rail. I filled up the gas tank until it spilled out again, drove to Kingston and attempted to the best of my abilities to reproduce the driving style of the trip I took a couple weeks before. The only difference is the fuel heater installation.

I drove until the fuel gauge read what it did on my last trip as compared by my passenger using the saved files on my camera as reference. When the fuel gauge read the same, I had travelled 45 kms further on the same amount of fuel!!! Possibly adding as much as 80-90 kms to the range of the vehicle with no other changes.

I know. I found this hard to believe as well. It's possible I was driving a little differently, but I still did some back road, very hilly driving and a little showing off what a boosted neon feels like :) All in all, I'm calling the fuel heater a success. It will restart hot with no vapour lock issues either. The difference in temperature according to my infared thermometer is as much as 50degrees F from fuel entering the cooler to leaving it at the rail.

So a quick summary.....

A/F ratios in the 18's is doable with very little load (12 inches at cruise)
Ignition advance can be as high as an indicated 60 degrees advance without a stumble.
Hot or warm fuel seems to atomize better and promote complete combustion.
And lastly, 40.3 MPG can be achieved in a 1998 neon with the right mods, a steady pedal and ideal hyway conditions and speeds.

Pics of the a/f display. It reads --- if it's leaner than 18:1 and pics of the fuel heater. YES, before anyone gets on my case, I'll re-do the clamps with the right ones!!!!

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j61/shadowt2/neon/th_IMG_2929.jpg (http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j61/shadowt2/neon/?action=view&current=IMG_2929.jpg)
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j61/shadowt2/neon/th_IMG_2958.jpg (http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j61/shadowt2/neon/?action=view&current=IMG_2958.jpg)
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j61/shadowt2/neon/th_IMG_2957.jpg (http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j61/shadowt2/neon/?action=view&current=IMG_2957.jpg)

[shadow88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhJk2JV1nw&feature=youtu.be

Now averaging 34.8 mpg mixed city / hyway. If I could get some all hyway drives in, I'm pretty sure I could get 41+mpg at 70 mph.

[cordes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhJk2JV1nw&feature=youtu.be

Now averaging 34.8 mpg mixed city / hyway. If I could get some all hyway drives in, I'm pretty sure I could get 41+mpg at 70 mph.

I'm sure. We average as consistent 37mpgs in the neon when it's running right. probably 25% city type driving. It's an auto with the .91 transfer gears.

[shadow88]

When I'm leaving traffic lights I have a difficult time keeping it out of the boost area. It's just so much fun!! I'm also probably 40% city

[cordes]

When I'm leaving traffic lights I have a difficult time keeping it out of the boost area. It's just so much fun!!

---------- Post added at 08:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------

When I'm leaving traffic lights I have a difficult time keeping it out of the boost area. It's just so much fun!! I'm also probably 40% city

Great point. We definitely don't have that problem.

[shadow88]

I lack the discipline you must have to get your numbers. Care to share any driving tips?

[cordes]

I lack the discipline you must have to get your numbers. Care to share any driving tips?

Drive a super slow car lol. Don't forget that we have NO hills around here too. We cruise at 2500RPM (a little over 65mph) on the freeway and around 2250 on the highways. We never let the car kick down into a lower gear if we can help it. We never pass anyone in a hurry.

I was really surprised when I changed that O2 sensor that the mileage shot up like it did. We got several tanks of 37mpg averages before the sensors started acting up.

[mpgmike]

For the hot air, you'll want to limit that, the best way I can think of is to use the themo-switch off of an carb'd air cleaner (the vacuum switch on the inside on the "clean" side of the air filter. It should break the vacuum to the air door feeding the hot air into the intake stream... Actually, thinking about it, the intercooler (if it's a good one) would pretty much take that heat right out, so you may want to look at using coolant in some kind of a heat exchanger (water to air intercooler in "heat mode") comes to mind, or something similar, plumbed in after the intercooler. Nice thing about this set-up is that since it uses vacuum to add heat, as soon as you go 0"vacuum, it will automatically cut off and let the intercooler do its thing normally.

I used a D-Valve so the engine could draw hot air from behind the radiator until the engine went into boost, then it would get the cool air needed to make power.


Wrapping a hard line around the radiator hose would be a pretty safe way to go, some of the one's I've seen/familiar with actually ran the line on the exhaust manifold! The radiator hose will help ensure temps can't get much over 200*F, though that temp might be a bit much in the end... Also be sure to use flexible hoses to and from the hard line, don't want things waving around, that'll lead to metal fatigue and a possible car-b-que...

Might shoot a PM to MPGMike for an optimum fuel pre-heat temp, too much temp might encourage varnish build up on the injector tips, a bit of Sea Foam in the tank will cure that if it becomes an issue... Check out this tread for some "everything including the kitchen sink" MPG tricks: http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?61884-X-Prize-Daytona

Mike
I've done the "wrap the fuel line around a radiator hose" trick before. It helps some, but not much. If you have a manual tranny car, and have a radiator with the AT cooler, run the fuel line through there. Maximum temp to heat the fuel is coolant temp. Beyond that expect component failures.

Mike

[shadow88]

I used a D-Valve so the engine could draw hot air from behind the radiator until the engine went into boost, then it would get the cool air needed to make power.

I've done the "wrap the fuel line around a radiator hose" trick before. It helps some, but not much. If you have a manual tranny car, and have a radiator with the AT cooler, run the fuel line through there. Maximum temp to heat the fuel is coolant temp. Beyond that expect component failures.

Mike

It's got a manual tranny with the manual rad. So far the fuel heater, I feel, has helped increase range by about 80 kms (50 miles) per tank. What component failures have you seen with hotter fuel? I have a friend who's looking to do this with his 1996 Ram truck 5.2L

[mpgmike]

Hot fuel can start to melt seals in the fuel injectors. If you have a return line, excessive vapors can be generated in the tank. The fuel pump itself is cooled by the fuel, so hot fuel can take its toll on the life of the pump. If running a dead-head (single fuel line) system, the pump is not affected. As far as the injectors go, they are designed to withstand hot-soak conditions, so coolant temps are engineered in.

Another tip I'd like to offer is better ignition; no, not MSD. The Pulstar Iridium spark plugs might be a boost for you. If you have a few bucks to spend, I strongly recommend the Aqua Pulser system as the ultimate. To get a better idea of what the Aqua Pulser is capable of doing for you, Do a little searching on Firestorm Plugs by Bob Krupa. Bob ran a '96 T-Bird 4.6 V-8 on the dyno and was able to lean out the AFR to an amazing 30:1 AND PICKED UP AN ADDITIONAL 125 hp ON THE DYNO AT 30:1 afr AT WOT!!! Firestorms are not available, but the Aqua Pulser is.

Mike

[turbovanman²]

Hot fuel can start to melt seals in the fuel injectors. If you have a return line, excessive vapors can be generated in the tank. The fuel pump itself is cooled by the fuel, so hot fuel can take its toll on the life of the pump. If running a dead-head (single fuel line) system, the pump is not affected. As far as the injectors go, they are designed to withstand hot-soak conditions, so coolant temps are engineered in.

Another tip I'd like to offer is better ignition; no, not MSD. The Pulstar Iridium spark plugs might be a boost for you. If you have a few bucks to spend, I strongly recommend the Aqua Pulser system as the ultimate. To get a better idea of what the Aqua Pulser is capable of doing for you, Do a little searching on Firestorm Plugs by Bob Krupa. Bob ran a '96 T-Bird 4.6 V-8 on the dyno and was able to lean out the AFR to an amazing 30:1 AND PICKED UP AN ADDITIONAL 125 hp ON THE DYNO AT 30:1 afr AT WOT!!! Firestorms are not available, but the Aqua Pulser is.

Mike

How would these 2 work on a turbo van? I am trying to up my MPG, its awful.

Bob's plugs are wild, what happened to him and those plugs? If its true, they should be on every car/truck made.

http://www.esmhome.org/library/robert-krupa/firestorm.wmv

[mpgmike]

Don't use the Pulstars with the Aqua Pulser, tried that. If using Pulstars, you won't need an ignition booster. If using the Aqua Pulser, they require solid core wires and non-resistor plugs. NGK has an excellent selection of plugs, and Granatelli wires (http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/pages/Ignition_Products.html) offer solid core wires that play nice with ECUs. I have Aqua Pulser on the X-Prize Sonata, and may put it on an '03 Accord I'm currently working on. I have Pulstar Iridiums in there now.

Mike

[turbovanman²]

I found the Pulstars, not bad at $13 shipped but can't find the info on the Aqua Pulser system, website not available.

---------- Post added at 11:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

Found this link to make your own Firestorm plugs, might have to look into that.

http://www.esmhome.org/library/robert-krupa/howtomakeplasmaplugs.pdf

[contraption22]

Seriously? $13 for a spark plug?

[turbovanman²]

Seriously? $13 for a spark plug?

Lifetime warranty, lol.

That's not bad, some OEM plugs are $20 each.

[contraption22]

Lifetime warranty, lol.

That's not bad, some OEM plugs are $20 each.

Not for our applications. I suppose it would be worth it if they deliver what they promise, but I am a skeptic of pretty much all magic spark plugs.

[turbovanman²]

Not for our applications. I suppose it would be worth it if they deliver what they promise, but I am a skeptic of pretty much all magic spark plugs.

Money back guarantee also. :eyebrows:

[mpgmike]

Years ago Pulstar made copper core plugs. When they introduced the new Platinum (don't waste your money on the Platinums) and Iridiums (the only way to go!), they replaced your old copper core plugs with Iridiums FOR FREE! In fact, I have a stash of the BE1i plugs (for our 2.2s) simply by trading in all of my old copper core versions. In other words, the company is top-of-the-line, they more than stand behind their products. In my experience, you can buy with confidence. If you don't like them, they will honor their satisfaction guarantee.

As for Aqua Pulser, I tried to log on to their site and it was "temporarily unavailable". Guess I'll have to call Arvind to see what's up.

Mike

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

Gave him a call & got his voice mail. Hope everything's OK.

Mike

[shadow88]

Another update.
About 3 weeks ago the neon suffered a catastrophic transmaission failure due to owner abuse :) Hey, I like my tire smoke :nod:

I scrambled for a new 5 speed and ended up with a 3.94 ratio trans, and the hyway rpms went up about 400 prms at around 65 mph.

So here's the surprising thing.... I thought my mpgs would drop a little with the rpm increase, but as Cordes mentioned and I confirmed a while back, ignition advance will play a larger role in fuel economy than leaner mixtures. This is what seems to have happened..... The rpms increased, and brought the engine into it's "natural" torque range so it produces more vacuum during cruise conditions. The higher vacuum conditions can handle more advance than the higher load, but lower rpm ignition advance. This along with my aggressive ignition advance table actually helped fuel economy very slightly.

So here's the going guess.... Higher rpm (to a point) help fuel economy, but lugging an engine and not being able to benefit from an agressive ignition advance is almost equal in fuel savings.

I saw MPGMike's mention of ignition system upgrade, but I see no reason to change my factory stock champions. Ignition systems are one of those things that I have a hard time spending money of aftermarket systems. Still, the way I see it is that the factory will but more R+D into the ignition system because it alone can increase fuel economy, lower emissions, and increase power. IF there was somethign available that helped in those areas, any and every manufacturer would be all over it and use it in OE applications.

[mpgmike]

As a matter of fact the OEM's ARE starting to use PDI. Look at many of the new COP designs and you will see that they have 4 wires. It only takes 2 wires to fire the coil. What are the other 2 wires for? Ionic feedback. For that to work, a relatively high voltage (80 to 120 volts) is sent to the business end of the spark plug (center electrode). The ionic activity in the combustion chamber from the burning fuel conducts electrical current, which is monitored by the ECU. Early versions were used primarily to monitor engine misfires. Newer versions are more proactive, determining optimal spark timing and AFRs (especially with direct injection).

Aqua Pulser simply makes PDI available for older engines. BTW, the Aqua Pulser site is back up. Arvind didn't even know it was down until I told him.

Mike

[wallace]

On the GM coils the other 2 wires are ttl control for the coil. The dwell is done at the coil not at the ecu.

[mpgmike]

At any rate, here are a couple URLs if you're interested in learning more:

http://www.aces.edu/~parmega/efi/temp/DIY-Ion-Sensing.pdf

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&ved=0CF4QFjAEOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2 Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.140.8040%26rep%3Drep1%26t ype%3Dpdf&ei=2d5eUcenN7ji4AO81ICQBg&usg=AFQjCNFfbuVXt6kByTp_aLkiR4y3ly351Q&sig2=ji8s_3lSY5Y9Ggp0l1_CvQ (http://www.aces.edu/~parmega/efi/temp/DIY-Ion-Sensing.pdfhttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&ved=0CF4QFjAEOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2 Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.140.8040%26rep%3Drep1%26t ype%3Dpdf&ei=2d5eUcenN7ji4AO81ICQBg&usg=AFQjCNFfbuVXt6kByTp_aLkiR4y3ly351Q&sig2=ji8s_3lSY5Y9Ggp0l1_CvQhttp://www.freepatentsonline.com/8397695.htmlhttp://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2004/0084036.htmlThat)

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8397695.html

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2004/0084036.html

That ought to get you started.

Mike