My internal combustion engine is more efficent than 30%

[smokingwheels]

I have an spark ignited 4 cylinder 2000 cc engine in a wagon and I think its 50% thermally efficient at idle due to the mods I have done on the intake manifold.

My engine uses (mesured on video) roughly 9.807 cc/min at approx 750 rpm and the only reference I have come across is a similar engine uses 5kw of fuel just to idle which works out at 29.55 cc/min of fuel.

Is 5kw for idle a good guess?

I have the video of the idle test on youtube, if anybody is interested I will post the links.
so I did the percentage 29.55 - 9.807= 19.743 then (19.743/29.55)*100= 66.8% then assuming an engine is 30% efficent 30*.668= 20.04 then 20.04% +30% = 50.04% is it ok to add the thermal efficency on to the original number?

If not how would I work it out the thermal efficiency at idle?

Another thing my city consumption is 58% better about 7l/100km and my hwy consumption is approx 34% better at approx 7l/100km my engine seems to work better under light loads.
Its very strange to have hwy and city nearly the same that is pushing a law of physics.

Another thing my engines idle increases by 9.33% when the temp goes from 160 deg f to about 200 deg f the above tests where done with a 160 deg thermostat, I now have a 195 deg F thermostat and I will fit it soon and retest my engine to see if I get a 9.33% increase.

My first real test of my engine in 2005 was 340km to approx 14 L of fuel at 80km/h with a 190 or 195 deg F thermostat this is nearly 100% more efficent but it was running very close to knocking most of the way, since then some one has sliped silicon in my engine and damaged it so its not as good as it used to be.

<< link to commercial whereis website removed by berkeman >>

 

[jambaugh]

An idling engine is 0% efficient. With no load there is no conversion of heat to mechanical energy.

If you wish to measure efficiency accurately you'll need to hook the engine up to a controlled load so you can measure the work done per fuel energy used.

At idle all the mechanical work is lost to engine friction. You can't extrapolate from similar engines because the friction could vary significantly. Little things like oil type, temperature, rings, whether you broke in the engine properly or not, and simple variations in manufacturing tolerances may dramatically change the engine friction.

I suggest you link your engine to a generator and use that to power something like a heating element or bank of lights to produce a controlled load. You can then either measure the electrical power output or measure the torque and rotation speed to calculate power (work per unit time). Then work out(load)/energy in (fuel) is the efficiency.

 

[mender]

The stock 3.4 litre engine in my minivan uses 16.7 cc per minute. That works out to 4.9 cc per litre of engine displacement, which is exactly the same as yours. Sorry.

 

[smokingwheels]

The stock 3.4 litre engine in my minivan uses 16.7 cc per minute. That works out to 4.9 cc per litre of engine displacement, which is exactly the same as yours. Sorry.

Ok so how did you measure it I am interested?
Is it an EFI or carby?
My city cycle is approx 58% better and I have a tacho graph see below.

 

[mender]

EFI with a fuel consumption readout. It takes six minutes of idling to use .1 litre (100 ml).

The reason that city fuel economy is usually worse than highway is that it involves traffic. Most cars will get very good fuel economy at a steady 60 kph, often better than at 100 kph.

What mods did you make? And 58% better than what?

 

[xxChrisxx]

I can gaurantee you that you've not increased your thermal efficiency to over 50% purely by arsing around with the inlet geometry.

The fact is you've openly guessed at the vast majority of your numbers. The sheer amount of error involved with 'guesstimating' everything can lead to so very funny results/conclusions.

You'll need to accurately measure a heck of a lot more to get a better idea as to what you are using, and therefore the real efficiency.Even using your numbers you get a very odd answer, shoing that they are most likely wrong.

Thermal efficiency = total energy available from fuel / total energy output.

Output: 5kW for 1 minute = 300kJ energy.
Input: Assuming standard petrol contains 34.8 MJ/l
You used about 10cc of fuel in a minute. 0.01 * 34.8 = .348 MJ energy = 348 kJ.

So your indicated thermal efficiency is 300/348 = 86%. Which is clearly wrong.

 

[Ranger Mike]

Metrology is the science of measurement
Measurement is the language of Science
learn how to measure

 

[mender]

... by arsing around with the inlet geometry.

I suspect the mod has more to do with inlet temperature.

 

[smokingwheels]

EFI with a fuel consumption readout. It takes six minutes of idling to use .1 litre (100 ml).

The reason that city fuel economy is usually worse than highway is that it involves traffic. Most cars will get very good fuel economy at a steady 60 kph, often better than at 100 kph.

What mods did you make? And 58% better than what?

ok so the .1 L is what the computer is saying. What is the resolution on the computer?

The mods I made are like a golf ball surface that simple.

58% better than some one who has owned one from yahoo answers see http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100220205012AAUkG6f"

The city test was done driving arround the block 12 times and at speeds of 50 60 70 km/h see post with graph.
Some rough stats from the data based on engine rpm, crusing 82.61%, idle 7.41% rpm above 2440 rpm 9.94%.
I also calculated when the acceleration rate exceeded a threshold eg when in lower gears accelerating the figure is 19.49% of the time the engine was running during the test.

 

[smokingwheels]

I can gaurantee you that you've not increased your thermal efficiency to over 50% purely by arsing around with the inlet geometry.

The fact is you've openly guessed at the vast majority of your numbers. The sheer amount of error involved with 'guesstimating' everything can lead to so very funny results/conclusions.

You'll need to accurately measure a heck of a lot more to get a better idea as to what you are using, and therefore the real efficiency.


Even using your numbers you get a very odd answer, shoing that they are most likely wrong.

Thermal efficiency = total energy available from fuel / total energy output.

Output: 5kW for 1 minute = 300kJ energy.
Input: Assuming standard petrol contains 34.8 MJ/l
You used about 10cc of fuel in a minute. 0.01 * 34.8 = .348 MJ energy = 348 kJ.

So your indicated thermal efficiency is 300/348 = 86%. Which is clearly wrong.

Yes for guessing I am using what wally said on a forum that a 30% efficient engine similar to mine uses 5kw of fuel just to idle he calulated it he wrote
http://www.carforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23881&hl=smokingwheels"

fuel = 34.656 Mj/litre
specific weight majority of cases = 0.72 (can go as high as 0.79 and as low as 0.71)
engine efficiency 30% = 69mg/kW (0.09858cc/kw) = 5.91cc/kw/min
0.868 l/s air /kW at stoich 14.7

Thus 5kw=29.55 cc/min at idle.
I do not know how accurate the 5 kw is I have no idear.

Increased thermal efficency, then why is my city and hwy consumptions very similar?
see tacho graph on other post.

I know I need to accurately measure all sorts of things but I am on a pension and do not have any money left to spent on it.

Another thing is my idle speed increases by 9.33% when going from 160 deg f to above 200 deg f, How normal is that?

Another thing I could do is hire a video camera and record my city test curcuit then host on youtube.

And I could just add that this is my second prototype my first one used to knock when the timing was fired 4-5 deg before top dead center above 3000 rpm with no load, I ended up destroying it before I could fix the timing problem later on I threw it out.

 

[russ_watters]

Fuel economy isn't easy to measure consistently due to the amount of driving you have to do to get accurate measurements. In any case, 7l/100km is good but not terribly exciting. I drive a 2.4L Mazda 6i and get about that under good conditions.

The city test was done driving arround the block 12 times and at speeds of 50 60 70 km/h see post with graph.

That doesn't sound much like city driving to me - how often did you come to a complete stop?

 

[smokingwheels]

Fuel economy isn't easy to measure consistently due to the amount of driving you have to do to get accurate measurements. In any case, 7l/100km is good but not terribly exciting. I drive a 2.4L Mazda 6i and get about that under good conditions.

But you have to compair eggs with eggs.
I have a 1984 nissan bluebird wagon with a carby with a 2 point vacumme advance. I can only speculate that if I had an modern EFI engine I might me another 20% to 30% better off if the load map was correct and having fuel injectors.

For the city test that I did, I drove arround the block 12 times, 6 laps turning right and 6 laps turning left so I would cop the stop signs on 1/2 the journey and doing 67 km in one go.

Acording to my tacho graph my engine was idleing for 7.41% of the time I think this is a bit low but I can not find a standard anywhere to test my car against eg the amount of idle time I think it should be neer 15%, that's easy to derate my figures
the test ran for 91 min and I am short 7.59% so say 7 min at 10 cc/min I used 4.76 L in 91min +70cc any way about 7.184 l/100km

 

[mender]

And I could just add that this is my second prototype my first one used to knock when the timing was fired 4-5 deg before top dead center above 3000 rpm with no load, I ended up destroying it before I could fix the timing problem later on I threw it out.

There is no way it should have been knocking with that little timing at 3000 rpm and no load.

 

[smokingwheels]

There is no way it should have been knocking with that little timing at 3000 rpm and no load.

It was knocking and the spark plugs would only last 3-4 days
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnwJuNbvULY" for a look at my plugs back in 2002.

This is the timing of my first engine http://ampair.tripod.com/Graph/My_first_engine.html"
The 1st and 2nd graphs would stop my engine knocking but the power level was low.
The 3rd and 4th are when I lowered the compression ratio to 8:1.My second engine timing plots at http://ampair.tripod.com/Graph/My_second_engine.html"
note notice how there is no bend at 3000 rpm.
Over time my timing base line seems to go lower.
I think its due to carbon build up.
Just for the record my current timing base line is as follows
750 rpm 1.18 deg BTDC
2000 5.74
4000 13.03
6000 30.32
10000 35

Also I have a normal laptop computer running Microsoft's Quick Basic v4.5 controling my spark timing eg running in realtime.

 

[brewnog]

Dear me, this is pretty shocking. What is engine speed supposed to show you anyway?

To compare fuel consumption with different engine setups, you really have to do tests on a dynamometer to hold all possible test conditions constant. I really don't believe that meaningful conclusions can be drawn with the test methodology currently in use.

 

[smokingwheels]

Dear me, this is pretty shocking. What is engine speed supposed to show you anyway?

To compare fuel consumption with different engine setups, you really have to do tests on a dynamometer to hold all possible test conditions constant. I really don't believe that meaningful conclusions can be drawn with the test methodology currently in use.

The big problem is I do not have any money to spend on testing it, so I can only do what I can and report my results.
When my engine was undamaged in 2005 we did a trip of 340 km on a flat road in the country crusing very carefully at 80 km/h in overdrive with the engine slightly knocking under acceleration and used approx 14 L of fuel that's 4.11 L/100km, but since then I have had silicon put in my engine and damaged the cam and crank also I have a very low temp thermostat as well and I do not push my engine into the knocking zone anymore.
I used the low temp thermostat because the timing drifts greatly with temp, soon I will be fitting a high temp thermostat again and run some more tests.

 

[brewnog]

I fully understand why you're not doing controlled condition tests, but let me put it like this:

My job is all about developing engines, and fuel consumption is an increasingly important parameter. I'd never even dream of wasting money trying to do this in a vehicle, because the variability in SFC which can be attributed to uncontrollable factors (humidity, operator mood, wear, traffic, ambient temperature to name a few) far outweighs any change in fuel consumption that I would reasonably foresee in making the kinds of modifications I would make. That's all assuming the engine is a constant; you're talking about knock, damage, and several years between tests. Your methodology simply cannot yield valid results, I'm sorry.

So, I understand (ish!) what you're trying to do and why you're trying to do it, but I hold no faith in your test methodology. You said it yourself - you have to compare apples with apples and it's impossible to do this by road testing.

More crucially, I'm not sure what your 'idle' experiments are trying to show; the fuel used at idle balances the FMEP and pumping losses. Volumetric efficiency (which is presumably what you're trying to improve) makes bugger all difference at idle, because the air flow is so low; and even less in a spark ignition engine because your flow is intentionally throttled anyway!

We're not here to piss on your chips, we're here to help, but what you're doing is flawed and we'd rather see you learn a bit about conducting a proper experiment than waste time and fuel on your current methodology.

 

[smokingwheels]

I can guarantee you that you've not increased your thermal efficiency to over 50% purely by arsing around with the inlet geometry.

The fact is you've openly guessed at the vast majority of your numbers. The sheer amount of error involved with 'guesstimating' everything can lead to so very funny results/conclusions.

You'll need to accurately measure a heck of a lot more to get a better idea as to what you are using, and therefore the real efficiency.


Even using your numbers you get a very odd answer, showing that they are most likely wrong.

Thermal efficiency = total energy available from fuel / total energy output.

Output: 5kW for 1 minute = 300kJ energy.
Input: Assuming standard petrol contains 34.8 MJ/l
You used about 10cc of fuel in a minute. 0.01 * 34.8 = .348 MJ energy = 348 kJ.

So your indicated thermal efficiency is 300/348 = 86%. Which is clearly wrong.

Ok 1 problem its 5 HP not kw so I redid the numbers, If you want the links to my evidence please let me know and I will post them.

Output: 5 HP = 3.7284kw for 1 min = 223 kj energy
Input: My best is 10cc of fuel/min 0.01 * 34.8 =.348 MJ = 348 kj

So my indicated thermal efficiency is 223 / 348 = 64%
I have it on video on youtube

I did a 40 min test and measure in 2008 and the average was 13.66 cc/min

Output: 5 HP = 3.7284kw for 1 min = 223 kj energy
Input: my average 13.66 cc of fuel/min 0.01366 * 34.8 =.475 MJ = 475 kj

So my indicated thermal efficiency is 223 / 475 = 49%

I did a more recent test and used approx 15 cc/min

Output: 5 HP = 3.7284kw for 1 min = 223 kj energy
Input: my best is 15 cc of fuel/min 0.015 * 34.8 =.522 MJ = 522 kj

So my indicated thermal efficiency is 223 / 522 = 42%

so its dropped off a bit when I have some money to spare I will rip it apart and look at what's gone on

Note: I used 5 HP not 5kw because that's what is quoted around the traps for a 2L 4 cylinder engine.
I have even been quoted 30cc/min just to idle as well for a normal 4 cylinder but my program puts that down to 20 cc/min for 5 HP.

Thanks for your time Chriss

 

[russ_watters]

A guess is still just a guess.

 

[smokingwheels]

Fuel economy isn't easy to measure consistently due to the amount of driving you have to do to get accurate measurements. In any case, 7l/100km is good but not terribly exciting. I drive a 2.4L Mazda 6i and get about that under good conditions. That doesn't sound much like city driving to me - how often did you come to a complete stop?

I came to a complete stop roughly 28 times the data log is a bit coarse

 

[smokingwheels]

There is no way it should have been knocking with that little timing at 3000 rpm and no load.

Well the spark plugs would last 3-4 days before shorting out and my compression ratio was approx 12.5:1 see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnwJuNbvULY"

I have approx timing graphs plotted back in 2002 and I still have the programs I wrote to control the timing.
http://ampair.tripod.com/Graph/My_first_engine.html"

1. This is the result of my first program a 4 ms delay there was no power from my engine.

2. After a few nights work lowering the delay no knocking sound from engine.

3. This is a later program after I lowered the compression to 8:1 Look at where the advance peaks its about 1500 rpm then it goes negative this is not normal unless you have a large super charger feeding the engine.

4. After a while I got the feel for the timing the blue line is a guess below 3000 RPM because the mechanical advance was fine until 3000 rpm under load I have no idea what the timing should be of my first engine well if its anything like my second engine its about 20 degrees retard with full load but it was knocking at no load so I would have to find than figure out one day when I want to end the life of my engine to get some idea of what it should of been. I do agree it would be very different to find the timing because the piston is moving away eg the space is getting bigger instead of surviving getting smaller.

 

[smokingwheels]

I fully understand why you're not doing controlled condition tests.

We're not here to piss on your chips, we're here to help, but what you're doing is flawed and we'd rather see you learn a bit about conducting a proper experiment than waste time and fuel on your current methodology.

Ok, how much would you pay me to build another engine the knocks above 3000 rpm with 3-4 deg of advance?
If you check my timing line in my second engine on my forum http://203.161.71.130/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23" you will notice is a 1 dementioned
line unlike a modern engine which is 2 and if I heat my engine up a little it needs to be 4 deg lower at low rpm.

What money I do have usually goes on food and bills so its hard for me to do anything the proper way.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I really can't remember this thread, at work so can't really spend time reading through it.

Why are you testing something at idle anyway? Seems like a useless test to me, it's not indicitave of the engine running with an open throttle or at above idle. If you that worried about fuel use at idle (which let's face it is a tiny amount of time as a percentage of engine usage) turn the key. Then you use no fuel.

There also appears to be no aim or logical progression to the testing. What are you trying to do excatly?

 

[brewnog]

I'm not going to pay you to do anything.

People pay ME to develop engines for them, not the other way round.

 

[JaredJames]

If you check my timing line in my second engine on my forum http://203.161.71.130/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23" you will notice is a 1 dementioned line unlike a modern engine which is 2 and if I heat my engine up a little it needs to be 4 deg lower at low rpm.

Your forum looks to be your own personal computer? You might want to be careful dishing that out.

I note you're also the only contributor. So it's not so much a forum, more a place for you to jot down your thoughts.

Shifting focus there from here does nothing to back up your solution. You've been given answers in this thread and guidance as to what you should do next. There's really no more anyone can do for you.

 

[smokingwheels]

I really can't remember this thread, at work so can't really spend time reading through it.

Why are you testing something at idle anyway? Seems like a useless test to me, it's not indicative of the engine running with an open throttle or at above idle. If you that worried about fuel use at idle (which let's face it is a tiny amount of time as a percentage of engine usage) turn the key. Then you use no fuel.

There also appears to be no aim or logical progression to the testing. What are you trying to do exactly?

I can only video my fuel consumption test at idle and maybe higher rpms, I have done road tests also with greatly improved results but I do not have a comparison engine, that was left behind at my last girlfriends place because the police insisted on a court order for me to get my stuff from her place.
I have worked out something from a drive around the block.
I used an average of 42 cc/min of fuel and my average rpm was 1719.

From that data my engine and a normal engine software I worked out this.
My engine uses 7.8 kw of fuel 42 cc/min to run at 1719 rpm eg normal city loads for 99.5 min
Thus VE% of my engine is 25% How does that compare?


Yes I am not very logical its been said I have the splatter gun approach but I'm learning.

 

[JaredJames]

What are you using to read fuel use? I hope it's not the cars fuel gauge.

 

[smokingwheels]

Your forum looks to be your own personal computer? You might want to be careful dishing that out.

I note you're also the only contributor. So it's not so much a forum, more a place for you to jot down your thoughts.

Shifting focus there from here does nothing to back up your solution. You've been given answers in this thread and guidance as to what you should do next. There's really no more anyone can do for you.

My pc is ok thanks. Yes I am the only one with such an engine so that kinda makes me authoritative on the subject, My first engine really messed my life around I destroyed it before I could fix it.

I have 2 questions.
Forget about current design

1. How would you calculate the maximum compression ratio for an engine if the combustion process was 88% efficient eg reduced leftover heat from the previous cycle and firing At Top Dead center or below?

Variables, known things
Self ignition temperature of fuel
Temperature rise to to compression of gas
Temperature of chamber that compresses gas
Temperature of inlet charge
Temperature of coolant 88 deg C
space fuel takes up in compressed gas
compression ratio 12.5:1 shorts out plugs with carbon in 3-4 days with heavy knocking(well it killed good crankshaft in 3 weeks)
normal cyclic pumping losses reduced by 50%

answer: Compression ratio 12.5:1 not high enough

2. How to calculate the engine efficiency if you could fire the spark 0 deg 5 deg 10 deg After Top Dead Center and still make peak combustion pressure by 18-19 deg in power stroke?

Variables, known things
You would start to reduce and return lost energy from the crankshaft like a spring
Efficiency decreases with advance timing, data from my current engine

answer: would have to build such a beast again

 

[JaredJames]

Yes I am the only one with such an engine so that kinda makes me authoritative on the subject,

Just note that "authoritative" does not mean "right".

In this particular case it simply means you're the only person with a knowledge of it, right or wrong.

 

[mender]

My pc is ok thanks. Yes I am the only one with such an engine so that kinda makes me authoritative on the subject, My first engine really messed my life around I destroyed it before I could fix it.

I have 2 questions.
Forget about current design

1. How would you calculate the maximum compression ratio for an engine if the combustion process was 88% efficient eg reduced leftover heat from the previous cycle and firing At Top Dead center or below?

Variables, known things
Self ignition temperature of fuel
Temperature rise to to compression of gas
Temperature of chamber that compresses gas
Temperature of inlet charge
Temperature of coolant 88 deg C
space fuel takes up in compressed gas
compression ratio 12.5:1 shorts out plugs with carbon in 3-4 days with heavy knocking(well it killed good crankshaft in 3 weeks) Of course it does; stop doing this and your engine will thank you!
normal cyclic pumping losses reduced by 50%

answer: Compression ratio 12.5:1 is too high

2. How to calculate the engine efficiency if you could fire the spark 0 deg 5 deg 10 deg After Top Dead Center and still make peak combustion pressure by 18-19 deg in power stroke?
The ideal is about 11 degrees after TDC. The spark has to occur before TDC to accomplish that. The small amount of negative work from the advanced timing is more than made up for by the increase in net cylinder pressure. That means that the engine efficiency will increase.

Variables, known things
You would start to reduce and return lost energy from the crankshaft like a spring
Efficiency decreases with advance timing, data from my current engine
(if true this tells you that you're doing things wrong!)

answer: would have to build such a beast again

Better answer: stop expecting that engine to survive. It won't.

Let me save you a lot of time and money: your concept is not going to succeed. You're chasing a dead end, and your methodology won't allow you to see that.

 

[smokingwheels]

What are you using to read fuel use? I hope it's not the cars fuel gauge.

No the fuel gauge only has a resolution on about 2.5 L.

I park my car wait about 1 min then fill it up to the top of the filler pipe, parking as close as I can to the same spot on the service station driveway.

 

[smokingwheels]

Better answer: stop expecting that engine to survive. It won't.

Let me save you a lot of time and money: your concept is not going to succeed. You're chasing a dead end, and your methodology won't allow you to see that.

Ok if a compression ratio of 12.5:1 is too high then my spark plugs should destroy themselves from overheating and probably melt pistons too but I had carbon build up.

See my video for what happened to my plugs and my carby was running fine. I killed the bearings and crankshaft in about 2-3 weeks due to the timing needed above 3000 RPM, I ended up using 20" and 30" bearings on the conrods, I then lowered the compression and drove it for another 7-8 months before it died.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnwJuNbvULY"

"survive" it would be a lot better if some one had not put silicon in the engine oil.

 

[smokingwheels]

Ok 1 problem its 5 HP not kw so I redid the numbers, If you want the links to my evidence please let me know and I will post them.

Output: 5 HP = 3.7284kw for 1 min = 223 kj energy
Input: My best is 10cc of fuel/min 0.01 * 34.8 =.348 MJ = 348 kj

So my indicated thermal efficiency is 223 / 348 = 64%
I have it on video on youtube

I did a 40 min test and measure in 2008 and the average was 13.66 cc/min

Output: 5 HP = 3.7284kw for 1 min = 223 kj energy
Input: my average 13.66 cc of fuel/min 0.01366 * 34.8 =.475 MJ = 475 kj

So my indicated thermal efficiency is 223 / 475 = 49%

I did a more recent test and used approx 15 cc/min

Output: 5 HP = 3.7284kw for 1 min = 223 kj energy
Input: my best is 15 cc of fuel/min 0.015 * 34.8 =.522 MJ = 522 kj

So my indicated thermal efficiency is 223 / 522 = 42%

so its dropped off a bit when I have some money to spare I will rip it apart and look at what's gone on

Note: I used 5 HP not 5kw because that's what is quoted around the traps for a 2L 4 cylinder engine.
I have even been quoted 30cc/min just to idle as well for a normal 4 cylinder but my program puts that down to 20 cc/min for 5 HP.

Thanks for your time Chriss

In the above calculations the 10cc/min was at 650 rpm and the 13.66 cc/min was 830-850 rpm.
The corrected (guessed within 5% of full scale ) fuel consumption for 750 rpm is 11.5 cc/min

So I think I did 340 km on 14L one night when engine was in good condition.

14L used, 340km distance, 80 km/h speed and approx 2200 RPM
4.25 hours * 60 = 225 min
14L / 285 min = 62.22 cc/min
engine used 11.4 kw of fuel to go at 80km/h

Plug fuel consumption into turbocalc = Engine VE%@80 km/h = 28.5%
How much is this different to a normal car with a 2L engine and 1120kg dry mass?
Can you work out engine efficiency from this or not?
Remember I have old technology eg carby

 

[mender]

Ok if a compression ratio of 12.5:1 is too high then my spark plugs should destroy themselves from overheating and probably melt pistons too but I had carbon build up.

See my video for what happened to my plugs and my carby was running fine. I killed the bearings and crankshaft in about 2-3 weeks due to the timing needed above 3000 RPM, I ended up using 20" and 30" bearings on the conrods, I then lowered the compression and drove it for another 7-8 months before it died.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnwJuNbvULY"

"survive" it would be a lot better if some one had not put silicon in the engine oil.

How much oil was the engine burning at the time? I doubt the carbon on the plugs was from an overly rich mixture, agreed?

Knocking the bearings out is a sure sign of detonation, which is going to happen if you try to run high compression with low octane fuel; no surprise there.

Silicon?

 

[mender]

Plug fuel consumption into turbocalc = Engine VE%@80 km/h = 28.5%

What version of Turbocalc are you using?

 

[smokingwheels]

What version of Turbocalc are you using?

Version 2.2

 

[smokingwheels]

How much oil was the engine burning at the time? I doubt the carbon on the plugs was from an overly rich mixture, agreed?

Knocking the bearings out is a sure sign of detonation, which is going to happen if you try to run high compression with low octane fuel; no surprise there.

Silicon?

The engine had no visible smoke from exhaust.
Yes the mixture was ok eg definably no black smoke or chugging from exhaust.

Silicon. my 2nd engine has had silicon put in it I had to remove the head to unblock the oil passage so that the cam could get oil again but it also damaged the bearings.
The plug of silicon was about 25mm long.

 

[mender]

Version 2.2

I have Version 2.3; where are you plugging in the numbers?

 

[mender]

The engine had no visible smoke from exhaust.
Yes the mixture was ok eg definably no black smoke or chugging from exhaust.

Silicon. my 2nd engine has had silicon put in it I had to remove the head to unblock the oil passage so that the cam could get oil again but it also damaged the bearings.
The plug of silicon was about 25mm long.

Silicone, as in RTV, not the metal silicon, right?

If there was no oil burning, then the carbon buildup is from incomplete combustion, i.e. not all the carbon atoms are combining with oxygen to form CO2 or even CO. You're wasting fuel energy, likely by having such late ignition timing to compensate for the excessive compression.

You'd be better off reducing the compression ratio and concentrating on increasing turbulence (swirl, quench, etc.) to get a better burn and make the engine less sensitive to detonation and plug fouling. You're concentrating too much on the expansion part of the cycle and giving up combustion efficiency - and damaging your engine. Also it appears that you consider ignition timing before TDC as evil; some will always be needed to get the mixture to burn and produce peak pressure at the right time but that can be reduced by increasing the burn rate (i.e. turbulence as mentioned).

 

[mender]

How much is this different to a normal car with a 2L engine and 1120kg dry mass?
Can you work out engine efficiency from this or not?

I know you have limited resources but to get some usable accuracy you should find some way of calculating the hp needed by your car at your test speed. You'll also need to keep good records of the weather conditions; a small change in wind direction and speed during a test will invalidate that test by skewing your readings. Otherwise you're only guessing.

How important is this to you?

 

[smokingwheels]

I have Version 2.3; where are you plugging in the numbers?

Go to the EFI section put in the kw then number of injectors 1 then mixture 14.7
Adjust the kw until you have matched you measured fuel flow.
Write down the kw then go to the turbo power enter engine config.
Set Boost pressure to 0 and Compressor efficiency to 2(has to be bigger than 0 or program error), turn off intercooler.
Now calculate engine and adjust VE% until you have the correct kw you found in the EFI section.
I have measured 2 fuel flows at different rpm eg 650 and 850 and its about 5% low but that probably because I changed the rpm without increasing VE%, this figure would have to increase with rpm to allow more air/fuel into the engine the error could also be my carby is running 5% rich.

Just had a coffee...
Once you know VE% you can then workout your change in rpm = kw then put kw into EFI and it will give you the fuel required cc/min from that eg .56kw = 3cc/min / 200 rpm= 0.015 cc/min per rpm for engine overhead. I would have to measure mine at several higher rpm points and see if it works out but for now its good enough.
The starter motor is rated at 1kw and drives 300 to 400 rpm on the engine, I would have to test and log the peak speed of the engine cranking with no spark to confirm that though but that is something I can do.

 

[smokingwheels]

I know you have limited resources but to get some usable accuracy you should find some way of calculating the hp needed by your car at your test speed. You'll also need to keep good records of the weather conditions; a small change in wind direction and speed during a test will invalidate that test by skewing your readings. Otherwise you're only guessing.

How important is this to you?

Thanks for the advise I am getting better since I found the http://www.weatherzone.com.au/"

My project is very important because my first engine would have been needed to be fired After Top Dead Center under load.
Here is a plot of my engine after I lowered the compression to ~8:1 from 12.5:1.
You will notice that the peak timing is reached by 1500 rpm which is normally 3000 rpm for my type of engine. After 1500 rpm the timing takes a dive back to ~20 deg BTDC this normally is about 2-3 deg up to the red line rpm. The values were tuned 1 step at a time over the rpm range so that most of them didn't knock, I did not understand much about tuning in 2003 because later on I found you got more grunt if you backed the timing off a little more and my programs had improved as well.

 

[JaredJames]

Thanks for the advise I am getting better since I found the http://www.weatherzone.com.au/"

My project is very important because my first engine would have been needed to be fired After Top Dead Center under load.
Here is a plot of my engine after I lowered the compression to ~8:1 from 12.5:1.
You will notice that the peak timing is reached by 1500 rpm which is normally 3000 rpm for my type of engine. After 1500 rpm the timing takes a dive back to ~20 deg BTDC this normally is about 2-3 deg up to the red line rpm. The values were tuned 1 step at a time over the rpm range so that most of them didn't knock, I did not understand much about tuning in 2003 because later on I found you got more grunt if you backed the timing off a little more and my programs had improved as well.

Are these actual measured values or approximations you've generated?

 

[smokingwheels]

Silicone, as in RTV, not the metal silicon, right?

If there was no oil burning, then the carbon buildup is from incomplete combustion, i.e. not all the carbon atoms are combining with oxygen to form CO2 or even CO. You're wasting fuel energy, likely by having such late ignition timing to compensate for the excessive compression.

You'd be better off reducing the compression ratio and concentrating on increasing turbulence (swirl, quench, etc.) to get a better burn and make the engine less sensitive to detonation and plug fouling. You're concentrating too much on the expansion part of the cycle and giving up combustion efficiency - and damaging your engine. Also it appears that you consider ignition timing before TDC as evil; some will always be needed to get the mixture to burn and produce peak pressure at the right time but that can be reduced by increasing the burn rate (i.e. turbulence as mentioned).

Yes Black RTV was found...

In my first engine it had 2 compression ratios 12.5:1 and 8:1.
I had plenty of power with the high compression engine but the spark plugs only lasted 3-4 days before shorting out with carbon.
In the low compression engine I was still replacing spark plugs every 2 months and it was on the edge of knock in certain rpm ranges but the correct Vacuum advance was not discovered until 2006.
I wonder how retarded you would have to run an engine to knock the plugs out in 150-200 km, I bet you would not be able to create wheel spin when turning a corner either.

I personally think turbulence is the wrong way to go we are dealing with an analog device.
I think turbulence=distortion.

What I have done seems (think? well my timing is way different) it changes the thermal expansion rate eg fire a approx square engine (Bore * stroke =) 65 Deg BTDC and see it it still runs forward without knocking and with a compression ratio ~10.5:1.
I found this site last night and plugged in the values for my engine (Green) and a normal engine (red) the result. I am not sure what I am looking at yet but when I fire 65 BTDC all my thermal energy is used up and the highest pressure of that eg the complete combustion cycle is very near TDC, I think this should cause a knock but it only runs a bit rough.

I think timing Before TDC is EVIL because you are compressing a rising energy eg you have to waist energy to compress the expanding gases instead of compressing a gas..Hope that makes sense.

Increasing burn rate hmm I think that would be like increasing distortion in my audio amp = not very nice. I could be wrong though.

 

[russ_watters]

This is good stuff:

I know you have limited resources but to get some usable accuracy you should find some way of calculating the hp needed by your car at your test speed. You'll also need to keep good records of the weather conditions; a small change in wind direction and speed during a test will invalidate that test by skewing your readings. Otherwise you're only guessing.

How important is this to you?

I have a $150 gadget that reads out my engine's operating parameters in real-time. On my way to/from work, there is a relatively flat 1-mile stretch of highway that has a very slight drop followed by a very slight rise, with a total of about a 15' difference in elevation from one end to the other. I've done loose tests with my car, but a more rigorous test method is not very difficult:

1. Make sure your fuel flow readout is calibrated. They are lookup-table based, not actual measurements.
2. Record the weather conditions. These are very important. Counter intuitively, I have found my car to be substantially more efficient at warm temperatures (70F) than cold temperatures (30F).
3. Make sure the car is fully warmed-up. This makes a surprisingly huge difference.
4. Enter the straight at a pre-chosen and set speed on your cruise control. For better results, run in both directions and average them.
5. Have a friend copy down the fuel flow rate every few seconds - or better yet, some products will record the data for you on a smart phone or laptop.
6. Average the fuel flow and calculate the input power.

Now you won't have a good baseline because you've already made some modifications, but since a typical car runs at somewhere around 30% efficiency, you should notice a massive difference between your car's fuel flow rate an the rated fuel efficiency of your car. Note, depending on your speed, you may notice a 10% better fuel economy just due to the fact that you are running at constant speed. EPA tests are run on a course with variable speed. Ie, my car is rated at 32, but I've seen as much as 35mpg - a difference of just under 10%.

 

[smokingwheels]

Are these actual measured values or approximations you've generated?

From what I can remember there values out of the program.
but I had a search thru my harddisk collection and found this I think its what I used because I would have to setup my program again eg feed in simulated rpm/calibration pc to check the timing accuracy.
The file is called coilone which I shortened to coil1 on the graph.

Anyway here is a copy of the mechanical advance from the program.

REM mec advance
DATA 5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5 : REM 250

DATA 5,5,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10 : REM 500

DATA 10,10,10,10.2,10.4,10.6,10.8,11,11.3,11.6 : REM 750

DATA 11.9,12.2,12.5,12.8,13.1,13.4,13.7,14.4,15.5,16.5 : REM 1000

DATA 19,21,21.5,23.5,24.5,25.5,26.7,27.8,28.5,29 : REM 1250

DATA 29.5,30,30.1,30.2,30.3,30.4,30.5,30.6,30.7.30.8 : REM 1500

DATA 30.9,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,30.9 : REM 1750

DATA 30.8,30.7,30.6,30.5,30.4,30.3,30.2,30.1,30,29 : REM 2000

DATA 28,28,28,28,28,28,28,28,28,28 : REM 2250

DATA 27.8,27.5,27.2,27,26.8,26,22,22,22,22 : REM 2500

DATA 22,22,22,22,22,22,22,22,22,20 : REM 2750

DATA 20,20,20,20,20,20,20,19,19,19 : REM 3000

DATA 19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19 : REM 3250

DATA 19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19,19 : REM 3500

DATA 20,20,20,20,20,20,20,20,20,20 : REM 3750

DATA 20,20,20,20,20,20,20,20,20,20 : REM 4000

DATA 21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21 : REM 4250

DATA 21.5,21.6,21.7,21.8,21.9,22,22.1,22.2,22.3,22.4 : REM 4500

DATA 22.5,22.6,22.7,22.8,22.9,22,23,23,23,23 : REM 4750

DATA 23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23 : REM 5000

DATA 23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23 : REM 5250

DATA 23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23 : REM 5500

DATA 23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23 : REM 5750

DATA 23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23,23 : REM 6000

DATA 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10 : REM 6250

DATA 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10 : REM 6500


DATA 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10 : REM 6750

DATA 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10 : REM 7000

DATA 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10 : REM 7250

DATA 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,-10,-10,-10 : REM 7500

 

[xxChrisxx]

I personally think turbulence is the wrong way to go we are dealing with an analog device.
I think turbulence=distortion.

He's talking about getting a more homogenous charge. Which would ensure a more even and faster burn. The more turbulent the inlet flow is, the more fixed the fuel and air become.

I think timing Before TDC is EVIL because you are compressing a rising energy eg you have to waist energy to compress the expanding gases instead of compressing a gas..Hope that makes sense.

Increasing burn rate hmm I think that would be like increasing distortion in my audio amp = not very nice. I could be wrong though.

The above is confusing and seems counter-intuative to me. Can you clarify what you mean by 'timing before TDC is evil' please.

If you allow over expansion you get a less clean and less efficient burn of the charge ni the cylinder. Ideally we would burn all the charge at the same time at a single descreeet point. However as it takes time for the flame to propogate we have to start the burn before TDC.

If you allow over expansion, you'll get incomplete combustion. Which would exlpain why you are constantly getting spark plugs caked in crap.

 

[mender]

I think it may be time to abandon the shotgun approach and impose some structure on your learning. Start with some basic engine theory books so you can see how what you're trying to do fits into the bigger picture.

I'd suggest getting "How To Make Horsepower Volume 1" by David Vizard. He presents things well and covers the essentials nicely. If you want more in-depth on how to develop a specific engine, his book "How To Modify Ford SOHC Engines" is about the Ford 2 litre 4 cylinder and the info can likely be applied to your engine. Another good book is "Power Secrets" by Smokey Yunick, again entertaining and informative. Lots more if you already have these.

If you're serious about engine theory, Heywood's "Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals" is 900 pages worth of detailed analysis. I bought it on the recommendation of others here (was it you Chris?) and now refer to it quite frequently. Very nice having everything in one place but it may be a bit much as a starting book.

There are quite a few engine simulators (desktop dynos) that are more detailed than Turbocalc. What else are you using?

You may also find this interesting:
http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/thermal_efficiency.htm

 

[mender]

This is good stuff: I have a $150 gadget that reads out my engine's operating parameters in real-time.

I have a scan gauge that plugs into the OBD2 port and shows what the ECU is doing in real time. Quite fun to play with.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Smokey Yunick

lol.