DIY_EFI Digest Friday, April 30 1999 Volume 04 : Number 253 In this issue: RE: Direct Injection Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Fuel Pump Check Valve... Re: Flame - Not Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Direct Injection Spark Plug Sorta High economy, was Fuel injection plugs Re: Fuel Pump Check Valve... Re: Fuel injection plugs atomization enhancement Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Flame - Not RE: Direct Injection Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Direct Injection Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Direct Injection Re: Need Fuel Injector Data See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:27:43 -0500 From: Don.F.Broadus@xxx.com Subject: RE: Direct Injection Trivia; SU stands for Skinner Union > -----Original Message----- > From: bearbvd@xxx.net] > Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 9:25 AM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Direct Injection > > , while the SU > >caburettors of the Rolls Royce would starve momentarily due to some sort > of > >gee force effect. > > > I would bet that these pieces are the 3" (or so) SU's--Passini talked > about > them a bit for use as a nearly ideal draw thru carb for turbocharging--he > said something along the lines of "With inlets the size of a sewer pipe > and > needles with about the heft of a tommy bar!" > > Regards, Greg > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:12:20 EDT From: Regnirps@xxx.com Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs In a message dated 99-04-30 07:26:32 EDT, you write: << mwichstr@xxx.no (Espen Hilde) Sender: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Hi! I agree with using a variable transmition to keep the rpm at max torque but we have to have a variable size engine to, to get max torque we have to have wot.if we drive at wot the output will be to high for our use. Variable stroke is a help but it will be a ineffichent combustion camber with the short stroke and the compression ratio will not be good still running wot. VW made a variable compression ratio combustion camber, dont ask me how they did it.....variable combustion camber and variable stroke would do the trick .....easy uh....Ore several independant engines coupled together Espen >> A few years ago there were some prototypes that had a small engine that ran only at WOT and pressurized a hydraulic system which in turn drove the wheels. The engine was intermittent at low speeds and continuous under higher loads. What happened to them? Charlie Springer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:15:20 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Check Valve... One word, Earl's They have a web site but I forget their URL. Bashful > Another quick question for you guys... :) > Anyone know of a source for an inline, high pressure check valve...in either > a 5/16" or 3/8" (dual barbed), or -6AN? Reason I am asking, is I have an > older (about 8 years old) Bosch pump (that used to be sold by Accel for > applications up to 420HP) on my 67 Camaro TPI, that had a few problems. I > think the pump was built before they had any idea that MTBE and other such > nasty additives would be added to fuel...so they used plain old buna-N > O-rings to seal the pump internally. Well...when I was moving the car around > a bit ago...I noticed a nice stream of gas pouring out the back of the > car...about where the pump was (with maybe 300-400 miles on the pump). > Knowing that raw fuel dumping on my hot exhaust system was not a good thing > ;) I immediately shut down the motor and verified it was the pump. After > quickly moving it back onto my lift, I pulled the pump and noticed the gas > was coming from between the outer housing and the pump outlet housing end > plate (?), right around where the crimp is. So..I undid the crimp, and > pulled the pump apart. There are two O-rings which seal the suction from the > pressure side and the pressure side from the outside of the pump. Both were > hard as rock and cracked...hence, the leak. So, I replaced them with Viton > O-rings, put the pump back into the housing, put down a nice bead of epoxy > around the housing and end plate and rebent the crimps down. Well...I should > have checked the check valve as well...since it also is a rubbery material. > I guess it leaks as well, since after I had the pump together, I could blow > through the pump both ways...although backwards WAS harder, it didn't seal > :( . I did verify this with a pressure gauge as well..when I put the key to > on, the pump runs for a couple of seconds and the pressure rises nicely to > 42psi. As soon as the pump shuts down, the pressure drops...takes maybe 3-4 > seconds to drop back to zero. Since the check valve is in the outlet of the > pump, and this particular one cannot be pulled from the outside, I need to > rig something up to maintain my fuel pressure for startup purposes. Any > ideas? > Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:24:55 -0400 From: H Villemure Subject: Re: Flame - Not Robert, I am more of an ignoramus than most on this list- just a fresh mechanical engineering graduate. Could you detail what a *flathead* motor design consists of? Thanks! And about your Mach 1- what transplant? The Cobra 427? Talk about torque monster... Robert Harris wrote: > > It wasn't supposed to be a flame - just exasperation at the inability of > people to understand that what's new and hot - generally is not. > > Example - name the most modern valve configuration Overhead Valve, Dual > Overhead Cam, Valve in block ( flathead ) > > Correct answer FLATHEAD. It was evolved to reduce the production costs > associated with OHV or OHC. > > Every time you see a "new" engine idea, check with the guy at the patent > office. Most likely it was invented during the pre-WW II "racing" era where > each major power sponsored outrageous prizes to develop the military > technology needed for the coming war. And when national survival is at risk, > it inspires a fantastic spurt of development. > > And please don't draw inferences from the "current" implementation of a > specific technology as to what that technology is capable of. I know I come > across as cranky and an old pharte at times, but when you small box categorize > things, you lose the beauty of using something in ways that expand the mind > and solve the problem eloquently. > > 1963 Ford C-600 Prison Bus Conversion "Home" > 1971 Lincoln Continental 460 "Christine" > 1972 "Whale" Mustang awaiting transplant > 1978 Dodge Long Bed Peeek Up "Bundymobile" > > Habaneros - not just for breakfast anymore - -- Helene V. ___________________ welcome to mk2@xxx.com visit us at http://come.to/helene-and-matti ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:24:14 -0700 From: Aaron Willis Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs At 09:20 AM 5/2/99 -0700, you wrote: >Pat: > It has been said that the greatest efficiency is achieved >which we cruise most cars. Variable displacement would be another, >but so far has not been introduced. Another is turbocharging a small >engine on the theory that it will develop greater efficiency at lower >power settings, and the boost will help it develop enough power when >needed. This has several downsides.... Compression must be lowered, >or high octane fuel must be used or timing must be retarded, or all >three to prevent detonation... Yes, BUT...what about that old water injection thread we had going a while ago? Wouldn't efective intercooling and/or water injection let a "standard" (normal compression, timing, etc) engine live under boost? Specifically, I'm thinking of a Ford Festiva (Mazda 121) or Geo Metro (Suzuki Swift) or .. dare I say ... Subaru Justy ECVT ... with a small turbo/intercooler combo. Nice economy most of the time, but with a bit of power to get you around trucks and up hills, etc. Am I fooling myself? Nice thing about the Festiva is that rumor has it you can slam-dunk an Escort GT, Mazda Miata or similar Mazda engine in it, which would be a nice backup plan if the forced-inductionj baby didn't perform to your (my) expectations. OK, guys, where am, I going wrong on this one? Aaron Willis ICQ #27386985 AOL IM: hemiyota http://surf.to/garage-te51 Garage TE51 International ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:34:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat Ford Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs Previously, you (Howard Wilkinson) wrote: > Pat: > It has been said that the greatest efficiency is achieved in terms > of fuel burned per hour as related to horsepower output at WOT. > Engine power output is more or less proportional to CFM airflow in a > spark ignition engine. Thus power must be controlled by regulating > airflow as mixture is fairly critical. Airflow may be controlled in > one of several ways. The common way is to apply a vacuum and resist > induction....throttling..... this has the side effect of reducing > effective compression ratios at the typical 20% or so throttle at > which we cruise most cars. Variable displacement would be another, > but so far has not been introduced. Another is turbocharging a small > engine on the theory that it will develop greater efficiency at lower > power settings, and the boost will help it develop enough power when > needed. This has several downsides.... Compression must be lowered, > or high octane fuel must be used or timing must be retarded, or all > three to prevent detonation... Lower compression drops efficiency when > the turbo isn't boosting... retarding the timing doesn't help output > or efficiency, and high octane fuel is expensive. Turbocharging or > Supercharging are not the answer to our prayers unless an engine is > developed which has variable chamber size. Even then there is the > downside that the smaller pistons and or shorter stroke will reduce > the ability to convert the cylinder pressure into torque. We all know > Pi*Rsquared....... figure the piston surface area and multiply it by > the combustion pressure to get the push on the rod..... The longer the > stroke, the greater the leverage available to turn the push into > torque....... I like cubes....they make power. > The other way to reduce engine output is to load it down to an RPM > where the induction air flow is just enough to develop the power > needed to sustain the load. The belt drive transmission you describe > is probably the simplest sytem available to do this, and in > conjunction with a stepped transmission (automatic) one should be able > to accomplish this. I'm with you up to here. why a stepped automatic? the justy used a clutch, an electronically controlled set of pulleys and the reverse idler, and dif. there was no other transmissions. the tach when you jumped on the fun pedal went to around 3500 rpm ( it was around 10 yrs ago, I don't remember the exact #) and then the pulleys did all the work. when you eased up on the pedal the ratios changed gradualy from torque peak down to whatever was needed to keep the engine load signal ( I believe it was duty cycle from the injector) in a given range. It worked, and felt like driving a diesel >In this scenerio the throttle (the one you step > on) would be directly in control of the transmission.... as you press > the throttle the transmission gears down to allow the engine to rev up > and develop power as needed. The engine is always at full throttle > except at idle when it is throttled due to lack of any sort of load. > Such a system should work within reason....it may require conventional > throttling at very low power settings (dual mode operation). It would I should have mentioned the economy mode but as I said that was a while ago 8-) > be more ideal with some sort of variable camming so that the engine > would develop efficient power throughout it's RPM range. None of > these things is new or untried technology. The belt drive is not a > very efficient system, but has a great virtue in simplicity. It has > been used for many years in such diverse applications as combines, I knew some combines had then ( I worked on 2 or 3 over the years) > skid steer loaders, aren't bobcats hydrostatic > variable speed machine drives, and > automobiles...... The Dutch built DAF used such as system. Camming of > an engine so that it will breath well at low RPM and also at high RPM > can be handled in several ways. The issue is overlap. The greater > the overlap the less efficient at low RPM, but the better at high RPM. > The simplest approach is the Rhodes type lifter which contains an oil > chamber and bleed hole.... at low RPM the oil bleeds out more than at > high RPM simply as a function of time. I have greatly changed the > running characteristics of several engines which were over cammed by > simply changing over to mechanical rather than hydraulic lifters, and > adjusting lash until I was satisfied with the result...... One such > engine has run over 50K so far with .035 lash on mechanical lifters that must make a racket, but sounds fun > running on a hydraulic lifter high performance cam (FE series Ford > engine). The other option would be a dual cam system of some sort set > up with centrifugal advance/retard. This would allow one cam to > advance the opening times, and one to retard the closing times of two > sets of valves. This would not be difficult to accomplish with some > engines. Caterpillar uses such a system on injector pumps on some > engines for timing advance... it is located right on the drive gear. honda vtech does this doesn't it?? > > Just some ideas....... H.W. cool one thing I really like about this group is all the different ideas that come up > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Ford > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > > Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 7:40 AM > Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs > > > >Previously, you (James Ballenger) wrote: > >> > >> > >> Howard Wilkinson wrote: > >> > >> > The most reasonable way to control engine power output is by > >> > gearing so that RPM is controlled by load. A continuously variable > >> > transmission system could allow an engine to operate at full throttle > >> > all the time except at idle when it would need to be throttled. > >> > Allowing the engine to always operate at WOT would greatly increase > >> > efficiency. H.W. > >> > >> Ok, I know this isnt right. If we had continously variable transmissions, > >> we would be running them at peak torque not at wot. VE is greatest at peak > >> torque, the reason we rev engines higher to acheive high horsepower is to combat > >> inefficient gearing. At wot, there is significantly reduced ve and not enough > >> time to get good mixture and combustion, therefore lower torque. The reason > >> this is an asset is because it produces more torque per unit time, ie power. > >> With a continuously variable transmission we could run the engine all day long > >> at peak torque and get double or triple the gas mileage, more power, and reduced > >> wear. Again, im just a student so tell me where i goofed but I have discussed > >> this with others before and feel somehat confident that this is right. > >> > >> James Ballenger > >> > > > >years ago when the Subaru Justy came out and had the ECVT ( I worked at a subaru > >dealer at the time) the engine would if you tromped on the gas would go up to > >the peak of the torque curve and stay there. It was amazing, the damn things were > >only a bit slowwer then a bmw M3 ( the dealer was also bmw and saab dealer). We > >actualy had drags with the bimmer and saabs and the 3 cyl justy was at the top > >of the cars we sold. The fuel economy was great just the lifetime of the tranny > >wasn't so good. The ECVT was like a snowmobile pulley system but the belt worked > >under compression, and there was a magnetic clutch that used iron filings to transfer > >power. The othe funny thing was reverse was just an idler after everything else, > >the early justy would go as fast in reverse as forward. - -- Pat Ford email: pford@xxx.com QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com (613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews (613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:09:54 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: Direct Injection Spark Plug Sorta Good point Robert. Diesels are wonderful for large engines, low engine speed and excess air. They also improve with turbocharging, more excess air and all that. But you can't get much power per displacement because power requires high rpm. Gary Derian > First two cycle vs four. The middle size and above diesels are all two cycle. > When you think big block - check this puppy out. > > http://www.pacifier.com/~rboggs/SULZER.HTML > > The biggest advantage a diesel has over an Otto is efficient and FAST > combustion of fuel. Look at an Otto engine - typical spark advance is around > 30 degrees before TDC whereas a diesel fires very close to TDC or Oh NO after > TDC. All this wonderful spark advance does is make negative power by building > pressure opposing the piston so the maximum pressure can occur just after TDC > at the power sweet spot. > > So why. First - all droplet combustion occurs at stoic. No exception - no > matter how finely atomized. Sorry guys. The combustion burns local stoic > until either fuel or air runs out. See Irwin Glassman - Combustion Third > Edition or similar text on Combustion - not putt putts. > > An Otto sort of hopes that enough of the fuel will be in small droplets and > "atomized" so that the flame will consume all of them. The Otto starts from a > small plasma explosion "spark" at controlled point (s) and moves in a > leisurely wave from there. > > Mr Diesel, on the other hand, starts his flame by blasting the entire fuel > into the chamber in high velocity small droplets that penetrate and ignite > throughout the entire chamber, starting droplet combustion from literally > millions of points - counting on physical not electrical force to cause the > ignition. > > Mr Diesel, by extremely fast burning of much more of his fuel near the ATDC > 'sweet" spot makes much more pressure at the point that it counts than any > Otto can. Much larger flame front and higher temperature and pressure WHERE > IT COUNTS. Ignore peak theoretical nonsense. A very lean mixture makes > incredible heat - near bottom dead center just as the exhaust valve opens. > Heat, temperature and the other theoretical stuff don't move the piston - > pressure laddies, pressure - applied timely and properly does and all other > factors aside, Mr Diesel makes much more pressure where and when it counts > than Kick Sand in My Face Otto. > > The most efficient burning of fuel is around 10 to 20 per cent "weak" or lean. > This allows droplets/vaporized molecules best access to oxygen. But at 20% > weak, the flame front is 22% slower than at stoic and slows even more as we go > weaker. If instead of air, we use exhaust as the dilutant, the flame speed > falls 55% for the same amount of dilutent - remember that EGR is actually > water injection at ~ twice the percentage of EGR ( ~ 1 gallon of fuel makes > about 2 gallons of water - what did you think happens to hydrogen and oxygen > in combustion ????). Courtesy of John B. Heywood. > > Compound this with the flame speed is inversely proportional to the pressure > and Mr Otto may take more time than available even at low speed to burn his > fuel. Ever wonder why lean combustion is so hot yet makes so little power? > Much longer exposure of flame to metal and mixture may even still be burning > as it enters the exhaust. > > Flame speed of gasoline is about .3 meters per second at atmosphere. At part > throttle light cruise, many engines don't exceed 3 atmospheres at TDC. > Consider that as a clue. > > Mr Diesel however, has maximum pressure at all times. This markedly increases > flame speed. Also, as temperature goes up, so does the flame speed. Sissy > Otto has to worry about denotations so is carefully about temperature. Mr > Diesel simply uses the extremely high temperature at around TDC to not only > ignite his fuel, but to radically speed the combustive consumption of fuel - > again right near TDC at the piston sweet spot. > > Diesel wins Power Torque Efficiency by applying more pressure when and where > optimum than Otto can. Note I did not say total - just much better timed. > > Think of pushing a swing. Its not only how hard you push - but when you push > > Otto takes over at very high loads because it can burn more fuel at peak loads > than Mr Diesel. > > 1963 Ford C-600 Prison Bus Conversion "Home" > 1971 Lincoln Continental 460 "Christine" > 1972 "Whale" Mustang awaiting transplant > 1978 Dodge Long Bed Peeek Up "Bundymobile" > > Habaneros - not just for breakfast anymore ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 15:50:38 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: High economy, was Fuel injection plugs With a CVT, you need a map of power and BSFC vs rpm and throttle. Then you operate the engine only at the highest BSFC values for a given power requirement. It is not so simple as WOT all the time but pretty close. When power requirements are low, the engine would operate at very low rpm but nearly WOT. Years ago (20) I achieved 61 mpg on a Vega at a fuel economy rally using economy techniques. I set the carb for lean WOT and lugged the engine in high gear only from 20 mph to 40 mph. At that speed I turned off the engine and coasted. At 20 mph, I engaged the engine again and lugged up to 40 mph. It really surprised all the guys in VW Rabbit Diesels. I had the car ballasted to 3800 lb to maximize the ton-miles per gallon and still got 61 mpg. This was on a 100 mile loop. Van Dorne has built a CVT for the Williams F1 car that could handle 700 hp. Electric or hydraulic drive allows the engine to operate more efficiently but the drive train loses efficiency compared to a direct mechanical drive. Mechanical to electric to mechanical is at best 75%. Hydraulic has high losses at high speeds. The one advantage for electric with a small battery and small engine is regenerative braking and the ability to turn off the engine for short periods of driving. Gary Derian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 15:25:40 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Check Valve... Try Parker-Hannefin or any other hydraulic supplier. They have all sorts of hydraulic control valves with all sorts of rubber compounds and cracking pressures. Gary Derian > Anyone know of a source for an inline, high pressure check valve...in either > a 5/16" or 3/8" (dual barbed), or -6AN? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:57:54 -0400 From: "CLsnyder" Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs - ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Hermann To: Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 9:59 AM Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs > >I like that idea. A variable displacement hydraulic pump at the engine > >and four variable displacement pumps (one at each wheel), along with an > >accumulater would allow you to size the engine for the maximum sustained > >load (say 100 MPH up a 7% slope fully loaded). Size the accumulater so > >that it can store enough energy to accelerate the vehicle's mass from 0 > >to 100 MPH. > > > > This is called a "hydrostatic drive" . A common implementation of it is on > the large snow cats which ski areas use as groomers for their slopes. I > think the big problem with it is that the drive's efficiency is low enough > that any gains in engine efficiency are negated. > > DKW once built a little 2 cycle car with a variable speed belt > tranny--which was a bit of a curiousity. Actually it was DAF in Holland. > > Regards, Greg > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 12:07:04 -0700 From: "Howard Wilkinson" Subject: atomization enhancement I'd like to propose a simple atomization enhancement strategy. It is well known that higher pressure results in better atomization in a fuel injection system.... Caterpillar has carried this to extremes and has some diesel engines running ungodly high pressures....I don't know the exact figures. I propose changing out the injectors on my vehicle with injectors rated for lower flow, and raising the pressure to compensate. Pressure would be adjusted in "open loop" mode using an exhaust analyzer. It has been said that most injectors are rated at pressures far above what they are operated at. I'm sure this is far from an original idea, and that some of you have done it..... How much difference does it make, and what about pump load at the higher pressures..... how much increase in pressure is required. I'd like to hear about peoples experiences and mishaps doing this ;-) H.W. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:09:05 -0400 From: "CLsnyder" Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:37 AM Subject: RE: Fuel injection plugs > And when you go down a hill the drive motor can be a generator dumping into > batteries for dynamic braking. The neat thing about > the Gen. motor set up is that the engine can run at a steady RPM while you > vary excitation on the generator to speed up and slow down. An engine at a > near constant RPM will most likely get better mileage. > > Don > Sounds like the old "Galt" car of the twenties - electromagnetic transmission with battery "buffers" > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Arentz-Grastvedt Tom [SMTP:tom.arentz-grastvedt@xxx.no] > > Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 7:40 AM > > To: 'diy_efi@xxx.edu' > > Subject: SV: Fuel injection plugs > > > > Hello I'm a newbie... > > > > ..But what about en electric gearbox? Swap the original box with an > > generator, and then put an electromotor near the driving wheels. Drawback > > is > > the added weight, but it could be a cool hybrid thing. > > > > What is wot by the way? > > > > Tom.Arentz-Grastvedt@xxx.no > > > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > > > Fra: Espen Hilde [SMTP:mwichstr@xxx.no] > > > Sendt: 30. april 1999 10:43 > > > Til: diy_efi@xxx.edu > > > Emne: Re: Fuel injection plugs > > > > > > Hi! > > > I agree with using a variable transmition to keep the rpm at max torque > > > but > > > we have to have a variable size engine to, to get max torque we have to > > > have wot.if we drive at wot the output will be to high for our use. > > > Variable stroke is a help but it will be a ineffichent combustion camber > > > with > > > the short stroke and the compression ratio will not be good still > > running > > > wot. > > > VW made a variable compression ratio combustion camber, dont ask me how > > > they did it.....variable combustion camber and variable stroke would > > > do the trick .....easy uh....Ore several independant engines coupled > > > together > > > Espen > > > > > > ---------- > > > > From: James Ballenger > > > > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > > > > Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs > > > > Date: 30. april 1999 04:47 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Howard Wilkinson wrote: > > > > > > > > > The most reasonable way to control engine power output is by > > > > > gearing so that RPM is controlled by load. A continuously variable > > > > > transmission system could allow an engine to operate at full > > throttle > > > > > all the time except at idle when it would need to be throttled. > > > > > Allowing the engine to always operate at WOT would greatly increase > > > > > efficiency. H.W. > > > > > > > > Ok, I know this isnt right. If we had continously variable > > > transmissions, > > > > we would be running them at peak torque not at wot. VE is greatest at > > > peak > > > > torque, the reason we rev engines higher to acheive high horsepower is > > > to > > > combat > > > > inefficient gearing. At wot, there is significantly reduced ve and > > not > > > enough > > > > time to get good mixture and combustion, therefore lower torque. The > > > reason > > > > this is an asset is because it produces more torque per unit time, ie > > > power. > > > > With a continuously variable transmission we could run the engine all > > > day > > > long > > > > at peak torque and get double or triple the gas mileage, more power, > > and > > > reduced > > > > wear. Again, im just a student so tell me where i goofed but I have > > > discussed > > > > this with others before and feel somehat confident that this is right. > > > > > > > > James Ballenger > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:13:18 -0400 From: "CLsnyder" Subject: Re: Flame - Not A "flathead" motor is also called a side-valve engine. The valves are in the block, beside the piston. They tend to be low compression engines. Common examples are the old Chrysler six (up to 1959), the early Ford V8 ( up to about 1953) and the old Hudson and Rambler American (up to about 1962) - ----- Original Message ----- From: H Villemure To: Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 2:24 PM Subject: Re: Flame - Not > Robert, > > I am more of an ignoramus than most on this list- just a fresh > mechanical engineering graduate. Could you detail what a *flathead* > motor design consists of? > > Thanks! > > And about your Mach 1- what transplant? The Cobra 427? Talk about torque monster... > > Robert Harris wrote: > > > > It wasn't supposed to be a flame - just exasperation at the inability of > > people to understand that what's new and hot - generally is not. > > > > Example - name the most modern valve configuration Overhead Valve, Dual > > Overhead Cam, Valve in block ( flathead ) > > > > Correct answer FLATHEAD. It was evolved to reduce the production costs > > associated with OHV or OHC. > > > > Every time you see a "new" engine idea, check with the guy at the patent > > office. Most likely it was invented during the pre-WW II "racing" era where > > each major power sponsored outrageous prizes to develop the military > > technology needed for the coming war. And when national survival is at risk, > > it inspires a fantastic spurt of development. > > > > And please don't draw inferences from the "current" implementation of a > > specific technology as to what that technology is capable of. I know I come > > across as cranky and an old pharte at times, but when you small box categorize > > things, you lose the beauty of using something in ways that expand the mind > > and solve the problem eloquently. > > > > 1963 Ford C-600 Prison Bus Conversion "Home" > > 1971 Lincoln Continental 460 "Christine" > > 1972 "Whale" Mustang awaiting transplant > > 1978 Dodge Long Bed Peeek Up "Bundymobile" > > > > Habaneros - not just for breakfast anymore > > -- > Helene V. > ___________________ > welcome to mk2@xxx.com > visit us at http://come.to/helene-and-matti > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:36:53 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: RE: Direct Injection And MG stands for Morris Garage. >Trivia; SU stands for Skinner Union > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bearbvd@xxx.net] >> Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 9:25 AM >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >> Subject: Re: Direct Injection >> >> , while the SU >> >caburettors of the Rolls Royce would starve momentarily due to some sort >> of >> >gee force effect. >> > >> I would bet that these pieces are the 3" (or so) SU's--Passini talked >> about >> them a bit for use as a nearly ideal draw thru carb for turbocharging--he >> said something along the lines of "With inlets the size of a sewer pipe >> and >> needles with about the heft of a tommy bar!" >> >> Regards, Greg >> ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 16:56:54 -0700 From: "Howard Wilkinson" Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs James: I must take issue with this statement.... my experience with engines suggests that this is far from the truth: >If the engine is not throttled and remains where it will make peak power it >will have significantly less wear on the engine. My experience with numerous gas engines over the years would suggest that there is a far stronger correlation between % Max BMEP operation and engine wear. At WOT (Max BMEP) combustion temps are greater, the lubrication is less effective, and bottom end stresses and bearing wear are higher. Greatest engine life, and minimum wear appear to be at lower throttle settings, and constant load. This may not be correct according to the experts, but this is what I've observed to be true. H.W. - -----Original Message----- From: James Ballenger To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 2:01 PM Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs > > >Raymond C Drouillard wrote: > >> Don't make the mistake of getting volumetric efficiency mixed up with >> engine efficiency. Engine efficiency is work in / work out. VE is air >> in / (.5 * displacement) (for a four-cycle engine). Torque is highest >> at the highest VE because you can get more fuel in for each revolution of >> the crank. Power is highest at the point where you can get the most fuel >> per unit time. > >At peak ve, you get the closest thing to perfect combustion. You get a good >full charge of, hopefully, stochiomteric mix and can burn it making maximum >force and maximum fuel economy. At max power, we are making less torque but >making it faster. The problem here is that there are inherent combustion and >frictional ineffeciencies. At max power (hp) we have to advance ignition and >now valve timing to try to catch up. You get an incomplete burn of the fuel >and have a very inefficient cycle, its just that you can do this enough per >unit time to get more power. The only reason we do this is because o f >imperfect gearing. If we have a cvt, as discussed, the point becomes moot >because we can have insanely high (numerically) gearing and torque >multiplication. In this case we would not have a need for more power because >the transmission could be controlled as the throttle, while the engine >remains at its most efficient state. > >> If you are running at the highest torque point (max VE), you have to >> throttle it down to reduce power. This throttling, of course, reduces VE >> to the point where you get the desired power level. Of course, this >> increases pumping losses. > >There is not throttling with a cvt, the transmission is the "throttle." > > >> A more efficient way to reduce the power level is to reduce the engine >> speed to below max torque. You will have about the same amount of air >> per unit time, but more air per revolution. Actually, you will have a >> little less air per unit time because it'll be running more efficiently. >> It won't have to do as much pumping. > >You won't be receiving more air, below max torque you will be getting less >air per revolution because it is not at peak ve. At peak torque, you get >peak ve. At peak ve, you get the fullest charge of air and fuel possible >from the engine and will be running more efficiently than at any other point >in the engines range. > > >> Other benefits are less wear and tear, lower windage losses in the >> crankcase, lower losses at the oil pump, etc. > >If the engine is not throttled and remains where it will make peak power it >will have significantly less wear on the engine. > >James Ballenger > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Davies Subject: Re: Direct Injection On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Greg Hermann wrote: > >1937 Damiler Benz 601 A 1100hp, 1344lb > >1940 Rolls Royce Merlin Series II 1030hp, 1335lb > > > >(From Fighter, by Len Deighton) > > > Hi Tom-- > > Did the book list the "Griffon"--which I believe was the name for the > stroked Merlin ?? > The Griffon was not a stroked Merlin. It was an entirely different engine. Same displacement as the R and Buzzard from the early 1930s ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 20:22:48 -0400 From: James Ballenger Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs Howard Wilkinson wrote: > James: > I must take issue with this statement.... my experience with > engines suggests that this is far from the truth: > > >If the engine is not throttled and remains where it will make peak > power it > >will have significantly less wear on the engine. > > My experience with numerous gas engines over the years would suggest > that there is a far stronger correlation between % Max BMEP operation > and engine wear. At WOT (Max BMEP) combustion temps are greater, the > lubrication is less effective, and bottom end stresses and bearing > wear are higher. Greatest engine life, and minimum wear appear to be > at lower throttle settings, and constant load. This may not be > correct according to the experts, but this is what I've observed to be > true. H.W. I am not familiar with the max bmep term, could you explain? One this to consider is the changes that could be made if this were the case though. At max ve, we could optimize the ignition timing/cam duration/timing to make max power at this specific point. By doing so we could significantly reduce advance and therefore negative torque on the engine btdc. We would also have less wear because the engine rpm would be constant and would not experience varying loads on the bearings and such. Though temps would be greater as you mentioned. Load would not be an issue because the transmission would compensate, always giving the engine some load. The magnitude of the load would be in the engineers hands. At this point it seems as though we would be dealing more with transmission reliability than engine reliability. James Ballenger ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:25:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Davies Subject: Re: Direct Injection On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Bruce Plecan wrote: > > Well once again Doc is muttering,, something about SU's and inverted flight. > He's never really liked them much right side up........ > Sneezy > Maybe he would prefer the British technical term for them..."constant depression" carburettors. I know I was constantly depressed when working on them... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:17:52 -0400 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: Re: Need Fuel Injector Data There was a website which mentioned using Saturn parts for aircraft EFI conversions. Can't quite remember the name, but I will post it when I do. If you can't wait, the person who owned the site was a member of this list at one time. His posts should be in the archives. Shannen Bruce Plecan wrote: > > Couple things come to mind. > GM 1987 Sunbird 2.0L 4 cylinder Turbo might be close, they are P+H. > www.lindertech.com that's off the top of my head but they are in gasoline > Alley > Indianapolis, IN. Then RC Eng in SoCal.. > How much info do you have about that ecms prom calibrations?. > If your point man is gone, you might need to reevaluate your posistion. > Bruce > > > A friend of mine and I are working on an unusual project. We are adapting > a > > '93 Saturn ECM and two DIS modules to run a Continental O-200 aircraft > > engine. The engine is 200 C.I. (3.3 L) 4 cylinder dual plug and should > make > > about 120 HP at about 2800 RPM. > > > > Can anyone supply us with the information or give us an idea of where we > can > > find a chart with the injector data? ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #253 ***************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@xxx. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command above with "diy_efi".