TeamSwift

Home of the Suzuki mini-compacts ! Your Home for all things Suzuki Swift, Geo Metro, Holden Barina, Chevy Sprint, Pontiac Firefly, and Suzuki Cultus. TeamSwift is a technical performance oriented community!
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:37 am

Underbody braces, turbos and more!

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:22 pm
Posts: 145
Location: West Virginia
from looking around the web it looks like most in radiator transmission coolers see pressures in the 50-100psi range regularly. All the ones I could find specs on say they are pressure tested to 300psi. I don't think they will have any problems running fuel in them.

One thing that could be done with a bit of fabrication is to mount one inside a section of pipe and run the upper radiator hose through it to get a lot more heat in the fuel(or one of those heat exchangers mentioned earlier), using a thermostatic valve of some sort to mix it with the lower radiator cooler line to control the temperature of the fuel going into the throttle body. This would let us experiment and find the ideal fuel temperature for mpg assuming it actually does help any :)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 582
Location: Cambridge, ontario
Why not get some fender skirts for the rears (like an insight) and get rid of the flaring of the fenders. Take off the passenger and driver if you like outside mirrors. Get rid of windshield wipers and make a smooth cowl from hood to windshield. Block up any unnecessary openings in the grill and front bumper (Just enough air to keep the engine cool). Lower the car. Get rid of the antenna, Tape the body seams. Shave the door handles. Get some moon disks (because they look cool too). Inflate tires to max psi. Do all that stuff and then drive conservatively. You will probably get more of an improvement from just driving with mpg in mind then if you do all of the listed mods, but if you already drive like that then go for all the other mods or just ride a bicycle.

_________________
Mk1 t3!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:52 pm
Posts: 634
Location: Eastern Ontario
... i was wondering when this thread was going to "merge" with the Air Management thread (should really be called "Aerodynamics management"... moderator??)

i can empirically vouch for the effectiveness of fender skirts and grille blocking.

15 minutes with a utility knife, some cardboard and duct tape got me an instant 5% increase in highway mpg. (approx 3% for the grille block and 2% for the wheel skirts).

verified and repeatable with scangauge testing on my 98 firefly 1.0 5-speed. i'll get around to documenting the test runs on my web page some time soon.

(now i've just got to rebuild the mods from something a bit more durable than cardboard... plus try to get over how goofy it looks)

you're right, nosswiftgt - driving style is the single biggest contributor to improved mpg. but after driving style, aero mods are where the next best gains are to be found, for hwy fuel economy anyway.

with a full belly pan, grille blocking, rear skirts and tapered dams ahead the exposed forward facing tire treads, a total improvement of 10-15%, or around 5 - 7.5 mpg (US) is not unrealistic. that's absolutely huge, compared to most of the mechanical mods you can make. plus aero mods are inexpensive, and easier to prototype and test.

_________________
Image
www.MetroMPG.com ... www.ForkenSwift.com
... www.EcoModder.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Surprise, Az, USA
No Gas..... :)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Other-Ma ... enameZWDVW

Another one!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Geo-Geo- ... enameZWDVW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:28 am 
Offline
Moderator & FAQ King
Moderator & FAQ King
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 6460
Location: Vancouver, BC
The first one is kinda pricy considering that building your own conversion costs about the same, only this car needs also new batteries (which gets expensive with EVs). The second one is a much better deal, although it doesn't sound quite as sophisticated as the first. The batteries work, you just don't get that many of them (it does mention it can be upgraded).

_________________
jaguar,vettes&sprints wrote:
...can you inlighten me about lihtan's
( miracle pour hole)
maybe a picture Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Surprise, Az, USA
I'd go for the first. I wouldn't want a second hand mess. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:41 pm
Posts: 263
Location: PA
What about this?! Easier than hooking up a heater system like woodrufj, but not sure how wll it will work.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Wrap-aro ... dZViewItem


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:41 pm
Posts: 263
Location: PA
woodrufj-still cant find a heater like yours! What do you think about this and the last one i posted?:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Diesel-F ... dZViewItem


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:41 pm
Posts: 263
Location: PA
is the xfi cam gear what superf1y sells, or should i just get one from him? I have a cam, gear, and head from an xfi. I dont want to disrupt anything, so i may just put the gear, cam and computer in.
After i get it in; and i set the timing, can i or do i have to set the timing advanced 10 degrees to get even better mpg's over the xfi? For example; either the xfi gear or the one from super, do those advance the timing 10 degrees or do i do that and then also advance 10 degrees?

Should i also get the xfi TB?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:41 pm
Posts: 263
Location: PA
btw-i just pu this setup on my car. The filter has a removable foam outside and a paper element inside. I can get anyone a cover for $10 plus shipping.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
I'm surprised no one mentioned alignment. Toe scrubs a lot of speed.

Anything turning on the crank besides what makes the car move forward (alternator, water pump, etc) is IMO wasting energy and should be run off heat, which is being thrown away anyway. A simple Sterling engine setup could be made to run off coolant or exhaust heat to turn an alternator. Or how about the massive amount of heat our asses generate on long drives? We should harness that too (I'm not kidding). The way I see it, the purpose of the engine is to turn linear work into rotational work, to rotate the wheels. Energy conversion does not need to be facillitated by rotational work.

I think a regenerative heat exhanger placed before a fuel heater would be a good idea. The outgoing fuel provides a way to pre-heat the incoming fuel, while the incoming fuel provides a way to cool off the outgoing fuel before it goes back to the tank.

Don't forget the weight of any of these components that you're adding. That'll decrease MPG numbers.

There are some really good ideas in this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:07 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Home
Um, it might be different for a swift/metro/etc, but for the Accord 98-02 models, a lighter fly wheel decreases gas mileage. I am not going to start using power, work, momentum, inertia, because I am to lazy to look up the physics definition of them, and you seem like you would take the time to correct verbage instead of recognize a truth.

Regarding your example about the wheel, I am sorry but you are HORRENDIOUSLY wrong. Galileo Galilei proved you wrong long ago. He took several balls of various weights and rolled them downhill. No matter the weight, they all rolled at the same speed. If you strap a single weight to one point in the wheel you are going to have a very off balanced wheel, so I assume when u say strap, that what you mean is get a same height wheel with equally distributed but greater weight.

You then quote that the engine is the same way regarding getting the fly wheel moving. You are absolutly correct that it takes more energy to get it going. But you forget the other half. True as it may be that an object at rest will stay at rest until an external force(engine) acts upon, the same is true of an object in motion(whose external force would be friction)

But we can argue physics all day, but in the end I will rely upon the ultimatley untrust worthy internet to be the source of my opinion. A flywheel is very helpful for racing, because it lets your revs get higher faster. The flipside is that they drop faster, which several sites have shown, these sites also stating that their fuel economy is higher with a heavier weight.

So calculate based upon any variables you might know, and then remember that nothing goes against the laws of nature, only what we know of them

Darrell wrote:
It would be easier to load weights in the back of your car and see if it improves gas mileage. :D Not going to happen.

Energy is not conserved. Momentum is.

Inertia (Mass) is the ability to resist movement. If you add mass, you resist movement.

Here's something you can do at home......

Roll a tire down your driveway and see how long it takes. Then strap a weight to your tire and see how long it takes. Because there's more work to be done by gravity, the heavier tire will take longer to roll down the hill.

Your engine is the same. A heavier flywheel is harder for the engine to turn and will cause more work to be done.

Always remove weight when you can.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:41 pm
Posts: 263
Location: PA
Ya-work at a Chevrolet dealership; alignment is good!

No, please-do not get the flywheel situation uprooted again!!

Hopefully the pic will be here this time of my intake setup:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
Concerning the flywheel, it really depends on driving conditions. It takes more energy to accelerate a heavier flywheel, so whenever you are accelerating, you'll be better off with a lighter one. If you do a lot of cruising, then there's no need for the lighter one, you'll be better off with the heavier one.

I like lightweight flywheels because they save me money in another area: brake pads.

EDIT: Also, regarding alignments, the "factory specs" aren't going to be optimal for fuel economy. You should study the dynamics of your suspension throughout it's range of travel to find out what works best (ie, if your car toes out on compression like mine does, you might not want to set static toe at 0, otherwise you might be risking your life every time you hit a bump).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
Forgot something else: don't fill up the crankcase with oil. Use like 3 qts instead of 5, and I'm sure a crank scraper would probably help too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:52 pm
Posts: 634
Location: Eastern Ontario
rarson wrote:
EDIT: Also, regarding alignments, the "factory specs" aren't going to be optimal for fuel economy. ... you might not want to set static toe at 0, otherwise you might be risking your life every time you hit a bump).


just looked up the factory spec for my '98 hatchback. toe is 0.0 - 0.32 degrees. i'd say that's pretty optimal.

_________________
Image
www.MetroMPG.com ... www.ForkenSwift.com
... www.EcoModder.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
Yeah.

I think I figured out the fuel magnet thing, why it works.

This basically states that passing water through a magnetic field increases hydrogen bonding, resulting in fewer ions, and can also increase the evaporation rate of water. Due to gasoline having many ions, I suppose it is doing the same thing to the gas, which would provide better atomization (quicker evaporation) and a more complete burn, with fewer hydrocarbon ions (which would explain the reduction in emissions). Basically, it's my belief that passing perhaps any fluid through a magnetic field could strengthen the attraction of ions towards each other, reducing the amount of ions in that fluid.

Anyone have a conductivity meter and some sort of setup to test this with?

It's also my belief that the effect is probably long-lived. While it may not be permanent, like rubbing a magnet across a nail, it'll last for a good while. And this means that, with a return fuel system, the longer the engine runs, the more the fuel gets passed through, which could lead to better and better results.

Interesting stuff!

EDIT: That page also states that the magnetic field reduces the Van Der Waals bonding strength, making water clusters smaller. This could possibly decrease viscosity of water, allowing molecules to more easily separate. With gas, it would not only provide for a better mixture, but also cause a rich condition due to the change in viscosity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:23 am
Posts: 1746
Location: Washington, DC
rarson wrote:
Yeah.

I think I figured out the fuel magnet thing, why it works.



It doesn't work in any way. Complete bullshit

_________________
91 Pontiac Firefly Turbo
10 Suzuki Kizashi


Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Surprise, Az, USA
harabsnyder wrote:
Um, it might be different for a swift/metro/etc, but for the Accord 98-02 models, a lighter fly wheel decreases gas mileage. I am not going to start using power, work, momentum, inertia, because I am to lazy to look up the physics definition of them, and you seem like you would take the time to correct verbage instead of recognize a truth.

Regarding your example about the wheel, I am sorry but you are HORRENDIOUSLY wrong. Galileo Galilei proved you wrong long ago. He took several balls of various weights and rolled them downhill. No matter the weight, they all rolled at the same speed. If you strap a single weight to one point in the wheel you are going to have a very off balanced wheel, so I assume when u say strap, that what you mean is get a same height wheel with equally distributed but greater weight.

You then quote that the engine is the same way regarding getting the fly wheel moving. You are absolutly correct that it takes more energy to get it going. But you forget the other half. True as it may be that an object at rest will stay at rest until an external force(engine) acts upon, the same is true of an object in motion(whose external force would be friction)

But we can argue physics all day, but in the end I will rely upon the ultimatley untrust worthy internet to be the source of my opinion. A flywheel is very helpful for racing, because it lets your revs get higher faster. The flipside is that they drop faster, which several sites have shown, these sites also stating that their fuel economy is higher with a heavier weight.

So calculate based upon any variables you might know, and then remember that nothing goes against the laws of nature, only what we know of them



:roll: Galileo is right. You are wrong. If you followed the physics links that I posted, you would see that solid spheres all have the same inertia as long as the material uniform throughout the spere. I never doubted that.

I wasn't talking about a sphere (ball). I was talking about a disc with fixed diameter and a variable weight (like a tire). You can still keep the wheel balanced if you want, the heavier wheel will rotate slower.

........Sorry guys

The best way to increase fuel economy in my opinion is to get an engine with smaller displacement or no engine at all.

5.0L......... 17mpg
2.4L..........27mpg
1.0L..........43mpg
0L.............infinite (alternate fuel)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Surprise, Az, USA
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
Funny, the LS1 hasn't fit on that chart for the last 7 years or so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
Woodie wrote:
It doesn't work in any way. Complete bullshit


Did you actually bother reading the rest of my post, or looking at the links I posted? Have you done any sort of testing whatsoever on the subject? I'm not trying to be an ass but it seems that you've disregarded the majority of my post. If you want to try to persuade me that it doesn't work, then that's fine but you're going to have to bring some proof into the discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:00 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:26 pm
Posts: 4111
Location: seattle
Darrell wrote:
The best way to increase fuel economy in my opinion is to get an engine with smaller displacement or no engine at all.

5.0L......... 17mpg
2.4L..........27mpg
1.0L..........43mpg
0L.............infinite (alternate fuel)


thats a blanket statement that isnt as black and white as the liter of your engine. the weight of the vehicle plays a role as well as gear ratio and intended use of the engine.
put a 1.0 in a vehicle designed for a 5.0 (say a crown vic.)lets check your mileage.

i have proof in my driveway that more c.i. can be better for mileage.

_________________
GO FAST TURN LEFT!! IF YOU HAVE TO TURN RIGHT, YOU NEED A ROUND OF WEDGE!!!

here is my sig. karma if you look

Dattman wrote:
If you want big wheels buy a tractor...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
^ I agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:23 am
Posts: 1746
Location: Washington, DC
rarson wrote:
Woodie wrote:
It doesn't work in any way. Complete bullshit


Did you actually bother reading the rest of my post, or looking at the links I posted? Have you done any sort of testing whatsoever on the subject? I'm not trying to be an @ss but it seems that you've disregarded the majority of my post. If you want to try to persuade me that it doesn't work, then that's fine but you're going to have to bring some proof into the discussion.


Not only did I read your post and follow the link, I've been reading about magic things like this for 40 years, it's snake oil. The car manufacturers spend millions of dollars trying to get 1/10 of a mpg improvement, If there was some $5 gimmick which gave a provable increase, it would already be on your car when you bought it. If you're one of those wackos who thinks the big bad car companies are conspiring with the big bad oil companies, then why aren't racers using it?

_________________
91 Pontiac Firefly Turbo
10 Suzuki Kizashi


Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group