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 Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:15 pm

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: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

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


I know weight is a factor. The chart is just an example of what I look for if I want to save gas mileage.....a smaller engine. I'm not going to do anything extreme or do any modifications. So if I want to save gas, then I look for a small engine (in a small car).

The chart shows an exponential equation that leads to infinity if you don't use gas at all. It that sense, it's accurate. Of course there's no more information anywhere on the chart.....I did that on purpose. Normally the vehicle is proportional to the engine size. For example an average motorcycle engine size might be 600cc, but I don't know the gas mileage of motorcycles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
Woodie wrote:
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?


Because people automatically assume they know enough to "know" that it doesn't work...

I'm interested enough to do considerable testing for my own data. If any gains are apparent, then I'll be satisfied. The science of it certainly makes sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Surprise, Az, USA
There's already lots of information on the internet that says flywheels are excellent ways to preserve energy....but nobody said all energy will be preserved. You don't need to run tests on your car, just read about flywheel technology from scientist and colleges on the internet.

The information on the internet mainly mentions a spinning flywheel, but doesn't mention the engergy used to get the flywheel in motion. You probably won't find that on the internet because it's already covered in basic physics classes.


my wife thinks i'm crazy for continuing this futile conversation :roll: :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
I'm not arguing about the flywheels, I was arguing about the magnets. Though I've done as much research as possible, and here's what I've concluded (not based on my own testing, so take that with a grain of salt):

1. The magnetic field has some sort of effect on the fuel, as it does water.
2. The resulting effect increases gas mileage possibly by better atomization.
3. The actual measurable results of real testing show that gains are very, very small, possibly small enough to not even notice.

I think it's clear that time is better spent making the combustion chamber more efficient and effective than dawdling around with fuel magnets.

Though I'm curious as to the effect of adding a surfactant to the gasoline. Perhaps that would contribute to better fuel atomization at the nozzle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Surprise, Az, USA
Now I really look like a weirdo... I'm arguing, and nobody is arguing with me. :lol:

About the magnet stuff. Chemistry was never my subject. It seems like it could be possible. Although I remember that some chemical bonds are very strong and take enormous amounts of energy to break those bonds. So I can't tell you if a magnetic field is strong enough to break the chemical bonds.

There's enough theory to make a lot of people think it could be true, but not enough proof for most people to say it does work.

Sooo.....until I see more proof...............I have no idea :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
It's not chemical bonding that it's affecting. The compound still stays the same. It's molecular bonding, water molecules to water molecules, which I'm sure is much weaker than chemical bonding.

Yeah, I'm actually dropping the magnet idea. Maybe one day I'll do some tests but I've got better ideas to think about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:28 am
Posts: 220
Location: Frankfurt Germany
For those living in cold climates or doing a lot of short-distance driving, the WTS-mod is a good help. It is easy to do, cheap, and it really makes a difference. See:

http://www.teamswift.net/viewtopic.php?t=20537

As far as flywheels or any other rotated weight is concerned: The heavier, the more energy required. Its a fundamental construction principle keeping rotated masses down.

Cheers, Helmut


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:07 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Home
I am going back to the fly wheel conversation....

http://www.tunacan.net/t4/tech/flywheel.htm

It makes sense that it requires more energy to start it spinning, but apply all the formula's you want to it, can anyone show statistical proof stating that it improves to go lighter, or decreases to go heavier? I hear people say and read people stating that lightening the flywheel inproves fuel economy, and then I read articles saying that it decreases the fuel economy. So does anyone have any prove? Can I get a Z-test going on in here? Does light improve city, and heavy improve highway? Vis versa? If not it seems to be an argument between a physics student and people who use the internet. Information is everywhere, but does anyone have a solid source?[/url]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Just stop! You're driving me nuts!

You guys are very smart, but you don't know what you're talking about. Satisfy your quest for knowledge with education. Engineers get paid good money because they went to school for at least four years. You could be an engineer too, but not by surfing the net.

Please don't try to understand chemistry or physics if you haven't had instruction.

I've had instruction, and I still don't understand everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Surprise, Az, USA
Sorry Helmut, that wasn't directed towards you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:28 am
Posts: 220
Location: Frankfurt Germany
Thanks, Darrell!

I heartily agree we should keep off pseudo-science and in particular stop doing philosphy on established physics. Lets get back to what really counts!

In that respect I think following is worth doing, because it makes a difference and is easy and cheap to do:

1) WTS-Mod (makes a big difference lowering consumption during warm-up cycle, and maintains combustion chambers, cat and EGR nice and clean by greatly lowering soot levels. That in turn lowers consumption again.)

2) Thermostat mod (98°C / 210°F) increases general efficiency.

3) Fine-adjust timing so that it is just set on the brink before starting to detonate. (Good hearing required!)

4) Keep car in good maintenance. I wont elaborate on the obvious such as tires, brakes...

5) Block unnecessary airholes in the front bumper to decrease drag.

6) Warm air intake mod. (Don't overdo it, the intake air temp should not exceed 40°C )

Cheers,
Helmut


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:07 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Home
Darrell wrote:
I've had instruction, and I still don't understand everything.


I like the quote. I think you totally missed what I was saying in my last post. I am not arguing with you, I am not asking your opinion. I am asking can someone show a real world application in which the flywheel effects fuel economy. Great your a physics student, you know formulas for potential and kinetic energy, you can explain angular momentum, on paper, but I havn't seen a formula to explain the entire inner workings of the vehicle and how fuel economy is affect at different speeds or on city vs. highway driving. Someone else said dont argue it again, so I am not trying to. I am just asking if anyone has seen, from a reuptable source, the affects on fuel economy. If you can show that over 100 samples of highway miles that the lighter one gets 35mpg with a SD of .1 mpg, and the stock is 33 with a SD of .5 mpg I will accept that. But telling me your a student does not equate to emperical evidence. Its almost the same as me telling you I cook Uncle Ben's instant rice, therefore I must be a chef.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Surprise, Az, USA
Does a under-car "skid plate" reduce drag?

People use them in electric cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
Yes, if the underside of the chassis is flat, aerodynamics will be improved.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:38 am
Posts: 63
Location: New Jersey
martinq = right.

I just read through the first page and can't keep reading the same arguement back and forth anymore.

I pulled out a book from my auto shop class "Auto Fundamentals" Chapter 1: Building and Engine....

I'm not going to quote the entire section, but martinq is right about the fuel economy of a heavier flywheel, but mainly this would be highway mileage, not stop and go. Also, the engine would run much smoother.

With no flywheel, your crankshaft would not spin far enoughto get to the next power stroke, it would be a ton of power during the power stroke and then fade to low-no power continueing through the other strokes. No flywheel or a very light flywheel would yeild a nonrunning engine, or rough running engine with low life expectancy. the flywheel keeps the engine running with a smooth flow or power through all strokes and when you let go off the gas you're car would slow down much slower than with a lighter flywheel.



"In performance situations, if you have two otherwise identical cars, the one with the lighter flywheel will always win."

this is absolutely right, but as we no, performance and fuel economy or pretty much exact opposites in most cases. the car with the lighter flywheel would accelerate more quickly, reach a higher speed in the straights, and slow down more quickly (essentially better braking) as well as technically a bit better handling due to slighter less vehicle weight. This (racing) is more like stop and go, flying down the straight, slowing down for turns, etc.

but this arguement is about fuel economy, overall fuel economy, if the same 2 cars where to drive down the highway with full tanks, who would run out of gas first? the one with the lighter flywheel would stop first, because you would be on the gas more often to maintain speed.



but this is mainly from common sense and what I'm reading right before me, it doesn't actually mention the economy differance between the two. The only way to really know is to test both, and all cars that I know of have heavy flywheels stock, and racecars have lighter flywheels for the exact reasons I showed above. The only way to really know for 100% certainty is to go test both in a controled environment.

a good test may be with some sort of rigged pole to simulate the crankshaft that would intersect through the center of a bicycle rim/tire. Try one normal and another test with weight added uniformally onto the tire. The tires would then be spun up to a certain speed (not just given a push) and see which one stops first. Given there is the same friction in the center during these tests, the heavier one should spin longer (higher gas mileage)

just giving it the same push would only prove the increased acceleration and the performace/racing use of a lighter flywheel. They would have to be spun the same speed, then let go and timed 'til they stopped.


so my overall conclusion would be
lighter flywheel = better city mileage (stop and go) due to easier acceleration of the flywheel from a stop and less overall weight being pushed. But this would only be seen if stopping at nearly every single traffic light.

heavier flywheel = better highway mileage due to continued, smooth energy trasfer and more weight to slow down.




another way to look at it may be rocks rolling down a hill or stopping a ball from rolling. a big heavy rock is rolling next to a lighter rock, you lifting off the gas is like you running out to stop the rock from rolling. Maybe you can stop the lighter one, but the heavy one would run you over and keep going.

or, stopping a ball from rolling. Roll a beach ball and a bowling ball, same thing, lifting off the gas would be like trying to stop each. yea the bowling ball would be harder to get up to speed, but it would also be alot harder to slow down.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:36 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Roscommon, MI
I said that on page 3.

rarson wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Surprise, Az, USA
The stuff you're saying pretty good. We actually did the tire test in physics class. We hung a weight on a string on the outer perimeter of the tire and evaluated the conservation of rotational energy.

Anyway. There's on thing I wanted to add.... I read a article once about flywheel and how great they are because they conserve a lot of energy. However the writers of the article could not achieve perfect conservation which is understandable. They said it was great, but not perfect. Some energy is always lost.

Hope that helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:44 am
Posts: 451
Location: near Burbank, Calif
Interesting how that seems to be ignored when it comes to bigger, heavier tires and wheels!

Appearance must blind the calculations?

Pres


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:22 pm
Posts: 145
Location: West Virginia
wheels are flywheels as well so an easy test would be find a extra set of wheels /tires the same outer diameter that are heavier than stock and do a test to see what ones give the best mileage.

I know there is a probably a difference in rolling resistance between the 2 sets of tires but that could be accounted for if it even makes enough difference to matter. I don't think the rolling resistance would make more than a 1-2mpg difference but the wheel weight would be more like 3-4mpg.

Maybe get a bunch of wheel weights and line the inside and outside of the rim with them for some back to back runs with and without them. Wheel weights could easily add 10lbs per tire without affecting rolling resistance, just balance. Balance would just make the car shake and not really affect the mileage.

Just some ideas I am throwing out to try and come up with some answers on heavy rotating mass vs light rotating mass.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:50 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:26 pm
Posts: 4111
Location: seattle
Coyote X wrote:
wheels are flywheels as well so an easy test would be find a extra set of wheels /tires the same outer diameter that are heavier than stock and do a test to see what ones give the best mileage.

I know there is a probably a difference in rolling resistance between the 2 sets of tires but that could be accounted for if it even makes enough difference to matter. I don't think the rolling resistance would make more than a 1-2mpg difference but the wheel weight would be more like 3-4mpg.




if someone close to me wanted to try this , with a set of aluminum wheels compared to steel wheels, i could dismount and mount the tires so rolling resistance would not be a factor. :)

_________________
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: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:31 pm
Posts: 57
Location: Lummi Island
[quote="tuffcarguy"][quote="Coyote X"]wheels are flywheels as well so an easy test would be find a extra set of wheels /tires the same outer diameter that are heavier than stock and do a test to see what ones give the best mileage.

Just fill your wheels with a gallon of water in each wheel, this will give you 8lbs. per wheel and you can drain it when the test is over.
It will probably cause more resistance at low speed though since the water won't be spinning with the wheel until you reach about 15 to 20mph.
You could also just try this with one front wheel and then you should be able to feel the heavier side pulling during acceleration. Once up to speed, it should even out, if it doesn't, you know there is continued rolling resistance even when the added weight is up to speed.

Just a thought....

MM.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:22 am 
Offline
abby normal
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:59 pm
Posts: 1835
Location: NorCal, USA
3play wrote:
tuffcarguy wrote:
Coyote X wrote:
wheels are flywheels as well so an easy test would be find a extra set of wheels /tires the same outer diameter that are heavier than stock and do a test to see what ones give the best mileage.

Just fill your wheels with a gallon of water in each wheel, this will give you 8lbs. per wheel and you can drain it when the test is over.
It will probably cause more resistance at low speed though since the water won't be spinning with the wheel until you reach about 15 to 20mph.
You could also just try this with one front wheel and then you should be able to feel the heavier side pulling during acceleration. Once up to speed, it should even out, if it doesn't, you know there is continued rolling resistance even when the added weight is up to speed.

Just a thought....

MM.


:shock: Please do not do this---

The tire sidewalls are not made for the added (and changing ) rotational mass of the water.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:44 am
Posts: 451
Location: near Burbank, Calif
Quote:
Please do not do this---

The tire sidewalls are not made for the added (and changing ) rotational mass of the water.


Yeah, but its probably not as much carcass pressure as is involved when doing burnouts or chucking it sideways.
It would give one an easy/quick feel for the reduced acceleration due to the extra mass involved when going to a 'super cool' big wheel modification.

Suggest you fill 'em up only about 1/2 way with water and then keep your speeds under 50mph or so.
Acceleration/deceleration is where heavier wheel eats up the power anyway.

You'll have to demount the tire after your test to suck out all the water.

Of course, you could 'play it safe' and take a $300-$400 bill down to your local tire shop and have big wheels and tires installed to do your test.

-or- like my friend took his Mercedes SUV down to the tire shop and got some super-trick low profile(21") big tires and wheels.
Found out that the thing now became more sluggish and rode "like a brick".
So he put back on his stock wheels and tires.
And it only cost him $2500 to find that out!
(I guess he was not willing to suffer thru the rough ride to just look cool)

YMMV,
Pres


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:32 am 
Offline
Jomo Herder

Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 8:44 am
Posts: 267
Location: Unionville, Va
wow...water in the tires huh? i can't wait till someone does it. i never will though, sounds nuts to me

_________________
Is it just me or does any1 else hate wind?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:41 pm
Posts: 263
Location: PA
so, its been awhile. I have hadmany things that have kept me away. Anyway, i have been looking, but i can't seem to find any baby moon style wheel covers or rims-any suggestions?


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