TeamSwift
http://www.teamswift.net/

Report on 3 Tech Economy Head, Cam & Sproket.
http://www.teamswift.net/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=24219
Page 1 of 2

Author:  GEO Hauler [ Wed May 17, 2006 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Report on 3 Tech Economy Head, Cam & Sproket.

In my quest to improve gas mileage on my 93 Metro, I came across Mike's heads on eBay. They looked promising, so I figured I would give them a chance. I've done other testing for diesels before, so I am familiar with testing protocols. Testing tool used today is a G-Tech RR.

We start with a 93 Metro Hatchback, 3 cyl's of fury and a 5 speed. Breathing is accomplished with a K&N filter and a stock exhaust. I performed testing consisting of 4 runs, in alternating directions with the same weight and gas in tank, etc for proper repeatability. Then I changed the cam sproket to a +10 degree model. The above mentioned testing was performed, with repeatable results. Finally, the cylinder head was added. The specs on the head are 10.5:1 compression, economy cam, nitrided exhaust valves, valve job, guides, seals, and a port/polish. Testing again was performed. Stock runs will be represented by the black line, sproket only by a red line and both the sproket and head by the green line. The solid lines are horsepower, with the dotted lined being torque.

Here is a graph of HP vs RPM:

Image

As you can see, power for the sproket curve was shifted lower, with the combo green line jumping up across the entire RPM band. Oddly, all 4 runs for the “sprocket only mod” show oscillations above 3800 rpm.

Here is Max Torque and HP:

Image

Torque is up 22%, Horsepower is up 15%. That was quite surprising, considering this is an economy package.

Here is info on each run:

ImageImageImage

¼ mile times increased slightly with the pulley, but greatly with the cylinder head.

Image

As you can see, 0-60 times are quite a bit faster with the head.
Gas mileage has gone up from 38.13 MPG to 45.02 MPG. That’s a 15% increase!

I am thoroughly impressed with Mike's products. I drive 90 miles a day to work, so this increase of mileage is most welcome. If you've been considering this mod, consider no longer!! My only regret is that i didn't do it sooner. :D

Next, I'll be testing this package with a +6 cam sproket.

Author:  CMA [ Wed May 17, 2006 7:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

very nice!!! i am waiting for someone report on mike's work... i am so impressive with result.

in future i will buy your cams, mike! ( i hope your product is not sold)

good work, GEO Hauler

can you please post about swift 8v, 16v SOHC and 16v DOHC someday?

thanks

Author:  suprf1y [ Wed May 17, 2006 9:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Nice job on the testing.
The G tech pro is the perfect tool for back to back testing like this. Thats precisely what I have my G tech for.
It wasn't my intention to make it a high performance package, but it seemed to work out that way, anyway :D
The better quarter mile times are not surprising, but the amount is.
Pulling almost 3 seconds out of the 0-60 time, and increasing MPG by 15% is something I didn't expect.
Thanks again for the testing.

Author:  mosier [ Wed May 17, 2006 9:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Did you happen to do a compression test before and after the head install? I'm glad to see improvement from the head, but considering you were getting 38 before (8 less than EPA rating for city), I'd wonder if there wasn't a problem before. What I'd like to see is someone who is getting 50mpg out of their car put on one of these heads..

You drive 90 miles to work a day, I'd figure thats probably a lot of interstate? What kind of speeds are you running, that would explain your 38, and if you can still get 44mpg at near 70, that'd be great.

Author:  jsenner [ Wed May 17, 2006 9:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm waiting for my 3tech head to arrive... my car was getting 53 mpg last summer and at the moment it's getting 49 mpg. I ordered the same head package you've got only at 11:1 C/R because I'm putting the Singh grooves in it. Maybe I should've made that 11.5:1 C/R based on the reports I'm getting of other people testing the groove... but I guess it could always be shaved more later if it's not pinging at 11:1.

What's the minimum necessary work I should do to the bottom end if I wanted to install gapless rings? Can I just pull the pistons and put new rings on and put it back together?

I'm hoping for 60 mpg or more.

Jeremiah

Author:  JellyBeanDriver [ Wed May 17, 2006 10:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

mosier wrote:
You drive 90 miles to work a day, I'd figure thats probably a lot of interstate? What kind of speeds are you running, that would explain your 38, and if you can still get 44mpg at near 70, that'd be great.


Just a data point here. I commute 100 miles a day - nearly 100% of it all freeway, avg speed is 75MPH and I got 47MPG with Mike's +10deg sprocket and ~46 with the stock sprocket.

I went back to the stock sprocket when I had to go for a smog test and haven't gone back to the +10. For my driving (all freeway) the stock sprocket feels stronger to me.

Author:  mosier [ Wed May 17, 2006 11:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

The stock specs for the 3-cyl are 55hp at 5700, and 58tq at 3300. If you do some more runs with the gtech, could you wind it out to 6500 or so to see what kind of power you're making? Do you have to put a correction factor in the gtech for transmission losses, or are the graphs showing power at the wheels?

Author:  93geometro [ Wed May 17, 2006 11:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
but considering you were getting 38 before (8 less than EPA rating for city),
those epa numbers are an "estimate" for a now 13 yr old car..

Author:  mosier [ Wed May 17, 2006 11:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

True. That's why I said "..rating for city), I'd wonder if there wasn't a problem before." If he wasn't getting that great mileage before, was it because compression was leaking passed the valves, was the egr passage clogged up in the old head.. There are plenty of people pulling high 40s and into the 50s with their car, and a lot of them are the 89-94s. A lot of those engines you'd figure were pretty tired, but somehow they manage to keep high numbers.

The reason for his lower numbers is the higher speed interstate driving, which makes sense. The fact that he's getting near 50mpg now at those speeds is a testament to suprf1y's work.

Like I said before, I'd like to see someone who pulls high numbers already put on the head package and see where it gets them. It looks like jsenner will be doing it soon...

Author:  GEO Hauler [ Thu May 18, 2006 5:03 am ]
Post subject: 

I did do a compression test, and all cylinders were even and 10 lbs within factory spec.

The drive is not all interstate. There aren't many innerstates in Connecticut. I am on interstates for about 7 miles. The rest are back country roads. with a little stop and go.

My EGR is disconnected, so that would not have made a diference. The exhaust manifold port for EGR is still cloogged, and i didn't clean it out after the new head install.

The numbers are what is at the rear wheels. It is best used as a before and after device. Comparing shaft horsepower at the engine to rear wheel horsepower can be difficult. I no longer pay attention to HP at the engine, because what you get at the rear wheels is what's important.

I posted in another topic, but never got an answer, does EGR use increase or decrease mileage?

Author:  suprf1y [ Thu May 18, 2006 9:01 am ]
Post subject: 

The best I have ever gotten with my turbo cars, which get even better MPG than the non-turbo cars(except xfi), is just about 50 miles/imperial gallon.
This was under almost perfect conditions.
I would be suspicious of anybody claiming 50+ miles/US gallon.
55 miles/US gallon is almost 65 miles/imperial gallon.

Author:  mosier [ Thu May 18, 2006 9:25 am ]
Post subject: 

GEO Hauler wrote:
I posted in another topic, but never got an answer, does EGR use increase or decrease mileage?


It should increase. It 'decreases' displacement by injecting inert gas into the combustion chamber, causing the throttle to open more, reducing pumping losses.. or so the theory goes.


What were the compression ratios on the turbo cars suprf1y? Stock? Since you're not under boost under normal conditions on the highway.. I'd think the mileage would be less, due to the lower compression. Although it could have to do with the manifold, multi injector setup, maybe different timing?

Author:  suprf1y [ Thu May 18, 2006 9:40 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Although it could have to do with the manifold, multi injector setup, maybe different timing?

Thats what I always thought.
I think compression is 8.5-1

Author:  jsenner [ Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am ]
Post subject: 

suprf1y wrote:
I would be suspicious of anybody claiming 50+ miles/US gallon.
55 miles/US gallon is almost 65 miles/imperial gallon.


There were a couple summers where my car did average 55 mpg. I make a rule of not filling up at less than 500 miles per tank when my car is working like it should and doing over 50 mpg. Otherwise I typically go 450 miles before filling.

The best mpg I've ever gotten was 64 mpg averaged over 700 miles. That was a one-time event in a series of 58-60 mpg tanks... typically I'd fill up the tank at 550 miles. This was at high elevation in Utah using 85.5 octane fuel.

So I KNOW that 55 mpg is possible...

Jeremiah

Author:  geometro [ Thu May 18, 2006 10:54 am ]
Post subject: 

suprf1y wrote:
I would be suspicious of anybody claiming 50+ miles/US gallon.


so would i ;)

i'd be suspicious that they were driving very carefully, and keeping their highway speeds down, among other things.

--

great testing, goe hauler. thanks for posting that.

can you fill us in a bit more on your mileage data? are your figures averages of multiple tanks? single tank before/after the mods? do you track every tank? (if you do, could you post a number of them for comparison purposes along with the dates?)

Author:  GEO Hauler [ Thu May 18, 2006 7:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

geometro wrote:
can you fill us in a bit more on your mileage data? are your figures averages of multiple tanks? single tank before/after the mods? do you track every tank? (if you do, could you post a number of them for comparison purposes along with the dates?)


Before all mods:
Tank 1: 37.527
Tank 2: 37.435
Tank 3: 39.960
Tank 4: 37.598

Average: 38.13

After All Mods:
Tank 1: 45.664
Tank 2: 44.387

Average: 45.02

I will fill up tomorrow and post saturday. By current miles on the tank and gas left left, it will be the same or close to.

Author:  geometro [ Thu May 18, 2006 7:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

you likely fill up weekly with the amount you drive, so these are good, solid figures. thanks.

please come back and update after a few more tanks.

Author:  GEO Hauler [ Thu May 18, 2006 8:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

geometro wrote:
you likely fill up weekly with the amount you drive, so these are good, solid figures. thanks.

please come back and update after a few more tanks.



It's about weekly. Military schedule is fluid at best. But the car really only gets used for the same trip to and from (I have 2 other vehicles I drive otherise), which is spent at average speeds of 50-55 I would guess.

I'll post more data as it comes in. :D

Author:  GEO Hauler [ Sun May 21, 2006 7:25 am ]
Post subject: 

Fillup on friday yielded interesting results:

336.2 miles and filled up 7.204 gallons for a MPG for that tank of:

46.688

Will continue to monitor....

Author:  t3 ragtop [ Mon May 29, 2006 10:34 am ]
Post subject: 

suprf1y wrote:
The best I have ever gotten with my turbo cars, which get even better MPG than the non-turbo cars(except xfi), is just about 50 miles/imperial gallon.
This was under almost perfect conditions.
I would be suspicious of anybody claiming 50+ miles/US gallon.
55 miles/US gallon is almost 65 miles/imperial gallon.


not that my turbo3 vert was built with fuel economy in mind, but i get a very repeatable 50 mpg with ol' blue. i run about 27 miles round trip each day, 60% highway, 4 traffic lights, 40 mph average on city streets and 70 mph on the highway legs. the turbo3 is a slightly tired stock engine with the boost running at factory (about 7 psi.) i tend to use large throttle angles and max boost. i usually run with the top down without any thought of conserving fuel. i also use 93 octane fuel and 10 degrees of ignition advance.

my twincam vert runs about 40 mpg with usually spirited driving and sometimes speeds up to 90 mph (when outerbelt traffic is running hot and then only to keep from being over run by traffic. :roll: )

Author:  geometro [ Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

GEO Hauler wrote:
Will continue to monitor....


Any more news/tank data to report? :)

Author:  GEO Hauler [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

geometro wrote:
GEO Hauler wrote:
Will continue to monitor....


Any more news/tank data to report? :)


The tanks after that are as follows:

43.874
43.225
47.066
45.596
47.330
46.088
47.490
46.614

averages out to 45.910

Author:  geometro [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Cool. Thanks for the update.

Author:  T Bell [ Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:37 am ]
Post subject: 

GEO Hauler wrote:
Fillup on friday yielded interesting results:

336.2 miles and filled up 7.204 gallons for a MPG for that tank of:

46.688

Will continue to monitor....


336 miles with 7.2 gals :shock: of course this is without the a/c running? And this is with 10.5CR, 87 octane? What is Mike's ebay store's name?

Author:  GEO Hauler [ Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

T Bell wrote:
GEO Hauler wrote:
Fillup on friday yielded interesting results:

336.2 miles and filled up 7.204 gallons for a MPG for that tank of:

46.688

Will continue to monitor....


336 miles with 7.2 gals :shock: of course this is without the a/c running? And this is with 10.5CR, 87 octane? What is Mike's ebay store's name?


My ac belt is disconnected. requires 93 octane, but I did the cost alalysis, running 93 with the higher compression still saves you money.

A few things i have on tap is the underdrive pulley, gutting the cat and a different muffler. There wont be much more after that i think.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/