Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: better injectors for better economy

  1. #11
    Still Plays With Cars Loren's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Florida
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    774
    Thanks
    170
    Thanked 575 Times in 339 Posts
    Better atomization could be a factor. And you could definitely save a little fuel during the warm-up process.

    I do respect the "sport" of hypermiling and the experimentation that goes with it!


    Simplify and add lightness.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Pasco, washington
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren View Post
    You want to get better economy, simply put less air through the engine. Either don't open the throttle as much, or RESTRICT the intake in some manner so that even if you open the throttle... less air is going in. Less air = less fuel
    so you're saying if I put duct tape over half of the intake pipe on this car then I will get better mileage? Please say yes

  3. #13
    Hubcap Enthusiast Scratchpaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Phoenix
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    192
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 98 Times in 60 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Codylehr23 View Post
    so you're saying if I put duct tape over half of the intake pipe on this car then I will get better mileage? Please say yes
    Well, you'd be getting half the power (assuming you successfully cut airflow by 50%). You could do the exact same thing by pressing the gas pedal half as much. The end result is, you spend longer accelerating more slowly, and don't save any gas.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Squamish
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    386
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 132 Times in 83 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by foama View Post
    I will post a report of the observed mpg differences when I am sure about the results, not earlier.
    This could be in several weeks, or in whatever time is necessary. Thanks for your patience.

    Preliminary UPDATE:

    After the first ride, the figures displayed were very much better.
    I don't know how much consumption really changed, but this picture was taken about 20 minutes after driving began. The display was not reset on start.
    The trip was on well-built country roads going through villages and built-up areas, much of it out of town at 80 - 90 km/h.

    Attachment 14494
    In the world of economy these days, I'm gunna say that ones a fluke.

    Let us know in a couple tanks.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2018 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 43.5 mpg (US) ... 18.5 km/L ... 5.4 L/100 km ... 52.2 mpg (Imp)


  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Country is Europe, state is Germany
    Country
    Germany
    Posts
    704
    Thanks
    89
    Thanked 472 Times in 264 Posts
    Update:
    The ECU uses pulse duration, which translates to opening time of injectors, as the basis for calculating fuel consumption. The new injectors have a much higher flow rate than OEM, being around 140% of OEM, so they squirt more fuel at the same pulse duration. That made the display show less consumption than actual. Meanwhile the OEM injectors are back in.
    I have observed the new injectors atomize fuel into a much finer spray than the OEM, which reduces consumption while the cold engine is warming up. I imagine the better atomization paired with the correct flow rate would be optimal for best economy. Improvement could realistically be around 5% depending on driving style and trip distance.
    For comparison, the famous economical Daihatsu/Toyota/ 3cylinder 1KR engine, which is in current production and similar to ours, uses injectors with only four holes at almost identical fuel pressure. The atomization is clearly not as good as on our OEM 10 hole injectors.
    Last edited by foama; 05-30-2019 at 09:18 AM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to foama For This Useful Post:

    Eggman (05-30-2019)

  7. #16
    Senior Member Alex1a1f's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,157
    Thanks
    676
    Thanked 649 Times in 378 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by foama View Post
    Update:
    The ECU uses pulse duration, which translates to opening time of injectors, as the basis for calculating fuel consumption. The new injectors have a much higher flow rate than OEM, being around 140% of OEM, so they squirt more fuel at the same pulse duration. That made the display show less consumption than actual. Meanwhile the OEM injectors are back in.
    I have observed the new injectors atomize fuel into a much finer spray than the OEM, which reduces consumption while the cold engine is warming up. I imagine the better atomization paired with the correct flow rate would be optimal for best economy. Improvement could realistically be around 5% depending on driving style and trip distance.
    For comparison, the famous economical Daihatsu/Toyota/ 3cylinder 1KR engine, which is in current production and similar to ours, uses injectors with only four holes at almost identical fuel pressure. The atomization is clearly not as good as on our OEM 10 hole injectors.
    So you switched back to OEM or leaving in new injectors?


    (blank signature)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •