home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > General > website & board

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-03-2014, 03:57 PM   #201
Redwood Chair
K-jet For Life
 
Redwood Chair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: - Stock PSI Or Bust -
Default



Sounds like more fairy tales to me.
__________________
Raise The Lowered


Image hosted by servimg.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiperfauto View Post
Folks on here don't know a good deal when they see it.
how psi stock cna support?

Redwood Chair is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 02:10 PM   #202
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klr142 View Post
So, are you making a general statement
Please consult governmental fuel mileage specs, and make your case of B23F vs B230F, and use orignal mileage tests, not updated. Or find some motor magazine that fully reports information.

I know 1984-244 (B23F) with 4-speed auto could get decent highway mileage, if your right and left feet were trained, and 55 mph was top speed. My 1993-245 with 4-speed auto gets same mileage as my 1984...same driver with trained feet.
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 06:17 PM   #203
Lord_Athlon
Sf1k Kryptonite
 
Lord_Athlon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: If there were a bright center of the universe, im in the town that is furthest from
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klr142 View Post
That has NOTHING to do with a b23 vs b230. Nothing.
And increased the internal efficiency of the motor, which does increase fuel efficiency.


So, are you making a general statement pulled out of your butt based on things you've read about fuel efficiency in general on the internet, or are you stating a fact that the 10.3:1 b23 will get better gas mileage than a 9.8:1 b230 with the exact same car/trans/engine management, etc.?
This is what he does.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by 240240 View Post
I would like to congratulate drugs for winning the war on drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvolvor
3/4", make everything as heavy as possible for no reason. It's also 4:1 compression ratio because that's how cosworth did it in 1978.
Lord_Athlon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 09:21 PM   #204
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Athlon View Post
This is
Just the facts - Today's the high-efficiency engines on many of today's cars owe a lot of their fuel economy to their high compression ratios. But, a high compression engine has its drawbacks, too. To keep it running in tip-top shape, you need to use high-octane gas, which is more expensive than regular unleaded gas


For those staying in touch with "what's happening"


DOE awards Envera $2.8M to develop and to test efficient variable compression ratio engine

22 June 2013

The new engine will achieve high efficiency using the Atkinson Cycle with an 18:1 compression ratio,
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 02:47 PM   #205
klr142
Turbo, what?
 
klr142's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Athlon View Post
This is what he does.
Agreed, just wanted to see if he had any facts in him instead of all the other stuff from the internet. Thread is full of generalizations, which are not necessarily bad, but you can't say one engine is better than the other without backing it up. There is not going to be a test in a magazine that exactly says one way or another as they aren't testing the exact same car/drivetrain/management configuration with the only difference being the block.
klr142 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 08:12 PM   #206
Redwood Chair
K-jet For Life
 
Redwood Chair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: - Stock PSI Or Bust -
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84B23F View Post
Just the facts -


For those staying in touch with "what's happening"

Thanks, I don't know how I could stay in touch in this fast changing world without your superior google-fu skills.

Redwood Chair is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 09:53 AM   #207
Lord_Athlon
Sf1k Kryptonite
 
Lord_Athlon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: If there were a bright center of the universe, im in the town that is furthest from
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwood Chair View Post
Thanks, I don't know how I could stay in touch in this fast changing world without your superior google-fu skills.

Lord_Athlon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 03:03 PM   #208
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klr142 View Post
but you can't say one engine is better than the other without backing it up.
All you need is two new/rebuilt engines, and a Dynometer. Or you could take a course in Internal Combustion Engine Thermodynamics and learn that


More pressure means more potential work; I'm sure the turbobrickers are fully aware of that But turbobrickers are about the varoom power, not for fuel economy; some of the newer engines use turbos for fuel economy gains these days.

Or, just ask the professor in regards to changes in compression ratios; I'm sure he will agree, when CR is reduced, so does an engine's fuel efficiency decrease.

Problem is when humans review engines, they may twist the reality (advertising hype); but when scientific methods are used (dynometer/fuel flow), then we have reliable data, not influenced by a driver's foot, and motor-mouth.
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 04:54 PM   #209
klr142
Turbo, what?
 
klr142's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84B23F View Post
All you need is two new/rebuilt engines, and a Dynometer.

[...]

More pressure means more potential work; I'm sure the turbobrickers are fully aware of that But turbobrickers are about the varoom power, not for fuel economy; some of the newer engines use turbos for fuel economy gains these days.

Or, just ask the professor in regards to changes in compression ratios; I'm sure he will agree, when CR is reduced, so does an engine's fuel efficiency decrease.

Problem is when humans review engines, they may twist the reality (advertising hype); but when scientific methods are used (dynometer/fuel flow), then we have reliable data, not influenced by a driver's foot, and motor-mouth.
I agree with the first part, completely. I disagree that turbobrickers are only about varoom power and not for fuel economy. I do also agree that lower compression is less efficient than the EXACT same thing that has higher compression.

THE PROBLEM HERE, IS WE ARE NOT COMPARING THE EXACT SAME THING, and you keep showing us links you found online instead of something that is comparing the EXACT SAME THING.

A b230F(9.8:1) has less compression than a 10.3:1 rated b23F, FACT.
A b230F has less rotating and internal friction than a b23F, FACT.

Which gets better gas mileage in the exact same circumstance? YOU HAVE NOT TESTED IT SO YOU CAN NOT SAY. Nor can I.

Do you disagree with anything I have said?

Last edited by klr142; 06-20-2014 at 04:57 PM.. Reason: "Clarification"
klr142 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 06:23 PM   #210
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klr142 View Post
A b230F(9.8:1) has less compression than a 10.3:1 rated b23F, FACT.
Empirical evidence

Quote:
A b230F has less rotating and internal friction than a b23F,FACT.
Their press release so indicates, just like they state "there is no reduction in engine durability in spite of the lighter components,"
but I'll take a B23F over B230F

Assumed to be true...I have not verified.

Quote:
Which gets better gas mileage in the exact same circumstance?
If better fuel mileage existed, would Volvo "toot" their horn?

Please read these two press releases, and quote where they talk about a difference in fuel savings. Can you cite any Volvo literature where they "toot" their horn about fuel savings with introduction of B230F?

1. FOR 1985 VOLVO FEATURES NEW MODELS AND NEW ENGINES

2. A NEW ENGINE DYNASTY FROM VOLVO

Do remember, 1984 had LH 2.1 and 1985-1989 had LH 2.2

Footnote - 1993-245-NA: Upgraded to Gen-III Bosch 0 280 155 746 - 200cc/min @ 3bar injectors last Sunday; driving around 40-55 mph on rural highways with a pinch of city miles, 79-miles total with 2.7-gallons (filled up), vehicle got 29.25-MPG and using GPS based mileage. Need more miles to evaluate, but point is both vehicles would have to have same electronics, etc.
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 09:34 PM   #211
Lord_Athlon
Sf1k Kryptonite
 
Lord_Athlon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: If there were a bright center of the universe, im in the town that is furthest from
Default

Talking to him is like talking to a brick wall with WiFi and Google.
Lord_Athlon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 10:15 PM   #212
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Athlon View Post
Talking to him....
I qualified my position in post 198: "I'm not contesting the friction aspect...they dropped the compression ratio, which does reduce fuel efficiency."

I further added back then, " "By increasing the compression ratio from 8:1 to 9:1, for example, you can improve fuel economy by about 5 to 6 percent."


1983 B23F — 10.3:1 compression
1985–1986 B230F — 9.8:1 compression

So, we have 0.5 change, and extrapolating, maybe a 3 percent change.

If vehicle gets 25 mpg (US), then one would expect to see 25.75 mpg; as in BFD.
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 10:37 PM   #213
Redwood Chair
K-jet For Life
 
Redwood Chair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: - Stock PSI Or Bust -
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84B23F View Post
Empirical evidence

Their press release so indicates, just like they state "there is no reduction in engine durability in spite of the lighter components,"
but I'll take a B23F over B230F

Assumed to be true...I have not verified.

If better fuel mileage existed, would Volvo "toot" their horn?

Please read these two press releases, and quote where they talk about a difference in fuel savings. Can you cite any Volvo literature where they "toot" their horn about fuel savings with introduction of B230F?

1. FOR 1985 VOLVO FEATURES NEW MODELS AND NEW ENGINES

2. A NEW ENGINE DYNASTY FROM VOLVO

Do remember, 1984 had LH 2.1 and 1985-1989 had LH 2.2

Footnote - 1993-245-NA: Upgraded to Gen-III Bosch 0 280 155 746 - 200cc/min @ 3bar injectors last Sunday; driving around 40-55 mph on rural highways with a pinch of city miles, 79-miles total with 2.7-gallons (filled up), vehicle got 29.25-MPG and using GPS based mileage. Need more miles to evaluate, but point is both vehicles would have to have same electronics, etc.
Thanks for the tidbits but that's not even 30mpg, the thread title is 35+.



My D-jet - 73 145 - M40 - 410's got 30 at 70 mph coming down I5, my 86 245 - M46 got 32.6 combined coming 600 miles down the coast from Newport, and my 82 245 TIC - M46 gets 30 mpg on the first leg of the Oregon coast where the average speed is ~ 55mph.
Redwood Chair is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 10:44 PM   #214
mbolton1990
Board Member
 
mbolton1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 32348
Default

He's got valid points..



However I can say from real world experience I upped the CR on a car before and it's FE took a dive,it could've been because of a few other things though...too many things were done at once to be honest..

Probably explains why diesels get better FE,but then again doesn't diesel have more energy vs gasoline?
ah I digress...
mbolton1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 07:23 AM   #215
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwood Chair View Post
Thanks for the tidbits but that's not even 30mpg, the thread title is 35+..

OP discriminated against vehicles with automatics, AW70 in this case.

Besides, Eco-Bricks don't look like this: not ecologically healthy.

84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 01:44 PM   #216
andysbeta
thrsh
 
andysbeta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Mancos, CO (no longer the Central Valley Smog Bank)
Default

Rocky Mountain driving my 1977 245 4.10 R&P, later alloy cased m46 + a 1983 flat-top piston B23F with lambda KJet and new pumps, injectors and careful tune is managing a consistent 32.5MPG ~60-65 MPH, The B23F is fitted with a B cam. Ignition is 1988 Chrysler pulled from a M47 240 with a more advanced timing curve.

Nothing fancy, but it works great.
andysbeta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 03:16 PM   #217
mbolton1990
Board Member
 
mbolton1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 32348
Default

Nice whatever works man!
mbolton1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 05:08 PM   #218
Joris
Board Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Netherlands
Default

Got 36 mpg today, by hypermiling. b230fb in a 3 series, so better aero and less weight.
Joris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 06:10 PM   #219
240240
I crush everything!
 
240240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California Über Alles
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84B23F View Post
OP discriminated against vehicles with automatics, AW70 in this case.

Besides, Eco-Bricks don't look like this: not ecologically healthy.

my diesels dont look like that. i run them slightly lean
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240240 View Post
Any thread about cut springs, & or +T on a college students budget shall be sent to OT, flogged for 24 hours, participants in said thread shall point the OP in the correct thread link while simultaneously shaming them
2018-07-12_12-44-09 by t s, on Flickr
240240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2014, 05:59 PM   #220
Jeh
Wants a V12
 
Jeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: on a crappy road...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84B23F View Post
But, a high compression engine has its drawbacks, too. ,
I had a 65 Caddy with a CR of 12.75:1. It got terrible mileage. I would have been happy to be in the 10mpg club.

Just sayin.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFridge View Post
That's why I love this place.
Truly an information warehouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle242gt View Post
I post not for information, but for ignorant entertainment.



1994 Jaguar XJ6
Jeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2014, 10:11 PM   #221
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeh View Post
65 Caddy with a CR of 12.75:1. It got terrible mileage.
429 cubic inches is what consumed fuel; stock CR was 10.5:1. To my awareness, Cadillac didn't offer "speed shop" parts. In 1970, they offered a 500 cubic inch with 10:1 compression ratio

For Volvo gas based fuel economy, I suspect B18/B20 engines would be better to use, after installing latest Bosch injectors, MegaSquirt, and with 5 speed OD transmission. But, I would check to see if hardened valves/seats were installed in B18/B20 engines. When lead was taken out of the fuel in 1975, OEMs installed hardened valves/seats either then, before, or at a later time.

For existing 2.3 FI engines with LH-2.4, I would suggest Bosch Gen-III injectors

I'm running 89-E10 Fuel with Bosch 0 280 155 746 Injectors (95 96 97 98 VOLVO S90 V90 960 2.9 I6)

84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2014, 11:21 PM   #222
Redwood Chair
K-jet For Life
 
Redwood Chair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: - Stock PSI Or Bust -
Default

^ on the B18 or EFI B20

I'm pretty sure my 73 145 parts car would have returned 35mpg at 55mph, or more with an M41.

The 122's and 544's were even smaller and lighter, so they would be a good starting point for a B18A mpg redblock.
Redwood Chair is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 02:17 PM   #223
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwood Chair View Post
The 122's and 544's were even smaller and lighter,
Road & Track: 1963 VOLVO PV-544; Curb Wt: 2160--fuel economy 25-29 mpg

ebay Road & Track October 1965 Volvo PV544 Feature

Gear OD for 2200 RPM at 50 mph, and bingo, up goes fuel economy.


B20 head had larger valves
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 09:36 PM   #224
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbolton1990 View Post
btw does anyone know if 240's have dfco(deceleration fuel cut-off?[engine braking kills injectors])
LH 2.4 - "During deceleration, fuel injector is discontinued above 1,800 rpm in all gears. It is resumed at 1,400 to 2,000 rpm, depending on engine temperature."


Btw, With overdrive, the 1800S got 27 miles to a gallon at 70 mph (with radial-ply Pirelli Cinturato tires).

84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 10:11 PM   #225
wisturbo
ⒼⒺⓉ ⓇⒶⒹ
 
wisturbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default

1982 242 GLT
B21F M46
3.54 rear
Bosch LH1.0
10w30 Mobil1
205/60/15 @44psi
A/C removed and pw steering lowered.

I average a combined city/hwy 25-28mpg
Strictly city nets 24mpg
Strictly hwy at 80+ nets 28mpg
Strictly hwy at 55-65 nets 33mpg

400 miles to a tank is not uncommon for me with all the criss crossing from Philly to Milwaukee & Eau Claire. Driving with my mtb or adventurer box drops 4mpg easily when driving through the mountains.

Not sure what I could do to net 35. Maybe remove my fog lights, headlight covers, change the airdam...
__________________

Last edited by wisturbo; 07-10-2014 at 10:16 PM..
wisturbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.