musing about fuel savings
 

Ok.. I know how the muli-displacement engines work, shutting down
fuel to half the bank. Which is easier for a V8.

That got me thinking about the I6 4.0. It can run like a I3 but
that's only for balance testing, not for long runs. What tickled
the brain pan was the idea of dropping out one cyl on every rev.
Say the seventh cyl.. (yea, I know it has six)

Normal firing order
1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 etc
Modified
1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
X X X X X X

5/6 of the fuel would be used, but the question is what strain would
be put on the crank. I'm thinking it would be fairly nominal torsion.

The only problem is dropping out a cyl could freak out the O2 sensor and
the next fuel load might be unnecessarily rich. A smoothing circuit
could fix that.

Dropping out a fuel injector is easy. They are all fed by the ECM and
dropping out the ground connection is fairly easy.

Thoughts.

(other than if I wanted good gas mileage I shouldn't have got a Jeep) :)


This is what happens when I drink too much coffee before not going to
sleep. Yay coffee!

--
DougW

Re: musing about fuel savings
 

You would have to do the airflow analysis to convince me. Even though it
looks as if each injector squirts its entire load of fuel into one and only
one cylinder, I doubt that this is the case. What you would wind up with,
is either a super-lean mixture every seventh cylinder, and that can't be
good, or unburned fuel shot out the tail pipe. You have to have a means of
bleeding off compression, and blocking the intake, maybe the exhaust, when
you don't want a cylinder to fire. This makes it a lot more complicated,
than simply reprogramming the ECM. In other words, a multi-displacement
engine has to be designed from the ground up, in order to fulfill its
intended purpose.

What you could do, is get a four cylinder Jeep like I have, install a less
restrictive intake and exhaust, and learn to drive wide open throttle like I
do. This would get you up to 25 mpg, which will be a lot better than what
you get now. I didn't say you shouldn't have a Jeep for the mileage, but I
got pretty close. You need to get rid of that six cylinder thinking.

Turbo City was working on a Jeep 4 cylinder turbo kit, but they abandoned it
because of lack of anticipated demand. There are available supercharger
kits for the 4 cylinder. Those are two ways of getting the same effect as
multiple displacement. Another trick is to get the engine race-balanced and
install forged pistons, so it can handle a couple thousand more RPM without
getting hot oil and shrapnel all over your windshield.

Earle

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:UmzZe.7231$P34.655@okepread07...
> Ok.. I know how the muli-displacement engines work, shutting down
> fuel to half the bank. Which is easier for a V8.
>
> That got me thinking about the I6 4.0. It can run like a I3 but
> that's only for balance testing, not for long runs. What tickled
> the brain pan was the idea of dropping out one cyl on every rev.
> Say the seventh cyl.. (yea, I know it has six)
>
> Normal firing order
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
etc
> Modified
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
> X X X X X X
>
> 5/6 of the fuel would be used, but the question is what strain would
> be put on the crank. I'm thinking it would be fairly nominal torsion.
>
> The only problem is dropping out a cyl could freak out the O2 sensor and
> the next fuel load might be unnecessarily rich. A smoothing circuit
> could fix that.
>
> Dropping out a fuel injector is easy. They are all fed by the ECM and
> dropping out the ground connection is fairly easy.
>
> Thoughts.
>
> (other than if I wanted good gas mileage I shouldn't have got a Jeep) :)
>
>
> This is what happens when I drink too much coffee before not going to
> sleep. Yay coffee!
>
> --
> DougW
>
>
>
>
>

Re: musing about fuel savings
 

You would have to do the airflow analysis to convince me. Even though it
looks as if each injector squirts its entire load of fuel into one and only
one cylinder, I doubt that this is the case. What you would wind up with,
is either a super-lean mixture every seventh cylinder, and that can't be
good, or unburned fuel shot out the tail pipe. You have to have a means of
bleeding off compression, and blocking the intake, maybe the exhaust, when
you don't want a cylinder to fire. This makes it a lot more complicated,
than simply reprogramming the ECM. In other words, a multi-displacement
engine has to be designed from the ground up, in order to fulfill its
intended purpose.

What you could do, is get a four cylinder Jeep like I have, install a less
restrictive intake and exhaust, and learn to drive wide open throttle like I
do. This would get you up to 25 mpg, which will be a lot better than what
you get now. I didn't say you shouldn't have a Jeep for the mileage, but I
got pretty close. You need to get rid of that six cylinder thinking.

Turbo City was working on a Jeep 4 cylinder turbo kit, but they abandoned it
because of lack of anticipated demand. There are available supercharger
kits for the 4 cylinder. Those are two ways of getting the same effect as
multiple displacement. Another trick is to get the engine race-balanced and
install forged pistons, so it can handle a couple thousand more RPM without
getting hot oil and shrapnel all over your windshield.

Earle

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:UmzZe.7231$P34.655@okepread07...
> Ok.. I know how the muli-displacement engines work, shutting down
> fuel to half the bank. Which is easier for a V8.
>
> That got me thinking about the I6 4.0. It can run like a I3 but
> that's only for balance testing, not for long runs. What tickled
> the brain pan was the idea of dropping out one cyl on every rev.
> Say the seventh cyl.. (yea, I know it has six)
>
> Normal firing order
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
etc
> Modified
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
> X X X X X X
>
> 5/6 of the fuel would be used, but the question is what strain would
> be put on the crank. I'm thinking it would be fairly nominal torsion.
>
> The only problem is dropping out a cyl could freak out the O2 sensor and
> the next fuel load might be unnecessarily rich. A smoothing circuit
> could fix that.
>
> Dropping out a fuel injector is easy. They are all fed by the ECM and
> dropping out the ground connection is fairly easy.
>
> Thoughts.
>
> (other than if I wanted good gas mileage I shouldn't have got a Jeep) :)
>
>
> This is what happens when I drink too much coffee before not going to
> sleep. Yay coffee!
>
> --
> DougW
>
>
>
>
>

Re: musing about fuel savings
 

You would have to do the airflow analysis to convince me. Even though it
looks as if each injector squirts its entire load of fuel into one and only
one cylinder, I doubt that this is the case. What you would wind up with,
is either a super-lean mixture every seventh cylinder, and that can't be
good, or unburned fuel shot out the tail pipe. You have to have a means of
bleeding off compression, and blocking the intake, maybe the exhaust, when
you don't want a cylinder to fire. This makes it a lot more complicated,
than simply reprogramming the ECM. In other words, a multi-displacement
engine has to be designed from the ground up, in order to fulfill its
intended purpose.

What you could do, is get a four cylinder Jeep like I have, install a less
restrictive intake and exhaust, and learn to drive wide open throttle like I
do. This would get you up to 25 mpg, which will be a lot better than what
you get now. I didn't say you shouldn't have a Jeep for the mileage, but I
got pretty close. You need to get rid of that six cylinder thinking.

Turbo City was working on a Jeep 4 cylinder turbo kit, but they abandoned it
because of lack of anticipated demand. There are available supercharger
kits for the 4 cylinder. Those are two ways of getting the same effect as
multiple displacement. Another trick is to get the engine race-balanced and
install forged pistons, so it can handle a couple thousand more RPM without
getting hot oil and shrapnel all over your windshield.

Earle

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:UmzZe.7231$P34.655@okepread07...
> Ok.. I know how the muli-displacement engines work, shutting down
> fuel to half the bank. Which is easier for a V8.
>
> That got me thinking about the I6 4.0. It can run like a I3 but
> that's only for balance testing, not for long runs. What tickled
> the brain pan was the idea of dropping out one cyl on every rev.
> Say the seventh cyl.. (yea, I know it has six)
>
> Normal firing order
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
etc
> Modified
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
> X X X X X X
>
> 5/6 of the fuel would be used, but the question is what strain would
> be put on the crank. I'm thinking it would be fairly nominal torsion.
>
> The only problem is dropping out a cyl could freak out the O2 sensor and
> the next fuel load might be unnecessarily rich. A smoothing circuit
> could fix that.
>
> Dropping out a fuel injector is easy. They are all fed by the ECM and
> dropping out the ground connection is fairly easy.
>
> Thoughts.
>
> (other than if I wanted good gas mileage I shouldn't have got a Jeep) :)
>
>
> This is what happens when I drink too much coffee before not going to
> sleep. Yay coffee!
>
> --
> DougW
>
>
>
>
>

Re: musing about fuel savings
 

DougW proclaimed:

> Ok.. I know how the muli-displacement engines work, shutting down
> fuel to half the bank. Which is easier for a V8.

Except for the ones that flip a cam such that the hydraulic rockers
no longer function on the disabled cylinders, e.g. the 5.7 Chrysler
engine pretending to be a Hemi.

>
> That got me thinking about the I6 4.0. It can run like a I3 but
> that's only for balance testing, not for long runs. What tickled
> the brain pan was the idea of dropping out one cyl on every rev.
> Say the seventh cyl.. (yea, I know it has six)

This has been used as an electronic rpm limiter on some sports cars,
rather than just shutting the engine down or cutting power which
could result in a rather nasty accident, the EFI would start dropping
fuel to one cylinder and rotate that droppage.
>
> Normal firing order
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 etc
> Modified
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
> X X X X X X
>
> 5/6 of the fuel would be used, but the question is what strain would
> be put on the crank. I'm thinking it would be fairly nominal torsion.
>
> The only problem is dropping out a cyl could freak out the O2 sensor and
> the next fuel load might be unnecessarily rich. A smoothing circuit
> could fix that.
>
> Dropping out a fuel injector is easy. They are all fed by the ECM and
> dropping out the ground connection is fairly easy.
>
> Thoughts.
>
> (other than if I wanted good gas mileage I shouldn't have got a Jeep) :)
>
>
> This is what happens when I drink too much coffee before not going to
> sleep. Yay coffee!
>

Re: musing about fuel savings
 

DougW proclaimed:

> Ok.. I know how the muli-displacement engines work, shutting down
> fuel to half the bank. Which is easier for a V8.

Except for the ones that flip a cam such that the hydraulic rockers
no longer function on the disabled cylinders, e.g. the 5.7 Chrysler
engine pretending to be a Hemi.

>
> That got me thinking about the I6 4.0. It can run like a I3 but
> that's only for balance testing, not for long runs. What tickled
> the brain pan was the idea of dropping out one cyl on every rev.
> Say the seventh cyl.. (yea, I know it has six)

This has been used as an electronic rpm limiter on some sports cars,
rather than just shutting the engine down or cutting power which
could result in a rather nasty accident, the EFI would start dropping
fuel to one cylinder and rotate that droppage.
>
> Normal firing order
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 etc
> Modified
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
> X X X X X X
>
> 5/6 of the fuel would be used, but the question is what strain would
> be put on the crank. I'm thinking it would be fairly nominal torsion.
>
> The only problem is dropping out a cyl could freak out the O2 sensor and
> the next fuel load might be unnecessarily rich. A smoothing circuit
> could fix that.
>
> Dropping out a fuel injector is easy. They are all fed by the ECM and
> dropping out the ground connection is fairly easy.
>
> Thoughts.
>
> (other than if I wanted good gas mileage I shouldn't have got a Jeep) :)
>
>
> This is what happens when I drink too much coffee before not going to
> sleep. Yay coffee!
>

Re: musing about fuel savings
 

DougW proclaimed:

> Ok.. I know how the muli-displacement engines work, shutting down
> fuel to half the bank. Which is easier for a V8.

Except for the ones that flip a cam such that the hydraulic rockers
no longer function on the disabled cylinders, e.g. the 5.7 Chrysler
engine pretending to be a Hemi.

>
> That got me thinking about the I6 4.0. It can run like a I3 but
> that's only for balance testing, not for long runs. What tickled
> the brain pan was the idea of dropping out one cyl on every rev.
> Say the seventh cyl.. (yea, I know it has six)

This has been used as an electronic rpm limiter on some sports cars,
rather than just shutting the engine down or cutting power which
could result in a rather nasty accident, the EFI would start dropping
fuel to one cylinder and rotate that droppage.
>
> Normal firing order
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 etc
> Modified
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
> X X X X X X
>
> 5/6 of the fuel would be used, but the question is what strain would
> be put on the crank. I'm thinking it would be fairly nominal torsion.
>
> The only problem is dropping out a cyl could freak out the O2 sensor and
> the next fuel load might be unnecessarily rich. A smoothing circuit
> could fix that.
>
> Dropping out a fuel injector is easy. They are all fed by the ECM and
> dropping out the ground connection is fairly easy.
>
> Thoughts.
>
> (other than if I wanted good gas mileage I shouldn't have got a Jeep) :)
>
>
> This is what happens when I drink too much coffee before not going to
> sleep. Yay coffee!
>

Re: musing about fuel savings
 

Hi Doug,
Playing around with the injectors and lifting exhaust valves like
the '79 Cadillac and new hemi are just designed to snow the
Environmental Protection Agency, only. As it still takes the same amount
of energy to move weight at a speed. Lessening the weight of pistons,
like Earle suggests of course save the energy required to stop and start
them on every turn, but we sacrifice their longevity. If you want to
save of fuel, drive slower and/or take the weight off the car.
Especially on every part that turns, than means tires that are as light
and thin as possible. And for Doug, smaller alternators, and no radio
amplifiers, nor off road lights.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

DougW wrote:
>
> Ok.. I know how the muli-displacement engines work, shutting down
> fuel to half the bank. Which is easier for a V8.
>
> That got me thinking about the I6 4.0. It can run like a I3 but
> that's only for balance testing, not for long runs. What tickled
> the brain pan was the idea of dropping out one cyl on every rev.
> Say the seventh cyl.. (yea, I know it has six)
>
> Normal firing order
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 etc
> Modified
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
> X X X X X X
>
> 5/6 of the fuel would be used, but the question is what strain would
> be put on the crank. I'm thinking it would be fairly nominal torsion.
>
> The only problem is dropping out a cyl could freak out the O2 sensor and
> the next fuel load might be unnecessarily rich. A smoothing circuit
> could fix that.
>
> Dropping out a fuel injector is easy. They are all fed by the ECM and
> dropping out the ground connection is fairly easy.
>
> Thoughts.
>
> (other than if I wanted good gas mileage I shouldn't have got a Jeep) :)
>
> This is what happens when I drink too much coffee before not going to
> sleep. Yay coffee!
>
> --
> DougW

Re: musing about fuel savings
 

Hi Doug,
Playing around with the injectors and lifting exhaust valves like
the '79 Cadillac and new hemi are just designed to snow the
Environmental Protection Agency, only. As it still takes the same amount
of energy to move weight at a speed. Lessening the weight of pistons,
like Earle suggests of course save the energy required to stop and start
them on every turn, but we sacrifice their longevity. If you want to
save of fuel, drive slower and/or take the weight off the car.
Especially on every part that turns, than means tires that are as light
and thin as possible. And for Doug, smaller alternators, and no radio
amplifiers, nor off road lights.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

DougW wrote:
>
> Ok.. I know how the muli-displacement engines work, shutting down
> fuel to half the bank. Which is easier for a V8.
>
> That got me thinking about the I6 4.0. It can run like a I3 but
> that's only for balance testing, not for long runs. What tickled
> the brain pan was the idea of dropping out one cyl on every rev.
> Say the seventh cyl.. (yea, I know it has six)
>
> Normal firing order
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 etc
> Modified
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
> X X X X X X
>
> 5/6 of the fuel would be used, but the question is what strain would
> be put on the crank. I'm thinking it would be fairly nominal torsion.
>
> The only problem is dropping out a cyl could freak out the O2 sensor and
> the next fuel load might be unnecessarily rich. A smoothing circuit
> could fix that.
>
> Dropping out a fuel injector is easy. They are all fed by the ECM and
> dropping out the ground connection is fairly easy.
>
> Thoughts.
>
> (other than if I wanted good gas mileage I shouldn't have got a Jeep) :)
>
> This is what happens when I drink too much coffee before not going to
> sleep. Yay coffee!
>
> --
> DougW

Re: musing about fuel savings
 

Hi Doug,
Playing around with the injectors and lifting exhaust valves like
the '79 Cadillac and new hemi are just designed to snow the
Environmental Protection Agency, only. As it still takes the same amount
of energy to move weight at a speed. Lessening the weight of pistons,
like Earle suggests of course save the energy required to stop and start
them on every turn, but we sacrifice their longevity. If you want to
save of fuel, drive slower and/or take the weight off the car.
Especially on every part that turns, than means tires that are as light
and thin as possible. And for Doug, smaller alternators, and no radio
amplifiers, nor off road lights.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

DougW wrote:
>
> Ok.. I know how the muli-displacement engines work, shutting down
> fuel to half the bank. Which is easier for a V8.
>
> That got me thinking about the I6 4.0. It can run like a I3 but
> that's only for balance testing, not for long runs. What tickled
> the brain pan was the idea of dropping out one cyl on every rev.
> Say the seventh cyl.. (yea, I know it has six)
>
> Normal firing order
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 etc
> Modified
> 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4 1-5-3-6-2-4
> X X X X X X
>
> 5/6 of the fuel would be used, but the question is what strain would
> be put on the crank. I'm thinking it would be fairly nominal torsion.
>
> The only problem is dropping out a cyl could freak out the O2 sensor and
> the next fuel load might be unnecessarily rich. A smoothing circuit
> could fix that.
>
> Dropping out a fuel injector is easy. They are all fed by the ECM and
> dropping out the ground connection is fairly easy.
>
> Thoughts.
>
> (other than if I wanted good gas mileage I shouldn't have got a Jeep) :)
>
> This is what happens when I drink too much coffee before not going to
> sleep. Yay coffee!
>
> --
> DougW