Certified Mileage!

[Alan Reagan]

Jyro, I didn't think you didn't believe Jponder. That post was to everyone. If John Ponder tells you a rooster can pull a plow... . hitch him up. Just trying to add some credibility to the man. If you see what he pulls with that ETH, you'd know why he gets the good mileage. Ponder keeps the rings seated on that bad boy #ad
#ad
.

 

[jponder]

Alan> What kind of mileage could you get out of a rooster #ad


I am going to start a post about this cap to try to get ideas on Design and Materials. Ranger Dick Could you post that link there also. Idont know how to do it.

Also i posted in the TDR forum for suggestions that we needed a Mileage Forum. Show your support for this and post an affirmative there.

------------------
2001 ETH/DEE ST 4X4 SPACE SHUTTLE

 

[Alan Reagan]

Jyro, I didn't think you didn't believe John P. I was just adding my two cents since I now know the rascal. If John Ponder tells you a rooster can pull a plow... . hitch him up. John, you keep modifying that truck of yours and you are going to end up with a Duramax or Phord that won't pull. Here's what we need to do... . the same thing Cadillac did a few years ago with the 8-6-4 setup they did to save gas. You know, at cruising speed, change the ECM to cut back from 6 to 3 cylinders when you are cruising. Remember that deal? Just cut the fuel off, change the timing and let it ease along on half the cylinders. I still want to find out how the TPS works. I think the constant throttle would be easy enough to do electronically by supplying a constant voltage to the pump at the desired fueling level. Just have to get some of those fancy DC connectors so splicing wouldn't be required. Then supply the voltage you want for constant throttle using a magnetically held relay that opens when the brakes are applied. I'm afraid using the mechanical one, you might learn what a governor does when you least want to if you know what I mean #ad
.

 

[jponder]

Those Cadilacs didnt work very well did they. They sure dont makem anymore. You would need a Crankshaft that could disengage and let the other 4 pistons sit then when you wanted to rengage you would have to stop the engine and reconnect slowly. LOL I dont want nothing to do with that.

So far as TPS and that CT thing I think ifflem is running with it. i think I will work on this Cap. If I can increase my speed 10 mph and still keep my mileage that would be great. Here is my dream MPG truck

1. Timing Module
2. High Flow air filter/setup
3. 4 inch exhaust
4. Disconnect Fan or go with Horton or elect fan
5. Install a wide angle camera on the back off my truck where I can remove my rear view mirrors; Plus it will allow me to Photograph people flipping me the bird
6. Constant Throttle Cruise Or maybe even Better Constant Boost Cruise which will keep the engine under a constant load.
7. Taller Thinner tires for mileage and some big honkers for draging and fun.
8. Purty new slanted cap with Solar panels of course.

Oh My God What have I become!!

------------------
2001 ETH/DEE ST 4X4 SPACE SHUTTLE

[This message has been edited by jponder (edited 03-05-2001). ]

 

[JyRO]

Alan - The idea of cutting back cylinders that are doing the work is sound, like that 8-6-4 idea that Cadillac had. I'm not sure what the problem was with it, but I think it didn't catch on too good. It was a little before my time.

The problem I see with the diesel is with the compression stroke. If there were some way to open the exhaust valve during the compression stroke I think it would work great. Otherwise, a significant amount of work that the, "running" 3 cylinders are doing would be solely overcoming the compression of the, "non-running 3. " Maybe there's a way around it, but I don't know of any with fixed cam engines. Just wait until we start getting those other valve actuated engines (solenoids?). Then it would/will be just a program to do anything you want with the valvetrain. Smart valves. Full open at higher rpms, less open at lower rpms. And for high effieciency, just a crack open.

Besides, wouldn't running on 3 cylinders create a balance problem? I'll have to study it but, seems like you might beat the crank to death by loading unequally (through hundreds of thousands of revolutions running on 3 cylinders). Mazda went through a lot of study on stuff similar to this with the Wankel. Since its so small and the fuel consumption is so poor, they were trying to improve its efficiency.

Sorry to go off here. Maybe there is a way to overcome the energy it takes during the compression stroke. It would work great then. If so, let me know.

 

[JyRO]

jponder - The #5 idea (about photos of passing bird fingers). Running 52 mph, I imagine you'd run out of film awfully quick! #ad
Hehehe. LMAO.

- JyRO

 

[jponder]

Originally posted by JyRO:
jponder - The #5 idea (about photos of passing bird fingers). Running 52 mph, I imagine you'd run out of film awfully quick! #ad
Hehehe. LMAO.

- JyRO

Hey with my fancy new cap maybe I'll be able to bring it up to 62!!

You would get a little rougher engine I think with the compression stroke intact but you have to remember that once that compression stroke is finished that compressed air is gona push it down. The net gain between the two should be zero but I think freewheeling might be better maybe not. The compression and slight powerestroke (albeit with no fuel ) might smooth it out. That would be interesting. I didnt even take this serious at first but now that i think about it this would work much better in a free wheeling diesel than a gas burner. I just assumed Alan was trying to confuse me #ad





------------------
2001 ETH/DEE ST 4X4 SPACE SHUTTLE

 

[illflem]

jponder,Some other things to do to lose weight for better mpgs;remove extra battery,passenger & center seats,rear bumper & spare tire,and run with 1/4 tank of fuel max. #ad

 

[jponder]

Originally posted by illflem:
jponder,Some other things to do to lose weight for better mpgs;remove extra battery,passenger & center seats,rear bumper & spare tire,and run with 1/4 tank of fuel max. #ad

For some reason I dont care about weight; I care about drag and I know weight will effect this but I want to be able to say " Pretty good for a 7100 lb truck eh/" Well I would only say eh to a Canadian. My cap will add weight after all. I dont want a lighter truck I mean I feel like that will skew the results; I dont know why I dont view the cap and aero things this way.
I really beleive that weight is mitigated by constant throttle. With cruise itll brake you down the hill then try to climb against the added weight and yes it burns diesel. With constant throttle I have more energy going down a hill due to weight and that i am letting the engine free wheel not brake me so wind will slow me less; I may hit a slower speed climbing the next hill but I wont try to maintain speed I will let the momentum carry me.
A good analogy would be a marble. If I built a hot wheels track and put a marble on it how would it go?
Would it maintain a Constant speed downhill and then uphill too? NO the cool thing about the marble is it has no power and it is free falling if you will. The closer you can resemble the marble the more fuel efficient you will be. The motto of this is "Dont lose your marbles".





------------------
2001 ETH/DEE ST 4X4 SPACE SHUTTLE

 

[Ranger Dick]

Hey, Jpounder, to add a url, or link to the text of the message, just type it in. example Http://blahblahkilledaduramaxtoday.com and it will post up automatically. I'll check the new subject and if I don't see it, I'll post it for you.