MPG after induction kit - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
 6Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
(Post Link) post #1 of 27 Old 18-05-19 Thread Starter
Status: -
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: London
County: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
Hmmm MPG after induction kit

Hi All,

So I fitted a ram air induction kit (dry) a while back, however, since then my mpg has dropped quite a bit, from high 20's to around 15mpg. I have cleaned the MAF with no luck. I've also changed the lambda sensor as I got an engine management come up and hoped that would solve the issue. but still get around 17mpg.

Does anyone know why this is? would there be a solution other than fitting the stock air box back on? right now it's all stock piping the only change is the air box removed and ram air cone fitted in it's place.

would removing the resonator box help?
Ekrem C Ekrem is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Status: Quo!
AO Silver Member
 
alfaitalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Sussex
Posts: 2,442
There must be more to it than that. I fitted various cones to various cars over the years (before I knew better!!) and they never affected the mpg (or performance for that matter!) in any measurable way.....just a nicer noise!! Nothing damaged or sensor not fully plugged in whilst you were fitting it?? Any fault codes when you scan her??
alfaitalia is offline  
(Post Link) post #3 of 27 Old 18-05-19 Thread Starter
Status: -
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: London
County: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaitalia View Post
There must be more to it than that. I fitted various cones to various cars over the years (before I knew better!!) and they never affected the mpg (or performance for that matter!) in any measurable way.....just a nicer noise!! Nothing damaged or sensor not fully plugged in whilst you were fitting it?? Any fault codes when you scan her??
same with me, my other cars coped with the induction kits just fine. Just plugged it in, no fault codes.
Ekrem C Ekrem is offline  
(Post Link) post #4 of 27 Old 19-05-19 Thread Starter
Status: -
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: London
County: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
Quick Update:

I disconnected the battery for a while and reconnected to help reset the ECU learning and took it out for 40-50min sensible run. came back with around 15-17mpg.

So I decided to plug in my OBD and read Lambda voltages which read ok. Went in and reset ECU learning through the OBD, which may have done the trick. Another 40-50min run gave me around 23mpg. The following day now and I am getting 25mpg, so it looks like it is climbing.

What MPG is everyone else getting? is 25mpg extra urban normal? I haven't had the car too long.
Ekrem C Ekrem is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
County: -
Posts: 473
Might be worth mentioning the car and engine
alfaromeo939s is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Berkshire
Posts: 117

Member car:

159 V6

Not a fan of them. In my own experience the throttle response is worse and you tend to loose a load of low down torque and heat soak can also be an issue. My personal recommendation is a performance panel filter in the standard airbox. Perhaps you are getting worse MPG as you are flooring it more to hear the sound?
rjwooll likes this.
cnut is offline  
Status: say what?
AO Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekrem C Ekrem View Post
Quick Update:

I disconnected the battery for a while and reconnected to help reset the ECU learning and took it out for 40-50min sensible run. came back with around 15-17mpg.

So I decided to plug in my OBD and read Lambda voltages which read ok. Went in and reset ECU learning through the OBD, which may have done the trick. Another 40-50min run gave me around 23mpg. The following day now and I am getting 25mpg, so it looks like it is climbing.

What MPG is everyone else getting? is 25mpg extra urban normal? I haven't had the car too long.
I get 28 mpg on my 12 mile commute to work. Average speed is 25 mph, which varies from sitting at traffic lights to 70+ on a motorway. So I would say you're likely back to 'normal' in the mid 20s.
gjma is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
dksp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
County: France
Posts: 103

Member car:

159 SW TI TBI

Average in the city traffic is 23-25 mpg. On a trip to Italy with 4 people and luggage on with motorways, country roads and a bit of city averaged at 31 mpg. Only country roads with speedometer at 50 mph averaged at 37 mpg. Hill climb in the Vosges was 11 mpg.

So it varies a lot depending on the type of roads and how you're driving.
dksp is online now  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 3,015
Chilling

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksp View Post
Average in the city traffic is 23-25 mpg. On a trip to Italy with 4 people and luggage on with motorways, country roads and a bit of city averaged at 31 mpg. Only country roads with speedometer at 50 mph averaged at 37 mpg. Hill climb in the Vosges was 11 mpg.

So it varies a lot depending on the type of roads and how you're driving.
This all make me feel so much better about my 3.2 JTS 159.

~380 kilo of adult lard, boot full of luggage for four persons, speeds in excess of 80 mph, return trip from Suffolk to Aachen and environs, 29 -31 mpg.

That GM based V6 is a real pig! Well it was, but i'm coming to love it.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 3.2 JTS Economy..jpg (70.1 KB, 2 views)
sizewell is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 3,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by sizewell View Post
This all make me feel so much better about my 3.2 JTS 159.

~380 kilo of adult lard, boot full of luggage for four persons, speeds in excess of 80 mph, return trip from Suffolk to Aachen and environs, 29 -31 mpg.

That GM based V6 is a real pig! Well it was, but i'm coming to love it.
Oh, and I forgot to mention. It's a Q4. What a car! Best Alfa for 40 years.
sizewell is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
County: -
Posts: 19

Member car:

159 3.2 JTS SW

Quote:
Originally Posted by sizewell View Post
This all make me feel so much better about my 3.2 JTS 159.

~380 kilo of adult lard, boot full of luggage for four persons, speeds in excess of 80 mph, return trip from Suffolk to Aachen and environs, 29 -31 mpg.

That GM based V6 is a real pig! Well it was, but i'm coming to love it.
That sounds like sci-fi to me
sizewell likes this.
ivo_red is offline  
Status: Quo!
AO Silver Member
 
alfaitalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Sussex
Posts: 2,442
I would doubt that....especially if you are just using that display to calculate it rather than measuring it tank top to tank top. Even ALFA only claim a best of about 25 on the combined.....and I don't know anyone (OK I only know two owner of 3.2s so hey-ho!) who get anything like that....most are happy when then get a measured average one about 20!! Its certainly never going to get better MPG than a TBI. With my miles I could not really run a TBi either. 25 mpg with only 200 horses is pretty grim by modern standard's!

EDIT....LOL....just realised that you have only doe 9.3 miles since it last reset....hardly long enough distance to judge any sort of accurate MPG....especially if it was not from a cold start. I can get about 75mpg on my 159 display if I wanted...lots of coasting etc.....but it cant actually achieve it.
alfaitalia is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 3,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivo_red View Post
That sounds like sci-fi to me
No mate! It is simply refusing to accept that Alfa are the epitome of engineering excellence. That dog was always capable of more. But Alfa weren’t going to do it. Just as they won’t sort any problems with the Giulia- it will be Ferrari that does.
So, with a little bit of patience and the help of some really nice people - all over the world - this engine can do so much better.

Now I do realise, Alfa being the world leader in all things Automotive, and the penchant of many on this site to believe nice wheels and red stitching are what Alfa are all about, there is very little chance of anybody accepting the 3.2 JTS can be made better, but Chrysler, who make a few cars each year have developed this quad cam VVT engine and the latest incarnation will be in production till 2026.

How much development did Alfa do, given its Historically short production run.

No wonder they have been in the Shyte and will be for many years to come.

Where do they get their management from? Woolworths?
sizewell is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 3,015
Chilling

Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaitalia View Post
I would doubt that....especially if you are just using that display to calculate it rather than measuring it tank top to tank top. Even ALFA only claim a best of about 25 on the combined.....and I don't know anyone (OK I only know two owner of 3.2s so hey-ho!) who get anything like that....most are happy when then get a measured average one about 20!! Its certainly never going to get better MPG than a TBI. With my miles I could not really run a TBi either. 25 mpg with only 200 horses is pretty grim by modern standard's!

EDIT....LOL....just realised that you have only doe 9.3 miles since it last reset....hardly long enough distance to judge any sort of accurate MPG....especially if it was not from a cold start. I can get about 75mpg on my 159 display if I wanted...lots of coasting etc.....but it cant actually achieve it.
".especially if you are just using that display to calculate it rather than measuring it tank top to tank top."

Well I never! I never thought about that - Doh!

".and I don't know anyone (OK I only know two owner of 3.2s so hey-ho!) who get anything like that......most are happy when then get a measured average one about 20!!"

Neither was I until I modified my engine. Neither was an Australian owner until he fitted my kit.

".hardly long enough distance to judge any sort of accurate MPG....especially if it was not from a cold start."

Mine was from a cold start at 0630hrs, November 2017, in the dark, on small twisting, hilly country roads from home to A14, including being stopped at two sets of traffic lights. This was on my run to Bruntingthorpe, which again clocked ~ 30 mpg, 128 miles. Pretty chilly and blowing a bit as I recall.

But a 159 owner on this site, commented he could not emulate that consumption, unless he had done a couple of hundred miles. Had I not got stopped at the lights, it would have been just shy of 36 mpg!

And yet, you are right, 200 bhp for the 1750 TBi is appalling by modern day standards. Compared to the Berties 1750, and bearing in mind the era, it too is a dog. But, it could be a lot better because essentially it is a good engine.

Last edited by sizewell; 20-05-19 at 15:57.
sizewell is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
County: -
Posts: 19

Member car:

159 3.2 JTS SW

Quote:
Originally Posted by sizewell View Post
".especially if you are just using that display to calculate it rather than measuring it tank top to tank top."

Well I never! I never thought about that - Doh!

".and I don't know anyone (OK I only know two owner of 3.2s so hey-ho!) who get anything like that......most are happy when then get a measured average one about 20!!"

Neither was I until I modified my engine. Neither was an Australian owner until he fitted my kit.

".hardly long enough distance to judge any sort of accurate MPG....especially if it was not from a cold start."

Mine was from a cold start at 0630hrs, November 2017, in the dark, on small twisting, hilly country roads from home to A14, including being stopped at two sets of traffic lights. This was on my run to Bruntingthorpe, which again clocked ~ 30 mpg, 128 miles.

But a 159 owner on this site, commented he could not emulate that consumption, unless he had done a couple of hundred miles. Had I not got stopped at the lights, it would have been just shy of 36 mpg!

And yet, you are right, 200 bhp for the 1750 TBi is appalling by modern day standards. Compared to the Berties 1750, and bearing in mind the era, it too is a dog. But, it could be a lot better because essentially it is a good engine.
I assume you got the engine assembled now and running. I am curious to know how the temperature has changed and what else is different, apart from the consumption of petrol. Has the oil consumption decreased along with temp. as expected?
Also, how much did you pay for the Colombo & Bariani shafts (as per their price list or did you get them on discount from somewhere else? )
ivo_red is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 3,015
Chilling

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivo_red View Post
I assume you got the engine assembled now and running. I am curious to know how the temperature has changed and what else is different, apart from the consumption of petrol. Has the oil consumption decreased along with temp. as expected?
Also, how much did you pay for the Colombo & Bariani shafts (as per their price list or did you get them on discount from somewhere else? )
https://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/alfa...s-rebuild.html (Modified Brera 3.2 JTS Rebuild.)

Follow the dialog on screen - oil temp down 20 deg. C. on 147 GTA with cats removed. Expect no less when mine are removed and exhaust camshaft response time is improved.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...IohbKVx_NRSFO8


My engine still with builders. My 113,000 mile Q4, 159 was test bed so figures provided were from that, untill I cooked it at Bruntingthorpe.

Colombo Bariani from E.B. Spares who did me a deal and put me in touch with C.B. who have been very helpful.

Autodelta also did me a deal on the manifolds.

Alfa Cooler/Filter Unit being replaced by a BMW X5 Oil filter housing - which is massive. Should reduce the pressure drop across the element by a fair margin.

Second X5 Oil filter housing being used in my "Full Oil Pressure Start Up System." Together, they should add almost 2 litres of oil in circulation.
sizewell is offline  
Status: Quo!
AO Silver Member
 
alfaitalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Sussex
Posts: 2,442
Well I for one don't believe you got 36 mpg as a measured tank top to tank top mpg that just happened to match your dash readout after 9 miles...thats like double the mpg most get....no amount of extra cooling is going to improve it that much....in fact generally, on lots of engines, the hotter it runs (without over heating of course)the greater the efficiency ....but I can't prove it...so there you go...so it must be true and I must be wrong.
alfaitalia is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 3,015
Chilling

Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaitalia View Post
Well I for one don't believe you got 36 mpg as a measured tank top to tank top mpg that just happened to match your dash readout after 9 miles...thats like double the mpg most get....no amount of extra cooling is going to improve it that much....in fact generally, on lots of engines, the hotter it runs (without over heating of course)the greater the efficiency ....but I can't prove it...so there you go...so it must be true and I must be wrong.
Yes you are! This, or specifically my 159, before modifying, ran hot. An over hot engine will misfire - evidence of misfires abound on this site. And coil packs melt, not because of heat, but over - current!!!!! Yet the ECU and or the coil pack drivers remain undamaged????

True, engines have to run at an optimum for best efficiency. But the margin for optimum temperature is quite tight.

This engine is direct injection and at a compression ratio unseen in previous generations of production Alfa’s. They get away with it, principally, but not entirely, because the air charge (fuel free) contributes greatly to engine/upper cylinder cooling.

But also depends very much on exhausting the spent burn swiftly. That function is performed by the VVT action on the exhaust camshafts. Early opening on warm up/pre light off, shifting quickly to late opening when under power.

The figures I have given were witnessed. But it of no consequence to you as you are never going to buy a 3.2 JTS, or a 1750 TBi.

The real point about the improvements I have made are not about making the engine any more powerful, just recovering more inherent losses, such that they appear as motive force and not as heat.

The density of the air charge, or for that matter, with inlet manifold injection, mixture, greatly effects the power output. Why else would cold charge manifolds be so much in vogue? Does not every car run better at sea level than at 5000 feet?

Ask anyone who runs an Alfa in Johannesburg then in Cape Town. One character had a Busso powered racer - rear mounted with a Porsche transaxle doing 600 in J/Burg but 750 in Cape Town.

Volumetric efficiency is very much dependent upon the density of the cylinder charge. There are plenty of charts and scientific articles to be viewed on the web which illustrate the effect of over - temperature on the specific power output of an engine.

Well worth looking up if indeed you are that interested.

Last edited by sizewell; 21-05-19 at 00:44.
sizewell is offline  
Status: Quo!
AO Silver Member
 
alfaitalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Sussex
Posts: 2,442
Slightly presumptuous that I will NEVER buy a 3.2 or TBi. In fact this is my first ever diesel car of about 30 that Ive owned ....so hardly a derv addict. Im just doing too many miles to justify the cost of a 25 to the gallon car at the moment. Im looking at another job at the moment which will mean lots less miles. A TBi will be top of my list then....but I will admit that the number of issues they seem to have compared to the 2.0JTDm (which you barely see mentioned on here...???) does worry me a little.! As for a 3.2?....correct...not for me....too thirsty...to heavy....nice sound though!!
sizewell likes this.

Last edited by alfaitalia; 21-05-19 at 08:46.
alfaitalia is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 3,015
Chilling

Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaitalia View Post
slightly presumptuous that I will NEVER buy a 3.2 or TBi. In fact this is my first ever diesel car of about 30 that Ive owned ....so hardly a derv addict. Im just doing too many miles to justify the cost of a 25 to the gallon car at the moment. Im looking at another job at the moment which will mean lots less miles. A TBi will be top of my list then....tuned of course! As for a 3.2?....correct...not for me....too thirsty...to heavy....nice sound though!!
Apologies for the presumption. The devil drives where needs must and I too run a 1.9 JTD, GT for that very reason.

The 3.2 JTS, Q4 is a heavy car, but that is a reflection of how well it is built, I think. But there are many other cars that carry a fair bit of fat too but their engines seem to cope a lot better than the JTS. Steady state conditions tell nothing about how well an engine can perform - the dynamic performance.

If you look at the three attached plots, particularly referencing air fuel graph to EN06, one can make the connection with the two. The airfuel graph is taken from Toyota research, but the relevance of the mixture ratio can be compared with the EN06 plot.

The other plot of my modified 159 and a 40 thousand mile pristine Brera, clearly shows a marked difference in the torque response, in an area of the rev range which is of paramount importance to economy. It is the agility of the engine management system which determines what AFR is applicable for the conditions that prevail - taken from the ECU map and all the sensors inputs to the ECU., which will decide how responsive the engine will be.

Unfortunately, If there is a large hysteresis between what the ECU decides the valve timing to be, and the valve timing finally deciding to obey, the engine will not only be sluggish, but power and economy will at that instance, not be achieved - low dynamic response. To enable the ECU to modify the operate point on the airfuel graph, requires fast acting VVT's. As the ECU is predictive, the timing plots of the actual rotors can never be identical to the instruction the ECU gave them. But to minimize the hysteresis, they must respond as fast as possible and do it continually.

It is in the lower rpm range, that this will have the greatest impact on economy. That can be seen from differences between the Brera and 159 torque responses at the low rpm.

The improvements seen with the 159 over the Brera, has been achieved by improving the dynamics/agility of the ecu to modify the airfuel.jpg response because the camshaft sensors are responding much more quickly; a function of camshaft timing changes. The consequence of improved oil flow/pressure across the engine.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg airfuel.jpg (93.1 KB, 4 views)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Brera and 159 Plots.pdf (111.6 KB, 6 views)
File Type: pdf EN06BMV compound.pdf (93.7 KB, 4 views)
alfaitalia and roop like this.
sizewell is offline  
(Post Link) post #21 of 27 Old 21-05-19 Thread Starter
Status: -
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: London
County: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaromeo939s View Post
Might be worth mentioning the car and engine
👈"Members car" over here. 159 1750 tbi
sizewell likes this.
Ekrem C Ekrem is offline  
(Post Link) post #22 of 27 Old 4 Weeks Ago
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 3,015
Chilling

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivo_red View Post
I assume you got the engine assembled now and running. I am curious to know how the temperature has changed and what else is different, apart from the consumption of petrol. Has the oil consumption decreased along with temp. as expected?
Also, how much did you pay for the Colombo & Bariani shafts (as per their price list or did you get them on discount from somewhere else? )
��"Members car" over here. 159 1750 tbi

The below extracts, are not just applicable to the 3.2 JTS I own, but also the 1750 TBi. Engine temperature is a particular concern of mine, but may play some role in the poor performance of the 1750 TBi.

Anyone who wishes to plow through the full article are at liberty to do so. But there are also implications relating to engine oil/viscosity, which may be of interest to some.

The effect of cylinder liner operating temperature on frictional loss and engine emissions in piston ring conjunction

Author links open overlay panelR.RahmaniaH.RahnejataB.FitzsimonsbD.Dowsona
Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.098Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons licenseopen access


Highlights

Cylinder liner temperature affects frictional losses.


Optimum liner temperature improves energy efficiency and reduces emissions.


Liner temperature is hardly affected by viscous shear of lubricant.


This implies optimum conditions would be independent of engine speed.


Abstract
Despite extensive research into alternative methods, the internal combustion engine is expected to remain as the primary source of vehicular propulsion for the foreseeable future. There are still significant opportunities for improving fuel efficiency, thus directly reducing the harmful emissions. Consequently, mitigation of thermal and frictional losses has gradually become a priority. The piston-cylinder system accounts for the major share of all the losses as well as emissions. Therefore, the need for an integrated approach, particularly of a predictive nature is essential. This paper addresses this issue, particularly the role of cylinder liner temperature, which affects both thermal and frictional performance of the piston-cylinder system. The study focuses on the top compression ring whose critical sealing function makes it a major source of frictional power loss and a critical component in guarding against further blow-by of harmful gasses. Such an integrated approach has not hitherto been reported in literature. The study shows that the cylinder liner temperature is critical in mitigating power loss as well as reducing Hydrocarbon (HC) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions from the compression ring – cylinder liner conjunction. The results imply the existence of an optimum range for liner working temperature, independent of engine speed (at least in the studied cases) to minimise frictional losses. Combined with the study of NOx and HC emissions, the control of liner temperature can help to mitigate frictional power loss and reduce emissions.


Wang and Stone [7] have shown that the HC emissions reduce as the liner wall temperature rises whilst at the same time the NOx emissions increase due to rise in unburned gas temperature at the start of compression stroke which results in an increase in the maximum burned gas temperature. According to Wang and Stone [7] the rise in NOx emissions is more sensitive to liner temperature at higher loads and speeds. Therefore, a lower average liner temperature would not only reduce the total power loss from piston ring/liner contact, but it would also reduce the rate of NOx emissions, particularly at high speed and load conditions. Their results show that an optimum liner temperature exists at which, a certain trade-off between various forms of emissions can be sought.

Enjoy!
sizewell is offline  
(Post Link) post #23 of 27 Old 4 Weeks Ago Thread Starter
Status: -
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: London
County: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by sizewell View Post
��"Members car" over here. 159 1750 tbi

The below extracts, are not just applicable to the 3.2 JTS I own, but also the 1750 TBi. Engine temperature is a particular concern of mine, but may play some role in the poor performance of the 1750 TBi.

Anyone who wishes to plow through the full article are at liberty to do so. But there are also implications relating to engine oil/viscosity, which may be of interest to some.

The effect of cylinder liner operating temperature on frictional loss and engine emissions in piston ring conjunction

Author links open overlay panelR.RahmaniaH.RahnejataB.FitzsimonsbD.Dowsona
Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.098Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons licenseopen access


Highlights

Cylinder liner temperature affects frictional losses.


Optimum liner temperature improves energy efficiency and reduces emissions.


Liner temperature is hardly affected by viscous shear of lubricant.


This implies optimum conditions would be independent of engine speed.


Abstract
Despite extensive research into alternative methods, the internal combustion engine is expected to remain as the primary source of vehicular propulsion for the foreseeable future. There are still significant opportunities for improving fuel efficiency, thus directly reducing the harmful emissions. Consequently, mitigation of thermal and frictional losses has gradually become a priority. The piston-cylinder system accounts for the major share of all the losses as well as emissions. Therefore, the need for an integrated approach, particularly of a predictive nature is essential. This paper addresses this issue, particularly the role of cylinder liner temperature, which affects both thermal and frictional performance of the piston-cylinder system. The study focuses on the top compression ring whose critical sealing function makes it a major source of frictional power loss and a critical component in guarding against further blow-by of harmful gasses. Such an integrated approach has not hitherto been reported in literature. The study shows that the cylinder liner temperature is critical in mitigating power loss as well as reducing Hydrocarbon (HC) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions from the compression ring – cylinder liner conjunction. The results imply the existence of an optimum range for liner working temperature, independent of engine speed (at least in the studied cases) to minimise frictional losses. Combined with the study of NOx and HC emissions, the control of liner temperature can help to mitigate frictional power loss and reduce emissions.


Wang and Stone [7] have shown that the HC emissions reduce as the liner wall temperature rises whilst at the same time the NOx emissions increase due to rise in unburned gas temperature at the start of compression stroke which results in an increase in the maximum burned gas temperature. According to Wang and Stone [7] the rise in NOx emissions is more sensitive to liner temperature at higher loads and speeds. Therefore, a lower average liner temperature would not only reduce the total power loss from piston ring/liner contact, but it would also reduce the rate of NOx emissions, particularly at high speed and load conditions. Their results show that an optimum liner temperature exists at which, a certain trade-off between various forms of emissions can be sought.

Enjoy!
Great input Sizewell. The fans turn on more often than I'd like and temp is usually at half way. Car is due for a service quite soon so will be flushing out oil and filling her up with some fresh 5w-40 in the process.
Ekrem C Ekrem is offline  
(Post Link) post #24 of 27 Old 4 Weeks Ago
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 3,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekrem C Ekrem View Post
Great input Sizewell. The fans turn on more often than I'd like and temp is usually at half way. Car is due for a service quite soon so will be flushing out oil and filling her up with some fresh 5w-40 in the process.
Ditto! To me, this implies the capacity of the water jacket and the radiator is inadequate.

The designers probably calculated these on the basis of “x” thermal efficiency, but practically, the “Real World Thermo - dynamics” - I’ve waited 50 years to use that term - do not stack up.

Rarely have they ever - that is why I was never out of work.
sizewell is offline  
(Post Link) post #25 of 27 Old 4 Weeks Ago
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 3,015
Chilling

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekrem C Ekrem View Post
Great input Sizewell. The fans turn on more often than I'd like and temp is usually at half way. Car is due for a service quite soon so will be flushing out oil and filling her up with some fresh 5w-40 in the process.
Ditto! To me, this implies the capacity of the water jacket and the radiator is inadequate.

The designers probably calculated this on the basis of “x” thermal efficiency, but practically, the “Real World Thermo - dynamics” - I’ve waited 50 years to use that term - do not stack up.

Rarely have they ever - that is why I was never out of work.
sizewell is offline  
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Supported Alfa Romeo Models > Technical & Vehicle Assistance > Alfa 159, Brera & 946 Spider

Tags
induction , kit , mpg

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New induction kit fitted to QV towney Alfa MiTo 45 12-12-13 08:44
V6 Induction Kit Chris Alfa 147, 156 & GT 68 17-05-04 13:18
induction kit fitted...mpg fu***d alibob Alfa 147, 156 & GT 13 14-03-04 11:45
Air Filters and Induction Kits Ian Spring General Alfa Discussion 32 10-02-03 17:51
INDUCTION KIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! antares Alfa 147, 156 & GT 7 06-02-03 09:22

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome