warm air intake
- Thread starter wheelman
- Start date
- Status
See if there are any parts that can be removed to create the desired effect.
LOTS of articles on warm air intakes on GasSavers.org
Seriously a warm air intake? Don't forget the fuel magnets and tornado.
WAI vs CAI test results from GasSavers.org
"CAI (performed 5 bi-directional runs)
54.3 F avg air intake temp
79.12 km/gal (US) avg consumption
WAI (performed 4 bi-directional runs)
106.7 F avg air intake temp
79.31 km/gal (US) avg consumption"
http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=396
Pump your tires up 4-6 PSI above door placard may get you MPG increase more than the WAI.
"CAI (performed 5 bi-directional runs)
54.3 F avg air intake temp
79.12 km/gal (US) avg consumption
WAI (performed 4 bi-directional runs)
106.7 F avg air intake temp
79.31 km/gal (US) avg consumption"
http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=396
Pump your tires up 4-6 PSI above door placard may get you MPG increase more than the WAI.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yep, a warm air intake.
If you've seen what goes on in an inlet manifold, you would understand.
What does air inlet temperature have to do with "what goes on in an inlet manifold?"
Are we talking about air inlet temperature, or intake restrictions?
Yep, a warm air intake.
If you've seen what goes on in an inlet manifold, you would understand.
What does air inlet temperature have to do with "what goes on in an inlet manifold?"
Are we talking about air inlet temperature, or intake restrictions?
^^^absolutely true. Mostly about the noise factor, but a few cars get some real gains, just not too many anymore as mfgrs look for every mpg...
Quote:
"CAI (performed 5 bi-directional runs)
54.3 F avg air intake temp
79.12 km/gal (US) avg consumption
WAI (performed 4 bi-directional runs)
106.7 F avg air intake temp
79.31 km/gal (US) avg consumption"
Why are they using km/gal as a US measurement?
This is MPG, but it doesn't seem so different as in km/gal.
49.45 MPG
49,56 MPG
Well within statistical noise, no difference worth noting. Certainly nothing worth spending money or labor on to achieve IMHO.
"CAI (performed 5 bi-directional runs)
54.3 F avg air intake temp
79.12 km/gal (US) avg consumption
WAI (performed 4 bi-directional runs)
106.7 F avg air intake temp
79.31 km/gal (US) avg consumption"
Why are they using km/gal as a US measurement?
This is MPG, but it doesn't seem so different as in km/gal.
49.45 MPG
49,56 MPG
Well within statistical noise, no difference worth noting. Certainly nothing worth spending money or labor on to achieve IMHO.
The poster of that study is Canadian that why he posted KM/Gal.
If WAI can improve MPG by any measurable percentage then car manufacture would implement it in their engines.
If WAI can improve MPG by any measurable percentage then car manufacture would implement it in their engines.
I don't understand these half/half standards, they are confusing.
Normally km/ltr or miles/gallon but this mixing is insane.
Normally km/ltr or miles/gallon but this mixing is insane.
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The poster of that study is Canadian that why he posted KM/Gal.
If WAI can improve MPG by any measurable percentage then car manufacture would implement it in their engines.
Even if they could get a better MGP increase by shortening the stroke a hair? How about going to two hairs shorter and a smaller combustion chamber for more MPG and just as much power? Somehow I don't think they'd do that. For the DIYer, shortening the stroke just a tad isn't a very practical option. The OEM has a lot of tweaking options that the end user can't do in a half hour on a Sunday afternoon.
The poster of that study is Canadian that why he posted KM/Gal.
If WAI can improve MPG by any measurable percentage then car manufacture would implement it in their engines.
Even if they could get a better MGP increase by shortening the stroke a hair? How about going to two hairs shorter and a smaller combustion chamber for more MPG and just as much power? Somehow I don't think they'd do that. For the DIYer, shortening the stroke just a tad isn't a very practical option. The OEM has a lot of tweaking options that the end user can't do in a half hour on a Sunday afternoon.
Originally Posted By: MarkM66
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yep, a warm air intake.
If you've seen what goes on in an inlet manifold, you would understand.
What does air inlet temperature have to do with "what goes on in an inlet manifold?"
Are we talking about air inlet temperature, or intake restrictions?
The fuel does not evaporate when it's introduced into the intake, a fair percentage stays as liquid, and runs along the walls and floor.
Warmer the intake, and the fuel, the more enters the engine as a vapour, with a more complete chance for a full burn.
Of course, carbs and TBI, and systems that have injectors mounted further from the valve have the most to gain....and that's less common these days than ever before.
And warm air intakes WERE common, back when long wettedlengths were the norm.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yep, a warm air intake.
If you've seen what goes on in an inlet manifold, you would understand.
What does air inlet temperature have to do with "what goes on in an inlet manifold?"
Are we talking about air inlet temperature, or intake restrictions?
The fuel does not evaporate when it's introduced into the intake, a fair percentage stays as liquid, and runs along the walls and floor.
Warmer the intake, and the fuel, the more enters the engine as a vapour, with a more complete chance for a full burn.
Of course, carbs and TBI, and systems that have injectors mounted further from the valve have the most to gain....and that's less common these days than ever before.
And warm air intakes WERE common, back when long wettedlengths were the norm.
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If WAI can improve MPG by any measurable percentage then car manufacture would implement it in their engines.
WAIs have drawbacks that mainstream consumers may not care for, which is one reason they're not really implemented by manufacturers. There are a lot of behaviors that can be changed by a DIYer in the backyard, but those changes often bring other side effects that aren't all that desireable. Those experimenting with a goal in mind can likely tolerate those side effects better than someone who wants to put their right foot down to "go".
If WAI can improve MPG by any measurable percentage then car manufacture would implement it in their engines.
WAIs have drawbacks that mainstream consumers may not care for, which is one reason they're not really implemented by manufacturers. There are a lot of behaviors that can be changed by a DIYer in the backyard, but those changes often bring other side effects that aren't all that desireable. Those experimenting with a goal in mind can likely tolerate those side effects better than someone who wants to put their right foot down to "go".
True gains from intakes require complementary mods: software, headers/downpipe, exhaust...
Isn't engine management manipulate the intkae air anymore? Lots of heat escape from exhaust manifold, this utiized for stable intake temperature. Fuel ratio can be trimmed for any temperature but stable intake temp. is assistive.
Back in 70's many inlets were calibrated to be around 100°F, on my '84 Chevrolet inlet specified to be 55°C (~130°F). On those engines modification is just turn of a screw of the sensor which regulates warm air door.
Back in 70's many inlets were calibrated to be around 100°F, on my '84 Chevrolet inlet specified to be 55°C (~130°F). On those engines modification is just turn of a screw of the sensor which regulates warm air door.
- Status
