Plasma sparkplugs increase engine efficiency by 6% - 20%

Status
Not open for further replies.

Starfalcon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
1,098
They have had the E3 plasma plugs for at least 10+ years already, but one of them cost more than a full set of regular plugs. In all my time in auto parts, Ive only had one person ask for them, and they changed their mind when they found out they were $45 a plug and they needed 8 of them....
 

DWolvin

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
3,218
You use valves? Rotary Represent! (kidding on some levels, loved the hell out of my RX-7's). But yeah, I'd have to do the math on break even time for that cost increase...
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,608
Without any engine management software updates?

Sounds too good to be true.

Still, I'm down, if it actually works. if its tested out and available, I'll replace all of my plugs tomorrow.
From the article:
TPS's plasma ignition system is designed to drop into existing cars with very little modification. An ignition module replaces the regular spark plugs, and there's a power module to control it, but otherwise the only other modifications are in software, as the engine requires remapping to take advantage of the new technology.
At minimum a tune will be needed. I would totally be onboard with this if they're able to get tunes out for older cars.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,678
Not PC related but cool tech is always cool

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/0...at-boosts-fuel-efficiency-has-passed-testing/

Hopefully coming to an Autozone, NAPA, Canadian Tire, etc... near you.
Soon?
As a car guy, I'm sorry to tell you that it's all fake news. Many manufacturers have tried to mess with spark plugs only to find that it doesn't do jack. Some cars came with two spark plugs in hopes to get a more complete burn, but better placement of plugs does a better job. As someone who tunes their car with free software, I can tell you there are many ways to increase fuel efficiency and power without any fancy spark plugs. In fact I'm trying to tune my Corvette C5 to get 40 MPG on the highway while also increasing power.

Remember when VW was caught with their emissions dodging software trick? The idea was that you could get good emissions but at the sacrifice of power and efficiency. So VW would retard the timing while also enriching the fuel delivery, and this would match emission standards. Running an engine leaner would make more power and use less fuel, but runs the engine hotter. This is fine at lower RPM's as you're much less likely to get knock but all cars at higher RPM will run richer to prevent damage. Leaning out an engine will create NOx emissions which is far worse than CO2, which is why leaning out an engine is not something many manufacturers do. Modern catalytic converters help fix emissions which is why MPG does generally go up.

The snake oil idea behind spark plugs is to create a more complete burn, as not all the fuel will burn evenly. No such spark plug could do this, but you can do better with more modern fuel injectors as modern ones have a better spray pattern which will atomize the fuel better for a more complete burn. More than likely any changes done to an engine won't see the benefits without actually doing a tune. I don't use HP Tuners because holy crap it's expensive, but there are plenty of free tools that do the same thing like TunerPro, trimalayzer, and Universal Patcher. Which are great for tuning older GM vehicles because people understand them very well, but sucks for more modern vehicles. If there was any benefit to a spark plug, then you'll have to log the car and then adjust how the car operates with a tune.



 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,514
It really is amazing the amount of power/efficiency engines are leaving on the table to meet ever more strangling regulations.
The issue is getting power, fuel economy while lowering emissions. That's the difficult one. Increasing one or even two of those is actually pretty easy.

As for these spark plugs I'm going with snake oil until proven otherwise. We've had all kinds of kinky high tech plugs over the years and it doesn't make much of a difference, usually nothing. It comes down to the fact that if your plugs and ignition are in good shape, there's not much room for improvement.
 

Wat

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Messages
475
If you can get more MPG from the same amount of fuel, you would think that the emissions would go down as well. I guess it must make more pollution than the mpg increase saves?
 

Verge

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 27, 2001
Messages
7,660

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,678
If you can get more MPG from the same amount of fuel, you would think that the emissions would go down as well. I guess it must make more pollution than the mpg increase saves?
It's not so much how much you emit but what you emit. You can emit as much CO2 as you want, I mean people do drive SUV's after all, but if you start emitting NOx then you fail inspection. NOx is only created when you use less fuel and more air in the mixture. General rule is you can run an engine a little rich or a little lean and still make more power, but the benefits both are different. When you enrich an engine you can advance the timing which creates more power, because more fuel does cool down the engine and prevents knock. The downside is more fuel is used and the catalytic converter will get hotter. Running an engine leaner will make more power, but the engine itself will run hotter which could damage it.

The LS1 engine which my Corvette has can get away with this because it is an all aluminum engine, which means it can dissipate heat better than its iron counterparts. Nearly all modern engines are now aluminum but they are also 4 cylinder engines making nearly 300hp, so guess what these engines do to not melt down? Yep, they run rich, which is why a powerful 4 cylinder often gets terrible gas mileage. Modern cars use direct injection which helps cool down the cylinder so when it does run lean it doesn't knock. The stupid thing about direct injection is that it doesn't give a compete burn, which is the reason manufacturers now have both direct injection and port injection, and not because they care that the valve's are now dirty.

If you're a car manufacturer there are only two methods to increase MPG out of an engine, and that's to either lean it out or find a way to get a complete burn. If a fancy spark plug could do it, they would have been on that shit long time ago. What has changed in spark plugs is the material used, as we moved from copper to platinum, to iridium. This was done because copper plugs only last 30,000 miles while platinum lasts 100,000 miles and iridium's can last for 200,000. That's the only benefit you get from changing plugs, and that's how much longer they'll last. The best thing you can do to use less fuel is make the vehicle lighter, also known as not driving a SUV. Americans and now Europeans are obsessed with SUV's which is a great way to waste fuel.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxLb3aKNu1xlFousIyrwfxADsx1KzkHsco

 
Last edited:

Tengis

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
5,684
It's not so much how much you emit but what you emit. You can emit as much CO2 as you want, I mean people do drive SUV's after all, but if you start emitting NOx then you fail inspection. NOx is only created when you use less fuel and more air in the mixture. General rule is you can run an engine a little rich or a little lean and still make more power, but the benefits both are different. When you enrich an engine you can advance the timing which creates more power, because more fuel does cool down the engine and prevents knock. The downside is more fuel is used and the catalytic converter will get hotter. Running an engine leaner will make more power, but the engine itself will run hotter which could damage it.

The LS1 engine which my Corvette has can get away with this because it is an all aluminum engine, which means it can dissipate heat better than its iron counterparts. Nearly all modern engines are now aluminum but they are also 4 cylinder engines making nearly 300hp, so guess what these engines do to not melt down? Yep, they run rich, which is why a powerful 4 cylinder often gets terrible gas mileage. Modern cars use direct injection which helps cool down the cylinder so when it does run lean it doesn't knock. The stupid thing about direct injection is that it doesn't give a compete burn, which is the reason manufacturers now have both direct injection and port injection, and not because they care that the valve's are now dirty.

If you're a car manufacturer there are only two methods to increase MPG out of an engine, and that's to either lean it out or find a way to get a compete burn. If a fancy spark plug could do it, they would have been on that shit long time ago. What has changed in spark plugs is the material used, as we moved from copper to platinum, to iridium. This was done because copper plugs only last 30,000 miles while platinum lasts 100,000 miles and iridium's can last for 200,000. That's the only benefit you get from changing plugs, and that's how much longer they'll last. The best thing you can do to use less fuel is make the vehicle lighter, also known as not driving a SUV. Americans and now Europeans are obsessed with SUV's which is a great way to waste fuel.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxLb3aKNu1xlFousIyrwfxADsx1KzkHsco



The "valves getting dirty" is a massive problem. Many manufacturers are doing warranty engines for excessive oil consumption because people arent doing recommended top engine cleaning to get the carbon off of the valves which eventually makes it way to the piston rings and valve seals, causing oil to get into the cylinder during combustion. If you start googling modern cars with the addition of oil consumption you can find insane amounts of complaints and some recalls. Direct inject also allows you to run higher compression ratios and more timing, resulting in better efficiency.

Just because a car makes a lot of power that doesnt mean it cant also get good fuel economy. Modern 6 speed+ automatic transmissions aside, there are multiple things that can be done to increase fuel economy it just comes at the cost of emissions. One of my vehicles that weighed about 3200 pounds and made between 500-550hp or so with a turbo V6 (never dynod) would get 30+ MPG highway easy because I ran a very lean highway cruise (16-16.5:1) on an open loop tune that I did. The car in its stock form would get 26mpg highway at best.

This plug technology looks neat but until its released and independently verified I will lump it into the same category as everything else that claims to increase fuel economy. And E3 plugs arent "plasma" plugs.
 

Nimisys

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
21,116
It's not so much how much you emit but what you emit. You can emit as much CO2 as you want, I mean people do drive SUV's after all, but if you start emitting NOx then you fail inspection. NOx is only created when you use less fuel and more air in the mixture. General rule is you can run an engine a little rich or a little lean and still make more power, but the benefits both are different. When you enrich an engine you can advance the timing which creates more power, because more fuel does cool down the engine and prevents knock. The downside is more fuel is used and the catalytic converter will get hotter. Running an engine leaner will make more power, but the engine itself will run hotter which could damage it.

The LS1 engine which my Corvette has can get away with this because it is an all aluminum engine, which means it can dissipate heat better than its iron counterparts. Nearly all modern engines are now aluminum but they are also 4 cylinder engines making nearly 300hp, so guess what these engines do to not melt down? Yep, they run rich, which is why a powerful 4 cylinder often gets terrible gas mileage. Modern cars use direct injection which helps cool down the cylinder so when it does run lean it doesn't knock. The stupid thing about direct injection is that it doesn't give a compete burn, which is the reason manufacturers now have both direct injection and port injection, and not because they care that the valve's are now dirty.

If you're a car manufacturer there are only two methods to increase MPG out of an engine, and that's to either lean it out or find a way to get a compete burn. If a fancy spark plug could do it, they would have been on that shit long time ago. What has changed in spark plugs is the material used, as we moved from copper to platinum, to iridium. This was done because copper plugs only last 30,000 miles while platinum lasts 100,000 miles and iridium's can last for 200,000. That's the only benefit you get from changing plugs, and that's how much longer they'll last. The best thing you can do to use less fuel is make the vehicle lighter, also known as not driving a SUV. Americans and now Europeans are obsessed with SUV's which is a great way to waste fuel.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxLb3aKNu1xlFousIyrwfxADsx1KzkHsco


Your either missing or omitting very fundamental details in this....

NOx is formed when combustion temps is above 1202f (580C). You can have a stoichiometric mixture, but exceed that temp and they occur. Which is why we had EGR before VVT and cam profiles with greater overlap, to bring in inert gases to lower the combustion temperature.

Modern 300+ HP 4 cylinders make that power with forced induction, which acts as additional displacement. Add more air (increased pressure) and you have to add more fuel, which is why their fuel economy isn't that great, as it's effectively a larger engine while under boost.

The reason your C5 gets 30 on the highway is the weight, the CoD, the displacement and the gearing. It's relatively light, slippery, has a smaller engine compared to the later models (5.7 vs 6.2+) and a ridiculously low over drive ratio of 0.51:1 vs the more common ~0.7:1 of most vehicles.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,608
Your either missing or omitting very fundamental details in this....

NOx is formed when combustion temps is above 1202f (580C). You can have a stoichiometric mixture, but exceed that temp and they occur. Which is why we had EGR before VVT and cam profiles with greater overlap, to bring in inert gases to lower the combustion temperature.

Modern 300+ HP 4 cylinders make that power with forced induction, which acts as additional displacement. Add more air (increased pressure) and you have to add more fuel, which is why their fuel economy isn't that great, as it's effectively a larger engine while under boost.

The reason your C5 gets 30 on the highway is the weight, the CoD, the displacement and the gearing. It's relatively light, slippery, has a smaller engine compared to the later models (5.7 vs 6.2+) and a ridiculously low over drive ratio of 0.51:1 vs the more common ~0.7:1 of most vehicles.
With the C5 (and other GM vehicles using the T56 series of transmissions), the rear end gear ratio is higher to compensate for the high overdrive. The reason the C5 manual got better mileage than the C5 automatic was because of the 4 speed automatic's poor ratio spread, forcing a rear end ratio that compromised between acceleration and fuel economy. This is far less true now with the 6 and 8 speed transmissions where the gear spread now matches and exceeds that of the manual.

Turbos in theory are supposed to be more efficient than NA engines at the same power level because turbos scavenge "wasted" power from the exhaust. In practice it appears that it isn't that different, but turbos do appear to be more reliable than depending on cylinder deactivation tech (see all of GM's lifter issues).
 

John1780

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
68
With the C5 (and other GM vehicles using the T56 series of transmissions), the rear end gear ratio is higher to compensate for the high overdrive. The reason the C5 manual got better mileage than the C5 automatic was because of the 4 speed automatic's poor ratio spread, forcing a rear end ratio that compromised between acceleration and fuel economy. This is far less true now with the 6 and 8 speed transmissions where the gear spread now matches and exceeds that of the manual.

Turbos in theory are supposed to be more efficient than NA engines at the same power level because turbos scavenge "wasted" power from the exhaust. In practice it appears that it isn't that different, but turbos do appear to be more reliable than depending on cylinder deactivation tech (see all of GM's lifter issues).
Wasn't the base C5s A4 final drive ratio 2:73:1 tho? That's what my 02 TA had, and it got 26 mpg all day long on the highway, same as my 02 WS6 TA with M6 and 3.42:1.

Point taken tho on newer cars with A6+ gears.
 

Nimisys

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
21,116
Go look at the ratios, the M6 final drive ratio is across the board more favorable than A4 in almost combination. Only the Z06 vs highway cruiser A4 was the A4 more favorable by 0.004:1

The newer A6+ have a wider spread, deeper OD and tighter ratios than the A4 could manage. But that was long the reason you had better economy in manual vs automatic vehicles.
 

Wade88

Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
1,001
Go look at the ratios, the M6 final drive ratio is across the board more favorable than A4 in almost combination. Only the Z06 vs highway cruiser A4 was the A4 more favorable by 0.004:1

The newer A6+ have a wider spread, deeper OD and tighter ratios than the A4 could manage. But that was long the reason you had better economy in manual vs automatic vehicles.
Torque converters used to waste hordes of power too.
 

Nimisys

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
21,116
Torque converters used to waste hordes of power too.
Not really. They provided additional torque during the fluid coupling phase and then lockup converters eliminated slip when it was no longer desired. Consequently, they also reduced fluid temps by a significant amount.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,678
The "valves getting dirty" is a massive problem. Many manufacturers are doing warranty engines for excessive oil consumption because people arent doing recommended top engine cleaning to get the carbon off of the valves which eventually makes it way to the piston rings and valve seals, causing oil to get into the cylinder during combustion. If you start googling modern cars with the addition of oil consumption you can find insane amounts of complaints and some recalls. Direct inject also allows you to run higher compression ratios and more timing, resulting in better efficiency.
The dirty valve problem is a old problem due to planned obsolescence. This is due to the PCV system which sucks up motor oil fumes into the intake of the engine to be burned out. The issue is that more than just fumes get sucked up, as a lot of engines end up sucking up oil. Not only does this consume oil, but eventually the oil ring on the pistons get clogged, which means even more oil gets consumed. With port injection the valve's don't get as dirty, but they still get dirty. Instead of putting a filter for the oil line, they use a valve which does nothing. This is why all my cars including the Corvette now have an oil catch can. All PCV systems suck oil.

Toyota had this problem with their earlier V6 engines but solved it with a better valve cover design. GM had this problem with their 3.6L V6 engines until they made valve cover gaskets with smaller holes so it sucks in less oil.
Just because a car makes a lot of power that doesnt mean it cant also get good fuel economy. Modern 6 speed+ automatic transmissions aside, there are multiple things that can be done to increase fuel economy it just comes at the cost of emissions. One of my vehicles that weighed about 3200 pounds and made between 500-550hp or so with a turbo V6 (never dynod) would get 30+ MPG highway easy because I ran a very lean highway cruise (16-16.5:1) on an open loop tune that I did. The car in its stock form would get 26mpg highway at best.
The Corvette has a hidden feature called "Lean burn Mode" that is disabled due to emissions. A lot of tools are available that will enable this to get it. This is my goal right now, as soon as I tune my engine properly. I disabled my MAF sensor to see how the Air fuel ratio is and this is what I'm getting. First order of business is to get the engine running as close to 0% and then I can look to enable lean burn mode. I can change things like when the transmission shifts gear, when total lock up occurs, and etc. All these things can effect MPG, without losing any performance.


NOx is formed when combustion temps is above 1202f (580C). You can have a stoichiometric mixture, but exceed that temp and they occur. Which is why we had EGR before VVT and cam profiles with greater overlap, to bring in inert gases to lower the combustion temperature.
I'm not a fan of EGR valve's for this reason. This is why I try to delete them if I can.
The reason your C5 gets 30 on the highway is the weight, the CoD, the displacement and the gearing. It's relatively light, slippery, has a smaller engine compared to the later models (5.7 vs 6.2+) and a ridiculously low over drive ratio of 0.51:1 vs the more common ~0.7:1 of most vehicles.
Speaking of transmissions, this LubeGuard Friction Modifier does work to increase MPG. I found out about this stuff on Lexus forums and it is amazing. Transmission grabs better and you end up using less fuel. It also brings nearly dead auto transmissions back to life.
Turbos in theory are supposed to be more efficient than NA engines at the same power level because turbos scavenge "wasted" power from the exhaust. In practice it appears that it isn't that different, but turbos do appear to be more reliable than depending on cylinder deactivation tech (see all of GM's lifter issues).
Turbos work better on larger engines, but on smaller engines you are putting a lot more stress onto those cylinders, which again pushes manufacturers to run engines richer. Another solution is to inject water/ethanol mixtures to help cool down engines. Some car manufacturers did this but people found it annoying to fill a container with water and ethanol. I don't think turbos are more reliable than cylinder deactivation. My uncle has a 07 tahoe which I did replace all the lifters that are responsible for the deactivation feature. It has over 200,000 miles and a head refresh was nice to do anyway. One of the valve springs was also snapped in half. Removing heads off a LS based engine is really easy since there's no timing belt. Doing both heads probably costed $700, since I did it myself. Go find out how much a turbo costs to replace when they go bad. Eventually GM got it right because they made better lifters and required better oil. No joke, one of GM's solutions is for owners of DOD engines to use thinner oil. I don't agree with GM on the oil but yea.



61910-Black-_small-e1539880622183.jpg
 

Attachments

  • trimalyzer maf off.png
    trimalyzer maf off.png
    67.1 KB · Views: 1

scoundrel

n00b
Joined
Sep 22, 2022
Messages
40
For new cars, not suvs, cars, three and four cylinder with turbos are the last word in fuel efficiency where I live. They sip little indeed, but don't last 200.000 miles like their older non turbo siblings. There's no gain gain in this scenario, I guess. New cheap cars are almost entirely disposable and made to be gas savers, even when it costs durabilty. They use 0W10 or 0w20 oil, almost as thin as water.
 

Nimisys

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
21,116
Just waiting for the 100mpg carb reference to pop up now ...

Modern engines burn more oil because they use low tension rings. PCV design has less to do with it than the catch can purveyors want to suggest. They catch a lot of oil that would be sperated and returned to the crank case giving the impression more is being burned than actually is.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,678
Just waiting for the 100mpg carb reference to pop up now ...

Modern engines burn more oil because they use low tension rings. PCV design has less to do with it than the catch can purveyors want to suggest. They catch a lot of oil that would be sperated and returned to the crank case giving the impression more is being burned than actually is.
I don't know about modern engines because my cars are generally old, but with oil catch cans they can fill up rather quickly. My father's Lexus RX300 would burn a quart every few weeks until I put an oil catch can and that over time pretty much stopped. My 07 Lexus IS250 would do this too often, and when I did put an oil catch can it was too small and filled up too quickly. I had to recently upgrade to an even larger catch can. It doesn't lose oil anymore, but every few months I'll have to empty it out. My Vette has a small catch can, and that was a mistake. It's currently full and I really don't feel like emptying it right now.

This guy with a 2002 Corolla has made one too many episodes on how to solve an oil burning issue, which he finally solved by pouring B12 down the cylinders which finally cleaned the oil rings. The first thing I usually do is pour B12 down where the spark plugs are, for a car that's new to me. If the oil rings get clogged then oil isn't being drained down and will instead be burned. If modern cars do this due to weak rings then I imagine it's to get better MPG, at the cost of having you pour more oil into the motor. Which asks the question if burning oil or fuel is better for the environment? It certainly isn't better for the car.

 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
3,181
Would I be able to tune my G8 GT to get better gas mileage without losing power or polluting more? How much does it cost to buy the tuning equipment?
 

Tengis

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
5,684
That dude is
Would I be able to tune my G8 GT to get better gas mileage without losing power or polluting more? How much does it cost to buy the tuning equipment?
Better off having someone tune it - if you are in Houston or anywhere nearby I can recommend pretty much one of the best shops in the country IMO for LSx/LTx tuning.

Burning oil also gums up the CAT. Eventually you will have an insane amount of deposits on the CAT that you cant remove. My wifes car was probably 75% blocked when it started acting up from burning oil. Before the CAT was gone we didnt really realize it was burning so much oil because we couldnt smell it as much... but it goes through probably 3-4 quarts per tank of gas - insane.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
36,025
Turbos work better on larger engines, but on smaller engines you are putting a lot more stress onto those cylinders, which again pushes manufacturers to run engines richer. Another solution is to inject water/ethanol mixtures to help cool

Turbos are just fine on smaller engines.

Yes, if you are running the same internals as a non turbo engine you could potentially stress them too much, but that's why they dimension the piston, rings and other parts stronger than on lower pressure engines.

I've driven turbocharged Volvo's with 400k miles on the original engine without a problem.

You could put 400hp on a 2L I4 with a turbo, and as long as the internals are designe to handle higher pressures that thing will be fine.

I wouldn't use an aftermarket turbo kit on an engine not designed for it though. That's where you get into trouble.

You could probably fuck up the design of a turbocharged engine, but at this point even the Korean cars have well designed engines. Manufacturers haven't been making that mistake since the late 70's.

That's just a bunch of nonsense from biased fans of old school V8 push rods. You know like that screaming old curmudgeon Scotty Kilmer. I wouldn't take much he says seriously.
 

Tengis

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
5,684
Turbos are just fine on smaller engines.

Yes, if you are running the same internals as a non turbo engine you could potentially stress them too much, but that's why they dimension the piston, rings and other parts stronger than on lower pressure engines.

I've driven turbocharged Volvo's with 400k miles on the original engine without a problem.

You could put 400hp on a 2L I4 with a turbo, and as long as the internals are designe to handle higher pressures that thing will be fine.

I wouldn't use an aftermarket turbo kit on an engine not designed for it though. That's where you get into trouble.

You could probably fuck up the design of a turbocharged engine, but at this point even the Korean cars have well designed engines. Manufacturers haven't been making that mistake since the late 70's.

That's just a bunch of nonsense from biased fans of old school V8 push rods. You know like that screaming old curmudgeon Scotty Kilmer. I wouldn't take much he says seriously.
Scotty Kilmer makes baby turbo jesus cry.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,678
Would I be able to tune my G8 GT to get better gas mileage without losing power or polluting more? How much does it cost to buy the tuning equipment?
Go to Gearhead-efi forum and you'd be surprised how many people there are willing to help. They practically tune the cars for you. PCM Hammer is free and lets you read and write to your car. It also comes with PCM Logger which doesn't work with the cable I have. I use Torque to log my car with my Android phone and bluetooth ODB2 adapter. TunerPro or Universal Patcher can make the changes but Universal Patcher I think is mostly for GM vehicles.

http://www.gearhead-efi.com
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005ZWM0R4?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
https://github.com/LegacyNsfw/PcmHacks
https://universalpatcher.net/
 

Starfalcon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
1,098
The "valves getting dirty" is a massive problem. Many manufacturers are doing warranty engines for excessive oil consumption because people arent doing recommended top engine cleaning to get the carbon off of the valves which eventually makes it way to the piston rings and valve seals, causing oil to get into the cylinder during combustion. If you start googling modern cars with the addition of oil consumption you can find insane amounts of complaints and some recalls. Direct inject also allows you to run higher compression ratios and more timing, resulting in better efficiency.

Just because a car makes a lot of power that doesnt mean it cant also get good fuel economy. Modern 6 speed+ automatic transmissions aside, there are multiple things that can be done to increase fuel economy it just comes at the cost of emissions. One of my vehicles that weighed about 3200 pounds and made between 500-550hp or so with a turbo V6 (never dynod) would get 30+ MPG highway easy because I ran a very lean highway cruise (16-16.5:1) on an open loop tune that I did. The car in its stock form would get 26mpg highway at best.

This plug technology looks neat but until its released and independently verified I will lump it into the same category as everything else that claims to increase fuel economy. And E3 plugs arent "plasma" plugs.

Yeah you were right I was thinking of the pulstar plasma plugs and got them confused with the E3 plugs. Had to do a bit of googleing to figure out what they were.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,678
That's just a bunch of nonsense from biased fans of old school V8 push rods. You know like that screaming old curmudgeon Scotty Kilmer. I wouldn't take much he says seriously.
I'm generalizing, but yes there are reliable cars with reliable turbos but all too often that's more the exception and not the norm. If it isn't the turbo failing then it's the head gasket that fails from the high compression. When they do fail then the turbo costs a fortune to replace. More complexity means more stuff to fail. Turbos aren't even needed anymore as proven by the new 5.5L V8 Corvette making insane 670hp power with no boost of any kind. That engine does not get good MPG.

 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,514
If you can get more MPG from the same amount of fuel, you would think that the emissions would go down as well. I guess it must make more pollution than the mpg increase saves?
what it comes down to is there's a big difference between extracting energy and burning the fuel with less emissions.

ever hear some of the old carburetor heads talk about how modern cars don't have much better fuel economy? well believe it or not they're not wrong...but it's a half truth. the old carbs couldn't get volumetric efficiency worth shit (think power/L) and of course emissions wasn't even a consideration back then. in the days of the carb a 2L motor was a joke. cars were heavier, and the 2L would probably put out less than 100hp. it'll go but not much fun. these days a 2L can easily put out in excess of 150hp without a turbo, keep the fuel economy up and put less trash out the tailpipe.

but getting off topic. i doubt it'll come to anything, but hey if these plasma plugs help i'm patiently waiting for some more reliable info. hope it does, doubt it will.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
36,025
Turbos aren't even needed anymore as proven by the new 5.5L V8 Corvette making insane 670hp power with no boost of any kind. That engine does not get good MPG.

I mean, that's kind of the point right there though.

We've always been able to make lots of power with a large V8. That's not under debate.

But with the exception of some wonky designs like the GM 4-6-8 engines which were a disaster, having a big V8 has meant some tradeoffs in fuel consumption.

The beauty of turbo engines is that you can have the power when you need it (full throttle) but when you don't you are sipping fuel like a small displacement engine (because that's what it is).

That's why we have seen so many Euro market engines go way down in displacement. 1.0L or 1.3L with a turbocharger. They make decent daily driver power thanks to the turbo, but sip fuel when you don't need the power.

I'm not a kid anymore. Don't give a shit about that raceboy nonsense. I outgrew that over a decade ago. Couldn't care less about any several hundred horsepower sportscar. Keep that shit on the track. Honestly, cars like that are completely irrelevant.

The important part is, what will get me to and from work, and to the grocery store, while using the least amount of fuel, without sacrificing comfort/size?

The most power you'll ever need is in order to safely merge onto a poorly designed highway with short/shitty onramps. If you have a heavy car, that mean,s maybe ~225 to 300hp somewhere. Less if the car is lighter. Any more than that, and we are just talking a dumb expensive and wasteful toy.

A car is an appliance, not a lifestyle or an identity. It's time we started treating them like it.
 
Last edited:

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,608
Wasn't the base C5s A4 final drive ratio 2:73:1 tho? That's what my 02 TA had, and it got 26 mpg all day long on the highway, same as my 02 WS6 TA with M6 and 3.42:1.

Point taken tho on newer cars with A6+ gears.
Yes, it had a 2.73:1 with a .7 overdrive giving it an overall gear ratio of ~1.9. The manual had a 3.45 with a .5 overdrive giving it an overall of ~1.7. Flip that around to the first gear, and the automatic had a 3.059 first gear for an overall of 8.35 while the manual had a 2.66 for overall of 9.18, and you can see why GM had to compromise between choosing off the line acceleration and highway cruising mpg for the automatic. The automatic did come with the "performance" option of 3.15 gear ratios. Put another way, the 4l60e transmission had a gear ratio spread of 4.37 while the manual had a spread of 5.32. The larger spread allowed off the line performance and good highway cruising mpg.

Fast forward to the introduction of the 6l80 and that gear spread advantage disappeared. The 6l80 had a gear spread of 6.04, the 8l90 essentially 7, and 10l90 7.39. The TR6070 closed the gap some by adding a seventh gear, but it only maxed out at 6.33 gear spread.
I'm generalizing, but yes there are reliable cars with reliable turbos but all too often that's more the exception and not the norm. If it isn't the turbo failing then it's the head gasket that fails from the high compression. When they do fail then the turbo costs a fortune to replace. More complexity means more stuff to fail. Turbos aren't even needed anymore as proven by the new 5.5L V8 Corvette making insane 670hp power with no boost of any kind. That engine does not get good MPG.


Meh... 670 HP at 8400 RPM. The maximum torque is still only 460 ft lbs, which is inline with other modern DOHCs of similar displacement. The only thing impressive about the engine (which is actually rather impressive, not to disparage it or anything) is that they managed to get a 5.5 L engine to redline at 8600 RPM. Which is really only useful on the track and essentially useless in any other application.
I mean, that's kind of the point right there though.

We've always been able to make lots of power with a large V8. That's not under debate.

But with the exception of some wonky designs like the GM 4-6-8 engines which were a disaster, having a big V8 has meant some tradeoffs in fuel consumption.

The beauty of turbo engines is that you can have the power when you need it (full throttle) but when you don't you are sipping fuel like a small displacement engine (because that's what it is).

That's why we have seen so many Euro market engines go way down in displacement. 1.0L or 1.3L with a turbocharger. They make decent daily driver power thanks to the turbo, but sip fuel when you don't need the power.

I'm not a kid anymore. Don't give a shit about that raceboy nonsense. I outgrew that over a decade ago. Couldn't care less about any several hundred horsepower sportscar. Keep that shit on the track. Honestly, cars like that are completely irrelevant.

The important part is, what will get me to and from work, and to the grocery store, while using the least amount of fuel, without sacrificing comfort/size?

The most power you'll ever need is in order to safely merge onto a poorly designed highway with short/shitty onramps. If you have a heavy car, that mean,s maybe ~225 to 300hp somewhere. Less if the car is lighter. Any more than that, and we are just talking a dumb expensive and wasteful toy.

A car is an appliance, not a lifestyle or an identity. It's time we started treating them like it.
Completely disagree that a car has to be an appliance. A car can be fun to drive while getting good fuel economy numbers. There is far more to a car than just getting from point A to point B to many people, which is why there are so many different car segments.

Also, there are so many dumb drivers on the road that I want the ability to punch it around them when necessary. A car with the bare minimum HP to get around will not work for me. In fact, it would only make me more frustrated... saving gas is not worth my mental and physical health (yes, my blood pressure and frustration rises behind stupid drivers). Now, if we get everyone into self driving cars where I don't have to pay attention to the road, I couldn't care less what is happening on the road.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
36,025
For new cars, not suvs, cars, three and four cylinder with turbos are the last word in fuel efficiency where I live. They sip little indeed, but don't last 200.000 miles like their older non turbo siblings. There's no gain gain in this scenario, I guess. New cheap cars are almost entirely disposable and made to be gas savers, even when it costs durabilty. They use 0W10 or 0w20 oil, almost as thin as water.

I'd argue that one of the biggest contributors to early engine failures are the ubiquitous "10,000 mile oil change" recommendations. That and "sealed transmissions" with no fluid change recommendations.

The truth is, manufacturers don't give a shit if the car falls apart the second the warranty expires. That's the only reason they make these recommendations.

If you keep it to 3,000-5,000 miles, despite using modern "synthetic" oils, you'll have a lot fewer problems over time.

My 2017 Volvo S90 has these 10,000 mile oil change recommendations. It came with a butt load of maintenance included in the purchase, and I have put rather few miles on it since I bought it 3 years ago due to the pandemic, so I just take it in for the 10k service at the dealer, and do my own oil change (or have my indy do it) halfway between.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
36,025
Also, there are so many dumb drivers on the road that I want the ability to punch it around them when necessary. A car with the bare minimum HP to get around will not work for me. In fact, it would only make me more frustrated... saving gas is not worth my mental and physical health (yes, my blood pressure and frustration rises behind stupid drivers). Now, if we get everyone into self driving cars where I don't have to pay attention to the road, I couldn't care less what is happening on the road.

The key to being a good driver, is to enter zen mode behind the wheel. Leave your testosterone at home. It doesn't belong on the road. Take the mindset that "you'll get there, when you get there".

IMHO, it is the frustrated dudes with fast cars who think they are gods gift to performance driving, and who try to get around everyone else that are the worst of all the drivers on the roads. (Well, except maybe those who are drunk and/or high) Sure, they might know how to take a corner faster, or counter under/over steer better than the average driver, but they are also about a million times more likely to find themselves turned into a fireball in a 120+mph wipeout.

Get a car with adaptive cruise control. Leave a good 2-3 second following distance to the car ahead of you (~191 - 286ft or 13-19.5 car lights at 65mph, ~249 to 374 ft or ~17-25 car lengths at 85mph). Never get closer than 2-3 second following distance, never pass on the right. If someone slows you down in the passing lane, take a deep breath and just continue to cruise control it. Someone else's error in understanding of the purpose of the passing lane does not justify you taking risky behaviors and driving like an asshole.

You'll still get there.

The road is not a race track. It's not the place for performance driving.
 

toast0

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
2,297
If you can get more MPG from the same amount of fuel, you would think that the emissions would go down as well. I guess it must make more pollution than the mpg increase saves?

I think this was well covered, but the Nitrogen and the Oxygen in NOx both come from the air. If anything gets hot enough in air, NOx will form. NOx near people can contribute to asthma and other breathing issues. I can't find a straight answer on if it makes more sense for the climate to run more efficient and make more NOx or less efficient and make less NOx, but regulations seem focused on people breathing, so there you go. I miss my 60+mpg TDI though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top