Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

ma_137
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 289

09 Nov 2007, 11:52 pm

I'm referring to the go-fast type of mods. I'm running megasquirt on my turbocharged ride. Anyone here do the same? It is a wonderful piece of kit that allows you to fiddle with almost every single element concerning your car's engine from fuel mixture, to spark advance, to how long the capacitors hold a charge within your coil packs.

Soo.. Anyone modify cars here?



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,062
Location: Houston, Texas

10 Nov 2007, 9:08 pm

No, but I've been interested in it.

Tim


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


yesplease
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 517

10 Nov 2007, 10:29 pm

Yes, but not the in the same way, I'm more interested in efficiency and cost for the time being.



ma_137
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 289

10 Nov 2007, 11:07 pm

yesplease wrote:
Yes, but not the in the same way, I'm more interested in efficiency and cost for the time being.


To a certain degree I am as well. My primary project is turbocharged and uses the megasquirt to make power, but along with those, you tend to pick up fuel economy as well. A freer flowing exhaust usually adds 1-2mpg, as well as an aero kit, larger, lower resistance rolling tires and other mods. If you get into modding turbocharged vehicles, when out of boost, you can generally keep the motor running fairly lean, and run more timing than stock, thus giving a fair bit of efficiency. We've gotten up to 28mpg out of this setup, which is a far cry over the 21mpg the car comes with stock. These are numbers recorded out of boost, cruising at 70mph. In boost its another story, but who records economy numbers when you are doing 100+ anyway?



wsmac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,888
Location: Humboldt County California

10 Nov 2007, 11:11 pm

Once, I had a 1978 Ford F250

400 V8

4-speed with a granny gear

I modified it all right! :wink:

I kicked in the grill, both doors, and caused a bit of other damage with my fits of anger years ago.

I say it was stolen from the parking lot at work (it really was)... my mom says it ran away! :( :wink:


_________________
fides solus
===============
LIBRARIES... Hardware stores for the mind


Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

10 Nov 2007, 11:26 pm

I admire people a lot who have automotive knowledge and can modify their vehicles.

I am fascinated by cars (especially the classic muscle cars) and I would like to fix one up in the future, but at the same time I do not like to drive. Weird combo, I know...



yesplease
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 517

10 Nov 2007, 11:59 pm

ma_137 wrote:
We've gotten up to 28mpg out of this setup, which is a far cry over the 21mpg the car comes with stock. These are numbers recorded out of boost, cruising at 70mph. In boost its another story, but who records economy numbers when you are doing 100+ anyway?
There's no reason ya can't do better. Like, say, ~40mpg@150mph. Given what's available today, there's also no reason imo why fast and fuel efficient can't coexist, w/ some compromises elsewhere of course. I'd love to screw around with something twin engined when I finally work up a decent budget (~$5-10k) to use. I think 100mpg/10s quarter mile would be nifty, and well within reach.



ma_137
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 289

11 Nov 2007, 1:23 am

yesplease wrote:
ma_137 wrote:
We've gotten up to 28mpg out of this setup, which is a far cry over the 21mpg the car comes with stock. These are numbers recorded out of boost, cruising at 70mph. In boost its another story, but who records economy numbers when you are doing 100+ anyway?
There's no reason ya can't do better. Like, say, ~40mpg@150mph. Given what's available today, there's also no reason imo why fast and fuel efficient can't coexist, w/ some compromises elsewhere of course. I'd love to screw around with something twin engined when I finally work up a decent budget (~$5-10k) to use. I think 100mpg/10s quarter mile would be nifty, and well within reach.


possibly, but not within my budget. The next car I'm doing is a turbo diesel light pickup truck for around town runs. I'd like to perk it up, but it will be nowhere near the performance of the car I'm running now. However, it will be a damn sight more economical. Otto-cycle engines definatley aren't that fuel efficient, but for the price to power ratio, it is hard to beat one!

A hybird in the future would be something fun to try, but the price of batteries, in-hub electric motors and speed controllers will have to come waaaay down first. As for now, I'll work on continuing to port the cyl heads, looking for more efficient turbo chargers and adding small things like hydrogen boost and tight squish motors with combustion chamber grooves to extract all the power and efficiency I can from this little 4 banger.



yesplease
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 517

11 Nov 2007, 3:05 am

ma_137 wrote:
Otto-cycle engines definatley aren't that fuel efficient, but for the price to power ratio, it is hard to beat one!
Sure they are, so long as they aren't throttled. ;) But, there's something to be said for really cheap/free fuel. :D