| jparrette |
Greetings all -
Aside from the obvious, (tire pressure, driving slower, etc.) has anybody made any changes or modifications to your Pilot to improve gas mileage?
At $4/Gal, every little bit helps! |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by jparrette
Greetings all -
Aside from the obvious, (tire pressure, driving slower, etc.) has anybody made any changes or modifications to your Pilot to improve gas mileage?
At $4/Gal, every little bit helps!
You got them all! |
|
|
| rlapid |
| im not sure if this is 'obvious', but replacing the engine air filter regularly helps too. |
|
|
| Seth Joseph |
| I am going to put new spark plugs in and am considering the new generation Pulsestar plug.........I already have 105,000 miles on my 2004 and the service interval is coming quickly.......I figure that if I can increase the HP and the MPG by these new plugs then I will........The Denso and NGK NEW Plugs claim big HP and MPG gains as well........ |
|
|
| A6Pilot |
quote:
Originally posted by rlapid
im not sure if this is 'obvious', but replacing the engine air filter regularly helps too.
With all due respect, that is incorrect.
In an computer controlled EFI engine (Honda Pilot, for example) having a dirty air filter will not cut down on your gas mileage. A dirty filter will only lower your mileage if you are driving a car with a carb.
Sounds strange, but here's why:
The computer will continuously adjust the fuel delivered to try for the optimum fuel/air ratio. If your filter is dirty, and thus the air flow partially restricted, the computer will reduce the fuel delivered, maintaining that optimum fuel air ratio. As a matter of fact, by limiting the air delivered at wide open throttle (where economy is at its worst), you may actually improve you mpg! A dirty filter will, however, decrease your peak horsepower, but your mileage will not decrease.
On a car with a carb, the fuel air ratio will get richer (ie. mileage decreases) with a restricted air filter. That's one of the reasons computer controlled EFI systems do not have a choke.
Also, today's engines are equipped with high energy ignition systems. One of the characteristics of HEI systems and associated platinum spark plugs is that engine performance decreases hardly at all as plugs age. The cost of a new set of plugs will not be recovered by the tiny increase in mpg, if you replace them more often than the manufacture's recommendation. That's also the reason installing aftermarket spark plugs is a waste of money. Maybe these Honda powertrain engineers really do know what they are doing.
This is all very counterintuitive, isn't it? It's called a paradigm shift. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by Seth Joseph
I am going to put new spark plugs in and am considering the new generation Pulsestar plug.........I already have 105,000 miles on my 2004 and the service interval is coming quickly.......I figure that if I can increase the HP and the MPG by these new plugs then I will........The Denso and NGK NEW Plugs claim big HP and MPG gains as well........
I have rouble believing in MPG or Power gains from plugs.
Other than the right heat range (hardly a concern anymore) and indexing, there is no magic in plugs. |
|
|
| A6Pilot |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Other than the right heat range (hardly a concern anymore) and indexing, there is no magic in plugs.
With the advent of high swirl heads, spark plug indexing is ineffective. Modern cylinder heads are designed to create tremendous turbulence within the cylinder, thus orientation of the side electrode facing away from the intake valve (indexing) is no longer necessary to produce the highest power.
Installing spark plugs with two or four ground electrodes (some Bosch plugs, for example) may actually increase, slightly, the engines emissions, particularly unburned hydrocarbons.
Things have changed a lot since when I was in high school. |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by A6Pilot
With all due respect, that is incorrect.
In an computer controlled EFI engine (Honda Pilot, for example) having a dirty air filter will not cut down on your gas mileage. A dirty filter will only lower your mileage if you are driving a car with a carb.
Sounds strange, but here's why:
The computer will continuously adjust the fuel delivered to try for the optimum fuel/air ratio. If your filter is dirty, and thus the air flow partially restricted, the computer will reduce the fuel delivered, maintaining that optimum fuel air ratio. As a matter of fact, by limiting the air delivered at wide open throttle (where economy is at its worst), you may actually improve you mpg! A dirty filter will, however, decrease your peak horsepower, but your mileage will not decrease.
This is too simplistic an analysis.
First, a clogged air filter will increase pumping losses. Engines are big air pumps and it takes considerable effort to pump air in and out an engine and this frictional loss will increase as the air filter clogs.
Second, as I understand it, the Pilot doesn't use a mass airflow sensor (MAF sensor), but instead infers the mass of air coming into the engine based on throttle position, intake manifold pressure, ambient pressure, and intake air temperature. This is a calibrated system and undoubtedly assumes that the pressure loss across the air filter is a value in a normal range. When the air filter clogs, the system will be running out of spec and probably won't be able to compensate, at least not completely. Even engines with true MAF sensors are subject to calibration error when the air filter pressure drop is beyond normal spec.
I agree that the effect of clogged air filter will not be as apparent on a modern FI car as an old carb'ed model. But I don't think you can say that it doesn't matter or that a clogged filter will actually help mileage. This is going WAY too far.
- Mar |
|
|
| charly |
| How about the famous TORNADO anybody has it in their Pilot. And those it helps really.? |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
This is too simplistic an analysis.
First, a clogged air filter will increase pumping losses. Engines are big air pumps and it takes considerable effort to pump air in and out an engine and this frictional loss will increase as the air filter clogs.
Second, as I understand it, the Pilot doesn't use a mass airflow sensor (MAF sensor), but instead infers the mass of air coming into the engine based on throttle position, intake manifold pressure, ambient pressure, and intake air temperature. This is a calibrated system and undoubtedly assumes that the pressure loss across the air filter is a value in a normal range. When the air filter clogs, the system will be running out of spec and probably won't be able to compensate, at least not completely. Even engines with true MAF sensors are subject to calibration error when the air filter pressure drop is beyond normal spec.
I agree that the effect of clogged air filter will not be as apparent on a modern FI car as an old carb'ed model. But I don't think you can say that it doesn't matter or that a clogged filter will actually help mileage. This is going WAY too far.
- Mar
The air filter has to be REALLY clogged to cause these types of problems.
If you are doing anything close to normal maintenance it will not be a problem.
Replacing the air filter early is of no value. |
|
|
| rlapid |
quote:
Originally posted by charly
How about the famous TORNADO anybody has it in their Pilot. And those it helps really.?
i don't know anyone who has one on their pilot. as a matter of fact, i don't know anyone who is actually gullible enough to buy one of those. those things are all marketing hype and a scam, imo. if they really did add significant MPG, don't you think the Honda engineers would have added it to all their cars from the factory? |
|
|
| wwong |
Seth,
If you do get better mileage with the new plugs, let me know. |
|
|
| humanoid |
quote:
Originally posted by Seth Joseph
~snipped
The Denso and NGK NEW Plugs claim big HP and MPG gains as well........
How so? Any sources to this statement? |
|
|
| rocky |
quote:
Originally posted by charly
How about the famous TORNADO anybody has it in their Pilot. And those it helps really.?
Simple answer, no. But you can send me the money anyway.... |
|
|
| krygny |
quote:
Originally posted by rocky
Simple answer, no. But you can send me the money anyway....
I can top that. Send ME the money and I'll come over to your house and kick you in the nnnyutzz. |
|
|
| BigDozer66 |
quote:
Originally posted by humanoid
How so? Any sources to this statement?
Denso Iridium
NGK G-Power
NGK V-Power
Almost every spark plug manufacturer "claims" increased mpg's, lower emissions and other performance improvements.:4:
The Denso's claim 4 HP on a stock Civic Si.:eek:
BigDozer66 |
|
|
| sjlee |
quote:
Originally posted by BigDozer66
Denso Iridium
NGK G-Power
NGK V-Power
Almost every spark plug manufacturer "claims" increased mpg's, lower emissions and other performance improvements.:4:
The Denso's claim 4 HP on a stock Civic Si.:eek:
BigDozer66
I think it's funny that Denso is claiming that it is a "stock" Civic, when in reality it has a modified exhaust...
"99 Si Stock, 2-1/4 inch exhaust, Random Tech Hi-Flow Cat"
Plus, there's always this disclaimer...
"*Actual horsepower gains may vary. "
BTW, the Tornado also claims increased MPG... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| JungleJim |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
This is too simplistic an analysis.
First, a clogged air filter will increase pumping losses. Engines are big air pumps and it takes considerable effort to pump air in and out an engine and this frictional loss will increase as the air filter clogs.
Second, as I understand it, the Pilot doesn't use a mass airflow sensor (MAF sensor), but instead infers the mass of air coming into the engine based on throttle position, intake manifold pressure, ambient pressure, and intake air temperature. This is a calibrated system and undoubtedly assumes that the pressure loss across the air filter is a value in a normal range. When the air filter clogs, the system will be running out of spec and probably won't be able to compensate, at least not completely. Even engines with true MAF sensors are subject to calibration error when the air filter pressure drop is beyond normal spec.
I agree that the effect of clogged air filter will not be as apparent on a modern FI car as an old carb'ed model. But I don't think you can say that it doesn't matter or that a clogged filter will actually help mileage. This is going WAY too far.
- Mar
I concur... |
|
|
| LameRandomName |
quote:
Originally posted by A6Pilot
As a matter of fact, by limiting the air delivered at wide open throttle (where economy is at its worst), you may actually improve you mpg! A dirty filter will, however, decrease your peak horsepower, but your mileage will not decrease.
I would argue that by reducing HP at any given RPM, you would have to increase RPM to get to the HP level that you need to do the same job that you used to do at a lower RPM; thus negating the mileage gains.
Interestingly, back in the old non-electronic carburetor days, you go the best mileage by using WOT (Wide Open Throttle) and "Short Shifting" as soon as possible. The secret was that WOT gives the poorest carb signal. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
I would argue that by reducing HP at any given RPM, you would have to increase RPM to get to the HP level that you need to do the same job that you used to do at a lower RPM; thus negating the mileage gains.
Holly crap.
Talk about a disjointed illogical argument to a disjointed illogical statement. ;) ;)
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
Interestingly, back in the old non-electronic carburetor days, you go the best mileage by using WOT (Wide Open Throttle) and "Short Shifting" as soon as possible. The secret was that WOT gives the poorest carb signal.
Is that the secret?
I figured it was just that you kept the RPMs down, and reduced pumping losses, allowing the engine to operate at its most efficient.
But what do I know?:rolleyes:
What the heck "carb signal" are you talking about???:confused: |
|
|
| LameRandomName |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
What the heck "carb signal" are you talking about???:confused:
Ordinarily I would be happy to clarify my statement for you.
However, having just been subjected to your snide comments; I am disinclined to humor you.
If I have misunderstood your response and it was not your intention to be gratuitously insulting; I would welcome your clarification. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
Ordinarily I would be happy to clarify my statement for you.
However, having just been subjected to your snide comments; I am disinclined to humor you.
If I have misunderstood your response and it was not your intention to be gratuitously insulting; I would welcome your clarification.
Mostly just horsing around.
But to try to dissect A6's statement from a month and 11 post ago, and then answer a comment that has as part of it: "reducing HP at any given RPM, you would have to increase RPM " just sent me off I guess.
(How can you have a discussion about HP at a GIVEN RPM and answer it with a point about INCREASE RPM??
But other than my normal style, no insult intended.
Me! <<< Click Here
But I am interested in the carb signal. |
|
|
| LameRandomName |
Well, carb signal was really a poor word choice of mine. I should have said METERING signal.
Back in the 90's I worked in the test lab at Allen Aircraft in Ravenna Ohio, while the old man was still alive. Allen Aircraft produces aircraft parts and specialized in pumps for fuel transfer and supply in jet aircraft. They also build a lot of hydraulic parts. The old man was one of the most knowledgeable experts in fluid dynamics that ever lived. And I mean planet wide.
Back in the 60's e used to participate in mileage contests back then that were similar in a way to the goal of the current "high milers" and he basically won every race he entered.
Understand that this was a race in which you got a specific small amount of fuel that was dispensed from a common source by weight.
Well, he did this with a dual four barrel Corvette.
When I was first told this by the guy who ran the lab, I was sure he was full of crap. Well, after speaking to him and also speaking with the old man, I realized that a lot of the assumptions I had made about a lot of things was completely wrong.
I have since forgotten most of what I learned there, because I am a Network Engineer, not a Fluid Dynamicist.
However, the major point was that by opening the throttle as wide as possible, thus providing the weakest possible metering signal; you would most closely approximate the true fuel needs of the engine at that moment.
Today this is done via sophisticate engine monitoring and management software.
The short shifting part is of course all about keeping RPMs low; so as to minimize the combustion events per minute and the assorted friction and pumping losses.
As to the other item...
I'm sure you're aware that HP is not precisely something that exists in the smae way that Torque does, and is actually a mathematic function of Torque and Engine Speed. Thus, Torque and HP are equal at 5,252 RPM
Given an engine with specific mechanical specifications turning at a certain RPM, the only way to increase power output without changing the base parameters is to increase RPMs; thus increasing the combustion events and therefore power strokes that occur within a specific period of time.
BTW, by "Base Parameters" I am referring to the various engine specifications that include but are not limited to bore, stroke, rod length and valve timing. It also includes the air pressure and density; and oxygen content.
If you do something to restrict air intake, there will be a reduction of oxygen at any given RPM; and thus a reduction of power. This is because power production is directly related to the amount of fuel burned and the amount of fuel you can burn is directly related to the amount of oxygen available to support combustion.
That all means that if you need an engine to do a certain amount of work, and you normally turn the engine at "X" RPMs to produce that amount of power needed to do that specific work; then changing the base parameters in such a way that power production at the aforementioned "X" RPM is reduced, then the only way to increase power output to previous levels is to increase RPMs; thus increasing the number of combustion events per minute.
Naturally, this is all theoretical and under lab conditions. In the real world all you can reliably say is that; when an air filter gets sufficiently dirty you can expect your mileage to go down. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
I think you have it about 80% to 90% right, but a little hard to follow.
A spark ignition engine does in fact run most efficiently when unthrottled (full open throttle), BUT the amount of fuel needed is in DIRECT PROPORTION to the amount of air, and the HP produced has to be used efficiently.
So at a given RPM the HP produced is controlled by the amount of air allowed to enter the engine and the fuel system (carb or FI)'s job it to meter in the correct amount of fuel.
Torque ands HP are both very real measures and are only related to each other but never "equal". The fact they are numerically equal is just because of the units used to measure each.
You can not have HP without torque and you can not have torque (in a rotating machine) without HP.
As for all this is its not Just theoretical, but rather is very practical and the real world implementations act very much like the theoretical model predict.
It would be so much easier to have a conversation then to try to go through your written post and correct what appear to be a few little misconceptions and the erroneous mis-conclusions drawn from them. |
|
|
| LameRandomName |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Torque ands HP are both very real measures and are only related to each other but never "equal".
Respectfully...
The equation to derive horsepower from torque is as follows: P[hp] = {[/ft x lbf)][w/(r/min)]}5252; which is why they are equal at 5250rpms. (Actually 5252rpm, but I was rounding when I wrote 5250)
Here's a picture that contains the same formula in an easier to read format:
Torque is a direct measurement of power being produced. Horsepower is derived.
This is why if you were to look up horsepower on Wikipedia you would find no less than 14 listings and 13 subcategories:
Mechanical horsepower
Metric horsepower
Boiler horsepower
Electrical horsepower
Drawbar horsepower
RAC horsepower
Nominal horsepower
Indicated horsepower
SAE gross horsepower
Brake horsepower
Shaft horsepower
Effective horsepower
true horsepower
wheel horsepower
PS (Pferdestärke)
pk (paardenkracht)
hk (hästkraft)
hv (hevosvoima)
CV and cv (Cavalli, Caballos & Cavalos)
ch (chevaux)
SAE gross horsepower
hp (SAE)
SAE-certified horsepower
hp (DIN)
hp (ECE)
9768-EC
ISO 14396
Horsepower can best be thought of as a description of power that gives you a better understanding of the torque measurement.
I'll give you an example in the form of a question:
Engine #1: 1500lbft
Engine #2: 550Lbft
You could be forgiven for thinking that the first engine might be found in a stock Corvette and the other in a supercharged monster at the dragstrip.
Now I add the HP numbers and you get a much clearer picture of the two engines:
Engine #1:
Tq = 1500
Hp = 475
Engine #2:
Tq = 550
Hp = 475
In both cases the HP number is exactly equal and the Torque numbers are vastly different.
That's because the HP is a function of Torque and RPM.
More importantly, knowing just the Torque numbers alone does not tell you what sort of engines you are looking at or what is the nature of the power they produced.
You could of course argue that knowing just the HP numbers limits you just as much and you would be correct. But as I have already pointed out; Torque is directly measured and HP is derived. In other words, Torque is what you MEASURE when you test the engine and then that measurement is used to derive the HP measurement that we are comfortable with here in the US.
In fact, it is common outside of the USA to measure engine HP in Newton-Meters or Kilowatts instead of the traditional Hp/Tq figures we use here. But of course, we LIKE the traditional system, don't we? Somehow I don't see bench-racing Kilowatts as being as much fun. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
The equation to derive horsepower from torque is as follows: P[hp] = {[/ft x lbf)][w/(r/min)]}5252; which is why they are equal at 5250rpms. (Actually 5252rpm, but I was rounding when I wrote 5250)
Here's a picture that contains the same formula in an easier to read format:
Now try different units.
(Just a hint, its not always 5252 RPM)
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
Torque is a direct measurement of power being produced. Horsepower is derived.
Power of all forms is almost always "derived" using your analogy
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
This is why if you were to look up horsepower on Wikipedia you would find no less than 14 listings and 13 subcategories:
Mechanical horsepower
Metric horsepower
Boiler horsepower
Electrical horsepower
Drawbar horsepower
RAC horsepower
Nominal horsepower
Indicated horsepower
SAE gross horsepower
Brake horsepower
Shaft horsepower
Effective horsepower
true horsepower
wheel horsepower
PS (Pferdestärke)
pk (paardenkracht)
hk (hästkraft)
hv (hevosvoima)
CV and cv (Cavalli, Caballos & Cavalos)
ch (chevaux)
SAE gross horsepower
hp (SAE)
SAE-certified horsepower
hp (DIN)
hp (ECE)
9768-EC
ISO 14396
Have you looked up Torque?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
Seems it is "derived" from force and distance.
Go figger!
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
Horsepower can best be thought of as a description of power that gives you a better understanding of the torque measurement.
Glad you gave me such a good understanding.
Because I was confused by all those equations they taught me when I got me BS is Engineering.
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
I'll give you an example in the form of a question:
Engine #1: 1500lbft
Engine #2: 550Lbft
You could be forgiven for thinking that the first engine might be found in a stock Corvette and the other in a supercharged monster at the dragstrip.
Now I add the HP numbers and you get a much clearer picture of the two engines:
Engine #1:
Tq = 1500
Hp = 475
Engine #2:
Tq = 550
Hp = 475
In both cases the HP number is exactly equal and the Torque numbers are vastly different.
That's because the HP is a function of Torque and RPM.
More importantly, knowing just the Torque numbers alone does not tell you what sort of engines you are looking at or what is the nature of the power they produced.
Wow, that was insightful.
Maybe you can tell me the difference between the 55W bulb in my fog lights and the 55W bulb in my table lamp?
(Sorry for being a bit sarcastic, but your explanations are unnecessary convoluted making them very hard to address directly.
HP is POWER, TORQUE if FORCE (Rotational to be specific),
FORCE * SPEED is POWER
POWER * TIME is WORK
Units are units and all numeric representations of measurements require UNITS to be meaningful (with the exception of some ratios where the units are assumed to be the same or related by the same convention)
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
You could of course argue that knowing just the HP numbers limits you just as much and you would be correct.
No, in that case you WOULD know the POWER, but not the FORCE.
However, I can get any amount of force from a given amount of HP through gearing, but I don't care to get off topic.
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
But as I have already pointed out; Torque is directly measured and HP is derived.
No, either can be measured, and the other derived.
As a matter of fact usually BOTH are derived from a calibration table of a machine that is loading an engine and measuring SPEED.
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
In other words, Torque is what you MEASURE when you test the engine .
It is? Do you want to tell me how it is measured?
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
and then that measurement is used to derive the HP measurement that we are comfortable with here in the US.
Wow, why not measure acceleration and derive HP knowing weight and time. Or convert the energy to heat and measure that, then knowing the speed you can derive torque.
Maybe you need to take a engineering course on energy conversion. One with a lab would be very helpful.
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
In fact, it is common outside of the USA to measure engine HP in Newton-Meters or Kilowatts instead of the traditional Hp/Tq figures we use here.
Really? I would not have known (even though I mentions UNITS several posts ago).
Gee, does your magic 5252 conversion still work??
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
But of course, we LIKE the traditional system, don't we? Somehow I don't see bench-racing Kilowatts as being as much fun.
I guess you never learned metric units? Well?? |
|
|
| LameRandomName |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Have you looked up Torque?
Why yes, as a matter of fact I did "Look it up".
quote:
In physics, a torque (also called a moment); is a vector that measures the tendency of a force to rotate an object about some axis [1] (center). The magnitude of a torque is defined as force times the length of the lever arm [2] (radius). Just as a force is a push or a pull, a torque can be thought of as a twist.
Kid, you have a lot of strange ideas that seem to come less from a lack of education than from an incomplete understanding of what you're discussing. Perhaps if you spent more time listening and less time waiting to talk, you might not miss the point quite so often.
Forgive me if I am disinclined to endlessly debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with yet another angry keyboard commando who is overly impressed with himself.
Please feel free to both declare "victory" and have the last word on this subject. I will dispute neither claim. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
Kid, you have a lot of strange ideas that seem to come less from a lack of education than from an incomplete understanding of what you're discussing.
What are you talking about?
Can you point to one (just one) of my "strange ideas"?
While I did my best to clarify some of your mistakes, can you fine just one point in my post that you can clearly correct??
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
Forgive me if I am disinclined to endlessly debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with yet another angry keyboard commando who is overly impressed with himself.
We were not discussing unprovable philosophical or religious concepts.
We were discussing the very definitive math concerned with the measurement of force and power.
Your thinking it is "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is just proof you don't understand the issues at the most basic level.
quote:
Originally posted by LameRandomName
Please feel free to both declare "victory" and have the last word on this subject. I will dispute neither claim.
I love people who end a discussion this way. It is the old "agree to disagree" run-away ending.
It works for opinion, it does not work for FACTS.
Sorry, dude, if you read my last post there weer plenty of opportunities to clearly show how I was misinterpreting what you said, you have ignored all of them. Run away, Run away!
As for the "kid" comment, just more evidence you don't take the time (or don't have the ability) to comprehend what you read. |
|
|
| markraphael |
| How about removing the third row seats if you are not gonna need it for an extended period? I bet this would improve gas mileage a bit because those seats are darn heavy. I know this because I removed mine when I installed my sub. My concern is that removing the seats will have an adverse effect on the overall weight balance of the vehicle. Has anyone done this? |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by markraphael
How about removing the third row seats if you are not gonna need it for an extended period? I bet this would improve gas mileage a bit because those seats are darn heavy. I know this because I removed mine when I installed my sub. My concern is that removing the seats will have an adverse effect on the overall weight balance of the vehicle. Has anyone done this?
Every LB you take off saves some gas (all else being the same).
External accessories tend to add weight and aerodynamic drag, so get rid of side steps, roof racks, mug flaps, oversize mirrors, antennas, etc.
Also remove carpets and under-carpet padding and sound insulation.
Ever seen the inside of a race car? |
|
|
| BigDozer66 |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Every LB you take off saves some gas (all else being the same).
Also remove carpets and under-carpet padding and sound insulation.
Ever seen the inside of a race car?
While it will help with the mpg's don't be surprised when your feet get hot from no protection.;)
One only has to look at the difference between 2008 Honda, Toyota and Nissan's and their 1978 or earlier counterparts.:4:
They have come a long way with the interior design.
Couple that with all the emissions and safety features that are now mandated by law or by consumers and the weight will be more.
I prefer the later almost everytime over the former.
BigDozer66 |
|
|
| markraphael |
| I guess it's time to lose some weight to increase gas mileage....:D |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by markraphael
I guess it's time to lose some weight to increase gas mileage....:D
As a tri-athelete friend of mine used to say;
"I can't afford a five pound lighter bike, so I will just have to loose a few pounds." |
|
|
| rbmn9529 |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
You got them all!
Having had several BMWs that I purchased performance chips for, I was wondering if Honda or some aftermarket operation sold chips to "detune" the Pilot? From what I gather, the 2005 represents the apex of horsepower for the 3.5L employed by the pilot. Maybe some changes in the chip could return some mileage in exchange for less horsepower? |
|
|
| jdeanski |
quote:
Originally posted by rbmn9529
Maybe some changes in the chip could return some mileage in exchange for less horsepower?
Gosh, thoughts like that used to be almost un American. :4: |
|
|
| 75blazer |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Every LB you take off saves some gas (all else being the same).
External accessories tend to add weight and aerodynamic drag, so get rid of side steps, roof racks, mug flaps, oversize mirrors, antennas, etc.
Also remove carpets and under-carpet padding and sound insulation.
Ever seen the inside of a race car?
I was thinking about this over the weekend. I took my foot off the accelerator and the truck began to decelerate fairly quickly. I was thinking might the inertia from additional weight help? Obviously the energy required to get the extra weight moving and the increased friction on the rolling stock would negate it, but kept my mind occupied for a few minutes anyway.... |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by 75blazer
I was thinking about this over the weekend. I took my foot off the accelerator and the truck began to decelerate fairly quickly. I was thinking might the inertia from additional weight help? Obviously the energy required to get the extra weight moving and the increased friction on the rolling stock would negate it, but kept my mind occupied for a few minutes anyway....
The energy stored in motion IS from acceleration, and is withdrawn during deceleration. |
|
|
| rbmn9529 |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
The energy stored in motion IS from acceleration, and is withdrawn during deceleration.
my point about having a chipset detuning the motor also suggests that the shiftpoint speeds are too high. I know what the previous poster is talking about...@45 miles per hour, i shouldn't feel such vivid slowing...caused by the transmission not being in top gear. |
|
|
| rbmn9529 |
quote:
Originally posted by jdeanski
Gosh, thoughts like that used to be almost un American. :4:
I know...I know...I had to take a really deep breath before I wrote it! |
|
|
| marcucci |
quote:
Originally posted by markraphael
How about removing the third row seats if you are not gonna need it for an extended period? I bet this would improve gas mileage a bit because those seats are darn heavy. I know this because I removed mine when I installed my sub. My concern is that removing the seats will have an adverse effect on the overall weight balance of the vehicle. Has anyone done this?
I'm not sure of the weight but you are probably not talking more than 75lbs or so which should not affect the handling appreciably.
I would be more concerned with the resulting change in ride height and therefore alignment which would potentially create tire wear issues over time. You could align it out but then you'd have the opposite issue when the seats were back in (and potentially much worse when carrying rear passengers and cargo as well).
With respect to tuning, Honda tunes very conservatively (safe = rich = poor economy) for open-loop (warmup and wide-open-throttle) but pretty aggressively for closed-throttle (i.e. normal driving) conditions. Usually 14.7-15.0 which is safe for a well-designed engine which Hondas generally are. There would be little to gain from tuning even if an option existed... which I am unaware of any.
I am excluding the performance "chips" (i.e. crap) you can buy off of ebay which modify engine coolant temp, manifold pressure, or other sensor signals. There are some higher-end "tunable" boxes you can buy like the Apex'i VAFC that do effectively the same thing. The cheap ebay ones you buy I would stay way the hell away from as they make a baseline shift in a sensor reading that 1) the ECU should tune out of closed-loop operation and 2) will have unknown and potentially dangerous results open-loop. The "tunable" boxes like the VAFC should only be played with by someone who knows what they are doing and should be tuned on a dyno. That said, there is really nothing short of a reflash of the ECU that can make effective changes in closed-loop operation and the gains in open-loop are minimal and the average driver doesn't drive the car like that enough to matter. The primary exception to that would be a race vehicle or something so heavily modified the factory programming is just not an option. |
|
|
|
