Dart heads has put up some information about porting, that you'd enjoy. Especially David Vizard's work. He put out a seminar about how small shops can be profitable on porting cylinder heads. He really didn't help on the business side of it, like the title suggests, but he sure helps people know what they are doing!
I made 2 videos about porting heads (see my previous two articles, each has a related video). I'm concentrating on theory right now before I dive in to it. Sure, there's no substitute for practice, but I'm still missing some tools, so I'm learning for my mind first. The first video is about David Vizard's concept of swirl. Weather you have a 4 valve or a 2 or 3 valve head, my video has something for you there, that I haven't found anywhere else, besides buying his book. He has a patent on it, so we can't sell a cylinder head with his idea on it without giving him something like 7%, I don't remember.
I'm writing in response to this question byDynamic Productions DIY Head Porting Small Block Chevy Vortec 062 Part 1 of 3
"[I'm] thinking about doing this to the heads on my iroc i was a little
unclear on this process and was wondering if you could clear it up, when
u take this on are you just going for smoothing out the factory
stamping and knocking out the carbon build up and taking the rough lines
out of the factory casting or making all the ports bigger the whole way
down through or is it a bit of both, id like to know as much
information as [possible] i got 2 sets of heads but id rather not [#*&$] either one up"
To be more directly about what you asked, you're first suggestion, being minimal, is a porting that would be considered stage 1. Finish up by smoothing with 80 grit sand paper. Anymore and you're making things worse.
Stage 2 is where you open things up more rather than just some shaping and smoothing work.
I've only watched over half of TPV's video so far, but his information is dead on with what I've learned from other creditable sources.
Stage 2 requires that you know how much metal is everywhere or you could punch a hole in something else that the engine needs!
So, you'll either have to learn from someone else knowing your exact heads, or buy an ultrasound device meant to check how thick metal is, and you'd have to check everywhere, and stay away from thin spots.
More that I learned from David Vizard, that didn't get put on TPV Production's video:
Note: I originally wrote the below as notes, I may have quoted David, I may have only paraphrased, so I give credit to him and the video I embedded in the video above.
When you're porting your cylinder heads, don't let that customer walk away without getting a good exhaust.
It isn't the piston that draws in the charge, it's the exhaust.
When the piston is at bdc there is only a 1 pound drop of pressure, it's the exhaust that makes for 14 pounds of pressure. Don't worry about your intake only...this made me feel great about upgrading my exhaust before my intake by the way...so don't just worry about the intake on your porting work, the exhaust needs velocity, it needs high, more laminar flow too, or your intake work will look less stellar than it is.
Understand, these are lessons a flow bench can't teach you. The above paragraph are observations by David, and those he's learned with watching actual engine's function. Flow benches are a tool to test flow yes, but you couldn't learn that the exhaust is primarily what brings in the intake charge from a flow bench! This makes me want stage 2 cam's for my project. The increased lobe overlap would assist in bringing the exhaust's flow into the intakes flowing moments even more!
Would it increase emissions and lower idle quality? Probably. But I have an awesome catalytic converter that is already pushed leaner than most, it could use more fuel for cleaner air...may not be so good for my car's miles per gallon! LOL
By AutoBravado
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Port and Air Flow in practice and in theory II
In my last article, I talked in some paragraphs about how porting will get you more flow. I also discussed how for a street ride, removing a lot from the ports is probably not the best idea as it can reduce torque at lower RPM.
That said, most of how the Eastwood video presented porting, shouldn't be taking anything away from a street ride or "streetable ride". This was also in my first article:.
Streetable ride approved technique:
Reducing the machinist ridge in the combustion chamber in his example wasn't aggressive enough for me, because those create turbulent air. This is something that won't take away for a streetable ride.
Streetable ride approved technique:
The smoothing of the casting down to 80 grit sand paper? That's perfect from what I learned from David Vizard's book on this subject. The tiny imperfections and roughness may pick up carbon, but that'll happen anyway, you might as well have a desirable roughness to create small vortices, which make small roller bearings to make for faster.
Another item I disagree with on Eastwood's video on my last article, is that you should have spare valves that go in to protect the valve seat while you remove machinist ridges. That way, you can get right in there, next to the valve, and make a trench and then smooth that out.
Here's an example picture of the areas in question for a machinist's ridge: (be sure to click on the another article of mine. It has a lot more pictures, and when you click on them there, they get bigger; head gasket)
...David Vizard says that focusing on the points of the most restriction will make a port much more efficient. While hogging out a port where the air is already the slowest is likely to make a port simply lazy.
Back cut valves, rolled valve seats? Huge. It's been a while since I was in his book instead of on YouTube where I couldn't see the charts, but he made an example of how much air had to get past valves. In the picture, most of it is air, and beside it, is a little man to scale for how much air goes through a particular race engine. Yet, of course, still, there is that little valve, which is smaller still than the man when you see the math for how much "surface area" an imaginary cylinder from the valve seat to the cuts on the valves. That little sideways space, where all the action has to take place. Can you imagine it?
What is next to that moment of greatest restriction is often a machinist ridge in the combustion chamber. Most people won't touch it. The trick is to have a set of valves you don't care for as a guide to your single cut burrs, and round out a small trench around the valve, exactly the size of my smallest burr. Then blend it. Surely, everyone's fear is you've made the combustion chamber bigger! The tiny drop in size, vs. having air and fuel tumble and bounce through this section, which forms larger droplets, is more my worry. Plus, with the increased flow, while static compression is slightly lower, dynamic compression will be higher.
Make effort on the port side of the valve, working in the bowl ... I'll continue my thoughts on this at a later time. :)
Source: DON'T POLISH when Porting and Airflow Theory III by DENichols
By AutoBravado
That said, most of how the Eastwood video presented porting, shouldn't be taking anything away from a street ride or "streetable ride". This was also in my first article:.
Streetable ride approved technique:
Reducing the machinist ridge in the combustion chamber in his example wasn't aggressive enough for me, because those create turbulent air. This is something that won't take away for a streetable ride.
Streetable ride approved technique:
The smoothing of the casting down to 80 grit sand paper? That's perfect from what I learned from David Vizard's book on this subject. The tiny imperfections and roughness may pick up carbon, but that'll happen anyway, you might as well have a desirable roughness to create small vortices, which make small roller bearings to make for faster.
Another item I disagree with on Eastwood's video on my last article, is that you should have spare valves that go in to protect the valve seat while you remove machinist ridges. That way, you can get right in there, next to the valve, and make a trench and then smooth that out.
Here's an example picture of the areas in question for a machinist's ridge: (be sure to click on the another article of mine. It has a lot more pictures, and when you click on them there, they get bigger; head gasket)
Port and Air Flow Theory III
A couple of points of re-study for me since video I made and embedded above, as this subject can make me feel left wanting again and again......David Vizard says that focusing on the points of the most restriction will make a port much more efficient. While hogging out a port where the air is already the slowest is likely to make a port simply lazy.
Back cut valves, rolled valve seats? Huge. It's been a while since I was in his book instead of on YouTube where I couldn't see the charts, but he made an example of how much air had to get past valves. In the picture, most of it is air, and beside it, is a little man to scale for how much air goes through a particular race engine. Yet, of course, still, there is that little valve, which is smaller still than the man when you see the math for how much "surface area" an imaginary cylinder from the valve seat to the cuts on the valves. That little sideways space, where all the action has to take place. Can you imagine it?
What is next to that moment of greatest restriction is often a machinist ridge in the combustion chamber. Most people won't touch it. The trick is to have a set of valves you don't care for as a guide to your single cut burrs, and round out a small trench around the valve, exactly the size of my smallest burr. Then blend it. Surely, everyone's fear is you've made the combustion chamber bigger! The tiny drop in size, vs. having air and fuel tumble and bounce through this section, which forms larger droplets, is more my worry. Plus, with the increased flow, while static compression is slightly lower, dynamic compression will be higher.
Make effort on the port side of the valve, working in the bowl ... I'll continue my thoughts on this at a later time. :)
Source: DON'T POLISH when Porting and Airflow Theory III by DENichols
By AutoBravado
Port and Air Flow in practice and in theory
This the best practical video I've seen on this subject for quite some time. I'd call this a very light porting job. That's safest if you don't know how thin the metal is in different places, but a way around that is to get a metal ultrasound tool and find out where it's thin, so you can do a more aggressive job.
Personally, I'd remove more in the combustion chamber. Get rid of those machinist ridges more. Sure, it's a small compression loss, but you're probably getting the cylinder head shaved anyway, right?
It takes a lot more skill, but if all you're going to do is a slight smoothing of the port, why scribe for the gasket? Sure, you don't want to go beyond the gasket line, but my point is, matching better to the gasket is a tougher way to go, but an industry standard for a more aggressive porting job.
Could be more like a stage 2 to do that.
If you go bigger, you have to use T tools to measure the inside and make sure those ports are matched.
I bet they weren't matched at the factory! According to headbytes, the more points of measurement to have them even, they higher the stage, more so than how much material is removed. Kind of a balanced way of looking at the stages. Please understand, this is not slander, there is a lot of evidence stacked up on YouTube and many websites, which mention that headbytes of YouTube isn't in good business practices. I learned a lot from him. His engine knowledge isn't perfect, but it's among the best. I've learned a lot from this artist. Some artists don't make good businessmen. Maybe he has a lot of personal issues that have prevented him from keeping up with his promises in porting engines, but a lot of people have lost money and they aren't getting their sometimes rare and original parts back that belong on their classic rides.
Lets get back to something prettier.
More flow, smoother flow. These are common concepts. People sometimes worry about losing torque at lower RPM because making ports larger, while it can increase flow (it can lose flow as well if you do it wrong), it also lowers the air velocity in your ports, which is more needed at lower RPM. Know though, that people porting for racing aren't worried about a little loss down low when they're getting better flow bouncing off of red line and back up to it with each gear shift.
So while I'm working toward a cylinder head project of my own, I probably shouldn't open the ports up much as the automatic transmission keeps my RPM low most of the time. This would cost me power, even if on the on ramp to the freeway the higher possible RPM, which won't ever happen in the city, lets me have more power there, the car would be less driveable in every other way...at least that's how the theory goes. I so want to put this in practice! I still don't have the electric die grinder or bigger air compressor which I need.
In the video above they talked a little about how to get swirl, but this was one of the video's down falls as I don't think the technique they're talking about would actually create more swirl. To learn more about that, go from watching the practical example above to my theory video below.
Source: Port and Airflow Theory, PolyQuad cylinder chambers, Creating Swirl by DENichols
When it comes to swirl, on single valve intakes you need a different technique than you do in dual overhead cams or DOHC.
David Vizard's concept in the video above is to make one of the vales larger, support that valve with more porting. The idea is to make for more flow on one valve so that as it's great velocity air goes into the chamber, it causes a swirl. Swirl also squeezes more air into the combustion chamber. Swirls prevent fuel molecules from colliding as much. Turbulent air, like what is shown to be reduced in the first more practical example video above makes fuel droplets collide more, which makes them less atomized and less burnable.
By AutoBravado
Monday, January 18, 2016
"Cold Air Intake vs Short Ram Intake - Explained" blog reaction to Engineering Explained
Before I get into my reaction to Engineering Explained's good video and the comments below it, I've also done my own article about intake modifications
Weapon R Dragon Intake Review
:
Randy Knight, on Engineering Explained's video was talking about laminar or straight flowing air, vs. turbulent flow and entrance length. He has a good grasp on some of the issues facing intakes for sure!
I reply:
+Randy Knight Something to add to your considerations is the intake manifold after the throttle body. It does more to handle what you're worrying about than the intake ever does. Intake valves don't just take air in, they also lose air back into the intake manifold and that's a tough consideration for engineers that have handled these issues wrong in so many ways (It's very complex and many better and worse things have been tried). Try David Vizzard's book on porting an engine.
As I think on your comment again, I really believe that the intake manifold design is the most important for what you're thinking on and a short ram or cold air intake's only role in this is the temperature and volume of air.
The short ram's concept is to minimize the resistance to getting more air, but as it may be drawing hotter air than the cold air intake, hotter air is supposed to be less dense.
I think a short ram works for me so well, because I've done some mods going for colder air only to find ways to heat things up instead for the colder months as engine's are designed to waste fuel just to stay hotter during those times - that's a power killer. I've recorded my views on these points.
The other thing to consider is that the cold air intake has more metal to take on heat and help pre-heat the air as it comes into the engine. I combated this by adding piping from the front of the car to blow on this metal and cool it down. Depending on the cold air intake, it could take care of this on it's own.
Link to the video with the above conversation:
I have zero data between 1 and 3 k RPM about patterns of power as my torque app announces peak power at an RPM rather than giving me a useable graph (it has graphing, I just don't find it helpful in my tests). It's easy to get a feel at different speeds and RPM where my power is at by simply letting off the gas at a given speed.
By AutoBravado
Weapon R Dragon Intake Review
:
Randy Knight, on Engineering Explained's video was talking about laminar or straight flowing air, vs. turbulent flow and entrance length. He has a good grasp on some of the issues facing intakes for sure!
I reply:
+Randy Knight Something to add to your considerations is the intake manifold after the throttle body. It does more to handle what you're worrying about than the intake ever does. Intake valves don't just take air in, they also lose air back into the intake manifold and that's a tough consideration for engineers that have handled these issues wrong in so many ways (It's very complex and many better and worse things have been tried). Try David Vizzard's book on porting an engine.
As I think on your comment again, I really believe that the intake manifold design is the most important for what you're thinking on and a short ram or cold air intake's only role in this is the temperature and volume of air.
The short ram's concept is to minimize the resistance to getting more air, but as it may be drawing hotter air than the cold air intake, hotter air is supposed to be less dense.
I think a short ram works for me so well, because I've done some mods going for colder air only to find ways to heat things up instead for the colder months as engine's are designed to waste fuel just to stay hotter during those times - that's a power killer. I've recorded my views on these points.
The other thing to consider is that the cold air intake has more metal to take on heat and help pre-heat the air as it comes into the engine. I combated this by adding piping from the front of the car to blow on this metal and cool it down. Depending on the cold air intake, it could take care of this on it's own.
Link to the video with the above conversation:
Cold Air Intake vs Short Ram Intake - Explained by Engineering Explained
More after that reply:
In engineering explained's tests, he found that the short ram intake or SRI as he shortens it had more benefit between 2-3k RPM on his Integra and 4-5k RPM in 2nd gear for 3 runs averaged. He found a loss between 3-4k RPM. This may explain that my PCM is very smart on my Chevy Prizm as it usually switches gears just after 3k RPM even if I'm at WOT (Wide Open Throttle). The exception is when my family is in the car or I have a lot of tools in the car. Then it'll shift around 5,500 RPM and it'll have about the same wHP at shifting there as it would at 3k. If I do have a 3-4k power drop like Engineering explained did, it's explain why the PCM sticks with it through the losing period to get the 2nd gain rather than changing gears and having to climb back up to the power range available in higher RPM. This does assume that my PCM is infinitely wise in how it manages power as PCM or power control module implies. :) I found this written article much easier to extra data from than the videos themselves. Engineering Explained's Cold Air Intake vs Short Ram Intake - Explained.I have zero data between 1 and 3 k RPM about patterns of power as my torque app announces peak power at an RPM rather than giving me a useable graph (it has graphing, I just don't find it helpful in my tests). It's easy to get a feel at different speeds and RPM where my power is at by simply letting off the gas at a given speed.
By AutoBravado
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Schrodingers Box MAF diagnosis video reaction
Schrodingers Box part 1 reaction:
Anyone else catch that he introduced himself as MAF (Mass Air Flow sensor)? Nice Freudian Slip...not a true one, but the phrase has slowly changed to mean that something you're mind is working on came out. So cool. :)
Purposeful or not.
At 4:20, Matt (Schrodingers Box) is about to talk about IAC or the idle air control valve. While this is a bypass of air around the throttle valve, realize all the air that gets to this also has to go past the MAF. So, if you have a known expectation of your idle RPM and what your MAF could be, it could be a way with a scantool only to know if there is something wrong with your MAF. Just remember, this can be misleading as idle can be wrong for other issues like running rich. IAC will respond with more air than normal and RPM will usually be raised.
Matt's spoiler alert didn't ruin anything for me about his new tool. He had hinted at 7:20 about about another non scan tool test I was all smiles. :) I have this bad habit of reading comments before the video or as it runs, so I already new an oscilloscope was coming!
17:06 By now I'm very excited. I have successfully diagnosed two bad MAF sensors prior to this video. 1 was super easy. 2.3 to 33 g/s was normal for my car at idle. 93 g/s per second at idle and random spikes around that abnormal number as I pushed on the throttle? Okay. I knew what was wrong.
The better MAF I condemned I didn't do directly. On my car the MAF and IAT are in the same component. IAT was reading very accurately as compared to my "laser" thermometer of the intake that the IAT sat in....but when it got above 43 degrees C it would race hotter. The "hotter" the air the more the PCM believed it needed less fuel. The O2 sensor caught it and increased fuel trim.
I reference being excited by 17:06 as I realized my MAF is 100 to 200 degrees F hotter than the IAT? Well, since the IAT was getting off the more it got hotter after it's accurate range. of 43 degrees C...well hey, by it being in the same part I condemned my 2nd "MAF" ;)
By the way the 2nd way I had known to condemn a MAF (I'll go ahead and be more honest now, I condemned an IAT, it was just attached to it in the same part of a MAF, Lol) was achievable by DVOM, chart of known resistance representing what temperature and a laser thermometer.
I cross referenced my results via scan data and the laser thermometer as well. There's no way to get around that laser thermometer for this technique.
21:45 It seems to me that the way the MAF was intentionally designed was to appear to be a potentiometer. I think they avoided changing how PCM's reacted from the early VANE type MAF's and how they'd have to see a potentiometer.
So, analog MAF's appear to be engineered to me to prevent re-engineering PCMs. Sure the PCM needed the equipment to produce voltage and maintain constant temperature, but the change in V sure seems like a potentiometer.
by AutoBravado
For another article by AutoBravado discussing how I fried my MAF. The articles intention was to be about water decarbonization only, but I got into some related concepts as water decarbonization done wrong would get this sensitive sensor broken.
Anyone else catch that he introduced himself as MAF (Mass Air Flow sensor)? Nice Freudian Slip...not a true one, but the phrase has slowly changed to mean that something you're mind is working on came out. So cool. :)
Purposeful or not.
At 4:20, Matt (Schrodingers Box) is about to talk about IAC or the idle air control valve. While this is a bypass of air around the throttle valve, realize all the air that gets to this also has to go past the MAF. So, if you have a known expectation of your idle RPM and what your MAF could be, it could be a way with a scantool only to know if there is something wrong with your MAF. Just remember, this can be misleading as idle can be wrong for other issues like running rich. IAC will respond with more air than normal and RPM will usually be raised.
Matt's spoiler alert didn't ruin anything for me about his new tool. He had hinted at 7:20 about about another non scan tool test I was all smiles. :) I have this bad habit of reading comments before the video or as it runs, so I already new an oscilloscope was coming!
17:06 By now I'm very excited. I have successfully diagnosed two bad MAF sensors prior to this video. 1 was super easy. 2.3 to 33 g/s was normal for my car at idle. 93 g/s per second at idle and random spikes around that abnormal number as I pushed on the throttle? Okay. I knew what was wrong.
The better MAF I condemned I didn't do directly. On my car the MAF and IAT are in the same component. IAT was reading very accurately as compared to my "laser" thermometer of the intake that the IAT sat in....but when it got above 43 degrees C it would race hotter. The "hotter" the air the more the PCM believed it needed less fuel. The O2 sensor caught it and increased fuel trim.
I reference being excited by 17:06 as I realized my MAF is 100 to 200 degrees F hotter than the IAT? Well, since the IAT was getting off the more it got hotter after it's accurate range. of 43 degrees C...well hey, by it being in the same part I condemned my 2nd "MAF" ;)
By the way the 2nd way I had known to condemn a MAF (I'll go ahead and be more honest now, I condemned an IAT, it was just attached to it in the same part of a MAF, Lol) was achievable by DVOM, chart of known resistance representing what temperature and a laser thermometer.
I cross referenced my results via scan data and the laser thermometer as well. There's no way to get around that laser thermometer for this technique.
21:45 It seems to me that the way the MAF was intentionally designed was to appear to be a potentiometer. I think they avoided changing how PCM's reacted from the early VANE type MAF's and how they'd have to see a potentiometer.
So, analog MAF's appear to be engineered to me to prevent re-engineering PCMs. Sure the PCM needed the equipment to produce voltage and maintain constant temperature, but the change in V sure seems like a potentiometer.
by AutoBravado
For another article by AutoBravado discussing how I fried my MAF. The articles intention was to be about water decarbonization only, but I got into some related concepts as water decarbonization done wrong would get this sensitive sensor broken.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Milky Oil Cap? Reasons you should or shouldn't worry.
In case you haven't watched the video yet, milky sludge on an oil cap is simply an indication of water condensation in an engine. At the worst, it means you've blown through a head gasket and coolant has been ruining your engine for some time. Simply check your oil on the dipstick. If it's not milky too, then you're probably just having problems with living in a cold area, or your taking too short of trips for the water to boil off in your engine.
Despite no milkiness under my oil cap, and generally driving in a warm environment, this explains why there is a general brown tinge to all the parts inside of the engine in my 1999 Chevy Prizm. I should have been increasing my oil change interval.
I think I do a lot to prevent issues, always using quality synthetic motor oil like Mobil 1 or Castrol with Syntec. When these synthetic motor oils are the extended mileage type my oil looks pretty clean up to 5k to 5.5k miles, but when I get synthetic that doesn't have the "extended" design I only get about 4.4k miles out of the motor oil. (These synthetic motor oils are rated at 15k and 7k respective to my 5.5k and 4.4k mile synthetic motor oil change intervals.) I'm basing these decisions by how dark the oil gets.
It's all those short trips. I'm building up water, and therefore acids because of living in smaller towns since 2005. The metal of my engines in a Metropolis looked much better. You know, where I was usually driving at least 23 miles to work, and I bought much more used cars and it was a colder area too.
Short trips really are hard on cars. I never fully believed it, but "proof is in the pudding"! Just don't eat it! lol
I guess at 130k miles of having even my reduced "extended" synthetic motor oil change intervals, I should have stayed under 4k miles the whole time (car has 170k miles plus now).
Check out one of my other articles about synthetic motor oil. This article gives some answers to the questions. Why synthetic? How does it help with my cars miles per gallon?
by AutoBravado
Friday, January 23, 2015
Does Techron Concentrate Plus really work?
I know we can't go back, but I wonder if the Techron would have been effective at the soft carbon that hadn't baked on back at the beginning of the first video in this series? To be honest I don't think it's something ChrisFix or I will ever test.
To catch everyone up, ChrisFix is doing multiple fuel injector cleaner tests on a engine with some carbon build up. He has a bore camera so he can show evidence, rather than just listening to the engine or having a feel for his truck that can't be proven or shown on camera.
Think about it. Techron Concentrate Plus really doesn't look effective on the hard build up. For the price the Gumout did pretty similar work with a lot less cost on his earlier video. Plus, I see Gumout on sale at AutoZone...I don't know how often, but when on sale you can get almost 4 bottles of Gumout to the Techron at full price. Sure the Techron goes on sale too, but usually by not nearly as much.
On impulse before a 2,200 mile trip I did in my truck I ran Gumout Regane and the old Techron together. From other subscribers of ChrisFix's YouTube channel, I believe I actually got the PEA that techron used to show on the MSDS. The current MSDS for Techron doesn't show PEA anymore. That seems to be the cleaner of choice that actually has scientists finding data and publishing journals on it.
The results I could really feel came in about 1/2 through the trip. I filled up on gas pretty often and didn't get my tank low so math says that since I had double concentration between the two cleaners that it probably took half the trip for the solution to get pretty diluted.
I really wish I had a bore camera to see the before and after. I will say this though. It normally takes several thousand miles for my trucks oil to get some black in it. My oil was fresh before the trip and after it was as dirty as if I had driven more like 4000 miles. It's my only indicator that cleaning happened that's visual other than the experience of the engine really opening up, getting smoother, and sounding quiter.
To be fair, ChrisFix did a much better test than I did. I could show the results. When I ran Gumout Regane in my 1999 Chevy Prizm right after the water decarbonization article I wrote, I really didn't feel any difference. Since I had bought it as a buy one get one free, I figured why not put it in the truck? My MPG did improve throughout my journey. And the biggest changes were during the time that I still had a significant concentration left of the Gumout Regane and Techron Concentrate Plus.
Now remember, I felt quite the difference that I used to hear from friends all the time back in the day when I bought this Techron bottle. That was when it still had PEA. It's what convinced me to even put it in my truck. All my friends that thought it worked before have stopped buying it, and having seen the current MSDS myself, it doesn't have PEA. It makes me wonder if PEA has gotten more expensive. Seeing as Techron Concentrate Plus is one of the most expensive products on the shelf at my local store, I think they're just trying to make money on a reputation for PEA that used to be in the product. Well, even without bore scopes, all my friends have stopped buying it.
These videos get me to say a lot and I hope my personal experience may be of benefit to another. It's really too bad that I can only speak from how the engine sounded. I should have taken some screen shots at least from my Torque App before and after I did see a HP/torque bump, but I was also at lower elevation later in the trip, so having thicker atmosphere may have been the cause. Maybe that would have turned up some more evidence. I did see significant changes on my OBD II data during my trip. I haven't yet gone through many, many fuel receipts that I did MPG in a thorough way, but I'll be sure to report back with more detail.
Just for reference:
I was hauling a full load in a full sized truck bed on a 2004 Nissan Frontier XE with the V6 3.3 option with no supercharger. Also, when it was very cold out my engine seemed to ping some. My knock sensor went bad and it's on back order. I'm doing a knock sensor location mod once my parts from Bosch are no longer on back order so I'll be sure to report any MPG changes! Nissan put the knock sensor deep under the intakes so the proper job is a full days work, while the mod only takes 15-45 minutes. More to come. :)
Get more tips on how to improve your truck's or car's miles per gallon on my main website. Or watch my own video and reactions to a fuel additive. Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant:
by AutoBravado
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)