Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (May 2001, week 4)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Sun, 27 May 2001 14:08:34 -0600
Reply-To:     Gary Lee <gary2a@TELUSPLANET.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Gary Lee <gary2a@TELUSPLANET.NET>
Subject:      Re: Air Intake Project
Comments: To: CTONLINE@webtv.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: Air Intake Project

> Gary-- > > You have the Air Flow Meter pinned WFO, when it's on gasoline? > Hmmmmm----- > Interesting.

No, of course not. I only tried that while on propane. Propane does not need the AFM. Gasoline of course does.

> So therefore, you are by-passing the computer when it is on gas. > The computer thinks that the AFM is wide open all the time? > More interesting------ > I have a hard time understanding how in the hell, the thing would even > run at low speeds without blubbering, due to an over rich signal coming > from the AFM, to the computer. > I just can't see it functioning like that. > And you can't realize any different fuel economy whether it's on propane > or gas?

No, when on propane it uses about 15% more fuel. Also proportionately more air than with gasoline because propane can run 16:1 or higher. I do not notice any difference in propane fuel consumption when the AFM is blocked open, or is in the normal state with the spring loaded door in place. I guess maybe I cannot extend that observation to gasoline though.

> Propane delivers less MPG than dino fuel, so I would think that there > would be a significant difference. > And let me reiterate, the shortest distance between two points is a > straight unobstructed line, and you start adding flappers, elbows, and > butterflies, the path become choked, regardless how you look at it.

Agreed. But with the vanagon, it's not worth it. Get the head to flow better first.

> So in theory, I ain't buying it. > I believe that there is a way to cause the Vanagn to get more air, but I > think it would be labor intensive, and monetarily cost prohibitive, for > the small increase in overall performance gained. Agreed.

I guess I did not explain what I was doing very well. Trying to write to fast.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this is what I think: Other than at WOT, the throttle butterfly is partially closed. So you are only asking the air intake system to deliver a small percentage of what it was designed to deliver. Even if it is undersized, the intake system should be good enough for 90% of all your driving. Who drives around at WOT -- at redline -- in a vanagon?

Gary


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.