|
| efmarek |
|
||
|
OOOOOOOOOHHHHH MY GOOOOOOODNESS!!!!
MANUFACTURING STARTS IN A FEW WEEKS!!!!!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| efmarek |
|
||
|
FINALLY.....MY BIKE WILL IDLE 
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| smiley235 |
|
|||
|
mate your off your head. I have a suspicion your promoting this product here.
_________________ 178.3 rwkw
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| efmarek |
|
||
|
s**t!......that reminds me.....i gotta buy some shares
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| fordfreak ef |
|
|||
|
smiley235 wrote: mate your off your head. I have a suspicion your promoting this product here. just slightly... 
i have my suspicions.. but will keenly await for this product to be tested on our falcons to prove once and for all.. too much THEORY so far and not enough PRACTICAL.... May us all hopefully eat pudding but until then.. i will await the results.. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| efmarek |
|
||
|
smiley235 wrote: mate your off your head. I have a suspicion your promoting this product here.
Haha......what u said doesnt make sense
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
This thread has been a good read.
Scary what some people believe.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| feebs |
|
||
|
Let me help
Yes, fuel will burn well at 14.7:1, but not under heavy acceleration, that is much too lean,, between 12 and 13 is better, and even lower for a turbo. 14.7 is acheived when cruising (Lean Burn). THe idea of more burn with plugs is not a new one, goes back to capacitor discharge ignition in the early sixties. Whether these plugs can handle / produce a big spark without any side effects (preignition) is the question. |
||
| Top | |
||
| efmarek |
|
||
|
"Let me help
Yes, fuel will burn well at 14.7:1, but not under heavy acceleration, that is much too lean,, between 12 and 13 is better, and even lower for a turbo. 14.7 is acheived when cruising (Lean Burn)." Thanks for the info, genius............i think everyone knows the basics.
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| fordfreak ef |
|
|||
|
efmarek wrote: "Let me help not every ones a "genius einstein" like you.. Yes, fuel will burn well at 14.7:1, but not under heavy acceleration, that is much too lean,, between 12 and 13 is better, and even lower for a turbo. 14.7 is acheived when cruising (Lean Burn)." Thanks for the info, genius............i think everyone knows the basics.  we all have to start somewhere.. and a modifications/help site isnt a bad place to start learning..
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| ebs_4l |
|
||
|
feebs wrote: Let me help
Yes, fuel will burn well at 14.7:1, but not under heavy acceleration, that is much too lean,, between 12 and 13 is better, and even lower for a turbo. 14.7 is acheived when cruising (Lean Burn). you got the required numbers correct, but you dont quite understand why we use rich mixtures under accel.... why will fuel not burn well at 14.7:1 under heavy accel?? ill give you a hint, it does infact burn well, SUPER WELL actually, that good that it becomes an explosive mixture when you have a dense (high cylinder pressure) mixture at that ratio... as for who said that lean mixtures will melt pistons/valves because lean mixtures burn hotter, the reason parts get hotter with a lean mixture isnt to do with the gas temp, its because the mixture burns so much slower that it exposes all of the parts to the heat for longer
_________________ EB 4L, 8.4:1, R154, GT4202r, 4in exhaust, Greenslade Engineering exhaust manifold, plenum chamber, 90mm throttle, Garrett W2A cooler, Surecam custom, autronic SM4, Bosch 120lb, Crane HI-6, LX-92, LM-1, Turbosmart Reg, 2x bosch 044, turbosmart 48 gate. 470kw+ @ 18PSI |
||
| Top | |
||
| smiley235 |
|
|||
|
14.7 isn't lean under acceleration, its perfect ratio but burns too hot for the engine, so the computer makes the mixture richer and keep temps down.
_________________ 178.3 rwkw
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| efmarek |
|
||
|
ebs_4l wrote: feebs wrote: Let me help Yes, fuel will burn well at 14.7:1, but not under heavy acceleration, that is much too lean,, between 12 and 13 is better, and even lower for a turbo. 14.7 is acheived when cruising (Lean Burn). you got the required numbers correct, but you dont quite understand why we use rich mixtures under accel.... why will fuel not burn well at 14.7:1 under heavy accel?? ill give you a hint, it does infact burn well, SUPER WELL actually, that good that it becomes an explosive mixture when you have a dense (high cylinder pressure) mixture at that ratio... as for who said that lean mixtures will melt pistons/valves because lean mixtures burn hotter, the reason parts get hotter with a lean mixture isnt to do with the gas temp, its because the mixture burns so much slower that it exposes all of the parts to the heat for longer Good one! We got another guy who doesnt know what he's talking 'bout. 
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| phongus |
|
|||
|
feebs wrote: Let me help
Yes, fuel will burn well at 14.7:1, but not under heavy acceleration, that is much too lean,, between 12 and 13 is better, and even lower for a turbo. 14.7 is acheived when cruising (Lean Burn). THe idea of more burn with plugs is not a new one, goes back to capacitor discharge ignition in the early sixties. Whether these plugs can handle / produce a big spark without any side effects (preignition) is the question. would 12 - 13 work better under heavy acceleration cause there is more unburnt petrol going through? I'm just not too sure about that (no sarcasm here...genuine question). if it is...then according to the firestorm plugs, IF it is all true and burns close to 100% of the fuel, that would mean, even at heavy acceleration 14ish : 1 would still be a good ratio no? I believe in the chemistry, thanks to some enlightenment on the ratio...i believe 40:1 is bull crap, but still would think burning 100% of the fuel would be better then burning a % of it under heavy acceleration with a 14.7:1 AFR. smiley...i believe efmarek may even be the dude who is inventing it 
phong =P~
_________________ phongus = Post whore 2006 |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| RedRoo |
|
|||
Age: 55 Posts: 1883 Joined: 22nd Apr 2005 Ride: 94 ED Fairmont, MY97 LE WRX Location: Seymour |
Ummm did you guy's read the story or listen to the video properly?
They dont claim to be able to run a air to fuel ratio of 40:1, the only 40 odd they talk about is the 44 to 50% increase of fuel economy. Quote: It allows you to take an internal combustion engine from the standard 14.7:1 air-to-fuel ratio to an incredibly lean 24:1. At this ratio
Now I know fuel's are more refined these days, but back when I was growing up and learning about building high porformance race engines from my old man, We'd use what was known back then as a cold plug (they had more ceramic around the centre electroide) for best performance, In a older more worn enigine we'd use a hotter plug (more of the electroide exposed) this would burn any oil residue quicker. So since these plugs run at a hotter rate they should be good for all those old bangers getting around by burning more of the oil residue. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], hudsonhawk69 and 75 guests |
