SUMOTOY said:
Just to clarify, these are not actual figures you have acheived, just what you are hoping to acheive? I'll believe hood vents (part IV) increase fuel economy by 10% when someone proves it.
More confusing operating temperature info. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cruiserdan
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Just to clarify, these are not actual figures you have acheived, just what you are hoping to acheive? I'll believe hood vents (part IV) increase fuel economy by 10% when someone proves it.
I don't know, but about the longer life, the stock 300k+ miles is fine for me. By then I will want to do something to the engine whether it needs it or not, anyways. If having an engine last longer than almost any other consumer car isn't good enough, I don't know what is.landtank said:
Could my new blue fan clutch be the reason my last three tanks have been down 10% in mileage?I have seen very consistent mileage on my commute. Then blamo...down 10%. Just happened to coincide with the fan clutch replacement.
I wanted to blame it on the ethanol...but we've had ethanol for ages.
I'll be darned...never thought to consider the fan clutch. But it makes sense on two counts...greater drag and lower ave temps.
For me higher heat means more friction which means more wear. That's why I'll do several blackstone tests and should be able to get an idea how the truck is wearing from the metals in the oil.
Sumotoy, you should drain off a little oil now for a sample so as to baseline your trucks wear pattern before completing the transformation. That way you'll have something to stand on when you claim victory and people begin to question you.
Sumotoy, you should drain off a little oil now for a sample so as to baseline your trucks wear pattern before completing the transformation. That way you'll have something to stand on when you claim victory and people begin to question you.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Threads
- 274
- Messages
- 23,233
- Location
- Chandler, AZ
- Website
- www.tontorecreationalliance.org
Lowering the engine's friction and parasitic drag enough to get 20% mpg increase, without changing the aerodynamic brick, high drivetrain losses or driving style is a great accomplishment! Combined with the 67F lower intake temp I would expect a HUGE horsepower increase!
Color me skeptical, I increased the parasitic drag, lowered the operating temps and am getting better mileage?
Color me skeptical, I increased the parasitic drag, lowered the operating temps and am getting better mileage?
tarbe said:
I have seen very consistent mileage on my commute. Then blamo...down 10%. Just happened to coincide with the fan clutch replacement.
I wanted to blame it on the ethanol...but we've had ethanol for ages.
I'll be darned...never thought to consider the fan clutch. But it makes sense on two counts...greater drag and lower ave temps.
I doubt this very much, Id sooner look at O2 sensors or any number of other common areas for milage problems such as tire inflation.
As far as I'm concerned, the truck gets driven maybe 5000 miles a year: to the trail, on the trail, back in the shop... I could care less about MPG or engine wear, I just want my pig to stop overheating going up logging roads!
5 minute fix
Then do what I did and shim up your hood with washers and longer bolts on rear mounts and feel the heat flow. I know its not the safest or the best for airflow in cabin issues but it works for now and can always be reversed when we find something better. Or do an aux e-pusher fan for the killer combo!
CreeperSleeper said:
Then do what I did and shim up your hood with washers and longer bolts on rear mounts and feel the heat flow. I know its not the safest or the best for airflow in cabin issues but it works for now and can always be reversed when we find something better. Or do an aux e-pusher fan for the killer combo!
I disagree Rick:landtank said:
Changing the VC lockup characteristics can massively affect mileage. If it now locks up more or sooner, the parasitic drag of the fan can affect mileage significantly. A few papers are already out there on VC vs lockup clutches (off/on and/or electrics), with some dramatic fuel consumption improvements.
SAE and DOT did some tests back in 1986 on this using a 20hp mechanical fan. Isolating the fuel consumption of the fan, the fuel savings between on/off (electro mechanical) vs VC were quite dramatic. As dramatic as the direct to VC drive savings.
This forum is doing a lot of crude bench testing as of late - me included. But the technology and application results are in numerous SAE papers. I'm willing to follow the trend and results found in these papers to see if I can achieve something similar. With the mechanical fan vs electrics, I can see something less than similar and still have a good ROI.
SJ
SUMOTOY said:
Read his post, his setup is identical to that before. All he did is change his clutch and I doubt the new clutch is draining 10% (over 1.5 MPG) off of his gas mileage over the old one.
I'll be keeping very detailed MPG numbers this winter and for you to best them by 10% and cut the wear metals in the oil test by 40% will be no small feat. I drive a lifted vehicle, heavily armored and running 35" tires with 4.88 gearing. All this rolling down the highway at 75 mph for hours at end.
It will be interesting what your technically superior setup will yield given it's obvious aerodynamic edge toward efficiency.
landtank said:
Rick:
I run the stock tire size, stock gears, and more *importantly* the stock tire weight! We could compare gas mileage right now
, I'll even take the supercharger added.It matters not to me if this turns out to be a failure, I see not a single post on an 80 converting to electric fans. I see a *lot* of mindset against doing it, that isn't supported by libraries of papers by SAE, DOT, EPA, and the automotive/truck manufacturers. The VC fan setup is a thing of the past, plain and simple. 2007 and 2010 light and heavy truck requirements will see the demise of the VC fan setup alltogether.
The only question really is, electrics and/or on-off mechanical clutch. The former is the easiest thing to do to an 80 *now*. I have little doubt that I will see gains consistent with other SUV owners that have done the same thing. At 3USD/gal of gas, it also has a pretty fast ROI, even if it gives minimal gains.
I understand (and agree) you 'feel' that the VC clutch on your 80 works great for you. You might agree that I feel and have experienced it's compromises on my SC truck. And 80 heat management as a whole can be improved significantly (not hard with a 45F normal operating range). Not sure I understand what the controversy is. I'll do the conversion and post up my results. I appreciate your opinions, I just see the obvious conflict with accepted engine heat management theory and practice.
Scott Justusson
94 FZJ80 Supercharged
I'm not driving the truck right now but was getting mid 16's last year, there are posts confirming this. So at a 10% increase that would put you in the 18 MPG range. There is also a post out there with my last oil anaylsis that you could compare your's to.
You just keep hammering the same comments over and over again every chance you get and when people disagree you want data from them when they are resistant to what you know to be true. So post up your numbers and let's confirm what you know to be true.
You just keep hammering the same comments over and over again every chance you get and when people disagree you want data from them when they are resistant to what you know to be true. So post up your numbers and let's confirm what you know to be true.
landtank- I don't think the kind of comparison you're looking for would be valid. We've had lots of gas mileage threads come and go and everyone knows that reported mileage is all over the place and seems to vary a lot vehicle to vehicle somewhat independent of mods a lot of the time. So comparing the end mileage results between you and SUMO would be pretty meaningless. Instead, you guys should be looking at what percentage increase in gas mileage SUMO sees on his vehicle post-mod to determine if the mod made a difference, not seeing if his is higher than yours after the mod. What percentage increase in gas mileage have you seen on your rig with your mods vs. what percentage increase in gas mileage has SUMO seen on his rig with his mods? There's something useful. Look back at the gas mileage threads and you'll see a lot of variation reported, making comparisons like the one you suggest pretty useless.
Last edited:
landtank said:
Pressures are constant at 38psi (if it were only something so obvious). If the O2 sensors decided to take a dump, I suppose I'll see a CEL sooner or later.
Nothing yet...
alaskacruiser said:
I get the impression that Sumotoy just jumped in on this whole ABC thing and didn't record any base line data before starting. So what else can you do to try and gauge any improvements?
landtank said:
Reread them Rick. In parts I-III I have laid out the approach I took for an aux fan install, and turning it off (baseline) and on (results), put forth the data. I also identified in Part III that the aux fan install (with my supercharger as installed) added a bunch of underhood heat, which I also measured. In Part IV, I installed hood vents and took the same measures I did in Part III.
Since I haven't written Part V yet, the baseline comment is premature.
Comparing your truck to mine as alaska points out, really has a very low correlation factor. I'm selfishly and systematically working on *my* truck to explore something better than what Toyota delivered from the factory. And telling the story of my adventure, since it appears to have very little 'wrench traffic'. You and others seem overly focused on comparisons. My own belief is that a focus on the review of literature and current application might support my approach.
I'm quite comfortable with the fact you feel the VC clutch tweeking works for your truck. I did it before you and found that it has some compromises to my truck. So, *given* I'm making a change, it sure would appear that there is a lot of accepted theory and practice to support me chasing after engine temp driven electric fans. Without any data collected for Part V.
YMMV
Scott Justusson
Last edited:
Waggoner5
SILVER Star
Yep. With the exception of the Aux fan. I still believe that Toyota did an adequate job of engineering the cooling system even supercharged. There may be room for some improvement in some areas, but I hardly believe that Toyota and its offspring TRD are missing the boat.Romer said:
Sumotoy, your stating that you'll see better MPG and wear after your changes are completed, here in this thread. So I don't understand why a comment on having a base line to compare the end results to your final ones is pre mature. I just searched the site as well as skimmed the first of your series and didn't find any mention as I stated above.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up what I've done to my clutch as this is about confirming your results. From your claims, I expect you to have the most fuel efficent 80 in the states or at least here on IH8MUD.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up what I've done to my clutch as this is about confirming your results. From your claims, I expect you to have the most fuel efficent 80 in the states or at least here on IH8MUD.
Waggoner5
SILVER Star
Funny, my donor truck under my 45 got 17 MPG at 75 with the AC on before putting it on a diet. Stock tires and gears though.
Speaking of diet, The fact that my 45 weighs in at 4500 lbs, has the radiator in the rear, AC, condenser also in the rear, and still runs the same temp range as a stock 80, would seem to be proof enough that heating/cooling issues are not caused by airflow through the engine compartment. I have a 2'x3' opening right to the engine and lots of hood venting out. Air temps are a few degrees lower because of a K&N cone airfilter attached to the MAF. The oil temp differences are negligible, but water temps are the same as stock. The truck runs just like a stock one, other than of the weight loss.
G
Speaking of diet, The fact that my 45 weighs in at 4500 lbs, has the radiator in the rear, AC, condenser also in the rear, and still runs the same temp range as a stock 80, would seem to be proof enough that heating/cooling issues are not caused by airflow through the engine compartment. I have a 2'x3' opening right to the engine and lots of hood venting out. Air temps are a few degrees lower because of a K&N cone airfilter attached to the MAF. The oil temp differences are negligible, but water temps are the same as stock. The truck runs just like a stock one, other than of the weight loss.
G
