Notices
Series I Tech Garage The place to discuss anything technical about the RX-8 that doesn't fit into any of the categories below.

Rotor deactivation for fuel savings

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:29 PM
  #1  
Nathan Atkins's Avatar
Thread Starter
V8 Traitor
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 600
Likes: 5
From: Abingdon, Harford County, MD
Rotor deactivation for fuel savings

I'm doing a long distance trip over flat ground and thought I could save some fuel by deactivating one rotor by pulling the spark plug, plug lead, disconnecting the coil and disconnecting the fuel injector in that runner. I'm looking for people to actually explain why this is a terrible idea so I get it out of my head.

For a start I think the oil will continuously inject into the rotor chamber and it won't get burned off, filling the chamber with excess oil.

There is the issue of exposing the rotor to debris through the plug hole, maybe some kind of breather could be screwed in there

I want to do something I can undo on the side of the highway with basic tools should the need arise.

Pointing out why it's idiotic is appreciated, but making suggestions to make it less idiotic is preferred.
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:32 PM
  #2  
thebetteryou's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: Deptford, NJ
Plus it would run like crap. Haha.
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:34 PM
  #3  
RIWWP's Avatar
Registered
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 261
From: Pacific Northwest
The other problems:
- that the pressure on the rotors help to balance each other, so running on 1 rotor is incredibly rough. Proven by plenty of people with 1 blown rotor or 1 rotor dead on ignition
- assuming the rotor is still in good condition, the compression/expansion stroke will still be occuring, which means that the rotor will be not just not providing power, it will be actively soaking power, the same way as engine braking does, as it will still draw in air on the intake stroke, still compress air, etc... The amount of power needed to hold an RX-8 at steady speed will go up, as will the fuel consumption.
- oil injection would need to remain active, otherwise the seals are just sitting there wearing themselves out. Because it's not getting burned off, your plugs will foul heavily, and your cat (if you have one), will get destroyed quickly.


It's not a stellar idea
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:34 PM
  #4  
200.mph's Avatar
FULLY SEMI AUTOMATIC
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,508
From: BALLS DEEP
i talked to a guy recently that drove his fd home from dgrr last year on one rotor. he said he had to downshift to 1st gear to pull the slightest incline and couldnt go past 5mph. bad idea
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:38 PM
  #5  
Jedi54's Avatar
Administrator
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 22,444
Likes: 2,797
From: The Dark Side
Bad. Idea.
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:46 PM
  #6  
Nathan Atkins's Avatar
Thread Starter
V8 Traitor
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 600
Likes: 5
From: Abingdon, Harford County, MD
Hmmm, I thought the rough running would be somewhat alleviated by the plug holes being open, there would be essentially no power sapping compression in that rotor. The plugs won't foul because they're not installed. that just leaves the pressure balance you mentioned and fouling the cat, which at the age of the car is inevitable anyway

Maybe I'll try driving around the neighborhood like that and see how the power loss is and let you guys know how it worked out, and also how much blue smoke I belt out after reinstalling everything!

Once around the block can't hurt too bad right?
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:50 PM
  #7  
alnielsen's Avatar
Registered
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,255
Likes: 7
From: Buddhist Monastery, High Himalaya Mtns. of Tibet
The fuel injector is still active and you will pollute the cat with unburned fuel. The cat will over heat and burn out.
Be careful where you park.
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:52 PM
  #8  
Nathan Atkins's Avatar
Thread Starter
V8 Traitor
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 600
Likes: 5
From: Abingdon, Harford County, MD
Originally Posted by alnielsen
The fuel injector is still active and you will pollute the cat with unburned fuel. The cat will over heat and burn out.
Please see original post about disconnecting injector in that runner
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:53 PM
  #9  
RIWWP's Avatar
Registered
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 261
From: Pacific Northwest
With the plugs open, that fuel will just be hosing down the side of the engine, the frame, and the left front tire.

Basically, in order to get this to work you have to:
- Solve the dramatically increased air compression/expansion pumping loss
- Stop the ignition from firing
- stop the fuel injectors from firing
- reduce the oil injection severely, but not stop it
- dynamically re-balance the rotor that is firing.
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:54 PM
  #10  
rickeo's Avatar
running on double cream!
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 870
Likes: 3
From: Doylestown, PA
Originally Posted by Nathan Atkins
Please see original post about disconnecting injector in that runner
Doesn't matter. See RIWWP's post above. The OMP still needs to run to lubricate the rotor seals or they'll just burn themselves up.

Game over.

Nice thought, though...
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:55 PM
  #11  
Nathan Atkins's Avatar
Thread Starter
V8 Traitor
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 600
Likes: 5
From: Abingdon, Harford County, MD
Originally Posted by Jedi54
Bad. Idea.
Ummm, thanks for your input, but if you see the original posti was looking more for quantifying why it's bad idea. I already know its a bad idea, I just want people with the proper know how to break it down
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:56 PM
  #12  
Nathan Atkins's Avatar
Thread Starter
V8 Traitor
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 600
Likes: 5
From: Abingdon, Harford County, MD
Originally Posted by rickeo
Doesn't matter. See RIWWP's post above. The OMP still needs to run to lubricate the rotor seals or they'll just burn themselves up.

Game over.

Nice thought, though...
So if I disconnect the fuel injector the OMP is disabled also? If they can run independently of one another then it's still doable

Last edited by Nathan Atkins; 05-01-2013 at 12:57 PM. Reason: F'n autocorrect
Old 05-01-2013 | 12:56 PM
  #13  
Karack's Avatar
Rotary Evolution
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 853
Likes: 2
From: Central FL
do you know how difficult it is to get to the injectors? if you did you wouldn't be asking this question just in order to save a few bucks and create a virtually undriveable car. not to mention the destroyed cat in the process.
Old 05-01-2013 | 01:00 PM
  #14  
RIWWP's Avatar
Registered
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 261
From: Pacific Northwest
If you solve each of the points, then yes, you can "get it to work", however the only difference will be that you will have to run 1 rotor at a much higher throttle to move the car at the same speed.

It will still take ~40g/s of airflow into the engine to maintain ~70mph. It doesn't really matter if this is on one rotor or two.
Old 05-01-2013 | 01:02 PM
  #15  
Nathan Atkins's Avatar
Thread Starter
V8 Traitor
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 600
Likes: 5
From: Abingdon, Harford County, MD
Originally Posted by RIWWP
With the plugs open, that fuel will just be hosing down the side of the engine, the frame, and the left front tire.
Basically, in order to get this to work you have to:
- Solve the dramatically increased air compression/expansion pumping loss(plugs out)
- Stop the ignition from firing(coils and leads disconnected)
- stop the fuel injectors from firing(disconnected)
- reduce the oil injection severely, but not stop it(ermmmm....)
- dynamically re-balance the rotor that is firing.(yeaaaah...)

That's for humoring me guys, I think there are too many obstacles in place.

It'd be nice to have a 'single rotor' push button but whatever, I've never given a crap about economy before, why start now? If I wanted to save fuel I'd drive slow and not autocross
Old 05-01-2013 | 01:07 PM
  #16  
Nathan Atkins's Avatar
Thread Starter
V8 Traitor
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 600
Likes: 5
From: Abingdon, Harford County, MD
Originally Posted by Karack
do you know how difficult it is to get to the injectors? if you did you wouldn't be asking this question just in order to save a few bucks and create a virtually undriveable car. not to mention the destroyed cat in the process.
Well, you found me out there, ive never had injector issues and haven messed around with them, I was kind of hoping they'd be at least as easy to reach as our ridiculously located oil filter :P

If you solve each of the points, then yes, you can "get it to work", however the only difference will be that you will have to run 1 rotor at a much higher throttle to move the car at the same speed.

This is true and where the fuel savings come from, since you are closer to peak BSFC the nearer to WOT you are, at least that's true for most piston engines.

Either way, Ive seen enough to write it off, thanks again guys

Last edited by Nathan Atkins; 05-01-2013 at 01:11 PM.
Old 05-01-2013 | 03:42 PM
  #17  
RXeligion's Avatar
The X is silent
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 688
Likes: 1
From: New Lebanon, Ohio
Cost/Benefit

In full recognition that I'm late to the conversation... I would also like to point out if you were driving a 3,000 MILE distance and DOUBLING your MPG from this proposed mod, you would only save $264 in gas.

What are the odds you'll break something more expensive than that? Pretty Good
Are you going to have ANY fun with your car performing worse than a Prius?
Consider that 8.8 cents per mile the cost of insurance and ability to have some fun.

X Miles . Gallons . Dollars = Savings
_______Miles___Gallons

I assumed:

21 and 42 MPG
My $3.64 Local gas price
3000 Miles.

I wouldn't do it.

Last edited by RXeligion; 05-01-2013 at 03:46 PM. Reason: Alignment
Old 05-01-2013 | 07:44 PM
  #18  
nycgps's Avatar
Out of NYC
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,881
Likes: 32
From: Planet Earth
i like how people always come up with something completely retarded , everyday.
Old 05-01-2013 | 08:13 PM
  #19  
rickeo's Avatar
running on double cream!
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 870
Likes: 3
From: Doylestown, PA
Originally Posted by Nathan Atkins
So if I disconnect the fuel injector the OMP is disabled also? If they can run independently of one another then it's still doable
Not sure i'm understanding your question. Even if you do let the OMP run for the "de-activated" rotor, where is all the oil going to go? Normally its burned off during the combustion cycle.
Old 05-01-2013 | 08:14 PM
  #20  
Nathan Atkins's Avatar
Thread Starter
V8 Traitor
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 600
Likes: 5
From: Abingdon, Harford County, MD
Originally Posted by nycgps
i like how people always come up with something completely retarded , everyday.
It's not the worst idea I've ever had, see my much older post about a power plant frame mounted electric motor inline with the driveshaft, that was a whopper
Old 05-01-2013 | 08:18 PM
  #21  
Beodude's Avatar
BearBlasterExtraordinair!
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 731
Likes: 3
From: Haughton, Louisiana
Originally Posted by RIWWP
It will still take ~40g/s of airflow into the engine to maintain ~70mph. It doesn't really matter if this is on one rotor or two.
This isn't something I have any sort of real knowledge in, so if I'm incorrect, I apologize. But I remember hearing eco-modder type people talk about making hot air boxes (drawing air off the radiator) to increase the amount of throttle required to maintain speed, reducing pumping losses.

Would this achieve the same effect (if the compression stroke got vented to the atmostphere)? Granted, you would still be adding air into the exhaust, and messing with air fuel ratios...


Either way, there is too much dumb stuff to worry about. Suck it up, it's an RX-8, it doesn't get good gas mileage. We all know it. There are small things we can do to help, but either way, it's going to be bad.




*Edit* I can't even imagine the bearing wear from something like this.
Old 05-01-2013 | 08:32 PM
  #22  
Razz1's Avatar
Mu ha.. ha...
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,361
Likes: 3
From: Cali
Originally Posted by nycgps
i like how people always come up with something completely retarded , everyday.
Isn't this why we are still around the RX8 forum?
Old 05-01-2013 | 08:52 PM
  #23  
Paco664's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: miami,FL
this made my brain hurt...
Old 05-01-2013 | 09:03 PM
  #24  
RIWWP's Avatar
Registered
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 261
From: Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted by Beodude
This isn't something I have any sort of real knowledge in, so if I'm incorrect, I apologize. But I remember hearing eco-modder type people talk about making hot air boxes (drawing air off the radiator) to increase the amount of throttle required to maintain speed, reducing pumping losses.

Would this achieve the same effect (if the compression stroke got vented to the atmostphere)? Granted, you would still be adding air into the exhaust, and messing with air fuel ratios...
Yes, pumping losses run inversely proportional to how wide open the throttle is. A full open throttle has much lower pumping loss than a partially closed one.

That being said, it would be insanely difficult to reduce the pumping loss from one fully healthy rotor that is "shut off" far enough for this to actually produce a net gain.

A big portion of the eco-modder work is to reduce the amount of power needed to keep the car at speed, i.e. drag reduction so the air resistance isn't as great. Without doing any of that, the engine will still need ~a fixed amount of power to counter wind resistance to keep the car at highway speed (varies based on engine health, ignition health, and air density due to temp and altitude, plus more factors). It doesn't really matter how it gets that power, or how much power is sapped away due to other things (like pumping loss of one rotor spinning without power), after all the costs are subtracted, it still needs the same amount of power for the air resistance.

Someone who is REALLY serious about trying to get superior mileage out of an RX-8 would see a far greater gain from re-paneling the bottom of the car completely flat with a small front splitter and significant rear diffuser than just about anything else (Assuming their engine is already healthy). Significant gains can be had here, and it usually a grip improvement as well, since you can reduce lift without increasing drag (vs increasing downforce always increases drag)

Example of another car:

Last edited by RIWWP; 05-01-2013 at 09:07 PM.
Old 05-01-2013 | 09:19 PM
  #25  
j9fd3s's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,382
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by nycgps
i like how people always come up with something completely retarded , everyday.
nah GM came up with the idea in the 40's and had it on a car in the 70's Variable displacement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadilla...368_and_V8-6-4

it works with modern EFI stuff, but i guess the 70's caddy system was pretty *****


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 1.00 average.

Quick Reply: Rotor deactivation for fuel savings



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.