Shadowfax
15+ Year Contributor
- 152
- 1
- Jul 27, 2004
-
Stillwater,
Oklahoma
Okay, here's the deal, I can get as tech as you want, I generally try to stay on the side of a little common sense, and a little supporting. You want to tell me I'm an idiot, make sure you have good reading comprehension92redman said:
Actually they spend a lot of money on stupid government mandates- they also don't spend a lot of money on things, they figure out the cheapest effective way to do something, then they job it out to the lowest bidder. Money on the EGR valves that are used on the 4G63, the 1.8 and the 3.0 is simply they have it, they are required by the government. Simply because it's there isn't understanding that it actually works or should be there. How it works is not WHY it works.
I didn't say decreasing the displacement of a motor won't give you a few more miles- I said that I don't see how inserting inert gas is going to help you- you are simply band-aiding a symptom, not fixing the problem. Inserting inert gas doesn't make your motor get better mileage- it simply makes your motor act like a bit less of a motor. Instead of making it more efficent, they just make it act smaller. That your ECU doesn't recognize the EGR being open or shut begs the question how can the ECU then decrease fuel? It doesn't. EGR just means that less oxygen is being burnt, that means that the O2 sees a rich mixture and leans it some. You could have just as easily set the ECU to decrease A/F a bit and gotten the same results- problem is that the government when emissions got started didn't have half the resources and the tech wasn't able to give such good results. EGR isn't new, it's old tech that is mechanical rather than digital- thus there is more play (obviously, we can increase our gas mileage BEYOND mitsu's ratings with good tuning) in our ECU than in the mechanical systems.
So no one said it increases HP- but I said that it easily DECREASES HP by dumping carbon deposits into the intake and combustion chamber. And it doesn't decrease temps WHEN IT MATTERS FOR DETONATION! If the EGR is shut at WOT and you have the greatest risk of detonation then (and that carbon doesn't HELP btw) then what good is it's decrease of detonation- if you are detonating at part throttle then you've got bigger problems. And again, you can change the ECU timing and A/F enough to take it out of the mix as well.
Yeah, I've killed enough kitties to know, but do you know the 3 different catalysts? And more importantly how does what you just said relate? How can they reduce NOx and unburnt hydrocarbons? They do it by trying to up the temps in the cat to a level where they burn, allowing them to seperate into less EPA deemed harmful elements. The fact that there are plenty of cars that run NO cats, no precats and 93 octane and pass EPA inspection without problems as well as create more HP and better mileage means that something in what you're being told about emissions has something slightly off
But lowering the combustion chamber temps helps lower them, but then you need a catalytic converter to heat these things back up to help them burn then? Come on- NOx emissions weren't the point- mileage was- mileage that isn't helped by lowering combustion temps- the better you burn the oxygen the more power you produce, the more power you produce from each drop of gas used to ignite the larger amount of oxygen means the less you need to generate enough energy to maintain speed. That is how you get better mileage - not thru tricks about this or that- good clean burn coupled with efficent drivetrain and an ECU smart enough to know when you need it.
Inert means it don't burn. There are many many gasses that don't burn. All EGR does is uses something that is already there to trick the motor into believing it's smaller than it is. Hopefully your ECU sees this and decreases the gas it dumps a bit. You can do what the EGR does cleaner, and more efficently than a 25year old design that leaves carbon residue.
I have volumes of writeups on 3si, ls1, stangnet, corral and others, and your reply to what I wrote is quite simply the best rebuttal I've seen in a long time. Whereas I still believe that EGR by introducing even slight carbon into your intake and chambers makes it not worth the small gains, your manner of actions has impressed me considerably 
