Unichip

Chilli I hate to say it, but your analagy on that combustion related post is pretty far off. You may be thinking it correct, but you said it completly wrong.

For reference, just post up a picture graph of power vs mixture (afr vs power). Even the most simple analagy, when a fire is running low, you increase the airflow, not the fuel flow, to get it up and running.

 

It's a simplistic analogy to an equally stupid comment Chris.

Ask HIM why he thinks he needs a Unichip, not me.

 

And what do you do when the heat is reducing because the fuel is exhausted?
You add more fuel(you can only extract a given amount of energy from any sample of a combustible material)to increase that energy you MUST increase the quantity(or use a different type of fuel source).
Pretty basic Physics guys.

 

Maybe someone can say something about Nistune?
:zlove:

 

i love the fact that NA boys always complain about fuel economy !!!. oh dear...
pull your head in dude. your economy is fine. either get a tune.
or stop complaining...

or add some TORNADOS.

or put your car completely back to stock.. no air filters. no exhausts. no aftermarket items

or REFER TO YOUR PREVIOUS FUEL ECONOMY THREAD
http://www.aus300zx.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294943

 

Chrispy is correct, by increasing ignition advance in cruise you can improve fuel economy. That's how Ford and GM get "good" fuel economy out of their 6 and 8 cylinder engines.

The by product of running large amounts of ignition advance in cruise is the increase in bad emissions. Ford and GM get around the "problem" with a bit of trickery. The emisions testing specify specific levels of gasses when cruising for a specific time period (I think it is 2 minutes). Ford and GM run two different cruise maps, one for the first time period (the length of the test) that ensures gasses are at a safe level and a second map that kicks in after the time interval has expired.

 

2 ways to improve fuel economy:-
- make engine more efficient. with a free-flowing intake and the correct sized exhaust, exhaust gas scavenging will help empty combustion chambers and be less restrictive than OEM, thereby wasting less combustion energy moving gases.
- change your driving technique. by short shifting, you keep the rpm low which means less friction. this is the method the new european DI diesel and petrol turbos are making such great economy and power. fast spooling (dual vane?) turbos boost from as little as 1500-2000rpm and with all that low end torque you can short shift all day.

 

It's not a complain AT ALL !!!!!
It's pretty old car and it could be improved 'coz many things have changed for the last 20 years in terms of fuel effiecency.
According to your advise everyone who wants more power (complain about lack of power) needs to sell Zed and buy Bugatti Veyron.

 

oh dont forget to pump your tires up

extra few psi helps drop rolling resistance y'see...

and weight reduction. cars are ridiculously heavy these days. engineers have done such a fantastic job making amazingly powerful yet efficient engines. yet the marketing department has to add electric this and lcd that. we love our cars for the way they look and drive - not for its stereo, electric seats, power convertible hardtops or 8speed autos. this trend started many years ago. could you imagine the 300zx weighing as much as the 240z with the same vg30dett and z32 chassis?

 

Hi Ian,

The comment by Chrispy was directly in response to my statement that increases in POWER from a engine is directly related to increased fuel usage.
There was no mention of increasing economy by me(that came from pexzed).

Vadim made the original claim that "increased power equaled increased fuel economy, due to less need to accelerate". I disagree with this in any context(advanced ignition timing or otherwise).:zlove:

I simply do not accept the hypothesis that one can extract increased power output from an NA internal combustion engine without using MORE fuel(assuming that the engine is properly tuned to begin with)or without doing a total redesign of that engine.

 

I agree with you there Mr. Chili.

 

In reference to my previous post, I posed your physics analogy and comment to Gavin wood when I picked up my yellow Zed this morning.
Gavin arguably being one of the top tuners in SEQ for Z32, R32-35 etc.
My post is word for word his comments (posted using iPhone while there).
Not meaning to stir up an argument of course.
The stock ECU as anyone who's been around a while knows, runs retarded timing and rich fuel maps outside of the closed loop areas of the program. This is obviously for safety during those times one may buy a substandard fuel, or load the engine at low RPM etc.
The amount of fuel injected to create a difference in the AFR from say 12.5 :1 to 10.5:1 is quite large, around 20% more fuel I believe.
That is a substantial fuel saving, great for your hip pocket s well as the environment.

What is is simple physics (Probably Chemistry actually), is that to clean burn the fuel (whether your tune is good or rich), you can not increase fuel delivery without also linearly increasing the volume of air it's being mixed with

 

:zlove::zlove::zlove::zlove::zlove::zlove:

 

Obviously this claim is nonsense

 

not totally. if an engine has lots of low end torque, it can cruise and short shift at low rpm. low rpm = less friction = better fuel economy.

at a given throttle opening, only "x" amount of air can enter an NA engine. for that amount of air it will only produce so much power, but will burn more fuel spinning at 4000rpm in 2nd gear than it would spinning at 2000rpm in 4th.

 

That has never been in question. Engine RPM in ANY gear(neutral included)will have the same fuel consumption at any given number of revs per minute(assuming throttle position and load are the same in all cases).

This discussion is so far off track, that it is next to worthless.

If fuel consumption is of such importance, then perhaps a smaller, more economic vehicle would be the best choice for vadim at this time, as he is unlikely to ever achieve satisfactory results of the order he is attempting to obtain.:zlove:

 

Noway
:zlove::zlove::zlove:

I'm happy with my Z.

 

Good for you(fuel is the cheapest thing you will ever spend money on during your Zed ownership).:zlove::zlove::zlove:

 

Just to get back onto Vadim's topic, fuel economy in my NA pre-Unichip: 9.2L/100km highway; after Unichip fitted and running properly (long story): 8.3L/100km highway. This is with approximately 35 extra rwKw over stock, but I also have an aftermarket air filter, TTZ extractors, custom exhaust and UR underdrive crank pulley, all of which contribute to the improved economy and extra power. However (there's always one of those), it uses more fuel than stock if I flog it, but that's the price you pay for using the extra power.

 

Thank you Dougie,

All of what you have said is compatible with my basic statement.

In a correctly tuned engine running at optimum efficiency ANY attempt to increase power output will inevitably involve the use of more/greater fuel/air delivery.

Nothing is free.

E=MC/2.

All else is bum fluff(with apologies to Gavin Wood, who in this instance, has been out-maneuvered by one Albert Einstein).:zlove: