Grounding Cylinder Head Test Results (2024 CX-5 Turbo)

[AL Cx5]

Here is the road test with and without grounds from Post 109.

Car was on CC, same speed, same road, same day. Tests done back to back. This road test combines a few steep grades and level stretches. This is 11 data points that easily lined up with each other. One could run a test for an hour and average the two and much more. I'm not inclined to make a research project for a modification I've done for over a hundred cars.

This graft is % engine load vs time. If the car will run with LESS engine load over the same course it is more efficient.

Going up the grades the grounded engine shined vs steady state on flat or down grades. Accelerating it does even better, per the WOT, dyno tests. The CX 5 seems to be difficult to chassis dyno so I'm not motivated to dyno test.

This in NOT a home run, break through mod. It's cheap and save gas year after year or delivers about 10 crankshaft HP. I put ground on our new 2024 the evening we brought it home to lower operating costs.

Yellow line, no grounds, red grounds.

 

[Koko_Bandit]

Here is the road test with and without grounds from Post 129.

Car was on CC, same speed, same road, same day. Tests done back to back. This road test combines a few steep grades and level stretches. This is 11 data points that easily lined up with each other. One could run a test for an hour and average the two and much more. I'm not inclined to make a research project for a modification I've done for over a hundred cars.

This graft is % engine load vs time. If the car will run with LESS engine load over the same course it is more efficient.

Going up the grades the grounded engine shined vs steady state on flat or down grades. Accelerating it does even better, per the WOT, dyno tests. The CX 5 seems to be difficult to chassis dyno so I'm not motivated to dyno test.

This in NOT a home run, break through mod. It's cheap and save gas year after year or delivers about 10 crankshaft HP.

Yellow line, no grounds, red grounds.View attachment 383015

What is the vertical axis?

 

[AL Cx5]

"Extra" was probably poor wording on my part. The voltage drop in the ground lead reduces power at the device. A 12.5V system with 2.5V dropped in the ground lead leaves only 10V at the device. While it may be designed to operate at < 12.5V, it is not optimal. We called it 'ground lifting' when the voltage drop in the ground path become significant.

Injectors, solenoids, and electric clutches have high inrush currents when activated. in addition to the resistance in the ground path, there is also inductance which causes even higher voltage drops during these spikes. The heavier ground leads also reduce the inductance.

Exactly! Inrush is very important to fire the coils and injectors when the ECU commands.

Say we are traveling at 60 MPH in 5th gear, each pair of coils and injectors fire 17.5 times per SECOND. The engine is firing a pair, coil and injector, 70 Xs per second or 57 milliseconds.

The load on the system is much higher than when we test at idle. The coils have to recharge and fire. They have 3.5 ms to charge and 50 ms to cool before firing again. 17.5 times a second, 1,050 times per minute or 63,000 times per hour. Or the system is firing ALL of the coils and injectors 252,000 times per hour. At 80 MPH they fire a 336,168 times per minute.

This is anything but a steady state load. The coils and injectors fire from a ground signal from the ecu. The ground circuit is the critical electrical path....

It's critical on our daily drives as my race engine. FWIW, my race engine fires 4 times more often at 8000 rpm, (16) 40,000 volt coils. We wouldn't run large grounds the length of the car to the battery and ground the coils to the heads if it didn't make it work better. We have proven that running a high output ignition system adds more than 40 HP burning methanol fuel.

Not about the above, but another post but still relevant..
I LOVE the age old argument, IF it helps then Mazda would have used larger and more grounding cables. Well what about the other areas Mazda missed?

I proved that Mazda undersized the air filter box inlet on the Turbos. I posted how I proved the air box was starving the engine when under a load. I fixed it for about $75. Folks had the same argument about the inlet filter box TOO...

I added a turning vane in the obvious restrictive air intake transition on the turbos. Anyone with a little airflow knowledge agrees the transition is restrictive. I improved the flow and posted. Mostly ignored like the inlet air box mod. OK...

SO, don't ground your ride and be happy. Or push yourself away from the keyboard and find your hood latch and learn how to turn a wrench and test for yourself. Prove me wrong, I'm all about getting it right!

I'm offering simple, proven modifications that will impact the bottom line for thousands of miles.

I've already done it and proved it. Take it or leave it.

 

[jadmt]

So the good news is mpg is no worse.. bad news is doesn’t seem any better. First fill up was driving in Montana including passes speeds 80mph and some faster. I have done this drive many times and it is what i normally get

 

[jadmt]

This idaho, washington driving 65-70 and again about what I normally get

 

[jadmt]

This mostly Oregon again normal

 

[jadmt]

486 miles 16.5 gallons so yesterday didn’t see any improvement maybe over the next few days i will

 

[AL Cx5]

That's pretty conclusive evidence you will not get better fuel mileage.

Any chance you can disconnect the grounds for the remainder of the trip?

I'll carry what I need to disconnect the grounds on the fenders on our trip this summer. I will be a few weeks. I'll report the numbers, good or not so good...

 

[jadmt]

That's pretty conclusive evidence you will not get better fuel mileage.

Any chance you can disconnect the grounds for the remainder of the trip?

I'll carry what I need to disconnect the grounds on the fenders on our trip this summer. I will be a few weeks. I'll report the numbers, good or not so good...

ok. I won't do the individual fillups but for 765.5 miles I filled 26.03 gallons over the next 3 fillups..one stretch was 80+ in the mountains so that impacted overall a bit..trust me I wanted this to work as who does not want better mpg. one fillup was at $5.79 a gallon so extra mpg would have been nice. one stretch did 366 miles and took 12.181 gallons..I don't see the reason to hook them back up for the return trip as seat of the pants is no difference and mpg is the same either way within margins of the pump. maybe I just got a good one as I have said since joining this forum I have always got great mpg from my turbo even better than the window sticker says. I hope it works for others and was well worth the $5 or so dollars and 5 minutes of my time just to satisfy my own curiosity.

 

[Koko_Bandit]

ok. I won't do the individual fillups but for 765.5 miles I filled 26.03 gallons over the next 3 fillups..one stretch was 80+ in the mountains so that impacted overall a bit..trust me I wanted this to work as who does not want better mpg. one fillup was at $5.79 a gallon so extra mpg would have been nice. one stretch did 366 miles and took 12.181 gallons..I don't see the reason to hook them back up for the return trip as seat of the pants is no difference and mpg is the same either way within margins of the pump. maybe I just got a good one as I have said since joining this forum I have always got great mpg from my turbo even better than the window sticker says. I hope it works for others and was well worth the $5 or so dollars and 5 minutes of my time just to satisfy my own curiosity.

You gave it an honest try.

 

[jadmt]

You gave it an honest try.

i truly hope it works for others. as simple as it is to try there is no downside to giving it a try.

 

[AL Cx5]

ok. I won't do the individual fillups but for 765.5 miles I filled 26.03 gallons over the next 3 fillups..one stretch was 80+ in the mountains so that impacted overall a bit..trust me I wanted this to work as who does not want better mpg. one fillup was at $5.79 a gallon so extra mpg would have been nice. one stretch did 366 miles and took 12.181 gallons..I don't see the reason to hook them back up for the return trip as seat of the pants is no difference and mpg is the same either way within margins of the pump. maybe I just got a good one as I have said since joining this forum I have always got great mpg from my turbo even better than the window sticker says. I hope it works for others and was well worth the $5 or so dollars and 5 minutes of my time just to satisfy my own curiosity.

To satisfy my curiosity I'll run several hundred miles with and without the grounds connected. I'll do my full report like we do on our Diesel fuel consumption tests. I'll run hand Calculated and compare to the LOM. With our turned Turbo the LOM is off more than when on the OEM base tune file.

It will August before we make this trip. If something else pops up, I run my test.

I get it, we all would like to pickup a couple mpg at today's gas prices. You made a valent effort!

Thank you for the effort and expense you went through.

 

[jadmt]

To satisfy my curiosity I'll run several hundred miles with and without the grounds connected. I'll do my full report like we do on our Diesel fuel consumption tests. I'll run hand Calculated and compare to the LOM. With our turned Turbo the LOM is off more than when on the OEM base tune file.

It will August before we make this trip. If something else pops up, I run my test.

I get it, we all would like to pickup a couple mpg at today's gas prices. You made a valent effort!

Thank you for the effort and expense you went through.

maybe I should start a go fund me account for the $5 it cost me we put a lot of miles on so I could not try. 48000 miles on the cx5 in 3 years and my jeep is only 2 years old and has 28000 miles....it burns a bit more gas and if the cx5 would have shown improvement I would be spending $5 on the jeep too