Effects of a TMIC upgrade on fuel economy

seems like general consensus is that there's no change then? must not effect he pumping efficiency or anything like that, and so even if you get more power out of it (which is minimal anyway right?), you're just backing off the throttle a slight amount and using the same fuel delivery rate?
 
From the Control System Specifications page for the L2 with TC engine in the 2007 Service Highlights manual:
Front HO2S Zirconia element (All range air/fuel ratio sensor)
Rear HO2S Zirconia element (Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio sensor)

I have the 3.25" TMIC and can detect no difference in fuel consumption. Does add to the kick in the pants though. :)
 
Rotus8 said:
From the Control System Specifications page for the L2 with TC engine in the 2007 Service Highlights manual:
Front HO2S Zirconia element (All range air/fuel ratio sensor)
Rear HO2S Zirconia element (Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio sensor)

I have the 3.25" TMIC and can detect no difference in fuel consumption. Does add to the kick in the pants though. :)

Thanks for getting this information. Ill do some cross referencing on this sensor to see if its a true wide band. If it is, this will open up a whole new level for this car with exsisting piggy back software from the private sector.
 
moleodonuts said:
If that O2 sensor is a wideband, then it would make more sense how the ECU can change what A-F ratio it looks for across the power band. Last time I studied and worked with automotive control systems, the O2 sensor had a built-in set point that it would either be above or below (on or off/voltage or no voltage). Any change in A-F ratio across the power band was just a quirk or limitation of the control system and its inability to respond at the rate the engine is turning.

Its referred to as " adaptive tuning " and i know the Cosworth focus has this. All you have to do is ensure you have proper fuel going to the engine to support your mods and the computer keeps it tuned at a perfect 11.8 AF. Its pretty slick.

I was told years ago the WRX's have these as well. Dont know if that is true or not.
 
igdrasil said:
Pull seats and unneeded things out the car. A bit aggressive suggestions but it works.

Haha, after years of driving around my civic with 2 seats, no carpet, no rear setas, no spare tire &c., I do want to live in the lap of luxury just a liiiittle. I am considering dry-icing my sound deadening tho. I would imagine if you put thin strips of dynamat in spots where there are stretches of sheet metal without ribs or bends that it would accomplish relatively good sound deadening per pound added just by damping the major spots out just enough.(sad2)
 
What are you guys talking about?

Physics says it would make the economy worse.. Cooler air coming in = denser.. Denser = more air. More air = more fuel to combust = more power.
 
I vtec said:
What are you guys talking about?

Physics says it would make the economy worse.. Cooler air coming in = denser.. Denser = more air. More air = more fuel to combust = more power.

Some people are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Ignore it, as i have(shady)
 
I vtec said:
What are you guys talking about?

Physics says it would make the economy worse.. Cooler air coming in = denser.. Denser = more air. More air = more fuel to combust = more power.

... = acceleration = me backing off the gas

Remember we gotta do a summation of forces equals 0 because I am only interested in cruising fuel consumption.
 
Last edited:
I vtec said:
What are you guys talking about?

Physics says it would make the economy worse.. Cooler air coming in = denser.. Denser = more air. More air = more fuel to combust = more power.


Yes, but it also means that you can close off the throttle plate (a little) to bring the fuel flow back to the proper torque level required for the needed engine speed.
 
Abaddon said:
Yes, but it also means that you can close off the throttle plate (a little) to bring the fuel flow back to the proper torque level required for the needed engine speed.

Which would increase pumping losses/decrease volumetric efficency slightly, but I doubt its enough to see any significant effects.(flash)
 
moleodonuts said:
Which would increase pumping losses/decrease volumetric efficiency slightly, but I doubt its enough to see any significant effects.(flash)


oh ya.. well.. ENTROPY!..... (take that)
 
Abaddon said:
oh ya.. well.. ENTROPY!..... (take that)

yah. we gotta run at 1 cycle/hr so we can slow down the reactions and get entropy as close to zero as possible. then I'll get totally sweet gas mileage (gun)
 
Also, Exergy: the maximum theoretical work (partial definition). You guys can research the rest. This is what defines the efficiency of a system is, and what the actual output can be optimized for.

Hint: the basis for the exergy concept is defined by the second law of thermodynamics.
 
InlineTwin said:
Also, Exergy: the maximum theoretical work (partial definition). You guys can research the rest. This is what defines the efficiency of a system is, and what the actual output can be optimized for.

Hint: the basis for the exergy concept is defined by the second law of thermodynamics.


ya, but we bring back Entropy into the picture,, which is the REAL basis for second law and exergy goes out the window.
 
Out the window?

You probably don't realize that higher level concepts like exergy are developed because they are easier to work with.
 
Last edited:

New Threads and Articles

Back