Hybrid camshaft. All opinions needed
Recovery Vehicle
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,238
Likes: 240
From: Alabama + Vegas + Texas
On the other hand, you *can* make improvements with a variable cam (at least in power).
*if your goal is simply reducing friction/pressure losses, keep in mind that there is LESS than 1 hp of resistance to turning your V8 engine, so any improvement would be some fraction of that sub-one-horsepower resistance
Recovery Vehicle
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,238
Likes: 240
From: Alabama + Vegas + Texas
Total drivetrain resistance is typically ~~ 15%.
If you had a magic, frictionless axle, differentials, driveshafts, transfer case, transmission, wheel hub bearings, tires, and motor, your Disco 2 would get about 15% better fuel mileage.
So instead of 15mpg you'd get ~~ 17 mpg.
Ergo if you are seeking to decrease resistance losses only in the motor, then you can't get anywhere near that 17 mpg.
If you had a magic, frictionless axle, differentials, driveshafts, transfer case, transmission, wheel hub bearings, tires, and motor, your Disco 2 would get about 15% better fuel mileage.
So instead of 15mpg you'd get ~~ 17 mpg.
Ergo if you are seeking to decrease resistance losses only in the motor, then you can't get anywhere near that 17 mpg.
Thread Starter
|
Three Wheeling
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 85
Likes: 3
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Total drivetrain resistance is typically ~~ 15%.
If you had a magic, frictionless axle, differentials, driveshafts, transfer case, transmission, wheel hub bearings, tires, and motor, your Disco 2 would get about 15% better fuel mileage.
So instead of 15mpg you'd get ~~ 17 mpg.
Ergo if you are seeking to decrease resistance losses only in the motor, then you can't get anywhere near that 17 mpg.
If you had a magic, frictionless axle, differentials, driveshafts, transfer case, transmission, wheel hub bearings, tires, and motor, your Disco 2 would get about 15% better fuel mileage.
So instead of 15mpg you'd get ~~ 17 mpg.
Ergo if you are seeking to decrease resistance losses only in the motor, then you can't get anywhere near that 17 mpg.
Ah. Never thought of that. So how do you think it would run? What’s your average mileage around town and highway. I’m havent driven my rover yet. I’m waiting on an new upper radiator hose.
Thread Starter
|
Three Wheeling
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 85
Likes: 3
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Total drivetrain resistance is typically ~~ 15%.
If you had a magic, frictionless axle, differentials, driveshafts, transfer case, transmission, wheel hub bearings, tires, and motor, your Disco 2 would get about 15% better fuel mileage.
So instead of 15mpg you'd get ~~ 17 mpg.
Ergo if you are seeking to decrease resistance losses only in the motor, then you can't get anywhere near that 17 mpg.
If you had a magic, frictionless axle, differentials, driveshafts, transfer case, transmission, wheel hub bearings, tires, and motor, your Disco 2 would get about 15% better fuel mileage.
So instead of 15mpg you'd get ~~ 17 mpg.
Ergo if you are seeking to decrease resistance losses only in the motor, then you can't get anywhere near that 17 mpg.
I just thought of this because my fathers 2016 Ford Fusion energi hybrid utilizes this cycle. My initial thought was that since our engines don’t/ can’t have variable valve timing, that the only other way to be able to switch profiles equivalently would be to run half the cylinders on a Atkinson timing cycle. By doing so I’d reduce pumping losses at the throttle so the engine would strain less to pull in air and with the other cylinders running the regular Otto cycle, id not lose as much power as if the the entire engine ran on one of the same cycles altogether. I’d imagine I’d be sluggish off the line but getting up to speed my truck would be most efficient. I’m not that far off in my vision though am I? I just think of things like this all the time.
Thread Starter
|
Three Wheeling
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 85
Likes: 3
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Total drivetrain resistance is typically ~~ 15%.
If you had a magic, frictionless axle, differentials, driveshafts, transfer case, transmission, wheel hub bearings, tires, and motor, your Disco 2 would get about 15% better fuel mileage.
So instead of 15mpg you'd get ~~ 17 mpg.
Ergo if you are seeking to decrease resistance losses only in the motor, then you can't get anywhere near that 17 mpg.
If you had a magic, frictionless axle, differentials, driveshafts, transfer case, transmission, wheel hub bearings, tires, and motor, your Disco 2 would get about 15% better fuel mileage.
So instead of 15mpg you'd get ~~ 17 mpg.
Ergo if you are seeking to decrease resistance losses only in the motor, then you can't get anywhere near that 17 mpg.
I heard these truck run 2500 rpms around 75. I thought about having a custom .60 transfer case high gear made that would drop my rpms around 1900 at 75. My 2007 Buick Lucerne with the 3800 v6 had 198 horse power and 230 torque. That’s where it ran around at 75. My 1999 discovery 4.0 has 188 hp and 20 more torque. It only weighs what 4500, my Buick was 4250 with me in it anyhow so I think my truck could handle it. After all this is the ancestor of the 3800 anyhow so I assume the dynamics wouldn’t be off.
TReK
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 3,387
Likes: 488
You need variable valve timing to accomplish what you're after.
Any attempt to achieve similiar mechanically, will result in alot of time and money spent/wasted, for little to no gain in return.
Ditch the pos LR engine and look into an LS swap.
That engine has almost endless possibilities.
Any attempt to achieve similiar mechanically, will result in alot of time and money spent/wasted, for little to no gain in return.
Ditch the pos LR engine and look into an LS swap.
That engine has almost endless possibilities.
Thread Starter
|
Three Wheeling
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 85
Likes: 3
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
You need variable valve timing to accomplish what you're after.
Any attempt to achieve similiar mechanically, will result in alot of time and money spent/wasted, for little to no gain in return.
Ditch the pos LR engine and look into an LS swap.
That engine has almost endless possibilities.
Any attempt to achieve similiar mechanically, will result in alot of time and money spent/wasted, for little to no gain in return.
Ditch the pos LR engine and look into an LS swap.
That engine has almost endless possibilities.
TReK
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 3,387
Likes: 488
The corvette engine? Not an bad idea once the Rover V8 in my truck takes its last breath. I thought about when the time comes to replace it with a 1uz-fe that was in my 2000 Lexus LS 400. That car got 30 mpg on the highway and had 290 HP. I’d get another Lexus again! Mines was smashed due to a drunk moron. If I can within the year I’m looking at a 2001-2003 LS430. Same engine bored out with more torque at a lower rpm. Smooth and quiet as silk. At that point I’d just put the tranny and engine and do straight RWD and sell the transfer case. I’d put the same number rear end and all would be well.
Member ACEngineer is making a bolt in kit(minus some exhaust work). No dash lights, everything working, abs, tc, etc.
There are no other engine swaps for the D2 that retain all other factory functions.
Trailhead does the swap for $10k, but won't sell you parts for a do it yourself. ACE's kit plus an engine will be less than half of that.
Rock Crawling
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 416
Likes: 41
From: Berks County, PA
The corvette engine? Not an bad idea once the Rover V8 in my truck takes its last breath. I thought about when the time comes to replace it with a 1uz-fe that was in my 2000 Lexus LS 400. That car got 30 mpg on the highway and had 290 HP. I’d get another Lexus again! Mines was smashed due to a drunk moron. If I can within the year I’m looking at a 2001-2003 LS430. Same engine bored out with more torque at a lower rpm. Smooth and quiet as silk. At that point I’d just put the tranny and engine and do straight RWD and sell the transfer case. I’d put the same number rear end and all would be well.
Thread Starter
|
Three Wheeling
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 85
Likes: 3
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
That's because for one thing the LS has a cd. of .24 and the GS has around .30 cd. The drag alone is tremendously reduced. Also that car is meant for highway cruising at 75 mph. I'm not kidding i got better mpg at 75 mph than I did at 60-65. That car always wanted to be around 75. I also actively use fuel deceleration cutoff. With some modern cars even my lexus above 45 It shuts the injectors down for coasting. If your car has an instantaneous MPG meter and when you let off the pedal and it maxes out at 99.9 while coasting. Your vehicle most likely has this capability. I am Going to rely on this on my rover to save. I've always gotten better mileage than rated. For example i drove my dads 2016 Ford Fusion Energi Hybrid this morning. My dad drives similarly but unlike me he does not coast as much. He was getting 36.7 mpg based on the computer, while it said I was getting 41.2 Mpg using my methods. My 2007 Dodge Durango 4.7 got 13 city with my mom driving it. I got at least 15-16 in town and maybe 19-20 on highways using my calculations
Last edited by Jamie2333; Aug 9, 2018 at 02:09 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Discotim369
Discovery I
9
Jan 15, 2014 06:38 PM
