Are we all running too RICH? post A/F's

SixtiesIron

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
110
Location
Ridgecrest, CA
This artical seems to suggest YES WE ARE,.. losing power unnessisarily, when we could have more optimum A/F's and retard timing for knock resistance,.. read and tell what you think,..

ALSO post A/F's

My old A/F 13.35 @ 405hp 505tq w/ 6#, cia, cat back

My new A/F 12.52 @ 393hp 475tq same mods + stieg 5+

both at 4400 ft, the second one 30 degrees hotter outside temp


borrowed from innovate motorsports..

"
Tuner Resources
Application Note: You CAN be too Rich
By Klaus Allmendinger, VP of Engineering, Innovate Motorsports

Many people with turbochargers believe that they need to run at very rich mixtures. The theory is that the excess fuel cools the intake charge and therefore reduces the probability of knock. It does work in reducing knock, but not because of charge cooling. The following little article shows why.

First let’s look at the science. Specific heat is the amount of energy required to raise 1 kg of material by one degree K (Kelvin, same as Celsius but with 0 point at absolute zero). Different materials have different specific heats. The energy is measured in kJ or kilojoules:

Air ~ 1 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Gasoline 2.02 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Water 4.18 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Ethanol 2.43 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Methanol 2.51 kJ/( kg * deg K)

Fuel and other liquids also have what's called latent heat. This is the heat energy required to vaporize 1 kg of the liquid. The fuel in an internal combustion engine has to be vaporized and mixed thoroughly with the incoming air to produce power. Liquid gasoline does not burn. The energy to vaporize the fuel comes partially from the incoming air, cooling it. The latent heat energy required is actually much larger than the specific heat. That the energy comes from the incoming air can be easily seen on older carbureted cars, where frost can actually form on the intake manifold from the cooling of the charge.

The latent heat values of different liquids are shown here:

Gasoline 350 kJ/kg
Water 2256 kJ/kg
Ethanol 904 kJ/kg
Methanol 1109 kJ/kg

Most engines produce maximum power (with optimized ignition timing) at an air-fuel-ratio between 12 and 13. Let's assume the optimum is in the middle at 12.5. This means that for every kg of air, 0.08 kg of fuel is mixed in and vaporized. The vaporization of the fuel extracts 28 kJ of energy from the air charge. If the mixture has an air-fuel-ratio of 11 instead, the vaporization extracts 31.8 kJ instead. A difference of 3.8 kJ. Because air has a specific heat of about 1 kJ/kg*deg K, the air charge is only 3.8 C (or K) degrees cooler for the rich mixture compared to the optimum power mixture. This small difference has very little effect on knock or power output.

If instead of the richer mixture about 10% (by mass) of water would be injected in the intake charge (0.008 kg Water/kg air), the high latent heat of the water would cool the charge by 18 degrees, about 4 times the cooling effect of the richer mixture. The added fuel for the rich mixture can't burn because there is just not enough oxygen available. So it does not matter if fuel or water is added.

So where does the knock suppression of richer mixtures come from?

If the mixture gets ignited by the spark, a flame front spreads out from the spark plug. This burning mixture increases the pressure and temperature in the cylinder. At some time in the process the pressures and temperatures peak. The speed of the flame front is dependent on mixture density and AFR. A richer or leaner AFR than about 12-13 AFR burns slower. A denser mixture burns faster.

So with a turbo under boost the mixture density raises and results in a faster burning mixture. The closer the peak pressure is to TDC, the higher that peak pressure is, resulting in a high knock probability. Also there is less leverage on the crankshaft for the pressure to produce torque, and, therefore, less power.

Richening up the mixture results in a slower burn, moving the pressure peak later where there is more leverage, hence more torque. Also the pressure peak is lower at a later crank angle and the knock probability is reduced. The same effect can be achieved with an optimum power mixture and more ignition retard.

Optimum mix with “later” ignition can produce more power because more energy is released from the combustion of gasoline. Here’s why:
When hydrocarbons like gasoline combust, the burn process actually happens in multiple stages. First the gasoline molecules are broken up into hydrogen and carbon. The hydrogen combines with oxygen from the air to form H2O (water) and the carbon molecules form CO. This process happens very fast at the front edge of the flame front. The second stage converts CO to CO2. This process is relatively slow and requires water molecules (from the first stage) for completion. If there is no more oxygen available (most of it consumed in the first stage), the second stage can't happen. But about 2/3 of the energy released from the burning of the carbon is released in the second stage. Therefore a richer mixture releases less energy, lowering peak pressures and temperatures, and produces less power. A secondary side effect is of course also a lowering of knock probability. It's like closing the throttle a little. A typical engine does not knock when running on part throttle because less energy and therefore lower pressures and temperatures are in the cylinder.

This is why running overly-rich mixtures can not only increase fuel consumption, but also cost power.

what everyone think?

ernie
 

throttle jockey

Stock Block 11 Sec. Club
Established Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
1,660
Location
Whale's Vagina, Ca
11.7 A/F is optimum for power and safety with Lightnings. The 12.5s you listed in the OP is lean, especially when combined with the 15* to 20* of timing you listed in your other thread. Doing so on California 91 octane is a recipe for disaster. Who did your tuning?

BTW... your numbers sound very low. I made 409 RWHP/517 RWT with an unported Eaton, 6# lower and other basic bolt-ons. Ported blowers usually are good for 430+ RWHP. I guess its time for you to hit the track and make some numbers that actually matter.
 
Last edited:

SixtiesIron

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
110
Location
Ridgecrest, CA
thanks for the input! keep it coming,..

i was pleased with my 6# cai, cat back numbers of 405hp and 505 tq,.. good numbers for a L at 4400 ft in el paso,.. that was in november at around 60 degrees F

this new tune was same mods with stage 5+ at @90 degrees F dyno showed lower numbers 393hp and 475tq,.. but my tuner claimed my X3 was having problems,.. and it was,.. it needed a firmware update, and tune revision,.. ect,..
i'll do some my own this weekend with my LM-1 and look at the E.T's i'll let you know how it goes,.. i might even get the mr freeze working, lol


ernie
 

Fade 2 Black

Gen 2 Diehard
Established Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2001
Messages
12,895
Location
McDonough, GA, USA
It's generally accepted that blown engines make best power around 12.5 a/f but the small gain in hp isn't worth the risk of grenading an engine. Most race tunes will be done at 12.0 a/f and street tunes in the 11.6-11.8 a/f area for added safety margine.
 

lightning25

SEANSVT
Established Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
374
Location
Sarnia, Ontario
like i said in the last post "sixtiesiron" i am running 11.6 a/f for my tune. i have similar mods as you, ported eaton, 6lb lower, gord ford HX, JLP intake, ftvb, 170 degree thermostat, etc. running 14 degrees of timing on my street tune (datalogging shows my truck wants to run at its set max at 15.25 degrees) and 15-16 on my race tune.

from what i read a week or so ago on a/f i would think to be a little richer when already pushing our stock blocks (with all that boost) is a safe thing. too rich will cause a lot of carbon build up but too lean and will detonate and blow our motors.
 

chrisheltra

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
7,745
Location
Goose Creek, SC
like i said in the last post "sixtiesiron" i am running 11.6 a/f for my tune. i have similar mods as you, ported eaton, 6lb lower, gord ford HX, JLP intake, ftvb, 170 degree thermostat, etc. running 14 degrees of timing on my street tune (datalogging shows my truck wants to run at its set max at 15.25 degrees) and 15-16 on my race tune.

from what i read a week or so ago on a/f i would think to be a little richer when already pushing our stock blocks (with all that boost) is a safe thing. too rich will cause a lot of carbon build up but too lean and will detonate and blow our motors.

Why are you only running 14* of timing on a street tune?
 

HalfTime

Race it how you drive it.
Established Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
3,162
Location
Yuma, AZ
Are you saying to lean the mix, and retard timing? The math might be thier, but I'm sticking to the tryed and true. 11.9 and 16*
 

lightning25

SEANSVT
Established Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
374
Location
Sarnia, Ontario
Why are you only running 14* of timing on a street tune?

I was told that was probably the safest to run with. JJ did my tuning and left it there. the trucks comp takes timing to its max limit of 15.25 at WOT. i didnt know what was "low" but for a safe tune and the mods i have thats where it was left. race tune on ultra94 i have 15 degrees.
 

AZ ERIK

22's & a Whipple 4 shizzl
Established Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
2,543
Location
Tempe, AZ
I see 12.3 on my Dynojet wideband, which is .4 leaner than the sniffers at every dyno I have been to, all using in pipe widebands after the cats. My power is in my signature. So really I am at the 11.9 to 12.1 at WOT with 17 degrees timing on 91 oct at 3000 feet above sealevel.
 

203Cree

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
6,973
Location
Olathe KS
11.8 at 15 deg on both tunes. Might leave some power on the table, but I run a lower risk of going pop.......... and I'm still faster than some others with that little extra power, so yeah.
 

txyaloo

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
7,017
Location
Texas
So you're now running a richer A/F. That kind of contradicts your idea.

I think he was pointing out that the lower AFR caused a decrease in power. That said, my ATS tune was in the 9's when I initially got it and after several revisions. It's in the low 10's now. I need to pull more fuel in the Predator. With a 6lb lower, and supporting mods, I put down 360/470 on a dynojet. I was pretty disappointed in that.
 
Last edited:

Rick@Amazon

SVT God
Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
2,543
Location
Mooresville, NC
I think he was pointing out that the lower AFR caused a decrease in power. That said, my ATS tune was in the 9's when I initially got it and after several revisions. It's in the low 10's now. I need to pull more fuel in the Predator. With a 6lb lower, and supporting mods, I put down 360/470 on a dynojet. I was pretty disappointed in that.

We need to remove another 12% or so of fuel. We pulled alot of fuel out of the last one so we have to take it slow. Shoot me your latest log.

Rick
 

Rick@Amazon

SVT God
Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
2,543
Location
Mooresville, NC
As far as a/f it's alot what the vehicle likes too. Some cars like a good amount of timing and the fuel in the low 11s. Others like to run closer to 12.0 a/f with a more conservative timing. With a stock motor and pump gas you can do one or the other, but not both. I've seen some guys like to run the lightnings in the 12.2-12.3 range and this is how they first tuned the trucks and it's the reason they had summer/winter tune. When it gets cold the trucks would pull good timing and with 12.0+ a/f bad things happen. High cylinder pressures and temps would result.:beer:

Rick
 

SWThomas

El Cazador
Established Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
6,326
Location
Richmond, VA
I think he was pointing out that the lower AFR caused a decrease in power. That said, my ATS tune was in the 9's when I initially got it and after several revisions. It's in the low 10's now. I need to pull more fuel in the Predator. With a 6lb lower, and supporting mods, I put down 360/470 on a dynojet. I was pretty disappointed in that.

WOW! Those are horrible number for your mods. And on a Dyno-Jet at that. Do you know how much spark advance is in your tune?
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top