Looking for MPG, what's the downside?
2000 Windstar Ford 3.8, remove rocker arms & pushrods, disconnect fuel
injectors so 3 cylinders on one side become air springs.
Mostly used on highway.
I'm guessing that with half the air flow through the MAF (?), sensor the
engine controller will have "issues" with it's now 3 cylinder engine.
Opinions?
Shep - 11 Aug 2005 02:17 GMT
Are you serious, do think that van will get rolling on three, unsafe at
best, impractical at worst.
> Looking for MPG, what's the downside?
> 2000 Windstar Ford 3.8, remove rocker arms & pushrods, disconnect fuel
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> engine controller will have "issues" with it's now 3 cylinder engine.
> Opinions?
Steve W. - 11 Aug 2005 02:31 GMT
> Looking for MPG, what's the downside?
> 2000 Windstar Ford 3.8, remove rocker arms & pushrods, disconnect fuel
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> engine controller will have "issues" with it's now 3 cylinder engine.
> Opinions?
Well first off it won't even run on just one side. IF you somehow got it
to run on three cylinders it wouldn't have enough power to move. Sounds
like a REALLY bad idea.

Signature
Steve W.
pater - 11 Aug 2005 03:12 GMT
Oh, it'll probably run. Don't know how a DIS will work, though.
Recently had experience with a 302 ford motor that was an air
compressor. Hadda a compressor head on the left bank & those 4 plug
wires tied to ground & a one barrel on the top. Filled the resivoir
tank in about 15 seconds. Ran real smooth too.
AZ Nomad - 11 Aug 2005 04:23 GMT
>Looking for MPG, what's the downside?
>2000 Windstar Ford 3.8, remove rocker arms & pushrods, disconnect fuel
>injectors so 3 cylinders on one side become air springs.
>Mostly used on highway.
Cadillac proved cutting out cylinders to be a major failure. If you really
want to improve your gas mileage, chop half the weight off the car.
Ad absurdum per aspera - 11 Aug 2005 05:24 GMT
This is deja vu all over again. When the early-mid 70s energy crisis
came along, some people tried disabling cylinders in search of some
marginal improvement in gas mileage. That's about what they got,
too, considering that the rest of the car was still the size of a river
barge and showed similar concern for aerodynamics and had what we today
would consider primitive engine controls and a tragicomically lossy
driveline.
Later, Cadillac came out with an automated V8-6-4 scheme that earned a
reputation for balky driveability; I'd imagine that most were
eventually hardwired into permanent V8itude.
Chrysler, GM, and, I think, Honda have some more-sophisticated schemes
on the market or in the works now. If I'm not mistaken, at least some
of these schemes shuffle the cylinders that are in powered use so as to
even out the wear.
Note that Honda disables one side of a vee engine, as you propose to
do, but uses some pretty sophisticated additional technology (apart
from the sophistication of engine controls needed to give people the
driveability they want) in order to get away with that radical
approach.
See for instance
http://www.ai-online.com/issues/article_detail.asp?id=462
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0405sc_gmdod/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1266926.html?page=3&c=y
All in all: yes, you can figure out how to do the mechanical aspects;
and yes, it will buy you a few to several percent in mileage; whether
it's really worthwhile is up to you (and whether your engine computer
will prove to be a show stopper, as mentioned by others, I dunno).
Cheers,
--Joe
AZ Nomad - 12 Aug 2005 01:26 GMT
>This is deja vu all over again. When the early-mid 70s energy crisis
>came along, some people tried disabling cylinders in search of some
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>would consider primitive engine controls and a tragicomically lossy
>driveline.
>Later, Cadillac came out with an automated V8-6-4 scheme that earned a
>reputation for balky driveability; I'd imagine that most were
>eventually hardwired into permanent V8itude.
Weight is the most important factor. Strap on a chevy small block to a VW bug
kit car and you'll get 35 MPG. Strap on a bug engine to a 5000lb car and it'll
be so overstressed that you'll be lucky if you get 7mpg.
Alex Rodriguez - 11 Aug 2005 19:10 GMT
>>Looking for MPG, what's the downside?
>>2000 Windstar Ford 3.8, remove rocker arms & pushrods, disconnect fuel
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Cadillac proved cutting out cylinders to be a major failure. If you really
>want to improve your gas mileage, chop half the weight off the car.
Chrysler is currently doing this with their HEMI engine.
------------
Alex
marks542004@yahoo.com - 12 Aug 2005 00:55 GMT
You might have something if you could disable a couple of cylinders on
the fly.
Wiring to disable fuel injectors should be straight forward assuming
the computer does not detect the failure and shut down.
I remember an article about some tests with going from 6 cyl to 4 for
highway cruising.
If you are simply trying to improve cruising milage would it be a
better option to change the gear ratios. ?
Or is that something we did with really old cars. You know the sort,
carbs, distributors, room in the engine bay to see the engine.
AZ Nomad - 12 Aug 2005 01:28 GMT
>You might have something if you could disable a couple of cylinders on
>the fly.
>Wiring to disable fuel injectors should be straight forward assuming
>the computer does not detect the failure and shut down.
That would only work if you had control over the valves. The load of
compression would completely eliminate any possible savings and would in
fact make for worse mileage than running on all available cylinders.
Steve - 15 Aug 2005 18:13 GMT
>>Looking for MPG, what's the downside?
>>2000 Windstar Ford 3.8, remove rocker arms & pushrods, disconnect fuel
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Cadillac proved cutting out cylinders to be a major failure. If you really
> want to improve your gas mileage, chop half the weight off the car.
Caddilac's IMPLEMENTAION was a major failure. I haven't heard a single
gripe about the Chrysler MDS (Multi-Displacement System) as implemented
on the 5.7 Hemi in the 300C, Magnum, Charger, and Grand Cherokee (truck
Hemis don't currently get MDS).
But either way, that's a different ball of wax than permanently
disabling half the engine. With MDS, the whole engine is available for
quick warm-up and immediate power whenever needed.
Brian Stell - 11 Aug 2005 06:18 GMT
> Looking for MPG, what's the downside?
V6 engines are designed to spread 6 power pulses (6 cylinders) over 2
revolutions (4 stroke engine) as smoothly as possible.
I suspect that with 1/2 the pistons out of service you will find the
power pulses are very unevenly spread out. Hence you will find the
engine to be very rough.
Super easy to check: disconnect the power to the 3 injectors or try
shorting out the 3 spark plugs (think straightened out paper clips) and
try driving it around.
You might also consider disabling 1 cylinder, then 2 cylinders, then 3
cylinders to explore the effects.
Good luck, I'd be interested to hear how it goes.
John S. - 11 Aug 2005 18:35 GMT
> Looking for MPG, what's the downside?
> 2000 Windstar Ford 3.8, remove rocker arms & pushrods, disconnect fuel
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> engine controller will have "issues" with it's now 3 cylinder engine.
> Opinions?
Try a V-4 or even a V2 instead, but check out the firing sequence for
the best combination of impulses. My guess is that even if you get it
to run, it will be rough indeed with probably a net loss in milage and
will most likely fail even the most liberal emissions test. Why would
you want to eliminate power for a van that is not noted for being
overpowered anyway.
A much cheaper solution would be to buy a used car that gets
approximately the milage you are looking for.