Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Carburetor Theory: Idle Mixture

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
cfoughty@gmail.com - 16 Nov 2005 05:58 GMT
This I simply don't understand. I put a rebuilt Motorcraft 2150 2v carb
on my 1977 F-150 400m Engine, and then set about adjusting it per the
tech manual. I had only one problem: when in "park" the idle was fine,
but when I put it in "drive" the engine died. Ok, fine, call for help.
I contacted the local carb expert and he said one phrase: "weak idle".
The mixture was too lean. So I adjusted the mixture properly this time
(yeah I screwed up), and it worked great!

Now the question: why?

Why does a load on an engine with a lean mixture cause the engine to
die?

Thanks,

Cy
Daniel J. Stern - 16 Nov 2005 06:26 GMT
> Why does a load on an engine with a lean mixture cause the engine to
> die?

Because the lean mixture (or, for that matter, an overly-rich mixture,
or any of numerous other "state of tune" isses) does not permit the engine
to develop enough power to take up the load, only enough to keep running
with no load applied.
Dave Baker - 16 Nov 2005 09:11 GMT
> > Why does a load on an engine with a lean mixture cause the engine to
> > die?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> to develop enough power to take up the load, only enough to keep running
> with no load applied.

Technically that's not quite right depending on how pernickity one is. At a
given no load idle speed, say 800 rpm, regardless of whether that's achieved
with a weak mixture and a little more throttle or a richer mixture and less
throttle the engine is developing exactly the same power. We know that as a
given because the load is the frictional loss in the engine turning at that
speed and that must be a constant by definition regardless of how the carb
was set up.

When drive is engaged the load increases by a fixed amount and the revs
drop, to say 650 rpm. If the power output is X bhp at 800 rpm regardless of
mixture it should also produce the necessary Y bhp at 650 rpm regardless of
mixture as long as that mixture stays the same.

However what happens is that as the rpm falls, the air speed through the
carb also falls and the mixture weakens further unless there is a very
sophisticated idle jetting arrangement in the carb. It's this weaker mixture
at 650 rpm that causes the engine to not produce the necessary Y bhp if the
mixture at 800 rpm was too weak to start with. In other words the mixture at
800 rpm need to be a little richer than necessary so that it becomes
correct, or at least sufficient, at 650 rpm.

That's also the reason why an overly rich mixture at 800 rpm shouldn't cause
a stall problem so readily as an overly weak one because the excess richness
self corrects as the rpm falls.

That's a rather long winded way of saying something not too different to
what you already had I guess.
--
Dave Baker
Dave Baker - 16 Nov 2005 10:07 GMT
> > > Why does a load on an engine with a lean mixture cause the engine to
> > > die?
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> That's a rather long winded way of saying something not too different to
> what you already had I guess.

Just after hitting send on the above a little brain teaser occured to me.
Clearly engaging drive imposes an additional load on the engine. Ones first
thought might be that this extra load increases fuel consumption at idle.
However are things as simple as that?

Taking the exact case above i.e. a simple carb with no stepper motor or
electronic control of idle speed, the revs drop as drive is engaged and the
throttle stays in the same fixed place against its stop at all times. Which
is the best strategy to minimise fuel consumption, idle in neutral or idle
in drive and why?
--
Dave Baker
Bela - 16 Nov 2005 12:40 GMT
DB>
DB> Dave Baker <Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote in message
DB> news:437af7da$0$41143$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

>> > > Why does a load on an engine with a lean mixture cause the engine to
>> > > die?

<SNIP>
DB>
DB> Taking the exact case above i.e. a simple carb with no stepper motor or
DB> electronic control of idle speed, the revs drop as drive is engaged and the
DB> throttle stays in the same fixed place against its stop at all times. Which
DB> is the best strategy to minimise fuel consumption, idle in neutral or idle
DB> in drive and why?
DB> --
DB> Dave Baker

If you go by the vacuum, it's gotta be "idle in neutral".

Signature

"... I shook my family tree, and a bunch of NUTS fell out ..."

Don Stauffer - 16 Nov 2005 14:35 GMT
While there has been adequate discussion of the basic question, I
remember an interesting piece from a book on carburetors I read many
years ago.  There are several reasons for enrichening mixture on both
ends of the throttle scale.

At idle and very low rpm, the very low gas velocity in the manifold
reduces turbulence which helps keep fuel in vapor form.  With low
manifold flow velocities, more of the fuel condenses out in manifold.
cfoughty@gmail.com - 16 Nov 2005 15:36 GMT
Dave Baker you are awesome! That makes perfect sense. I just can't find
any books that go into the science of the automotive technology.

Thanks again!
Dave Baker - 17 Nov 2005 09:12 GMT
> Just after hitting send on the above a little brain teaser occured to me.
> Clearly engaging drive imposes an additional load on the engine. Ones first
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> is the best strategy to minimise fuel consumption, idle in neutral or idle
> in drive and why?

Not many takers then. The answer is that idling in drive is more fuel
efficient despite ones initial thoughts that this must entail using more
fuel to balance the gearbox drag. The reason take a bit of explaining. As
we've already covered, no load idle at our example of 800 rpm means the
engine is producing exactly the same amount of power as the frictional
losses inside the engine are absorbing. When drive is engaged this clearly
adds an additional load. However the throttle position is fixed and the
engine cannot produce more power to balance this extra load at the same rpm
without more throttle opening.

Internal frictional losses are dependent on engine speed. In fact most of
them vary with the square of speed, some obey a fairly linear relationship
and others even more complex relationships. As drive is engaged and the rpm
drops then so do the frictional losses. What happens is a new equilibrium
idle position is reached at say 650 rpm in which the power output of the
engine exactly balances these lower internal losses plus the new gearbox
losses. However at a given throttle opening an engine cannot make more power
at a lower idle rpm than it did at a higher idle rpm. By definition it must
be processing less air, producing less power and using less fuel at 650 rpm
than it was at 800 rpm at the same throttle position. In other words the
reduction in frictional losses resulting from the rpm drop must be greater
than the additional load of engaging drive.
--
Dave Baker
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.