 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / November 2006Incredibly stupid design in '90 accord's air intake's solenoid valve
www.autozone.com/images/cds/gif/large/0900823d800d0673.gif This "intake control solenoid valve" is [i] unneccessary [ii] has a resistance of 23ohm, receives 11.8, 11v & 3.3mv during driving cranking & idle time, so wastes 0.513 0.478 amp & 0.143mA. Users can remove this valve & its box, connect vacuum hose ( #8 ) directly to "intake control diaphragm", so more ampere will be available for cranking / ignition / charging battery. Engine will crank faster. If it has low resistance ( <200 ohm, mine 0.2 ohm) spark cables & plugs, then [i] torque ( mine by 8% ), idle rpm & mpg will rise [ii] exhaust noise will drop ( mine by 8% ) [iii] idle rpm can be reduced ( mine to minimum : can now idle stably w-o load @580 rpm ). Users in warm climate can put a polystyrene tray ( mine 5¼ x 9¾" ) between radiator & overflow bottle, so hot air from radiator can not reach air intake pipes' mouths. > www.autozone.com/images/cds/gif/large/0900823d800d0673.gif > This "intake control solenoid valve" is [i] unneccessary [ii] has a > resistance of 23ohm, receives 11.8, 11v & 3.3mv during driving > cranking & idle time, so wastes 0.513 0.478 amp & 0.143mA. ???? what a drooling idiot. quit wasting electrons chea - the nurse will be along in a moment. > www.autozone.com/images/cds/gif/large/0900823d800d0673.gif > This "intake control solenoid valve" is [i] unneccessary [ii] has a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ) between radiator & overflow bottle, so hot air from radiator can > not reach air intake pipes' mouths. It will make a difference, but you can't measure it. bob www.batteryfaq.org Battery's [i] parasitic load will be 0.143 mA less, i.e. lower risk of sulfation ( when charge stored is <80% ) [ii] nearly ½ amp less discharge during cranking will prolong battery life. | It will make a difference, but you can't measure it. What can't be measured ? No need to use elaborate equipment ( & pay charges, spend time + petrol ) to estimate %age torque rise ; Newton's law says acceleration ( metre per second² ) = force ( Newton ) ÷ mass ( kg ), I modify this to = ( force - friction / resistance ) ÷ mass. If acceleration ( esp when climbing hill slope ) rises by 10%, mass & friction remain constant, then torque must have risen by nearly 10%. > www.batteryfaq.org Battery's [i] parasitic load will be 0.143 mA > less, i.e. lower risk of sulfation ( when charge stored is <80% ) > [ii] nearly ½ amp less discharge during cranking will prolong > battery life. That really is insignificant. The alarm system and audio system keep-alive currents are so much greater than that (about 200 times greater) it would make no difference whatever. Same goes for cranking - half an amp less than 400 amps just doesn't matter. Mike | The alarm system and audio system keep-alive | currents are so much greater than that (about 200 times greater) it would | make no difference whatever. The bigger is parasitic*load, the more important is any reduction of *, to avoid sulfation of battery whenever battery gets no charging for many days, unless user has a functional solar battery charger connected. My clock, radio, windows motors' relay ( similarly unnecessary, wastes current & drains battery ) are all removed. My alarm is close to getting removed. | half an amp less than 400 amps just doesn't matter. Bullshit, F20A 's starter motor is rated 1.4 kw @12v http://icelord.net/honda/repair/ page 3-16, i.e. draws 116.66 amp if voltage is 12v ( from a 65 Ah battery ). My 35 Ah battery's voltage drops to 8½ v during cranking, i.e. ampere used is just 116.66 x 8½ ÷ 12 = 82.6 amp. >| The alarm system and audio system keep-alive >| currents are so much greater than that (about 200 times greater) it would [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >similarly unnecessary, wastes current & drains battery ) are all >removed. My alarm is close to getting removed. Not with the clock again, Cheah. You know, your car would accelerate faster if you drove naked. >| half an amp less than 400 amps just doesn't matter. >Bullshit, F20A 's starter motor is rated 1.4 kw @12v >http://icelord.net/honda/repair/ page 3-16, i.e. draws 116.66 amp if >voltage is 12v ( from a 65 Ah battery ). My 35 Ah battery's voltage >drops to 8½ v during cranking, i.e. ampere used is just 116.66 x 8½ >÷ 12 = 82.6 amp. Funny, my GS-R has a 1.4kW starter and a high compression engine and I live in Chicago where it can easily hit -10 F in the winter. I have an electric clock, windows and a radio and God knows what else that you would confusingly label "parasitic" and my car cranks and starts just fine every time. And that is the experience of virtually everyone here. What is your problem? If you are really so anal about parasitic load, why don't you just install a disconnect on the battery? Here is one that I can personally attest for: http://www.autoanything.com/driving-accessories/69A1720A0A0.aspx >www.batteryfaq.org Battery's [i] parasitic load will be 0.143 mA >less, i.e. lower risk of sulfation ( when charge stored is <80% ) >[ii] nearly ½ amp less discharge during cranking will prolong >battery life. Where does a half amp come from? 0.143 mA is about 3000 times less than a half amp. >| It will make a difference, but you can't measure it. >What can't be measured ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >& friction remain constant, then torque must have risen by >nearly 10%. Assuming your engine is 100hp, a 10% increase in torque would correspond to 10 hp (at redline). Even a 5 hp gain (at a lower rpm) equals about 3800 watts. One half amp at 13v = 6.5 watts. Even allowing for inefficiency of the alternator, you still need to account for 99% of your supposed power increase. Conclusion #1: Energy consumption from this minor device is negligible and the "parasitic load" is not measurable except by measuring its tiny power consumption directly and calculating its minuscule, hypothetical effect on starter voltage and engine output. Conclusion #2:You are nuts. (But we already knew that.) BTW, you are violating a Federal law when you disable these devices. The fine could be up to $50,000. Why don't you instead go out and buy a $50,000 car which will really will be >10% faster and better in every way except fuel consumption and perhaps maneuverability. Then do not ever look under the hood and, if you do, don't tell us how defective it is. >www.autozone.com/images/cds/gif/large/0900823d800d0673.gif >This "intake control solenoid valve" is [i] unneccessary [ii] has a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >available for cranking / ignition / charging battery. >Engine will crank faster. Yeah, that extra tenth of a milli-amp is really going to make a difference in the cranking speed. > If it has low resistance ( <200 ohm, mine >0.2 ohm) spark cables & plugs, then [i] torque ( mine by 8% ), idle [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >) between radiator & overflow bottle, so hot air from radiator can >not reach air intake pipes' mouths. Why don't you put a polyethylene bag between your air intake and our oxygen. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.