DIY Engine displacement change

kenimpzoom

Rear Admiral
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
4,807
Guys, would it be possible to change the displacement on any engine the way they do on the new Displacement on Demand (DOD) engines.<br /><br />I am talking about getting into the engine yourself and looseing the rocker arms on two cylinders (in a V8 engine). You would have to put springs in there somehow to prevent the lifters from moving out of position.<br /><br />You could also unplug the fuel injector for that cylinder. It may not help depending on what type of fuel injection system your vehicle has (seqential vs batch fire).<br /><br />What do you think guys?<br /><br />Ken
 

SS MAYFLOAT

Admiral
Joined
May 17, 2001
Messages
6,372
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

Keeping the engine balanced so it doesn't feel like it is missing would be the hard part. I'm not sure if modifing the valve lift would be needed. One would need to figure out how the compression stroke could be defeated during the DOD. <br /><br />Good Topic KIZ, something I have always wondered about also.
 

Bondo

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
71,089
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

Guys, would it be possible to change the displacement on any engine the way they do on the new Displacement on Demand (DOD) engines.<br />
The short answer is NO........... ;) :D
 

kenimpzoom

Rear Admiral
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
4,807
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

Thats a really short answer. :D <br /><br />But one I never listen to very much. ;) <br /><br />Ken
 

rwise

Captain
Joined
Jul 5, 2001
Messages
3,205
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

but does "no" really mean "no" :rolleyes:
 

ndemge

Commander
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Messages
2,644
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

....so on my 3cyl geo metro, needs new valves on one of the cylinders, only running on 2 right now.. 0 compression... so can I just kill the gas to that cylinder and run it?
 

kenimpzoom

Rear Admiral
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
4,807
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

You have to close the intake valve so that no fuel goes into the combusion chamber and then you have to cut the fuel down.<br /><br />If your engine is carborated that is very easy, it will do it itself.<br /><br />With fuel injection you have to reprogram the computer, which would be very difficult. Or if you are lucky and have seqential port fuel injection (I doubt it on a Metro), you could just unplug the fuel injector.<br /><br />Some may theorize that fuel injection would realize it is running rich and would cut back on the fuel, but I dont know if the computer could cut it back enough to make up for the non-working cylinders.<br /><br />In the end, it would probably take a computer genius to prevent the blased "Check Engine" light from coming on.<br /><br />But I really believe this would work on a carbed engine. The question I have is, would you disable both the intake and exhaust valve or just the intake valve?<br /><br />Ken
 

JB

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
45,907
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

The easiest way to do that would be to reprogram the ECU to inject only enough fuel and allow only enough air into the "deactivated" cylinders to overcome the drag they would produce acting as pumps, making their presence neutral.<br /><br />That would require seperate air metering as well as seperate fuel metering for those cylinders to be used for power only part-time. <br /><br />An alternate approach would be the "obsolete" technology of one carb throat per cylinder with "by wire" throttling back to idle or slightly above idle for the part-time cylinders.<br /><br />Got that by accident long ago on a Ford flathead that I had four Stromberg 97s on when the linkage between the carbs broke and she was running on 8 but making power only on 6 cylinders. Did no harm, but I have no idea what it did to fuel mileage. That old Ford got about 8 mpg with that set-up anyway. :)
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

JB has got this pretty close. The whole idea of cutting out cylinders is to get the throttle more open and hence the engine more efficient. Like my torque comments, this will raise an eyebrow or two, but this is why they do it. Another trick I learned from the good Dr. Beck ;) (see 6 stroke thread)<br /><br />Pumping losses are the issue and a closed throttle increases pumping (sucking) losses on all throttled engines. Despite popular opinion, WOT is the most efficient point for an Otto cycle engine. I didn't say WOT RPM, I said WOT, which is why they continue to gear cars faster and faster, to bring RPM down at cruise and open the throttle more. Same idea with cylinder cutout. KIZ is there too. You want the exhaust valve open during the deactivated compression stroke and the intake open during the deactivated power stroke. You want zero fuel and WOT for that hole or wider open for all holes i.e. 4 holes (or more or less) working at WOT and running and 4 holes deactivated with WOT and the valve action I describe. This requires independent intake and exhaust runners everywhere to eliminate any crossover . . .<br /><br />Cadillac tried this with the infamous 4, 6, 8 thingee and now they're all at it again . . . BTW, diesels don't have a throttle and this is the primary reason they are more efficient. The compression ratio helps too, but the ability to operate at a very wide fuel to air ratio allows diesel to eliminate the throttle and the associated pumping (sucking) losses. This is a larger factor than the higher compression. Also, the commonly held belief that diesel fuel holding more energy is the main reason is only half true. When comparing cycles or engines or fuels in a lab, we equalize their energy BTU for BTU, so when we say that a diesel is more efficient than an Otto engine it is with the difference in energy density eliminated. This still usually results in a 25% or more benefit to diesels when compared over the entire operating cycle.<br /><br />Man, I'm on an engine techy kick lately . . . :rolleyes:
 

ZmOz

Captain
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
3,949
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

Places like JC Whitney used to sell kits to do this very thing. I doubt it would be worth the trouble and loss in power...the weight and shape of the vehicle and the driver are the biggest determining factors in gas mileage. In my Cherokee for example, the EPA only rates the 2.5L 4 cylinder at 1mpg more than the 4.0L inline 6. My 6 actually gets alot better than the EPA rating for the 4.<br /><br />The 454 in my truck has been running on 7 cylinders for a while. I can hardly notice the difference...except it gets like 3mpg. It still runs fine down to 4 cylinders.
 

heycods

Captain
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
3,941
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

Originally posted by NoelMG:<br /> ....so on my 3cyl geo metro, needs new valves on one of the cylinders, only running on 2 right now.. 0 compression... so can I just kill the gas to that cylinder and run it?
I once removed the push rods on a mack truck with a hole in the piston (0 comp.) as he said on a gas burner this shut the fueel off, On the diesel I bent the injector line and plumbed it to the fueel tank and drove it 500 miles to home, ran a little rough and didnt have much power but it got me there.
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

Pretty cool Heycods. Heard many similar examples along the way. Typically the most bizarre "make it run however you can" examples come from the concrete guys. If they have a load setting up in a barrel they'll flippin' try anything. I've heard of them torching off con rods to get 'em running for just a few minutes. Ever wonder why you see a little patch of concrete laying around where it shouldn't be? ;)
 

Limited-Time

Vice Admiral
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
5,820
Re: DIY Engine displacement change

Once used a similar tactic on an old International Scout Diesel with a burnt intake valve. Limped her home (450 miles) on 5 cylinders.
 
Top