2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) 1986-1992 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections.
Sponsored by:

Normal Stoichiometric A/F ratio still the same underboost?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-11-04, 10:25 PM
  #1  
RX7less **(

Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
igottafc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Novi Michigan
Posts: 6,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Normal Stoichiometric A/F ratio still the same underboost?

im just curious. Normally 14.7 is the optimal a/f ratio right? Now when under boost on a turbo or S/C'ed car, does this # change or does it stay the same. is it better to run a little richer on turbo/sc cars, i was thinnking about it all day today. -alex
Old 04-11-04, 10:44 PM
  #2  
Locust of the apocalypse

 
YearsOfDecay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Directly above the center of the earth (York, PA)
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
JEZUZ...... HELL YES its good to run richer.... most guys pushing high boost will have their cars in the 11's (at least).

the Stock ECU with a stock motor and exhaust has the A/F comming out in the 12's at 6 PSI and FWO throttle (i checked my car before i started modding it just for ***** and grins..... had to try the wideband out!!!!)

The more boost you run, usually, ,the richer you get to prevent detonation. Yes, you can get more HP out of it the more towards stoich you get, but you also run hotter and risk detonating the motor.

Stoich is for maximum efficiency, but, the closest you'll ever get to that is on a perfectly flat surface with the cruise set at 55 and the motor on vaccume!!!

Last edited by YearsOfDecay; 04-11-04 at 10:54 PM.
Old 04-11-04, 10:55 PM
  #3  
nik
Rotary Enthusiast

 
nik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, the stoichiometric ratio doesn't change. It's just the chemically correct mixture of air to fuel so that both are fully consumed in combustion. If you add more air (boost), you need more fuel, but the ratio for complete combustion remains the same.

However, as YearsOfDecay said, the A/F ratio is much different in a car engine(as opposed to an ideal chemical reaction), it depends on a lot of factors really.
Old 04-11-04, 11:12 PM
  #4  
RX7less **(

Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
igottafc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Novi Michigan
Posts: 6,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hmmmmmm instresting. Thanks guys!
Old 04-12-04, 12:18 AM
  #5  
Rotorhead

 
Evil Aviator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes on 33 Posts
Re: Normal Stoichiometric A/F ratio still the same underboost?

Stoich just means chemically correct, which in itself has no value for tuning the engine, although the stoich AFR is used as a base for useful AFR numbers. The best cruise economy AFR is usually slightly leaner than stoich, the best power AFR is almost always very much richer (somewhere around 12-12.5:1 for pump gas), and sometimes an even richer AFR is used to combat detonation in boosted or high-compression engines.

Stoich for unleaded gasoline is usually around 14.7:1, stoich for super unleaded is usually around 14.5. Stoich for racing fuel can be just about anything, lol. The important thing to understand is that the "14.7" number you hear about is only an approximation for pump gas, while the actual stoich AFR may be different depending on the properties of the fuel. Also note that an AFR gauge rarely actually reads AFR. It usually takes the lambda (difference from stoich) reading off the O2 sensor and then converts it to an AFR display assuming a 14.7 stoich AFR. Therefore, most AFR gauges are inaccurate if they cannot be recalibrated for fuels with something other than a 14.7 stoich AFR.

Originally posted by igottafc
im just curious. Normally 14.7 is the optimal a/f ratio right? Now when under boost on a turbo or S/C'ed car, does this # change or does it stay the same. is it better to run a little richer on turbo/sc cars, i was thinnking about it all day today. -alex
Just to answer your questions in simple form:

No, 14.7 is not necessarily the optimal a/f ratio

When under boost, the optimal AFR is the Best Power AFR + whatever extra fuel is needed to cool the charge to prevent detonation, if any. Pretty vague, eh? That's why you need a professional tuner rather than plugging some magical AFR number into your fuel computer that somebody on the internet said was good, myself included.

Yes, running a little richer on supercharged engines allows for a margin of safety for detonation. There will not be as much power, and the engine will experience more buildup and worse emissions, but running lean will fry the engine quickly, so richer is better than leaner.
Old 04-12-04, 04:15 AM
  #6  
I'm a boost creep...

 
NZConvertible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Just in case anyone's wordering why you need to run rich under load (NA or turbo), it's purely to control combustion temps. Once you add enough fuel to perfectly match the amount of air (the stiochiometric air/fuel ratio), adding more fuel does not make more power because there's no more oxygen to support more combustion. But under load the combustion temps associated with stiochiometric mixtures are so hot that very bad things start to happen, like detonation of things simply melting. If you add more fuel (i.e. a richer mixture), then that fuel is evaporated by the combusion energy, lowering the combustion temps to safer levels. The downside on this is that the energy used to evaporate the excess fuel is no longer available as engine "power".

This is why leaning out mixtures increases power, and richening the mixtures reduces power. It also explains why simply thowing in bigger injectors will always cost you power. One of the big advantages of fuel controllers and standalones is getting away from the conservatively rich factory mixtures, when ensure engine longevity at the expense or power and economy. When tuning an engine you need to constantly balance power output with engine safety.
Old 04-12-04, 08:34 AM
  #7  
HAILERS

 
HAILERS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: FORT WORTH, TEXAS,USA
Posts: 20,563
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 19 Posts
Using two seperate widebands on two sepreater cars, with little modification,( 2 1/2 inch exaust, pre-silencer, no cat, aftermarket RP exaust on one car), I consistently see the low , low, low elevens and high tens afr under foot to the floor, uphill acceleration. That's with the sensor located everywhere from the stock 02 location, to two feet down the downpipe to finally locating one just prior to the left rear muffler.
Old 04-12-04, 01:17 PM
  #8  
RX7less **(

Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
igottafc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Novi Michigan
Posts: 6,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.
Old 04-12-04, 01:18 PM
  #9  
RX7less **(

Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
igottafc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Novi Michigan
Posts: 6,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
so hailers, your saying that the cars ecu naturally runs the engine richer underload right? Wouldnt The outside air temp also effect the best a/f ratio? I.E, the idea of a cold air intake is to cool the charge of air going into the engine which also means denser air, (i know we dont have CAI but lets take a civic for example) with the denser air, this means more fuel can be injected into the chambers right? i think this is starting to make more sense. i appreciate the elborate responses from you guys. thanks -alex
Old 04-12-04, 01:32 PM
  #10  
HAILERS

 
HAILERS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: FORT WORTH, TEXAS,USA
Posts: 20,563
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 19 Posts
****so hailers, your saying that the cars ecu naturally runs the engine richer underload right?***

I'm beginning to think I have the only two turboii that run rich i.e. upper 10afr to the lower 11afr.....or I have two pre-built units from TechEdge that are not working right, or????????
Old 04-13-04, 02:34 AM
  #11  
I'm a boost creep...

 
NZConvertible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally posted by igottafc
...your saying that the cars ecu naturally runs the engine richer underload right?
All petrol engines have to run rich under load. Otherwise they die.
Wouldnt The outside air temp also effect the best a/f ratio?
Yes, that's why EFI systems have air temp correction to compensate for changes in outside air temp. The colder the air is the denser it is so the more oxygen there is and the more fuel you can inject. But the colder the air is the more resistant the fuel/air mix will be to detonation, so you can run leaner mixtures which make more power. It's all a delicate balancing act.
i know we dont have CAI...
We do actually. Most people rip them off though...
Old 04-16-04, 12:05 AM
  #12  
Rotorhead

 
Evil Aviator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes on 33 Posts
Originally posted by NZConvertible
Just in case anyone's wordering why you need to run rich under load (NA or turbo), it's purely to control combustion temps. Once you add enough fuel to perfectly match the amount of air (the stiochiometric air/fuel ratio), adding more fuel does not make more power because there's no more oxygen to support more combustion.
Hehehe, you have been playing with your turbocharged engines so much that you forgot your basic ICE principles.

Just for the record, power does in fact increase as the AFR becomes richer from the stoich AFR. However, there is a certain point where enriching the mixture will cause a decrease in power. I will attempt to illustrate this with a quick diagram. The curve isn't very accurate, best economy is sometimes stoich or closer to stoich than shown, and the anti-detonation threashold will obviously vary greatly depending on the boost level, compression, and other factors, but this should still represent the general idea. I left the actual AFR numbers off the diagram on purpose so that the viewer uses stoich as a reference point rather than some worthless AFR numbers that somehow have gotten popular on the internet.


Last edited by Evil Aviator; 04-16-04 at 12:07 AM.
Old 04-16-04, 05:50 PM
  #13  
I'm a boost creep...

 
NZConvertible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally posted by Evil Aviator
Hehehe, you have been playing with your turbocharged engines so much that you forgot your basic ICE principles.
Yeah, fair enough. NA engines bore me...

Good info, thanks for that.
Old 04-16-04, 06:02 PM
  #14  
RX7less **(

Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
igottafc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Novi Michigan
Posts: 6,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hey thanks guys, its all making sense to me now. thanks for providing that graph Evil Aviator and to everyone else that had something to say in this thread. -alex
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WyomingTII
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
12
09-28-15 10:32 AM
baix2
Power FC Forum
1
09-28-15 09:40 AM



Quick Reply: Normal Stoichiometric A/F ratio still the same underboost?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 PM.