Aygo Engine

[SMW]

Tom - what do you know about this car ?

[tommygun]

Tom - what do you know about this car ?

Well it's a custom made openair filter made by Toine from Holland. He used an universal filter by Green.

On my site is also the openairfilter made by Ivan from malta.

[Chaliel]

The filter on the photo from the "Gentili Corse" is not a self made filter by Ivan from Malta, but it's a photograph made by Gruppo Peroni in Italy, and the car is a Citroën C1 CUP!

In Italy the Gruppo Peroni has started a C1 CUP Trofei. First race was 23 of april in the Circuit of Varano.

The next race will be on Imola may 21.

[BadBoyVTEC]

and the larger photo Chaliel?

[Chaliel]

Well, the home made direct air intake looks very good, but I would not install it. It is made of metal and will get hot very quick, with all the loss of power and especially torque, which is so important for a little engine.

You can see that the Citroën C1 CUP made by Peroni also has a direct airintake but it gets fresh air from the outside, by a hole in the right "headbeam".

Cold air contains more O2, so you have to avoid that the airintake gets hot.

But again, the airintake on the photo is made with love and know how!

[aygo vvti]

Tom - what do you know about this car ?

Well it's a custom made openair filter made by Toine from Holland. He used an universal filter by Green.

On my site is also the openairfilter made by Ivan from malta.

i said mine lookes like this one ! only the filter is a simota cone

[aygo vvti]

Well, the home made direct air intake looks very good, but I would not install it. It is made of metal and will get hot very quick, with all the loss of power and especially torque, which is so important for a little engine.

You can see that the Citroën C1 CUP made by Peroni also has a direct airintake but it gets fresh air from the outside, by a hole in the right "headbeam".

Cold air contains more O2, so you have to avoid that the airintake gets hot.

hi i think i can prove you wrong cos as with the standard air filter i could get from 0-60 in 11.5 sec o 12.0secs (and i was alone in the car ,this time with the cone filter and metal pipe it was doing 10.5sec every time i tried it ,and this was with my wife in the car and after over an hour of driving (so if the metal pipe had to heat it would have heated already!)

so i dont think you are right saying you will have power loss with that system!

[BadBoyVTEC]

Well, the home made direct air intake looks very good, but I would not install it. It is made of metal and will get hot very quick, with all the loss of power and especially torque, which is so important for a little engine.

You can see that the Citroën C1 CUP made by Peroni also has a direct airintake but it gets fresh air from the outside, by a hole in the right "headbeam".

Cold air contains more O2, so you have to avoid that the airintake gets hot.

hi i think i can prove you wrong cos as with the standard air filter i could get from 0-60 in 11.5 sec o 12.0secs (and i was alone in the car ,this time with the cone filter and metal pipe it was doing 10.5sec every time i tried it ,and this was with my wife in the car and after over an hour of driving (so if the metal pipe had to heat it would have heated already!)

so i dont think you are right saying you will have power loss with that system!

No offence, but how can you accuratley time yourself doing 0-60mph.

[aygo vvti]

Well, the home made direct air intake looks very good, but I would not install it. It is made of metal and will get hot very quick, with all the loss of power and especially torque, which is so important for a little engine.

You can see that the Citroën C1 CUP made by Peroni also has a direct airintake but it gets fresh air from the outside, by a hole in the right "headbeam".

Cold air contains more O2, so you have to avoid that the airintake gets hot.

hi i think i can prove you wrong cos as with the standard air filter i could get from 0-60 in 11.5 sec o 12.0secs (and i was alone in the car ,this time with the cone filter and metal pipe it was doing 10.5sec every time i tried it ,and this was with my wife in the car and after over an hour of driving (so if the metal pipe had to heat it would have heated already!)

so i dont think you are right saying you will have power loss with that system!

No offence, but how can you accuratley time yourself doing 0-60mph.

have you heard of gprs systems? they can tell you everything acuretly ,speed ,0-60 ecc

[BadBoyVTEC]

Well, the home made direct air intake looks very good, but I would not install it. It is made of metal and will get hot very quick, with all the loss of power and especially torque, which is so important for a little engine.

You can see that the Citroën C1 CUP made by Peroni also has a direct airintake but it gets fresh air from the outside, by a hole in the right "headbeam".

Cold air contains more O2, so you have to avoid that the airintake gets hot.

hi i think i can prove you wrong cos as with the standard air filter i could get from 0-60 in 11.5 sec o 12.0secs (and i was alone in the car ,this time with the cone filter and metal pipe it was doing 10.5sec every time i tried it ,and this was with my wife in the car and after over an hour of driving (so if the metal pipe had to heat it would have heated already!)

so i dont think you are right saying you will have power loss with that system!

No offence, but how can you accuratley time yourself doing 0-60mph.

have you heard of gprs systems? they can tell you everything acuretly ,speed ,0-60 ecc

Ah excellent. What one have you got? Pictures. :) Does it log it aswell?

[aygo vvti]

Well, the home made direct air intake looks very good, but I would not install it. It is made of metal and will get hot very quick, with all the loss of power and especially torque, which is so important for a little engine.

You can see that the Citroën C1 CUP made by Peroni also has a direct airintake but it gets fresh air from the outside, by a hole in the right "headbeam".

Cold air contains more O2, so you have to avoid that the airintake gets hot.

hi i think i can prove you wrong cos as with the standard air filter i could get from 0-60 in 11.5 sec o 12.0secs (and i was alone in the car ,this time with the cone filter and metal pipe it was doing 10.5sec every time i tried it ,and this was with my wife in the car and after over an hour of driving (so if the metal pipe had to heat it would have heated already!)

so i dont think you are right saying you will have power loss with that system!

No offence, but how can you accuratley time yourself doing 0-60mph.

have you heard of gprs systems? they can tell you everything acuretly ,speed ,0-60 ecc

Ah excellent. What one have you got? Pictures. :) Does it log it aswell?

no it doesnt log it or download to pc ! i have the G-Tech pro SS

[BadBoyVTEC]

Well, the home made direct air intake looks very good, but I would not install it. It is made of metal and will get hot very quick, with all the loss of power and especially torque, which is so important for a little engine.

You can see that the Citroën C1 CUP made by Peroni also has a direct airintake but it gets fresh air from the outside, by a hole in the right "headbeam".

Cold air contains more O2, so you have to avoid that the airintake gets hot.

hi i think i can prove you wrong cos as with the standard air filter i could get from 0-60 in 11.5 sec o 12.0secs (and i was alone in the car ,this time with the cone filter and metal pipe it was doing 10.5sec every time i tried it ,and this was with my wife in the car and after over an hour of driving (so if the metal pipe had to heat it would have heated already!)

so i dont think you are right saying you will have power loss with that system!

No offence, but how can you accuratley time yourself doing 0-60mph.

have you heard of gprs systems? they can tell you everything acuretly ,speed ,0-60 ecc

Ah excellent. What one have you got? Pictures. :) Does it log it aswell?

no it doesnt log it or download to pc ! i have the G-Tech pro SS

That is very cool. Might think about getting one at my next paycheck.

[tommygun]

I know!

[Djoezz]

Hi Aygo VVTI,

I agree with Chaliel that basically, or better theoretically, max power output increases with lower intake air temperatures, for the simple reason that the same volume of air contains more O2, as already explained by Chaliel.

However, what you have measured is the difference between the original filter and the modified one, be it at higher intake air temperatures. Accel times might even further improve when you manage to get cold air directly rammed into the inlet.

Having said this, I doubt whether the 1-1.5 sec improvement (=10% better acceleration=10% more torque) comes from the better airflow.

I suggest you do several (10x) measurements on a flat piece of road, in opposite directions to eliminate wind and slope. You'll get a first impression then of the accuracy of the measurement, which is affected by both the way you are performing and the registration of your GPS system.

I would be surprised if you would manage to obtain consistent results below what is being advertized by Toyota.

One other thing is that I am not sure what the effect of temperature is on the metered fuel. The Engine Control Unit may limit the fuel flow below stoichiometric mix as to limit the maximum power or torque output.

If it is on the limit at say 40 deg C, no improvement will be noticed when the intake air temperature is decreased.

I am not an expert in this material, just using common sense. Anyone on the forum who is an expert and can tell us more about this subject?

[aygo vvti]

Hi Aygo VVTI,

I agree with Chaliel that basically, or better theoretically, max power output increases with lower intake air temperatures, for the simple reason that the same volume of air contains more O2, as already explained by Chaliel.

However, what you have measured is the difference between the original filter and the modified one, be it at higher intake air temperatures. Accel times might even further improve when you manage to get cold air directly rammed into the inlet.

Having said this, I doubt whether the 1-1.5 sec improvement (=10% better acceleration=10% more torque) comes from the better airflow.

I suggest you do several (10x) measurements on a flat piece of road, in opposite directions to eliminate wind and slope. You'll get a first impression then of the accuracy of the measurement, which is affected by both the way you are performing and the registration of your GPS system.

I would be surprised if you would manage to obtain consistent results below what is being advertized by Toyota.

One other thing is that I am not sure what the effect of temperature is on the metered fuel. The Engine Control Unit may limit the fuel flow below stoichiometric mix as to limit the maximum power or torque output.

If it is on the limit at say 40 deg C, no improvement will be noticed when the intake air temperature is decreased.

I am not an expert in this material, just using common sense. Anyone on the forum who is an expert and can tell us more about this subject?

if you get a airfeed from outside it would be better but if you see the location of the standard airbox intake and where the conefilter stand you notice that the cone filter has a cooler location than the standard airbox so its got cooler air+more volume and as i said it uses more fuel with the cone filter as it only gave me 39mpg as opposed to the 50mpg it was giving with the standard one! so appart of getting more air in with the cone filter its getting more fuel and common sense say more fuel+more air= more power ,and this can be felt even when you press the accelerator as with the standard aircleaner there was no pull but with the cone you can feel the car pulling farward

[Pug Bug]

Dubious results admitedly but the proof would be what you attained on a rolling road. My 107 has just been on one and resulted in 54bhp at the wheels un-tuned. At least now i have a marker to improve upon in the future.

[AygoUgo]

Dubious results admitedly but the proof would be what you attained on a rolling road. My 107 has just been on one and resulted in 54bhp at the wheels un-tuned. At least now i have a marker to improve upon in the future.

54bhp sounds reasonable as that means a 20% loss in the transmission which is pretty typical and I would expect the auto to be a bit higher losses. At what revs did you get peak power and torque ? Any pics of the plot ?

Would be good to see the power and torque curves as it doesn't always come down to peak figures. Plots can also give some idea on how driveable the car would be. Still think there will be much gains in this small engine as it is normally aspirated, already has the benefits of VVT, only has 3 cylinders. You may get the peaks up a bit but then that could be at the expense of driveability and midrange power/torque making the engine very peaky. That's not a problem if you want that but most don't want to have to rev the nuts of an engine to make decent progress.

Can't see me touching the engine on Traceys Aygo as it was bought for economy as well it's funky looks.

Kev

[Pug Bug]

Here it is on the rollers

And the plot

The numbers look like this

RPM BHP Flywheel Correction

2000 22.3 28.61 0.779417208

2500 30.5 39.13

3000 30.5 39.13

3500 36.4 46.70

4000 39.4 50.55

4500 46.2 59.28

5000 47.5 60.94

5500 53.0 68.00

6000 49.9 64.02

[aygo vvti]

that look so curvy you cant even say where the vvt give the most power (i know it showl help all the rev range but at about 5,000 or 6.000 rpm you feel the revs go up a bit quicker)

shouldn't the curve go up in a flat line as possible ? i see 4 humps in the graph ! it should have only one peak like the one that is at 5,500rpm is it!

[Pug Bug]

I probably should have used a different type of graph to display the figures. I will try again soon.

Hope that looks better post edited

[aygo vvti]

hi here are the pics of the conefilter on my aygo (at last) and i still need to spray the metal pipe in red to match the car!

as i said the car feels better but the fuel consumption suffers a lot if you keep revving the engine to the limiter last time i checked it it gave me 100miles with 10.4ltr of petrol and i think thats too much !

[Djoezz]

I probably should have used a different type of graph to display the figures. I will try again soon.

Hope that looks better post edited

Interesting data. I 've done some homework, here is the result.

The graph includes the factory data as presented in an Aygo magazine, which is rather inaccurate.

It's still amazing how much you loose in the drive train and some losses due to off-standard conditions maybe?

Below you 'll find my fuel consumption data and the moving average. It seems I'm going to stabilize at 5.5 l/100km, not bad

Anyone else got some reliable figures? By that I do not mean a simple quote of the distance you made with one tank. B)

Regards

Djoezz

[MyGo]

9455km, avg. 6.34 L/100km

--> Click here <--

Seen a test in a swedish mag. where it was testet for acceleration: 0-100km/h in 11.78sek

[Djoezz]

9455km, avg. 6.34 L/100km

--> Click here <--

Seen a test in a swedish mag. where it was testet for acceleration: 0-100km/h in 11.78sek

So I'm not doing so bad at all.

I tried the 0-100km/h myself, but it was not even close to 11.78, more like 12.5.

I was wondering though if it is wise to change gear to 3rd or stay in 2nd. Who's the expert?

Cheers

Djoezz

[aygo vvti]

9455km, avg. 6.34 L/100km

--> Click here <--

Seen a test in a swedish mag. where it was testet for acceleration: 0-100km/h in 11.78sek

So I'm not doing so bad at all.

I tried the 0-100km/h myself, but it was not even close to 11.78, more like 12.5.

I was wondering though if it is wise to change gear to 3rd or stay in 2nd. Who's the expert?

Cheers

Djoezz

You should stay in 2nd mate cos it goes over 62mph!

:) so i did better than the swedish mag as i did 11.5secs ;P