Finally PERFORMANCE MODS For Yamaha 1.8 Motors

[Englewoodcowboy]

I would be curious how the turbo would work over the super charger. The SC is mechanical so it is producing boost all the time where as the turbo can be controlled to spool up and down when needed. I know my AR192 was fuel hungry when loaded and trying to run. When I had 6 adults on board and to run 25mph or so I was burning 18 to 20 gallons an hour, with my 212X and the same load and speed I am only burning 8 to 9 gallons an hour with twins... I would think if they could have made some adjustments to how the SC boosts so when cruising it would back off and in turn cut fuel back it would have been much better with the economy end of things...

 

[Pinhacker71]

Did ribbon delete and filter. Zero change.

 

[Jade63]

If these filters were 49.99 ea, I could probably see throwing them on. Spending $240 for 2 filters for a very minimal increase does not float my boat (pun intended).

 

[ACRDSPORT14]

I did this stuff to my jetski, I would never do it again. Didn't make a difference.

 

[scokill]

the big top end killer here is TEMPRATURE, the higher it goes the slower you go, here our water is about 90 degrees and we loose a lot of top end speed in the summer due to the increase in water temperature, as it cools down our speed goes up dramatically.

I couldn't agree more. I noticed this the first crisp fall morning I took the boat out. Density of the air is different at 50 degrees vs. 100. I see more difference when load vs. unload and water conditions. I can't imagine just changing or deleting air filter would make any difference. Folks believe what they want to. I've read claims that iridium plugs gave 5 extra MPH...which is complete BS.

 

[haknslash]

I would be curious how the turbo would work over the super charger. The SC is mechanical so it is producing boost all the time where as the turbo can be controlled to spool up and down when needed. I know my AR192 was fuel hungry when loaded and trying to run. When I had 6 adults on board and to run 25mph or so I was burning 18 to 20 gallons an hour, with my 212X and the same load and speed I am only burning 8 to 9 gallons an hour with twins... I would think if they could have made some adjustments to how the SC boosts so when cruising it would back off and in turn cut fuel back it would have been much better with the economy end of things...

I've had turbo cars before so I'm somewhat familiar with how they work. The fact these are on boats means little as they are all the same in principal. That being said, turbos build boost (spool) based on the exhaust gas pressure from the exhaust manifold. So as the exhaust load/pressure increases it begins to build boost in the turbo. The wastegate is what determines how much maximum boost the turbo is going to make. There is no 'controlling spool up and spool down' as that is done by pressure load but you can control boost by using a manual or electronic boost controller. Otherwise you could use a dual stage manual boost controller for "low boost"and "high boost" settings which you can electronically select between the two. Think of it as having low boost for "eco mode" and high boost for "hold on to 'yer pants and watch this mode".

As far as superchargers go (centrifugal blower not roots type), for me I've never been a huge fan of them. They cost more to maintain, rebuild and they are not near as efficient as turbochargers are. They also have parasitic loss (they rob power from motor to make power from blower) since they are mechanically driven by a pulley versus "free power" of a turbo being driven by the exhaust gas alone. Also as you mention at least with a turbo you are not always in boost and it's only there when you need/want it via a load on the engine. They tend to be a little better on fuel than a superchargers. The only plus for superchargers versus turbochargers is that with a roots blower you can get a bigger hit down low with no lag where as turbos typically build boost in the mid to upper rev range. Of course it all depends on the turbo size as to how much lag and where in the rpm range its going to make power.

 

[sysinu]

I think this mostly applies to higher altitude boating where the air intake can be a bottleneck. I did have a very noticeable difference with the ribbon delete and air intake spacer. I didn't have nearly as noticeable difference with the R&D filter... That said, the R&D filter is just barely less restrictive than no filter at all.

Do they add value, the intake spacer, absolutely. The R&D filter for me was more of a legal formality as it functions as the anti-backfire / flame arrestor (I am one of those people that does everything as legally compliant as possible).

 

[Geiger41]

Yeah I will save my money and use it for some other mods !!!!

 

[Nucem140]

I think this mostly applies to higher altitude boating where the air intake can be a bottleneck. I did have a very noticeable difference with the ribbon delete and air intake spacer. I didn't have nearly as noticeable difference with the R&D filter... That said, the R&D filter is just barely less restrictive than no filter at all.

Do they add value, the intake spacer, absolutely. The R&D filter for me was more of a legal formality as it functions as the anti-backfire / flame arrestor (I am one of those people that does everything as legally compliant as possible).

Do you have part #'s for the ribbon delete and spacer on the 1.8? I have a 2015 242ls.

 

[Noko]

Do you have part #'s for the ribbon delete and spacer on the 1.8? I have a 2015 242ls.

If you take out the ribbon, I believe you have to have spark arrestor air filters which are not the stock ones on our boat. I believe this is correct. Anyone have further advice on this?

 

[Todd]

I did the ribbon delete and can definitely feel a difference. We live in Denver and boat at 4000 ft elevation. It made our boat feel snappier and gained 200 rpms. I plan on adding the new K&N filters.

 

[smashedheadcat]

If you are looking for horsepower, you must determine whether or not the factory filter is a restriction. If it is not, then a filter is not going to do anything for you in regards to performance. Next, and possibly more importantly, when the density altitude is high (high temperature, high elevation etc.), the volumetic efficiency of the engine is reduced. Long story short, your engines are processing less "air (oxygen)" per cycle. Less air is coming in because the air is thinner (obviously). This means less air is required to be sucked through your factory air filter, which further reduces the liklihood of it being a restriction.

TLDNR version: If it is hot outside, or you live at "high elevation", these air filters are most likely a huge waste of money (from a performance standpoint).

 

[Englewoodcowboy]

I think you are missing the performance issue here, the K&N filter provides an approved spark arrestor for the engine when you remove the internal spark arrestor which has been proven to be choking for high altitude locations. It is not a cure all or should it be marketed as a performance booster in the all around effect. For high altitude, it along with the ribbon delete may boost some lost performance that is suffered at the high elevations but it is not a bolt on improver like everyone thinks.

 

[smashedheadcat]

Superchargers/Turbos and fuel economy:

I'll make an attempt to dump this down into a few blurps the best I can as to not confuse anybody. Hopefully this help provide a better understanding of why you see differences in fuel econmy with "boosted" engines.

Let's take a 1.8L yamaha motor to start with. In a perfect world (and it is not perfect), every engine will run at 100% volumetric efficency under wide open throttle. This is basically means that for every two full rotations of the crankshaft at sea level (standard day conditions), the engine pulls in 1.8 liters of air, and gets rid of it. The problem is, once you add things like an air filter, an intake, a throttle body, cylinder heads, valves, exhaust manifolds, water, etc. you do nothing but reduce the engines ability to move air. Often times this is a good thing. Think of idle, partial throttle applications, etc.

Fuel: Every fuel has a "stoich" point. It is basically the amount of air is needed to burn a specific fuel completely. This ratio is that "happy spot" where an engine is not rich or lean, it's simply "stoich". The oxgen sensors in your car/boat simply determine this information. Your standard "pump gas" stoich ratio will be around 14.7:1 (14.7 parts air for every part fuel). E10 is roughly 14.1 / 14.2. Now, as you begin process more air with your engine (rpms up, throttle up etc.) your combustion chamber will begin to increase in temperature. It's just sort of the nature of the beast. To prevent the temperature from getting hot enough to damage your engine, you just inject more fuel. When you put in more fuel without adding more air, you alter the air to fuel ratio. For engines that are "not on the ragged edge for power (no supercharger/turbo/nitrous/high compression/race engine)", a good safe number is 13:1. That is 13 parts air for one part fuel. This ratio will keep the temperature cool enough to not damage parts, doesn't burn too much fuel, and makes good power.

Supercharged or turbocharged engines: These little guys can do something that their naturally aspirated bretheren cannot. They can operate above 100% volumetric efficiency. The key word here is "CAN". They don't have to. That is simply up to the driver and how far he wants to push the throttle forward. A 1.5 liter rotax engine with a supercharger making roughly 14.7psi of boost will deliver 3.0 liters of air in two revolutions (200% volumetric efficiency). More air = more power.

Fuel (again) Now, when you move more air, you have to move more fuel. The difference here, and the main reason that I am yapping, is that when you're moving that much air things in the combustion chamber get hot. When you operate above 100% volumetric efficiency, having a 13.0 air to fuel ratio just doesn't cool things down enough. You have to shoot in more fuel. The ratio for supercharged/turbocharged engines is not too widely debated, but more of a "everybody has their style" sort of deal. In general, a ratio of 12 parts air to 1 part fuel is what the OEMs use on forced induction cars. If you start modifying things (more air=more power=more heat=more fuel) then you can go even richer still. Sometimes 11:1 air to fuel to ensure things are cool enough to not break/melt etc. OEMs will never go that rich because it is will damage catalytic converters in short order.

Summary:
1.8 liter natrually aspirated at wide open throttle burns 13 parts air per 1 part fuel.
1.5 liter supercharged engine at wide open throttle burns 12 parts air per 1 part fuel.

The difference is roughly 8% more fuel in the supercharged engine at the same horsepower. That is your "optimal" difference in fuel economy when a supercharged engine is making the same power as a non-supercharged engine. Things can be done to reduce this difference though such as reving the engine higher or reducing the intake charge temperature (intercooler).

Since the horsepower is not the same between these engines, the more power you make, the more fuel it will take. If one engine makes twice the horsepower as another, it will take roughly twice the fuel, plus an additional 8%. Keep in mind, no engine is 100% volumetric efficient on it's own. There are restrictions everywhere, even in supercharged engines, and they all reduce the potential for the "most horsepower". The aftermarket and race teams work to reduce the restrictions and the OEMs engineer their engines with restrictions for reliability/emissions/noise/fuel economy etc.

 

[smashedheadcat]

I think you are missing the performance issue here, the K&N filter provides an approved spark arrestor for the engine when you remove the internal spark arrestor which has been proven to be choking for high altitude locations. It is not a cure all or should it be marketed as a performance booster in the all around effect. For high altitude, it along with the ribbon delete may boost some lost performance that is suffered at the high elevations but it is not a bolt on improver like everyone thinks.

As airflow demand increases, so does restriction. The demand for airflow is less in a high altitude application than it is for a low altitude application. The further an engine goes down a mineshaft, the more airfilter it needs. If an item has been proven to be a restriction in a high altitude application, then it is a bigger restriction on lower altitude applications.

 

[Englewoodcowboy]

As airflow demand increases, so does restriction. The demand for airflow is less in a high altitude application than it is for a low altitude application. The further an engine goes down a mineshaft, the more airfilter it needs. If an item has been proven to be a restriction in a high altitude application, then it is a bigger restriction on lower altitude applications.

That sounds good on paper but I think you are missing some important info with altitude. It is not the volume of air rather the density of air that is lacking (Boyles Law). The only compensation for a N/A engine is to reduce intake restriction as the air is thinner, less molecules are taken in at the same volume vs. at sea level and a slight reduction in intake restriction will make up for that difference for more noticeable than at sea level. A forced induction motor makes up for this simply due to its nature of as you pointed out it can be 100%+ more efficient than its N/A brethren. The altitude issue is why at altitude you reduce the input rate of fuel simply because the oxygen does not exist in equal volume to maintain the proper ratio.

 

[smashedheadcat]

That sounds good on paper but I think you are missing some important info with altitude. It is not the volume of air rather the density of air that is lacking (Boyles Law).

The only time I used the term volume was in the term "volumetric efficiency". Volumetric efficiency is really calculated by the ECU in a variety of ways depending on the engine management system being utilized. It seems you are trying to get super technical on me when I'm trying to keep things as basic as I can. Now, I am not going to pretend I know what type engine management the yamaha 1.8 uses, but I am going to guess it's either MAF or MAP based. Possibly a blend of the two. In a map (manifold air pressure) setup, the ecu will calculate volumetric efficiency by measuring air pressure in the intake manifold, outside air temperature, rpm, with it's engine size (available volume). It will use this information to determine "load" which is the ecu's term for volumetric efficiency. It will calculate open loop fueling requirements and full time spark requirements. In a MAF (Mass air flow) setup, it utilizes a sample tube (mass air meter) with a wire element that is heated to a constant temperature with voltage. The mass air sensor is calibrated to accurately determine air "mass" in a specific sample tube (the oem mass air meter housing), with a specific air filter, with a specific orientation in a specific induction system. It does this by varying the voltage required to keep a wire at a constant temperature. The ECU also utilizes an intake air temperature sensor (often times built right into the mass air sensor) and some times a manifold air pressure sensor. The information it receives is calculated into mass flow rate (termed "load"), and that number is utilized for open loop fueling and spark calculations. The ecu calculates and adjusts for air density on it's own by using some sort of combination of flow, pressure, and temperature. Since it calculates this information, a datalogger will extract it. A engine at a higher altitude (density altitude) will log a lower mass flow rate than a lower density altitude equivalent.

To keep it simple, less dense flows easier. A "gallon" of Denver air will go through an air filter with less restriction than a "gallon" of San Diego air because it is thinner. A naturally aspirated engine in Denver can only fill its cylinders with up to 12psi of air. That is all the engine will ever ask for. An engine in San Diego will ask for roughly 14.7psi of air to fill it's cylinders. No matter what the rpm, the engine that needs to fill its cylinders with a greater mass of air needs an air filter that flows more.

Now, if the oem filter does not flow enough air to support a factory engine WITHOUT RESTRICTION..... Then, and ONLY THEN will either benefit from a higher flowing air filter. I understand that an engine operating at a disadvantage in high altitude doesn't need to be kicked in the nuts again by a restrictive air filter. All I am saying, is that if the factory filter is not restriction.. save your money.

The only compensation for a N/A engine is to reduce intake restriction as the air is thinner, less molecules are taken in at the same volume vs. at sea level and a slight reduction in intake restriction will make up for that difference for more noticeable than at sea level. A forced induction motor makes up for this simply due to its nature of as you pointed out it can be 100%+ more efficient than its N/A brethren. The altitude issue is why at altitude you reduce the input rate of fuel simply because the oxygen does not exist in equal volume to maintain the proper ratio.

Reducing intake restriction is a way to limit the power loss, but if the OEM filter isn't restricting it, then why change it? At the end of the day, you're engine is only asking for 12psi of air (example Denver). I agree 100% with the rest of what you said.

 

[Englewoodcowboy]

OK, I think I know where we are differing here and with your base statements I agree. Now where this air filter will benefit is it is a flame arrestor and when you do the ribbon delete you effectively remove the factory flame arrestor. The factory paper element is not flame arrestor rated and you still need to have one as such on the intake. Removing the restrictive factory flame arrestor aka. ribbon delete does not net noticeable seat of the pants gains at sea level however at altitude it does do to obvious reasons. This is where I see this element a necessity for those doing the ribbon delete to maintain a flame arrestor in a boat is paramount and this is a way to achieve that. I agree with you on the use of the filter as a performance enhancer that it would yield minimal if any results but that is not what I would be using it for.

 

[JetBoatPilot]

Any feedback on how the new air filters are doing? Any issues we need to know about? We don't want to sell a product that no one thinks is necessary.

 

[Englewoodcowboy]

Will I think the only feasible way to sell them would be to combine them with the ribbon delete mod. Other than that, by themselves I see no advantage over stock. If someone wants better flow they could simply remove the paper element. I have ran boats for decades and this yamaha is the first I have ever seen with an actual paper element. All others just had a flame arrestor, bilges are not dirty places and typically run very clean air on their own unlike a car etc. dirt is really not an issue on a boat.