Topic: MPG

[Pinhead]

This is from GoFastNews, an automtove forum, but there is absolutely no reason it can't be adapted to our bikes.

In the past I have only been able to get the car driving nicely on cruise with a lean burn of 15.5 to 15.8: 1 with a programable ECU and MSD 6A. Also the same on another car but running on the stock inductive ignition.

Lately have been reading on the net about coil voltage boosters so today wired up a MSD fuel pump booster to the stock inductive coil electronic ignition setup which took the coil to 18V.

Well what a difference. My airfuel ratio meter only goes to 16:1 but now I dont have misfires on lean cruise, the power just drops off. I am definately in the 17:1

Its made a hell of a difference to drivabiliy as its just made the tuning window just so much larger now and a much better car to drive.

The coil temps are fine but am aware that the plugs and cap will wear quicker but who cares, just change them more often.

Sure the extra volts dont make much of a diff at air/fuel ratios that burn easy but once you get to the ragged edge of lean burn the extra volts have certainly made a worthwhile diff.

High voltage to the coil for an inductive ignition is the worlds best kept secret.
...

Coils : As far as I can tell a coil with a low turn ratio will reduce heat issues and put more amps in the spark which makes for a hotter spark. Tractor coils have a low turn ratio (60:1) and seem to be whats needed. Some coils are not suited and overheat but this is not an issue that cant be addressed.

Spark plugs: The common copper plug will wear quicker with a larger spark but now with so many different types of plugs around (i.e iridium, platinum, brisk halo) that are meant to last 100k km, even if they last 30k km with the stronger spark thats fine with me

Spark plug wires:  I am just running a common spiral core and no problems. Dont know if they will break down quicker but there a plenty of options.

Distributor cap : I can see these wearing out quicker, especially the centre carbon post but it just means more frequent replacement or maybe using a brass post inplace of the carbon one.

I'm going to build a voltage booster for my 650. I'll make it adjustable from 15 to 18 volts, that way if I go too far I can turn it back down to find the sweet spot. My bike has electronic ignition, so I won't have to worry about points. However, I'm probably going to heatsink my other components (ignitors, etc) to make sure they don't fry themselves. Has anyone ever tried this?

[joecool14u2]

never tried, let us know how that works

[Buber]

It's really interesting to see all USA guys suddenly looking for economical MPG solutions. I will be waiting for news Pinhead, but in the meanwhile, a drop of "european experience" - if you want to improve your mileage the best cure is smaller capacity engine for longer trips, and more common use of your legs for the shorter ones.
On the more practical/serious side - there are tens of thousands of cars in Europe running on LPG. And that seems a viable alternative.
But so far, even prices like 8$ a gallon (current price for 95 in Poland, no kidding, my last fill cost me 30$) are not making people invent anything "revolutional" - it's not as easy as it sounds. Still, as jokingly as it may sound - smaller car & smaller engine. You honestly DON"T need all those pick-ups and SUVS, and so on. Even your buses use "bulletproof" super heavy and big steel rims. Take a look at european buses with much smalle, aluminium ones. And that's just one, small example. Ambulance - can be done on basis of minivan, not a truck. Yes, it's possible, all europe is using them.... And so on, and so forth...

So, as the "Madagascar" movie goes... - Smile and wave boys, smile and wave......

[Bob Wessner]

Couldn't agree more. We Americans have been obsessed with cubic inches and horsepower and the Big Three loved the profit margins associated with them.. to the extent they had nothing on the shelf planned for this inevitable turn of events. Now they scrambling. We shall see how well they do.

[Gordon]

Couldn't agree more. We Americans have been obsessed with cubic inches and horsepower and the Big Three loved the profit margins associated with them.. to the extent they had nothing on the shelf planned for this inevitable turn of events. Now they scrambling. We shall see how well they do.

Don't the big three, or at least Ford and Chevy, already make much smaller, more efficient cars that are only sold in Europe?  Seems like once the American public is ready for them all they'll have to do is start marketing them here.

[mystic_1]

You honestly DON"T need all those pick-ups and SUVS, and so on. Even your buses use "bulletproof" super heavy and big steel rims.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone in the US is an SUV-driving, burger-gulping, status-seeking gas guzzler.

mystic_1

[Buber]

Well, at least GM has enough european brands to simply start selling ready-made cars. Like Opel Corsa. Or Chevrolet, having bought the old Daewoo, is turning a lot of nice, small, city cars.
But this is an off topic. I'm really interested what PInhead will report, as he is an MPG freak (in most positive sense of the word). I have Iridium plugs and power routed directly from the battery to the coils for better spark, but if anything else can be done - I'm all for it!

Mystic - I'm not. BUT it;s teh vast majority that does. Sorry, it's a fact. I've been on your side of the pond few times, and i could NEVER spot a car like the forementioned Corsa on your streets. NEVER......

[Gordon]

I've been on your side of the pond few times, and i could NEVER spot a car like the forementioned Corsa on your streets. NEVER......

I'm not sure what parts of our country you've been to, but I see cars like that all the time. 

[mystic_1]

I hear you, and don't deny in any way that it's the truth.  Fact of the matter is that for most here, MPG is one of the LAST things considered when choosing a vehicle.  It's the same in any country where fuel has been historically cheap.  Econo-boxen do get sold and driven here but sadly it's more the exception than the rule.


Oh, and anything smacking of the Daewoo name has me running and screaming.  My wife breifly owned a Nubira, the timing belt snapped at less than 35k miles and rendered the motor into a paperweight.  Unluckily this was about the time of the riots and collapse of the company, so getting the warrenty repair done was quite an adventure.  She ditched the car for a Volkswagen Jetta and we've never looked back.


On the topic of MPG, anyone else find it humorous that car commercials here are now are bragging about cars that get 30MPG on the highway?  I'm like WTF, that's not very good!

mystic_1

[Buber]

I'm not sure what parts of our country you've been to, but I see cars like that all the time. 

Errrm..... Fort Lauderdale & Seattle - I was working on the cruise ships (Alaska doesn't count.. it's a different place)

[Bob Wessner]

Somewhat along these lines, how does the technology that allows larger engines (e.g. 6 and 8 cyl. engines) drop cylinders under the correct highway/cruising conditions work? I can imagine sophisticated fuel metering stopping fuel feed, electronics stop the firing, but what about the compression in the dropped cylinders?

[HondaMan]

Couldn't agree more. We Americans have been obsessed with cubic inches and horsepower and the Big Three loved the profit margins associated with them.. to the extent they had nothing on the shelf planned for this inevitable turn of events. Now they scrambling. We shall see how well they do.

Well, here we are again, at 1972....the Democrats and their oil policies then caused a worldwide knee-jerk reaction that empowered OPEC to nab control of the Arab oil then, and the ensuing Arab Oil Embargo and other political policies created an oil shortage here that tripled the price of gas at the pump in 18 months. Sound familiar? The "Big 3" then did not have any good plans, it happened so fast. Ford introduced the "MPG" series of Mustang II, Maverick, and Pinto, which really DID get hi MPG, and they did it in 6 months, got the jump on everyone. They did well, and ever since have always offered an "MPG" version of all their vehicles, even the Explorer and Expedition. Most people just assume they don't want less HP, and often don't buy them. Owners I know here in CO get mid-20s in heavy traffic with A/C running and bad driving habits: I have gotten my ex-boss's Explorer version to touch 30 MPG with my driving habits.

Then, of course, my 1967 390CID (that's 6.4L for you Euro guys) Ford fastback LTD touches 20 MPG on the hiway and 15+ in town, while rippling the pavement if I ever DID need it... 

[Dunk]

Ah, didn't know you were into old Fords HondaMan. I have a '68 Galaxie which originally had a 302 2 barrel. In that trim it got a high of just over 17 MPG highway with teh 2 barrel. About 16.5 after rebuilding with ported 289 heads (higher compression) and a 4 barrel Holley setup. Once Sunoco stopped selling 94 octane and we only had oxygenated 93 I had to de-tune for the bad gas. So I switched to a mild 460 which I run in there now. The 460 gets about 14-15 MPG in normal driving and pure highway (if I keep speeds reasonable) does a hair over 16 MPG. Loads more power than the 302 ever had, and a negligible decrease in economy considering the extra power.

I also have a '66 Galaxie convertible I which I put about 1200 miles on last week when I took it on vacation. That has a 289, ported heads, Holley 600, hotter cam, etc. but stock log manifolds (hard to find headers for small block '65-'68). That managed 14.5 MPG highway, less than the 460 car did on the same trip the previous year. I also notice on the 460 car I barely have to crack the throttle to maintain a 2500-3000 RPM highway speed, but in the 289 car I gotta give a lot more throttle, especially on hilly roads.

In any event, back to bikes. My first street bike, a '72 CB750, ratty and worn, got around 45-48 MPG typically. Never could reach 50. That engine had over 70,000 miles on it though, and had 4 into 2 side pipes.

Now I have a '71 CB750 that's got some work done to it. Not sure what though. It has a 4 into 1 equal length header, straight out of the '70s. A vintage '70s chrome open ractangular air box, and surely some work done to inside of it. Also put a Dyna S on it, Dyna 3 ohm coils, and Iridium plugs. I will say all the ignition stuff made a noticeable difference in smoothness. Also starts first kick every time, even if it hasn't run in a week or two.

Haven't measured fuel economy but it's not as good as my '72 was. Part of that is because I believe it's running rich (i smell it a bit sometimes). Probably the other part is that the engine spends a fair amount of time in the 9000-12000 RPM range. I think I have a sticky float or junked needle and seat though, as when I put the bike on the side stand it'll drip a little from the carbs if I forget to close the fuel petcock. I'd also like to sync the carbs to hopefully smooth it out at lower RPM a bit. It it kinda rough under 2500 RPM, then purrs like a kitten above 5000. That's probably mostly from wahtever cam is in there though.

In any event, just some of my observations. This thread has been a very interesting read, so I'll be watching for any more replies.

[HondaMan]

Ah, didn't know you were into old Fords HondaMan. I have a '68 Galaxie which originally had a 302 2 barrel.
I also have a '66 Galaxie convertible I which I put about 1200 miles on last week when I took it on vacation. That has a 289, ported heads, Holley 600, hotter cam, etc. but stock log manifolds (hard to find headers for small block '65-'68). That managed 14.5 MPG highway, less than the 460 car did on the same trip the previous year. I also notice on the 460 car I barely have to crack the throttle to maintain a 2500-3000 RPM highway speed, but in the 289 car I gotta give a lot more throttle, especially on hilly roads.

I grew up with those Fords, too. First was the '49, then a '50, then the '57 Fairlane wagon (sweetest car!), the '63 Gal 4-door, the '63 500XL ragtop with hi-perf 390/335 HP engine (sweetest car ever!), then this '67 in 1981, had it ever since (2nd owner).

There's no lines like the '60s cars! You could tell from a mile away which car was coming toward you...

[HondaMan]

Somewhat along these lines, how does the technology that allows larger engines (e.g. 6 and 8 cyl. engines) drop cylinders under the correct highway/cruising conditions work? I can imagine sophisticated fuel metering stopping fuel feed, electronics stop the firing, but what about the compression in the dropped cylinders?

There's several technologies, actually...
The most common ones adjust the fuel and spark timing on a cylinder-by-cylinder basis to lean out the "unused" cylinders, rotating those cylinders in an against-the-rotation order so the smoothness isn't severely affected. When loads are light, they can lean out most of the cylinders to 17:1 ratio (or even 22:1) while watching for knock. The transmission torque convertors work in orchestration, quickly switching to convertor slip mode when it's in lean-burn, but the operator pushes suddenly on the gas: this lets the engine start to rev up instantly, while the fuel is being increased (a couple of power strokes must pass by before the change in power comes back). Then, as the power comes on, the convertor locks back up. These types have instant recovery when you put your foot back in it. They don't really "turn off", just get a very lean charge and altered timing (either advanced or retarded, depending on the loads) in the affected cylinders. Some use multi-spark technology to help the lean-firing cylinders along. These are the ones that I will borrow the "on plug" coils from for my next Ignition experiments.
One example: Ford's Mustang 4.6L V8 aluminum engine and its sister cast-iron Explorer engine.

The first commerciallized version of these "cut back" engines that I remember was the failed Cadillac Northstar "V8-6-4" engines of the late 1980s. These had a solenoid-operated pivot lever that retracted to reduce the valve lift on the cylinders that were to be dropped out. Customers complained that they seemed to get "stuck" in low-power mode after relatively few miles, and the pivots were a source of big trouble. A lawsuit ordered GM to replace all these engines at some point in the early 1990s, but I don't know how that all came out. I did know one owner, but he sold the car in frustration when it was less than a year old, complaining of low power and the constant "hangar queen" status of the thing, when he needed it for lots of business travel. It seemed like it was in the shop every month, under warranty, for engine problems.

Interestingly...these 750-4 engines, if fitted with injectors from, say, a Kaw KZ1000 LTD and a specially programmed Megasquirt, could lean out at idle and when riding lightly, increasing mix when you "grip it", and even remaining richer at high RPM, which the carbs simply cannot do. This would let them run cleaner plugs, run cooler in heavy traffic, likely last even LONGER, and just as likely add about 5 HP at the top end.

And, it's on my list of "things to do with Hondaman Special #3", as no one has ordered that one from me, yet. It's a K4, a perfect candidate...

[smccloud]

Somewhat along these lines, how does the technology that allows larger engines (e.g. 6 and 8 cyl. engines) drop cylinders under the correct highway/cruising conditions work? I can imagine sophisticated fuel metering stopping fuel feed, electronics stop the firing, but what about the compression in the dropped cylinders?

There's several technologies, actually...
The most common ones adjust the fuel and spark timing on a cylinder-by-cylinder basis to lean out the "unused" cylinders, rotating those cylinders in an against-the-rotation order so the smoothness isn't severely affected. When loads are light, they can lean out most of the cylinders to 17:1 ratio (or even 22:1) while watching for knock. The transmission torque convertors work in orchestration, quickly switching to convertor slip mode when it's in lean-burn, but the operator pushes suddenly on the gas: this lets the engine start to rev up instantly, while the fuel is being increased (a couple of power strokes must pass by before the change in power comes back). Then, as the power comes on, the convertor locks back up. These types have instant recovery when you put your foot back in it. They don't really "turn off", just get a very lean charge and altered timing (either advanced or retarded, depending on the loads) in the affected cylinders. Some use multi-spark technology to help the lean-firing cylinders along. These are the ones that I will borrow the "on plug" coils from for my next Ignition experiments.
One example: Ford's Mustang 4.6L V8 aluminum engine and its sister cast-iron Explorer engine.

The first commerciallized version of these "cut back" engines that I remember was the failed Cadillac Northstar "V8-6-4" engines of the late 1980s. These had a solenoid-operated pivot lever that retracted to reduce the valve lift on the cylinders that were to be dropped out. Customers complained that they seemed to get "stuck" in low-power mode after relatively few miles, and the pivots were a source of big trouble. A lawsuit ordered GM to replace all these engines at some point in the early 1990s, but I don't know how that all came out. I did know one owner, but he sold the car in frustration when it was less than a year old, complaining of low power and the constant "hangar queen" status of the thing, when he needed it for lots of business travel. It seemed like it was in the shop every month, under warranty, for engine problems.

Interestingly...these 750-4 engines, if fitted with injectors from, say, a Kaw KZ1000 LTD and a specially programmed Megasquirt, could lean out at idle and when riding lightly, increasing mix when you "grip it", and even remaining richer at high RPM, which the carbs simply cannot do. This would let them run cleaner plugs, run cooler in heavy traffic, likely last even LONGER, and just as likely add about 5 HP at the top end.

And, it's on my list of "things to do with Hondaman Special #3", as no one has ordered that one from me, yet. It's a K4, a perfect candidate...

when you get that done, let me know   i would love to make my K2 fuel injected.  screw the old school look of carbs, i want as much modern performance as i can get.

[bradweingartner]

Somewhat along these lines, how does the technology that allows larger engines (e.g. 6 and 8 cyl. engines) drop cylinders under the correct highway/cruising conditions work? I can imagine sophisticated fuel metering stopping fuel feed, electronics stop the firing, but what about the compression in the dropped cylinders?

The modern designs mostly use a mechanism to shut the valves on the un-used cylinder. GMs Cylinder on Demand or whatever does it this way. I believe they have a fancy hydraulic lifter that a solenoid can let collapse. Of course, the fuel injection to those cylinders is discontinued as well.

This is important because simply reducing or eliminating fuel to a cylinder does nothing to combat pumping losses. You are still wasting energy pulling air into the cylinder and subsquently compressing it, over and over. By closing the valves completely, you are still compressing that air, but then the compressed air rebounds in the cylinder regaining some of that normally lost energy.

Technology that really interests me the most right now is completely cam-less valvetrains. The ability to dynamically and independently control duration, lift and timing is going to be crucial in extracting the last bit of efficiency out of the otto cycle. Furthermore, this expands the ability to phase in a 6-cycle design that can adapt between 4 and 6 or I also theorize an 8 cycle on the fly.

The idea behind the 6-cycle engine is this. Imagine a typical 4-stroke. Intakes air/fuel, compresses said mixture, ignites mixture, and finally exhausts burnt fuel. Now, once that is all done, imagine closing all valves at the top of the exhaust stroke, and injecting some water. In the hot hot combustion chamber the water will flash to steam, and provide a second power stroke using nothing but waste heat.

This opens all sorts of ideas in my head. Of course, there are lots of things to consider. But You could virtually eliminate cooling systems as we know them.

With cycle-on-demand, you could start a cold engine purely on a 4-stroke gas. Once it's reached operating temp you can start a 6-stroke, and if you can retain enough combustion heat, or if it over heats, you can just run another steam power stroke to make an 8-stroke engine.

The keys are well thought out thermal management designed into the head and block. You could regulate top-end temp purely with injected water, so either a greatly reduced or eliminated cooling sytem would elminate parts and complexity. Namely the large radiator which has a negative impact on aerodynamics (increased overall efficiency). It would be replaced by a high pressure water pump/tank/injection system though. So overall complexity is a wash.

I think most people would be happy to fill up their vehicles with water AND gas, if it meant getting twice the gas mileage for a few cents increase.

I have all the concepts in my head. If anybody wants to fund them, I'd be happy to start working on them immediately!!!

[754]

Buber are you near 'OstPruesen" ? That is where my, and my wifes family are from..

 What are the built Hondas with CR carbs getting, I have necver had trouble getting at least 45 mpg..on the 836, even when it was quite tired..

[Buber]

I'm actually from Riesengebirge (in German, which I incidentally speak, as I worked in tourist business) that's Karkonosze in Polish. And Ost-Preussen is further up north - by the seaside. Mine place is MUCH better for riding - mountains, y'know... if interested, check this http://www.bikepics.com/members/buber

But back to the topic - call me the "pain in the..." etc, but playing the advocatus diaboli - instead of trying in complicated ways to cut in and out some of the cylinders in the engine - wouldn't it be easier to actually install a SMALLER engine?
See, you are still going the wrong direction. Good example are off-road cars. What was the best? WW2 Jeep and later Suzuki Samurai. Why? becasue they were LIGHT, and therefore could go places...
You really DON'T need that much power after all. Just look at ourselves - we are riding bikes that put out (in different tunes) 60 to 70HP. And we are happy with that, right? So why everybody else pushes for 150HP monsters? I know, for the minute thrill of acceleration, and possibility of saying "mine is bigger". And that's pure vanity fair....

But in honest reality - no, you simply don't need those monster engines in monster cars. And sooner you realize this the better it will be. For everybody. So then you can drive for utility purposes in your smaller car, and have a buzz on a, say 100HP motorcycle... Ideal world...

[edbikerii]

Suzuki Samurai?  Sorry, but I expect a little more out of my life than that.

Smaller displacement is only the answer if you are willing to live with an anemic motor at all times.  If we have the technology to produce what amounts to a "variable displacement" engine by cutting out some cylinders when not needed, then why shouldn't we?   Innovation is all about making things better, not making huge sacrifices just to prove that we are "greener than thou".

I'm actually from Riesengebirge (in German, which I incidentally speak, as I worked in tourist business) that's Karkonosze in Polish. And Ost-Preussen is further up north - by the seaside. Mine place is MUCH better for riding - mountains, y'know... if interested, check this http://www.bikepics.com/members/buber

But back to the topic - call me the "pain in the..." etc, but playing the advocatus diaboli - instead of trying in complicated ways to cut in and out some of the cylinders in the engine - wouldn't it be easier to actually install a SMALLER engine?
See, you are still going the wrong direction. Good example are off-road cars. What was the best? WW2 Jeep and later Suzuki Samurai. Why? becasue they were LIGHT, and therefore could go places...
You really DON'T need that much power after all. Just look at ourselves - we are riding bikes that put out (in different tunes) 60 to 70HP. And we are happy with that, right? So why everybody else pushes for 150HP monsters? I know, for the minute thrill of acceleration, and possibility of saying "mine is bigger". And that's pure vanity fair....

But in honest reality - no, you simply don't need those monster engines in monster cars. And sooner you realize this the better it will be. For everybody. So then you can drive for utility purposes in your smaller car, and have a buzz on a, say 100HP motorcycle... Ideal world...

[Buber]

hey, I'm not saying I'm greener or bluer or whatever! After all, it's me who's paying 30$ for a fill-up, not you
I'm only saying that there ARE ways of achieving power without going for gargantuan displacement. After all, what all motorcycle engines do? They give you A LOT more power from similar displacement like cars, but they don't guzzle that much fuel. Maybe that's the way?

But that is beside the point. I was trying to point out, that except moments of fun& joy, you DON'T need this kind of vehicle for everyday's life. It's a fact, not a theory.
But (again) - I'm not in place nor power to convert you. I just wanted to point out few things, like fuel already is expensive, even if it isn't expensive directly for you, and so far the most viable solution is to use smaller displacement, or, displacement more adequate to the necessary work needed.

Carry on, enjoy your x-liter capacity car. Shame I can't, because I simply can't afford it....  (and THAT teaches me that I don't really need it either  )

[Pinhead]

There is still a lot of room for improvement; even the bit displacement engines have the propensity to sip the gas compared to what our little bike engines do. Do a search for Larry Widmer, the Soft Head, and the engines that he put in a few Chevy pickups and a couple of Camaro's. Believe me, it's not small on cubes, short on horsepower, or hard on gas!

[bistromath]

Brad, take a look at the Crower 6-stroke engine -- it's pretty much exactly the 6-stroke you described.

[goon 1492]

Somewhat along these lines, how does the technology that allows larger engines (e.g. 6 and 8 cyl. engines) drop cylinders under the correct highway/cruising conditions work? I can imagine sophisticated fuel metering stopping fuel feed, electronics stop the firing, but what about the compression in the dropped cylinders?

The modern designs mostly use a mechanism to shut the valves on the un-used cylinder. GMs Cylinder on Demand or whatever does it this way. I believe they have a fancy hydraulic lifter that a solenoid can let collapse. Of course, the fuel injection to those cylinders is discontinued as well.

This is important because simply reducing or eliminating fuel to a cylinder does nothing to combat pumping losses. You are still wasting energy pulling air into the cylinder and subsquently compressing it, over and over. By closing the valves completely, you are still compressing that air, but then the compressed air rebounds in the cylinder regaining some of that normally lost energy.

Technology that really interests me the most right now is completely cam-less valvetrains. The ability to dynamically and independently control duration, lift and timing is going to be crucial in extracting the last bit of efficiency out of the otto cycle. Furthermore, this expands the ability to phase in a 6-cycle design that can adapt between 4 and 6 or I also theorize an 8 cycle on the fly.

The idea behind the 6-cycle engine is this. Imagine a typical 4-stroke. Intakes air/fuel, compresses said mixture, ignites mixture, and finally exhausts burnt fuel. Now, once that is all done, imagine closing all valves at the top of the exhaust stroke, and injecting some water. In the hot hot combustion chamber the water will flash to steam, and provide a second power stroke using nothing but waste heat.

This opens all sorts of ideas in my head. Of course, there are lots of things to consider. But You could virtually eliminate cooling systems as we know them.

With cycle-on-demand, you could start a cold engine purely on a 4-stroke gas. Once it's reached operating temp you can start a 6-stroke, and if you can retain enough combustion heat, or if it over heats, you can just run another steam power stroke to make an 8-stroke engine.

The keys are well thought out thermal management designed into the head and block. You could regulate top-end temp purely with injected water, so either a greatly reduced or eliminated cooling sytem would elminate parts and complexity. Namely the large radiator which has a negative impact on aerodynamics (increased overall efficiency). It would be replaced by a high pressure water pump/tank/injection system though. So overall complexity is a wash.

I think most people would be happy to fill up their vehicles with water AND gas, if it meant getting twice the gas mileage for a few cents increase.

I have all the concepts in my head. If anybody wants to fund them, I'd be happy to start working on them immediately!!!

 I know when I was in votec in school 10+yrs ago we learned about steam cleaning cylinders in engines using brake fliud mix with water, but we were also informed about if you do it with a warm/hot engine and flush water into it you can crack the head from the major difference in temp change. We were told to only do this with a cold engine, even when i used to detail cars for a living i couldn't pressure wash the engine bay with a hot motor because of the same problem, you also got to remember about introducing water onto raw metal surfaces= corosion= bad times
Your theory sounds great but I think you will have to introduce too many exotic materials/metals to be able to withstand all the extreme measures that will be going on inside during this process.

man all this thinkin is too much for my machinist head on a friday...... Come on 2:30 so i can drink some beer and get the barbie q going, who's with me? I'm wantin some yard bird(chicken)