Autocross Project 4 | Disassembly

With the cooling system disassembled and flushed, the only thing standing between me and reassembly was some RTV and corrosion byproducts on the sealing surfaces between the block and water pump & thermostat. A bit of scraping and buffing with a plastic putty knife and Scotch Brite, and I was set to install my new parts.

new water pump, thermostat, and hoses

With a new thermostat, water pump, coolant expansion tank, and radiator hoses installed, I was ready to fill and bleed the loop, following the Forum-Approved method of setting the heater to max temp + low fan to allow the heater core to fill and bleed as well.

Having solved my coolant leak, I moved onto diagnosing the main issues of the car; It drove like crap. When I test drove it, the owner told me that one of the rear springs was snapped, but a new set of springs were included, and sat in the trunk of the car. Upon inspection, I discovered that both of the rear springs were indeed snapped, due to the design of the lower suspension arm trapping grit and water in the spring groove. Replacing the springs is very easy in the rear of the car; you simply press down on the trailing arm with your foot and pull the spring out with your hands. Unfortunately, that was the least of my problems.

I had discovered that my rear subframe, the part that holds the differential to the body, had torn out three of its four mounts. That meant I’d need to remove every part of the car between the rear bumper and the transmission to patch the sheet metal. Somehow this was a known issue, unique to the 1999 323i, that I had missed before buying the car. Forums argued that it should’ve been a recall, with BMW replacing the rear floor of the car, but I was well out of that service window, being a 19-year-old car. This is where the private sector took over; there were many kits available to reinforce and patch the failure points. Some merely covered the surface where the subframe mounted, but others sought to fix the problem and ensure it never happens again by also covering a significant area around each mount point. I bought one of the larger, more robust kits, from an eBay seller in Russia. (I’d later learn that it was a knockoff of a different kit)

In order to remove the subframe and repair the mounting points, I would need to remove the exhaust, driveshaft, subframe, fuel tank,  and brake lines, roughly in that order. Being the dead of winter (2016) in an unheated garage, I had limited time to work.

Up first was the exhaust. The middle supports were first, and were relatively easy, since they were vertical studs an had limited access to water splashes. The muffler at the rear of the exhaust pipe was held on by four nuts right at the bumper. At the front of the exhaust pipe, it connected to the exhaust manifold of the engine with four copper nuts on four stainless steel studs clamping two flanges together. These would prove to be some of the toughest connections to break on the entire car. One nut was completely gone, one I pried off with vise grips, one I hammered a 14mm socket onto, and the other was still the specified 15mm. While I covered that in one sentence, I want to emphasize that it took many hours of torching and prying at the fasteners in a 14°F garage. Somehow the gasket between the manifold and the rest of the exhaust pipe had fused the pieces together. Freeing the exhaust tips and using the length of the system as a lever to break the exhaust free wasn’t an option because I was worried I’d crack the manifolds. I resorted to chipping out as much of the gasket as I could with a thin putty knife, and then cutting and drilling out the studs holding the exhaust flanges together. I consumed a non-trivial number of drill bits in destroying those studs.

yes, that is three 15mm nuts

yes, that is three 15mm nuts

With the exhaust out, the driveshaft was exposed. Seven bolts total held it to the transmission and differential, with an additional pair of studs holding a central support bearing. Next up were the hydraulic brake lines, and the parking brake cables. They hydraulic brakes were a piece of cake since all the fittings were brass, you could twist and they’d either come apart or get shredded. The parking brake cables were a bit of a hassle, since the parking brake components were mostly fused into one solid block of iron oxide. The brake lines themselves are included in this carnage, the rear right snapping as I bent it away from the caliper, the rear left holding on by a thread.

Once these were disconnected, I could drop the subframe freely. Three nuts later (the 4th was completely torn from the sheet metal) and the subframe, diff, and half shafts could be lowered from the car, and pulled aside. I simply lifted the assembly from the diff, and let it fall from the mounts. The fuel tank was more of a challenge since its an irregular shape, and had many rubber hoses that had fused to the barb fittings over its 210k Mile life. A bit of prying and a sheet of plywood later, and the fuel tank (and evap system) were removed, finally exposing all the mounting points of the subframe.

Now is about the time when I realized why an $800 price tag might’ve been too much.

 

 

 

Improving Cold Start Efficiency in Cold Weather

Due to non-disclosure agreements with Ford, I am unable to directly share drawings, data, and documentation that I produced during my tenure there. Instead, I will outline a few problems I encountered and explain my methodology in solving them.

Cold Weather Efficiency: All vehicles, especially electrified vehicles, experience worse fuel economy in cold weather until they reach their nominal operating temperature. The period where the powertrain is warming up to operating temperature is known as a Cold Start. I was asked to investigate how preconditioning various systems affected cold weather, cold start fuel economy. The two systems I chose to investigate in detail were the high voltage (HV) battery, and the transmission. All tests were conducted with the same EPA drive cycle and at the same ambient temperature within a climate-controlled dynamometer cell in an effort to eliminate as many noise factors as possible from the data.

When the high voltage battery is cold, the amount of power that it can deliver is limited to protect the longevity of the battery cells. This drives more engine use, which increases emissions. The theory was that preconditioning the high voltage battery to its nominal operating temperature prior driving would allow more electric power to propel the car, reducing the amount of engine power needed, thus improving fuel economy. Consultations with lithium battery technical experts confirmed that the train of thought here was valid, and that it would be worthwhile to test.

Since using vehicular systems present on the test vehicle would slowly heat up electrical components and drain the HV battery, I needed to develop a method to circulate hot air through the HV battery while the car was turned off. Since the high voltage battery on the vehicle I tested is air-cooled, I was able to supply hot air into the pack with a household hair dryer and some light ductwork. Additionally, I developed a small circuit to interface with the HV battery cooling fan to externally power it, using it to draw the hot air through the battery pack without needing to turn on the vehicle. HV battery temperature (among many other parameters) was monitored with a data acquisition tool called ATI Vision, and data was recorded during both the preconditioning phase, and the drive cycle phase. This was repeated for approximately twenty trials. I analyzed and organized data for presentation to my management, showing that preconditioning the battery to a nominal temperature prior to performing a cold start did not meaningfully affect fuel economy. It turned out that the climate control system was the dominating driver of engine-on time, due to engine coolant temperature targets which were set by Ford’s climate team to meet internal trustmark requirements.

In cold start conditions, especially in cold weather, transmission oil is extremely viscous, causing temporarily amplified power losses due to the gears spinning through and flinging the cold, thick oil. To reduce this loss at cold transmission oil temperatures, there are two main way to lower the viscosity (power losses); precondition the transmission oil so that it is closer to its normal operating temperature, and use a different formulation of oil. I tested both of these solutions in a full factorial fashion (every possible combination was examined). This involved working with a variety of personnel at Ford Motor Company, ranging from transmission technical specialists, to fabricators, to dynamometer lab technicians.

To heat the transmission oil, a new coolant loop was designed and fabricated with the help of workshop and fabrication personnel. A set of engine block heaters were used to heat a water/glycol solution, which in turn was routed through a liquid-liquid heat exchanger to transfer the heat into the transmission oil.  In conjunction with a transmission auxiliary oil pump and some custom plumbing, the transmission oil could be heated without using any of the vehicular systems, improving the accuracy of the experiment. By measuring transmission oil pressure, temperature, and heating circuit flow rate, one could calculate power consumption of the system. By comparing the oil temperature to its temperature-viscosity chart, I selected a test start temperature where the transmission oil was within 10% of its nominal viscosity at operating temperatures. This heating setup also allowed for the transmission oil to be drained and replaced with an ultra-low viscosity (ULV) blend without disassembling the heating circuit.

Approximately 10-15 trials of each test scenario, cold transmission oil, cold ULV, preconditioned transmission oil, and preconditioned ULV, data was analyzed and tabulated for management review. The number of trials per experimental setup varied due to equipment difficulties, dynamometer downtime, and other unavoidable circumstances. As expected, the cold standard transmission oil fared the worst, with the lowest average fuel economy. Preconditioned standard transmission oil and cold Ultra-Low Viscosity transmission oil faired similarly, showing ~5% fuel economy benefit on this specific EPA drive cycle. The preconditioned ULV transmission oil fared the best, showing ~8% fuel economy gain in this specific use case. A statistical analysis (t-test) showed that these results were statically significant with a high level of certainty. Since the results were valid, an energy analysis was performed, comparing the amount of energy used to preheat the transmission oil to the amount of fuel saved, taking into account local energy prices, revealing that preconditioning the transmission oil cost approximately 10x more energy  than it saved through lowering viscous losses within the transmission.

As a result of these experiments, all variants of the Ford Fusion hybrid and C-Max hybrid are now shipped with ultra-low viscosity transmission oil. This is because the change in oil specification essentially cost nothing in exchange for a tangible fuel economy boost in certain operating conditions.