wwest Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 How about a DFI engine that runs in standard Otto mode, transitions into Atkinson cycle mode with low to moderate engine loading and then into Miller cycle mode for high levels of engine loading..?? Low displacement Otto/Atkinson cycle I4 engine with absolutely STELLAR FE for simply cruising along at a relatively constant speed but performs like a HUGE V8 when you put your foot "down". All with modern day off-the-shelf, already in daily use, technology. What is needed: A. A positive displacement SuperCharger engine/electric combination differential drive using the Toyota HSD e/CVT technique. B. A variable intake valve closing delay system and control, say using "extended" VVT-i as is used in the newest Prius and the 2010 RX450h to transition between Otto engine mode with low engine loading and into Atkinson cycle mode for moderate to high engine loads/loading. Base/static/native engine compression ratio would be ~15-16:1. With low engine loading, partial A/F cylinder charge, that would remain the effective CR. As engine loading rises that CR would undoubtedly result in detonation so the VVT-i would be used to delay intake valve closing, thereby (incrementally..??) lowering the CR as the cylinder charge rises. At FULL engine loading, say equivalent to WOT(***), VVT-i would reduce the effective, before BOOST, CR to ~10:1. Boost, inter-cooled boost, would, of course, raise the effective CR back up to ~15-16:1. All the while the power stroke expansion ratio would remain 15-16:1 Would we call that an Otto/Atkinson/Miller/West cycle engine...?? *** No actual throttle plate required, the variable speed positive displacement SC would provide the throttling function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Take a careful look at Fords animation of the EcoBoost engine. Looks like the intake valve is open during the first 25% of the compression stroke. During the days of the Mazda miller cycle, this would not be possible because someone had patented the use of VVT and Atkinson cycle. Last year the patent expired so anyone can do it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) Likely EcoBoost will transition into this ...maybe by 2016 CAFE? Interesting tech with great promise, imo. Edited June 12, 2009 by 68fastback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwest Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) Take a careful look at Fords animation of the EcoBoost engine. Looks like the intake valve is open during the first 25% of the compression stroke. During the days of the Mazda miller cycle, this would not be possible because someone had patented the use of VVT and Atkinson cycle. Last year the patent expired so anyone can do it now. Yes, the animation looks like that but if Ford were doing that then why is the EcoBoost engine's hwy FE lower than its Otto counterpart. Besides which Ford is only claiming a static CR of 10:1 whereas 12:1 would be more appropreate for a DFI engine. Waiting for the patent to expire before making use of technology this important is nothing less than criminal. Edited June 12, 2009 by wwest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 GM is doing the same thing with it's Ecotec LNF engine. They needed a high compression ratio for efficiency. To make it work with a turbo, they used a mild Atkinson cycle to keep the pressure ratio down. If Ford uses the CAM Torque Actuation VVT from the Fusion, they would be able to get much better results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Yes, the animation looks like that but if Ford were doing that then why is the EcoBoost engine's hwy FE lower than its Otto counterpart. Besides which Ford is only claiming a static CR of 10:1 whereas 12:1 would be more appropreate for a DFI engine. Waiting for the patent to expire before making use of technology this important is nothing less than criminal. None of this is strictly for the consumer's benefit, it's legislation driven. Ecoboost enables Ford to continue providing the same size products on the right side of CAFE. Think of it that way and everything makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyk24 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Word of advise. Willard West is famous at other "hybrid" sites for bashing Ford Motor Company and its products. He drives Toyota products and nothing else can compare to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Word of advise. Willard West is famous at other "hybrid" sites for bashing Ford Motor Company and its products. He drives Toyota products and nothing else can compare to them. No surprise here. He came out of the gate acting like P71 lite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Yes, the animation looks like that but if Ford were doing that then why is the EcoBoost engine's hwy FE lower than its Otto counterpart. Besides which Ford is only claiming a static CR of 10:1 whereas 12:1 would be more appropreate for a DFI engine. Waiting for the patent to expire before making use of technology this important is nothing less than criminal. We don't know the real Fuel efficiency of the EB. Ford always underestimates Stats until the official numbers are released. Fuel consumption is based on how much power is used. With the EB 3.5L producing a lot more power, someone with a heavy foot would get poorer fuel efficiency. If you want to improve fuel efficiency, use a 2.0L EB. 10:1 CR is high for using regular gas. Normally when you add a turbo, you need reduce the CR to about 8:1 to make up for the boost pressure. The patent lasted over 20 years and it was never used. Companies tend not to look at patents of undeveloped products because they don't want to risk lawsuits claiming that they copied someone elses idea. You can't copy something if you have never seen it. If someone has a finished and proven product, then they will license that product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwest Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 Word of advise. Willard West is famous at other "hybrid" sites for bashing Ford Motor Company and its products. He drives Toyota products and nothing else can compare to them. Let's see.... 2001 28' Four Winds MH on Ford E350 V10 chasis, 80,000 miles. 1993 Ford Ranger PU I4/stick, 140,000 miles. 1994 AWD Eddie Bauer Aerostar, 130,000 miles. Not so much "bashing" Ford as "encouraging" them to do BETTER. Look at the new Audi V6 TFSI engine as a for instance. In this case "T" stands for SuperCharging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwest Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 Looking forward to the new unibody Explorer Sport-Trac provided it is R/awd and by that time Ford has incorporated the Otto/Atkinson/Miller(SC) modes in the EcoBoost engine to dramatically improve FE and still produce a substantial, acceptable, level of HP/torque, say 225ish. Should that all come together we will become the proud owners of a 5th wheel as the MH will GO AWAY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Looking forward to the new unibody Explorer Sport-Trac provided it is R/awd and by that time Ford has incorporated the Otto/Atkinson/Miller(SC) modes in the EcoBoost engine to dramatically improve FE and still produce a substantial, acceptable, level of HP/torque, say 225ish. Should that all come together we will become the proud owners of a 5th wheel as the MH will GO AWAY. sorry WW, for all intents and purposes the Explorer sounds like a FWD AWD lineup....and prey...I don't see a vehicle in your lineup 5th wheel capable...and that includes the up coming Explorer.... Edited June 16, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwest Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 We don't know the real Fuel efficiency of the EB. Ford always underestimates Stats until the official numbers are released. Fuel consumption is based on how much power is used. With the EB 3.5L producing a lot more power, someone with a heavy foot would get poorer fuel efficiency. If you want to improve fuel efficiency, use a 2.0L EB. 10:1 CR is high for using regular gas. Normally when you add a turbo, you need reduce the CR to about 8:1 to make up for the boost pressure. The patent lasted over 20 years and it was never used. Companies tend not to look at patents of undeveloped products because they don't want to risk lawsuits claiming that they copied someone elses idea. You can't copy something if you have never seen it. If someone has a finished and proven product, then they will license that product. "...10:1 CR is high for using regular gas..." This is part and parcel of Ford's SHAM...!! But this is a DFI engine wherein 12-13:1 could/would be considered the norm for regular gas. These "Ecoboost" engines could easily have a static AND "dynamic" CR of 15-16:1 running in light or partial throttle, engine load/loading, standard Otto mode. With moderate engine loading VVT-i could be used to transition into Atkinson cycle mode, dynamic CR of 12.5:1 and at WOT throttle into Miller cycle mode, dynamic CR before boost of 10:1. Look at what Audi and VW are doing with the I4 TFSI turbo engine and the V6 TFSI SC engine. "..then they will license that product.." Unless the corporate NIH factor is too high...!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwest Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 sorry WW, for all intents and purposes the Explorer sounds like a FWD AWD lineup....and prey...I don't see a vehicle in your lineup 5th wheel capable...and that includes the up coming Explorer.... Then I guess I must hope that Ford will bring the new Ranger crew cab PU to our shores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I can't get too excited about a $40,000 Jetta with a FSI Turbo 2.0L I-4 that only has 10.5:1 compression and requires Premium Gas It's a SHAM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwest Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 I can't get too excited about a $40,000 Jetta with a FSI Turbo 2.0L I-4 that only has 10.5:1 compression and requires Premium Gas It's a SHAM! With the advent of EFI and wide bandwidth knock/ping sensors there is really NO modern day engine thet REQUIRES premium fuel. Recommended for best performance, YES, required, NO...!! 10.5:1 CR is quite reasonable for a turbocharged direct injection engine, according to FORD. But what is the HP rating of that VW 2.0L I-4..?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefstang Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Hey, how do I make my words all big like that? I wanna contribute, but I'm afraid I won't be heard. BEAT IT!! Never mind. I found it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Hey, how do I make my words all big like that? I wanna contribute, but I'm afraid I won't be heard. BEAT IT!! Never mind. I found it. +1 Stupid troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 With the advent of EFI and wide bandwidth knock/ping sensors there is really NO modern day engine thet REQUIRES premium fuel. Recommended for best performance, YES, required, NO...!! 10.5:1 CR is quite reasonable for a turbocharged direct injection engine, according to FORD. But what is the HP rating of that VW 2.0L I-4..?? On premium, or regular gas? Between 100 and 70 hp less than an EcoBoost 2.0L. If you use regular gas maybe 120 hp less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyk24 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) This is the troll's data from Greenhybrid.com. He drives a 2003 Prius which is a front wheel drive vehicle. Willard is famous for warning about the dangers of front wheel drive. He is also famous for warning about FWD based 4WD vehicles, the danger of driving a hybrid at or below 32 degrees F as regenerative braking is lost. I could go on an on but you get the point. wwest Ridiculously Active Enthusiast Real Name: willard west Location: Beautiful Pacific NW Hybrids: 2003 Prius Posts: 843 Re: TC and F/awd vehicles thread at: http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/f26/tc-...vehicles-21838/ Edited June 17, 2009 by billyk24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwest Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 This is the troll's data from Greenhybrid.com. He drives a 2003 Prius which is a front wheel drive vehicle. Willard is famous for warning about the dangers of front wheel drive. He is also famous for warning about FWD based 4WD vehicles, the danger of driving a hybrid at or below 32 degrees F as regenerative braking is lost. I could go on an on but you get the point. wwest Ridiculously Active Enthusiast Real Name: willard west Location: Beautiful Pacific NW Hybrids: 2003 Prius Posts: 843 Re: TC and F/awd vehicles thread at: http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/f26/tc-...vehicles-21838/ I don't think I've ever said that a hybrid is dangerous when the regen system is disabled or reduced in capability below 32F OAT. The opposite is closer to the truth, the fact that some (all..??) FWD and F/awd hybrids do that results in an increased safety factor. And like a 4WD or 4X4 driven "at speed" in adverse roadbed conditions, ice, packed snow, slippery, with the center diff'l remaining locked, FWD and F/awd vehicles are patently DANGEROUS. Even moreso than most of the aforementioned 4WD/4X4, most of those having NO front torque bias. Does anyone know of ANY FWD based 4WD passenger vehicle..?? F/awd, yes, or to be a bit liberal, "AWD". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 FWD and F/awd vehicles are patently DANGEROUS. Even moreso than most of the aforementioned 4WD/4X4, most of those having NO front torque bias. Says the man who drives a F/AWD RX300. Do as I say but not as I do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 And like a 4WD or 4X4 driven "at speed" in adverse roadbed conditions, ice, packed snow, slippery, with the center diff'l remaining locked, FWD and F/awd vehicles are patently DANGEROUS. Even moreso than most of the aforementioned 4WD/4X4, most of those having NO front torque bias. Does anyone know of ANY FWD based 4WD passenger vehicle..?? F/awd, yes, or to be a bit liberal, "AWD". It is painfully obvious that you have no idea of how the Haldex GEN IV active transfer case operates in Ford's D3 AWDs. Or for that matter, how the full time AWD in Mazda's vehicles operates either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Then I guess I must hope that Ford will bring the new Ranger crew cab PU to our shores. hope your fifth wheel weighs less than 6000 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwest Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 It is painfully obvious that you have no idea of how the Haldex GEN IV active transfer case operates in Ford's D3 AWDs. Or for that matter, how the full time AWD in Mazda's vehicles operates either... "...full time AWD..." The ONLY method I know of for FULL TIME AWD on a base FWD vehicle, sideways mounted engine, is to have three fully open differentials, front, center, and rear, say as in the Highlander, Sienna, and RX series. Well, come to think of it, there is the HH and RXh wherein both front and rear drives can be engaged simultaneously on a high traction surface without damage from driveline windup. Otherwise: FULL TIME F/awd functionality right up until just one wheel slips/spins. then you suddenly have a ONE-WHEEL drive vehicle. What you more likely mean is F/awd is ENABLED at all times. Is the Haldex GEN IV used in a base FWD vehicle..?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.