Problems with lean burn is solved.

[battyr]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/06/ec...90602.html#more

 

BorgWarner Inc. has purchased the ECCOS (Electrically Controlled Combustion Optimization System) radio frequency electrostatic ignition technology targeted at lean-burn engines from Florida-based Etatech, Inc.

 

New ignition system enables combustion in ultra lean burn engines. Works at high compression and high EGR. Produces low NOx. How fast can Ford get this into the EcoBoost Engines?

[theoldwizard]

Yawn, wake me in a decade when something new for emission controls is production ready (not just experimental).

 

BTW, once you get past 20 to 1 air-fuel ratio, you are burning so little fuel, there is no power left !

[battyr]

Yawn, wake me in a decade when something new for emission controls is production ready (not just experimental).

 

BTW, once you get past 20 to 1 air-fuel ratio, you are burning so little fuel, there is no power left !

 

BorgWarner expects to commercialize the technology, which will replace conventional spark plugs, for powertrain applications across various markets and regions in the next few years.

 

Yeah, you would only benefit from ultra lean burn when you take your foot off the gas. You would get the same saving from cylinder deactivation, or aggressive fuel shut-off. I think Lean burn is a better way to go. You don't have the complicated mechanical things to break and the engine is always running and ready to deliver power.

Edited June 2, 2009 by battyr

[battyr]

Yawn, wake me in a decade when something new for emission controls is production ready (not just experimental).

 

BTW, once you get past 20 to 1 air-fuel ratio, you are burning so little fuel, there is no power left !

 

How do you figure? As long as you completely burn the fuel, you will get energy.

 

Going from 14:1 to 20:1, you will produce about 1/3 less energy.

Going from 14:1 to 40:1, you will produce about 2/3 less energy.

 

Now to maintain a constant speed down the highway, how much power do you really need. 10 to 20 Hp would be plenty for 80% of your driving. When you need to accelerate, you just pour on the fuel.

[theoldwizard]

...Now to maintain a constant speed down the highway, how much power do you really need. 10 to 20 Hp would be plenty for 80% of your driving.

Road load HP depends on many things but primarily weight and Cd times frontal area, So for a Focus, you maybe correct. Not for a Taurus of Flex.

 

When you need to accelerate, you just pour on the fuel.

That is called a transition or transient. Every time you do that, the emissions and fuel economy go out the window. Do you know ho many there are in an EPA city/highway cycle ? Dozens and dozens.

 

Next crazy idea !

Edited June 3, 2009 by theoldwizard

[battyr]

Road load HP depends on many things but primarily weight and Cd times frontal area, So for a Focus, you maybe correct. Not for a Taurus of Flex.

 

 

That is called a transition or transient. Every time you do that, the emissions and fuel economy go out the window. Do you know ho many there are in an EPA city/highway cycle ? Dozens and dozens.

 

Next cray idea !

 

That is why they hire good engineers. To fine tune things and make the adjustments to get acceptable results.

[jpd80]

why do people talk about air fuel ratio when fuel droplet size is more important.

PFI get you to about 30 microns and DI goes down to around 5 microns....

 

Increased surface area for the combustion reaction yields more power with the same fuel.

Edited June 3, 2009 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

...Increased surface area for the combustion reaction yields more power with the same fuel.

I don't know what dyno tests you are reading, but those conducted by Ford Research Engineering do not prove that out, at least while meeting US emission standards.

 

Hence no non-turbo DI on any US Ford application.

Edited June 3, 2009 by theoldwizard

[battyr]

why do people talk about air fuel ratio when fuel droplet size is more important.

PFI get you to about 30 microns and DI goes down to around 5 microns....

 

Increased surface area for the combustion reaction yields more power with the same fuel.

 

I don't know about that. The only thing I could say is that smaller droplet size will give you faster, more complete burn. Fuel burn is now pretty close to 100%. I don't know if you could measure any difference.

 

The idea of lean burn is that when you don't need the power, you reduce the fuel, but still keep the engine running. You leave the throttle open to reduce pumping lose.

 

Basically your adding one of the functions of a diesel engine to a gas engine. The secret is to do it without getting diesel emission.

[StevenCaylor]

I don't know what dyno tests you are reading, but those conducted by Ford Research Engineering do not prove that out, at least while meeting US emission standards.

 

Hence no non-turbo DI on any US application.

 

How about GM's new NA DI 2.4L 4 banger. More power and significantly better fuel economy than Ford's PFI 2.5L. Escape vs Equinox, 20/28 vs 22/32.

[theoldwizard]

... The secret is to do it without getting diesel emission.

No the trick is to do it and not create too much NOx to get caught by the EPAs Selective Enforcement Audit. This has happened to Ford twice in the past.

[Mackintire]

How about GM's new NA DI 2.4L 4 banger. More power and significantly better fuel economy than Ford's PFI 2.5L. Escape vs Equinox, 20/28 vs 22/32.

 

 

Nice try... but instead now try compareing Fords DI 2.5L 4 banger to GM's newer NA DI 2.4L 4 banger. Lets keep it to apples to apples type comparasons.

[jpd80]

I don't know what dyno tests you are reading, but those conducted by Ford Research Engineering do not prove that out, at least while meeting US emission standards.

 

Hence no non-turbo DI on any US Ford application.

Do Ford still do research in North America?

I thought they bought all their technology from Bosch and Siemens.

 

NA DI is more a performance adder, Ford achieve similar torque with the 3.7 V6 as GM DI 3.6 but

the GM V6 produces more top end power. I bet that High Pressure pump and injectors are expensive.

 

DI is advantageous when linked to turbo charging the pair go hand in glove, everyone accepts that.

while GM is floundering around with naturally aspirated DI, Ford's Ecoboost is killing them with torque.

Edited June 4, 2009 by jpd80

[battyr]

...

That is called a transition or transient. Every time you do that, the emissions and fuel economy go out the window. Do you know ho many there are in an EPA city/highway cycle ? Dozens and dozens.

 

Next crazy idea !

 

Isn't that one reason why the world is switching to DI. DI should be able to adjust A:F ratio for each individual stroke. No more transient strokes.

 

The electronics may not be able to do it when you worked on this, but it's a lot faster now.

[jpd80]

I don't know what dyno tests you are reading, but those conducted by Ford Research Engineering do not prove that out, at least while meeting US emission standards.

 

Hence no non-turbo DI on any US Ford application.

Sarich did a lot o work in Australia many years ago, his low pressure air assist Direct Injection

was able to reduce droplet size down to 8 to 10 microns, the increased surface area of the smaller

droplets has a marked effect on both emissions profile and fuel consumption. His wet sump two stroke

engines had a blower fixed to the side - like a gasoline version of a detroit Jimmy diesel.

the smaller 1.2 litre engines could achieve early 1990s US emission regs without a cat convertor.

[theoldwizard]

Sarich did a lot o work in Australia many years ago, his low pressure air assist Direct Injection

was able to reduce droplet size down to 8 to 10 microns, the increased surface area of the smaller

droplets has a marked effect on both emissions profile and fuel consumption. His wet sump two stroke

engines had a blower fixed to the side - like a gasoline version of a detroit Jimmy diesel.

the smaller 1.2 litre engines could achieve early 1990s US emission regs without a cat convertor.

That's what you heard !

 

I happen to know some one who worked for Ford Research at the time and evaluated that air-fuel injection system. Their conclusion was it did NOT meet US emission standards without a catalyst. Furthermore, the system was not compatible with (both then and now) existing catalyst technology because the exhaust temperature is too "cold".

 

FYI, Mercury Marine has licensed this technology for it's 2 stroke outboards and markets it under the name Optimax. It works well in this application, but does not meet automotive emission standards.

[battyr]

Maybe someone working for Ford Research wanted to as much work done inhouse as possible to protech jobs.

 

Opps, that would be a conspiracy theory.

[jpd80]

That's what you heard !

 

I happen to know some one who worked for Ford Research at the time and evaluated that air-fuel injection system. Their conclusion was it did NOT meet US emission standards without a catalyst. Furthermore, the system was not compatible with (both then and now) existing catalyst technology because the exhaust temperature is too "cold".

 

Edit,

Just spoke to someone on this end, he said to me to think about the Sarich 3-cylinder 2- stroke like

the 100 mpg carburator, you're going to Ford and telling them to change everything in the engine

but your system doesn't pass the first test. Ford has limited resources in personnel and the time

to chase down every new idea, if it's too much work to put right, resources will not be diverted.

 

Maybe under different circumstances, part of the technology may have been made to work but

in a strange way, I believe Ecoboost achieves all those goals without one quarter of the hassles.

Edited June 6, 2009 by jpd80