MCE-5, the VCR-i engine mounted in a Peugeot 407

[Christophe]

MCE5 royally announces 150 ch / Liter, it's insane ...

Dementing according to what criteria?
Credibility of this statement?

and ben ... we will not take me ten years 20 million euros deficit

Maybe, I wish you but have you started looking for ways?

[Woodcutter]

You really have to explain everything here

Yeah, except when it's called elec ...
You want to replace him?

an engine to 1,5 220 ch is too biased to be reliable over time. To my POGDC, I retain powers of 70 Ch./Litre displacement ... MCE5 you royally ad 150 hp / liter, this is insane ...
[...]
Not very long, 10 000 km Perhaps, yes ...

That's what you say! Why would this type of engine not be reliable?
We currently have 120 hp./l engines which are fitted in "father of a family" cars, with a supercharging which is certainly a little sophisticated but that's all ...
This MCE-5 engine, even if it can output 150 hp / l, is not for all that a "racing" engine or an ultra sharp engine as one could hear it ten years ago. ..

not at all, the valves have no power to control the rise in compression.

Electronic camless is announced every year for over 15 years, as the architecture that goes with 42V

I do not agree with that! The valves can handle the pressure build-up, but, as you say, it will require magnetic actuators that are only concepts at the moment.

and ben ... we will not take me ten years 20 million euros deficit

I think you are very good designer, but:
- this does not mean that the others do shit! (the "elec" syndrome hit? )
- the big advantage of the MCE-5 demonstrator is that it is industrially viable. I sincerely hope that you will be able to do so within a reasonable time.

Why speak of a "deficit" for a research budget? For the sake of easy criticism?

[Flytox]

Bonjour à tous

The biggest problem is that they make a 4 engine more powerful than the actual needs, which consumes 6-7 liters at 100 km (TBC) instead of 3 liters of the current good cars and they claim That it is the future (tankers can be and at most).

Whether this engine is less than another engine totally unsuitable for everybody, it does not respond to a real need for a sober vehicle !!!!! We are in 2009 with a crisis and tomorrow with ever more expensive energy. They are completely outside the plate!

For the technique: Let's say it does not vibrate, but if it changes the volumetric ratio independently on each cylinder, I do not quite understand how the mobile crew can remain balanced with top dead center at different heights?

For the kinematics, they remove piston skirt friction to replace with the pignon which makes oscillating movements. Better for a slow engine can be, for a fast engine, I will need proof.

[Christophe]

I put the video on the EconoTV: https://www.econologie.com/automobile-mc ... -4051.html

[fabio.gel]

Yeah still a cochonerie engine with lots of oil, belt, candle ... and recycling in all this video do not talk !!!

In addition 150 ch / l the true downsizing would be to produce it with a very low cylinder to have a reduction of conso significant (below 1l to 100 km).

Putting as much money into the internal combustion engines is really not reasonable.

[Christophe]

Yeah still a cochonerie engine with lots of oil, belt, candle ... and recycling in all this video do not talk !!!

Ok proposed better

In addition 150 ch / l the true downsizing would be to produce it with a very low cylinder to have a reduction of conso significant (below 1l to 100 km).

???? The one does not prevent the other on the contrary.
If 150 ch / l is an invariable constant of the cylinder a small city car (50 to 60 cv) would require an 400 engine cm3! This is the displacement of a lawnmower engine from 5 to 6 Cv !!!

Putting as much money into the internal combustion engines is really not reasonable.

Apparently you do not know the sector well:

a) it's not that much
B) given the results announced it is even very cheap
c) the CI engine is still what we do best
D) ca can be available quickly and cheaply = all the reverse of other research (EV in particular)

Compare what has been invested in fuel cells for what effects? This really is not reasonable.

What would be reasonable is to pass more and more car ... But that is another debate!

[Remundo]

There would be a lot to say ...

As long as you have not noticed that the MCE5 engine doubles the volume and weight, takes a complex kinematics (+ 1 Flytox) to only have a variable compression ratio and gain 15% in consumption, you will continue to think that ' Is terrific.

(You will have noticed the wacky conso of the V6 Peugeot 15L / 100 km announced by MCE5 ...)

FabioGel has noticed, the MCE5 concept does not respond to the current engine problem.

@ Christophe: really reliable engines, which can be used for more than 300 Mkm, do not make 150 HP / L. 120 HP / L engines are not "good father" and generally have some concerns from 150 km.

The most reliable is the Diesel or Atmospheric gasoline (tractor type), unbreakable: this type of engine makes 70 Ch / L and that's good enough.

A 150 Ch / L, one is based on engine for Rally cars. These engines require quite a lot of maintenance

[Christophe]

@ Christophe: really reliable engines, which can be used for more than 300 Mkm, do not make 150 HP / L. 120 HP / L engines are not "good father" and generally have some concerns from 150 km.

The stroke and piston guidance have a big influence in your affirmation right? But with the MCE5 this parameter is optimized.
So you can not decide so frankly ...

What is certain is that the complexity is inversely proportional to reliability: see the decrease in the life of the current engines / those of 20 years ago ...

The most reliable is the Diesel or Atmospheric gasoline (tractor type), unbreakable: this type of engine makes 70 Ch / L and that's good enough.

Ben 70 hp / l is already a lot for oil ... it makes for a 140L 2 cv ...

It's been a few years (decade?) That gasoline tractors no longer exist ...

A 150 Ch / L, one is based on engine for Rally cars. These engines require quite a lot of maintenance

The comparison is impossible unless there is MCE5 in rally? You have engines, it should be easy to understand for you, is not it?

[Woodcutter]

[...] In addition 150 ch / l the true downsizing would be to produce it with a very low cylinder capacity to have a conso significant reduction (below 1l 100 km) [...]

I have already answered a little before to Citro on the possible reasons for the power of this demonstrator.

[Woodcutter]

There would be a lot to say ...

Until you notice that the MCE5 doubles the volume and weight, Takes a complex kinematics (+ 1 Flytox) to have only a variable compression ratio and gain 15% in consumption, you will continue to think that it is great.

(You will have noticed the wacky conso of the V6 Peugeot 15L / 100 km announced by MCE5 ...)

But you do not know at all!
It's exactly as if I, looking at your engine, told you: "It's way too complicated and it will never work!"

It's really amazing, you're reacting exactly as elec, while you criticized it for that the other day it seems to me?

For the volume, indeed it is probably bigger than a 4 cylinder 1.5 l "classic" but for the weight, I do not really see where you can find arguments to say that ...

For the complex kinematics, I have only to say.
When we see the complexity of your concept to you, it still makes you smile that kind of remark, right?

For the Conso, even if 14.5 l Are exaggerated (that's the conso in town of this car), but the gain provided by the MCE-5 is much more important than 15%!

@ Christophe: really reliable engines, which can be used for more than 300 Mkm, do not make 150 HP / L. 120 HP / L engines are not "good father" and generally have some concerns from 150 km.

What do you know about that ?
Do you have usage statistics and breakdown rates for TSI VAG engines?
For me, a Golf or a Touran equipped with the 170 hp TSI is a "quiet" car, not a rally car!

Moreover, if your criterion of judgment, it is 300 000 km without doing anything, you can swing to the bucket ALL current engines

The most reliable is the Diesel or Atmospheric gasoline (tractor type), unbreakable: this type of engine makes 70 Ch / L and that's good enough.

A "classic" naturally aspirated engine which outputs 70 hp / l in gasoline does not have a super good performance and, unless you go up in displacement, the torque is too low for it to be pleasant to drive ...

In Diesel, it does not exist and in any case, the Diesel atmo have disappeared from the production of the VP.

And the 70 hp / l "Raymundo" type engines have not (yet?) Seen the light of day ... When a demonstrator is ready, I have no doubt that everyone will be ecstatic at the concept ...
Meanwhile, improvements like this MCE-5 are always good to take!

A 150 Ch / L, one is based on engine for Rally cars [/ b]. These engines require quite a lot of maintenance

The current rally engines last at least 3 rallies or more than 1200 km of "full" specials (not counting the thousands of km of liaison) without any intervention being able to be made on them, but I do not really see the interest in comparing a mechanics optimized for competition (with all that that implies) with a "general public" engine ...