Who are we laughing at? {Trophy Ecology for the Audi R8}

[Woodcutter]

[...] With regard to the recall campaigns, you know as well as I that they do them only on MAJOR C to say problems of their civil liability (RC Entreprise for those who know).
In the majority of cases we do the Max so that it is the customer who pays (of course, with big renfords of tales). When it doesn't work, we try to insure.

No, there are sometimes campaigns for defects that are not really serious but are very annoying in terms of image.
Auto-plus in particular often mentions it, and this same newspaper is not the last one to "denounce" the problems suffered by users.

There are also on other occasions "hidden" updates that dealers carry out during overhauls without informing the customer.

You haven't answered my other questions (technology transfer and 206 model), is it an oversight?
Thank you if you can devote a few minutes to it.

and I understand that moving elements are too close to other fixed elements. The slightest problem in a silent-blos or a support and it breaks.

It's a bit of my initial idea: a silent block with a problem that allows too much freedom of movement for an element.

PS for Christine, you have an MP.

PS2: it is heartbreaking to note that some people here practice exactly what they intend to denounce: putting fuel on the fire, especially in discussions that do not concern them.

[neant]

Hello, I really have a hard time understanding this craze that you have to compare this or that technological breakthrough on such and such a car, and even less taking the lead on such a poor machine.
Being a mechanical technician, I notice a simple and obvious thing, an internal combustion engine with an efficiency of 25%, which is ridiculous and shit.
In short, for 1 liter of fuel burned 75 cl are used only to run the engine and only 25 cl to move.
Here then, is a considerable example of waste intended for profit.
I take great pleasure in putting these numbers on the carpet every time someone tells me about a powerful engine; or a powerful car. In any case, provided that it is equipped with an internal combustion engine, it is an energy sinkhole, a huge shit to pollute and an empty wallet.
Awarding an ecological title to a machine that burns fuel on behalf of performance is still a challenge.

Another thing, more technical than that, and which is of an implacable logic, a car crankshaft, it is heavy, large, difficult to manufacture, expensive, and the lever arm (center-to-center between the seat of the foot connecting rod and the axis formed by the crankshaft bearings) making it possible to increase the torque induced on the axis of the crankshaft, ridiculous.
For starters, if car manufacturers started to review this principle, you would have much more efficient, economical, powerful and smaller engines.
It is not for nothing that in formula 1 they seek to make hyper-square engines (diameter of the pistons greater than the stroke)
However, they are very far from what we could do by completely changing the engine design)
I drew one, and I can tell you that on the hyper square side, I am hyper hyper square, with a stroke of only 31 mm for a diameter of 55 mm. Stirling 4 cylinders. And it's a start
I simulated it and it works wonderfully well without lubrication.
Here, stop looking at self-plus and company, all this is anti-mechanical scam.
The automotive world revolves around maximum profit and they are colluding with the tankers, no doubt.
The world is becoming a legalized and organized racket especially in the field of energy.
Our salvation lies in the discoveries of the past, those that have been stifled for profit.
Stirling has a significantly higher efficiency than the internal combustion engine.
For those with good skills, I am currently working with a small team of volunteers and we want to market a solar generator set powered by a stirling engine.
Write to me at y.freulet@neuf.fr we are targeting a team of 20 people, we need above all thermodynamic and electrical knowledge, don't hesitate.

[Woodcutter]

A pretty interesting article on direct gasoline injection technology.

[zac]

Hi lumberjack and the others

I just read the article.
What are we going to have fun in 5 years in a tropical environment with the maintenance of this kind of gadjet already that with the new generation of engine which have a coolant temperature higher than 100 ° in normal use the local mechanics can not understand that the water is okay; then if you put them electric injectors ( they do not already know that a conventional injector will go wrong).

I'm not talking about the burr (especially at mercos) they are not able to change a windshield without it leaking !!!! nor to order a window regulator rack, a brake bleed not know and when they change a cylinder head gasket, we do not rectify the cylinder head we tighten more tightly and if it still leaks; we put 2 joints and we remove the calorstat.

I'm talking to you about the vehicle that I repaired after they left the local dealer (not the DIY, the dealer with the invoice that goes with it).
@+
zac

[Christophe]

A pretty interesting article on direct gasoline injection technology.

"At this rate, the fuel economy can reach 1,5 l / 100 km compared to the 6-liter V3,5 with conventional injection. Provided, however, says Mercedes, to use a minimum anticipation and progressiveness with the right foot. "

Sorry Bucheron but this passage is just ... how to say .... laughable ...
And the last paragraph says that direct gasoline injection in strat is far from being in point ... Weren't you defending the opposite a few weeks ago?

[Woodcutter]

[[...]
"At this rate, the fuel economy can reach 1,5 l / 100 km compared to the 6-liter V3,5 with conventional injection. Provided, however, says Mercedes, to use a minimum anticipation and progressiveness with the right foot. "

Sorry Bucheron but this passage is just ... how to say .... laughable ...

What makes you laugh? Weak consumption gain? It must still exceed 20%, it's better than nothing, I think ...

And the last paragraph says that direct gasoline injection in strat is far from being in point ... Weren't you defending the opposite a few weeks ago?

Here is the last paragraph:
"Mercedes-Benz takes a step ahead by combining lean mixing and multiple injection. In reality, however, this engine will only run on fuel that is free of all traces of sulfur. A quality that is not yet guaranteed at all service stations in Europe. However, within a few months, the CLS 350 CGI will simply replace the CLS 350 in the range.
Besides the fact that I do not see where it says that the direct injection in stratified charge is not at the point, after having read again what I wrote on the subject, I do not see what makes you lend me such words ...
A small example to help me understand, me the poor naive who believes everything that builders say ...

[jean63]

You said SOPHISTICATED .......

This multitude of injections in the space of a few fractions of a second helps reduce CO2 emissions by half during the temperature rise phase. As for the Achilles heel of direct injection engines, nitrogen oxides (NOx), they are treated by two systems.

The first consists of a network of two catalysts which trap NOx during the lean mixture operating phase, and which then release them during homogeneous phases. These irritant gases disappear in a chemical reaction with other components of the exhaust gases.

The intentions seem to be going in the right direction BUT what a gas factory !!! how long this sophistication can remain reliable, why keep it simple when it can be complicated.

Of course, on paper all these inventions is extraordinary, but what a downside when the slightest problem occurs even if all the dealers are not at the level of those at ZAC. Even if I had the means, very little for me.

[Christophe]

What makes you laugh? Weak consumption gain? It must still exceed 20%, it's better than nothing, I think ...

No, that's it: "provided, however, that you use a minimum of anticipation and progressiveness with your right foot."

Because with this technique and using inertia we can very well earn 1 to 2 L per 100 in town on a fuel vehicle from 1985 .... and then if we take this type of reasoning to the extreme we could say: "With my motorbike I save 6L per 100 when I ... push it" ... Frankly, is this serious enough from a large manufacturer? At first I thought this article was published on April 1 ...

Besides the fact that I do not see where it says that the direct injection in stratified charge is not at the point, after having read again what I wrote on the subject, I do not see what makes you lend me such words ... A small example to help me understand, me the poor naive who believes everything that builders say ...

Good excuse me it was BEFORE the last paragraph (or the last 2 after the last title if you prefer ...):

At the end of the 90s, PSA and Renault followed suit with Mitsubishi with their four-cylinder petrol engines with direct injection. Motors who do not have fizzles (willful misconduct? in any case the link is unequivocal: http://automobile.nouvelobs.com/mag/Dos ... ossier.asp ). The cause is an overly sulfur-rich premium fuel which prevents the desired yields from being obtained. This is why the Volkswagen Group, Opel and Alfa Romeo have abandoned the stratified charge, preferring to invest in direct injection with homogeneous mixing.

As for swallowing the rubbish of the builders it is up to you to have a more impartial technical judgment ... with your 20 years of experience in the car you have largely the skills, I am sure

[Woodcutter]

What makes you laugh? Weak consumption gain? It must still exceed 20%, it's better than nothing, I think ...

No, that's it: "provided, however, that you use a minimum of anticipation and progressiveness with your right foot."

Because with this technique and using inertia we can very well earn 1 to 2 L per 100 in town on a fuel vehicle from 1985 .... and then if we take this type of reasoning to the extreme we could say: "With my motorbike I save 6L per 100 when I ... push it" ... Frankly, is this serious enough from a large manufacturer? At first I thought this article was published on April 1 ...

If you do a good analysis of what is written, you will see that it is mentioned that operation under stratified load is possible up to a certain speed:
"The idea is to optimize the stratification of the mixture in order to maintain the lean mixture operating phase up to high speeds.
This is what the six-cylinder Mercedes-Benz CLS 350 CGI does which can operate with excess air up to the stabilized speed of 120 km / h. A feat."

For me, a stabilized speed means that you are not in a phase of strong demand for work on the engine, that the workload is just necessary to maintain the speed.
It is therefore obvious that if the motor is overloaded at this speed, the conditions of stability necessary for optimal operation in stratified charge are no longer met, hence the return to an operating mode in homogeneous stoichiometric mixture, more fuel-hungry.

Your arguments in the extreme do not serve your demonstrations, Christophe ... Sometimes, you should drop your panoply of attorney general (which may have its interest elsewhere, but All the time, it is sometimes annoying ...) and to have more scientific and posed reasoning, less "epidermic" ...

[...] At the end of the Nineties, PSA and Renault followed suit with Mitsubishi with their four cylinders gasoline with direct injection. Motors who do not have fizzled out (willful misconduct? [...]

For lack of French, I understood the meaning.
What bothers me is that you say (that you blame me ???) for having maintained that direct injection in stratified charge was at the point for IDE, HPi and Mitsu engines, while I n never said that ...
Our conversations and controversies at the start of this thread were based on "technology transfer" and "recent technology".
The only time I mentioned these engines (see my post of 23 Jan 2006 04:28 pm), it was to say that they should not be confused with what GM were currently doing (Alfa with JTS and Opel ) and VAG (Audi and VW with the (T) FSI), since currently, the stratified load was no longer in fashion among engine manufacturers (I had not yet heard of the work of DaimlerChrysler).

So this: "Weren't you defending the opposite a few weeks ago?"shows that you did not understand (read too quickly?) what I had written ...

As for swallowing the rubbish of the builders it is up to you to have a more impartial technical judgment ... with your 20 years of experience in the car you have largely the skills, I am sure

It was a little trap, thank you for falling into it ...

Just to emphasize that very often, you give yourself the role of the one who dismantles the manufacturers and the technology, while you ... me give the role of the one who swallows everything ...
The reality is perhaps a little less simple than you let it show in these posts ...

[Woodcutter]

Here ? I had missed this new last fall ...

Like what, DaimlerChrysler was not the only one to work on direct injections capable of working in lean mixture but of a different technology. And in addition, they broke Behemia, the Bavarians must not have been happy!