Motor efficiency optimization: 2010 tracks

[Christophe]

Here is an excellent document (PSA) of synthesis on the ways of current improvements in the efficiency of thermal engines.

Ie those in progress or envisaged by the manufacturers: https://www.econologie.com/amelioration- ... -4261.html

PSA document from March 2009.

2 extracts:





Le Variable Compression Rate (VCR) motor type MCE5 (or other) is apparently not mentioned in the doc concerning the improvement of petrol engines: https://www.econologie.com/forums/mce-5-le-m ... t7283.html

The VCR nevertheless makes it possible to obtain petrol efficiency similar to diesel efficiency! Which probably means that manufacturers are unlikely to develop this until 2020.

[Christophe]

A Bosch document on high pressure diesel injection research

[Projéthée]

As usual, the builders don't care about our mouths.
Between the inexpensive but still effective systems of the vortex style WITH and some others plus the VCR, there would be enough to raise the performance by several points while also reducing pollution. But no, why do so since BP will repair its leak.

[Flytox]

Bosch does like Mercedes and BMW. They make their projections on cars totally unsuited to the needs of consumers. For them, a good car is an orgy of power, (which we will never use), and an orgy of technology because it will make the customer tick ...





Power 100 Kw, displacement 2 liters and 1400 Kg for a hybrid ..... anything, they really want to make us walk on the head.

In the same barrel:

https://www.econologie.com/forums/diesotto-1 ... t9672.html

https://www.econologie.com/forums/bmw-x6-act ... 90-20.html

[oiseautempete]

As usual, the builders don't care about our mouths.
Between the inexpensive but still effective systems of the vortex style WITH

AVEC has never demonstrated significant effectiveness, except to reduce power since it is a pressure drop ... A friend tested it and his car (R5) not only no longer pulled , but in addition it was more on the highway (a little bit less, not significant, in town) and finally it broke its engine because a piece of it farted and was swallowed, hammering a room and twisting a valve = no shit ...
it is only under very specific conditions that the turbulence created by a "with" is useful ... the shape of the chambers and the arrangement of the valves already make it possible to create a turbulence (visualized in the lab with transparent heads ) ...

[Remundo]

Here is an excellent document (PSA) of synthesis on the current ways of improvement of the engine performances.

That is to say that in progress or envisaged by the manufacturers: https://www.econologie.com/amelioration- ... -4261.html

PSA document from March 2009.

Super document indeed, quite complete and well presented

The VCR nevertheless makes it possible to obtain petrol efficiency similar to diesel efficiency! Which probably means that manufacturers are unlikely to develop this until 2020.

We already talked about it on the wire MCE5

Why have VCRs not experienced any mass industrialization? here:
http://www.mce-5.com/vcr_strategy/exper ... _prosp.htm
According to Renault


According to FEV Motoren Technik


Manufacturers are well aware that increasing the weight, volume and complexity of the engine by more than 50% (not to say 100%), just for the pleasure of having a VCR and gaining 10% of consumption was not viable on an industrial level ...

On the other hand, they see that a VVT, a direct injection and a turbo give largely satisfaction without compromising the basic architecture of the engine, therefore its reliability.

Thus, the VCR is not justified "in general", that is to say on the car of "Mr. Everyone".

I think VCR should be seen as the icing on the cake, the ultimate means [the most complex to implement in the engine architecture *] of action to gain the last points of returns ...

And Flytox is right, the engines are too powerful and pour into hypertechnology while a little more modesty and simplicity would not hurt. Personally, I have an R19 indirect single-point injection, 80 HP and 5,5L / 100 km ... In winter with soft snow tires, I was at 6,2L / 100km

From my point of view, this kind of series hybrid engine (with 30km of batteries for example) would be a big hit in terms of consumption.

[bernardd]

Very interesting post, Christophe, thank you very much.

It shows that the most important losses of an internal combustion engine are heat losses: 53%

Then, on the losses of the engine, the losses of the annex systems still cut the lion's share: pumps, alternator, gearbox ... at least 15% still.

The best solution is to eliminate these losses at the source ... with an engine cooler than room temperature, and which does not require ignition or gearbox.

It exists and it is ... a decompression engine , also called a compressed air motor.

Not type under the sun !

[Projéthée]

Storm-bird, VSLA like pantone and other technos has not been the subject of any "serious and objective" study on the part of the manufacturers or of the scientific community (for what I know but I want sources). In the case of VSLA, taking into account that the effect of turbulence amounts to eating only the peel of the pineapple and concluding that it is really infected. For builders there is the commercial and / or political correctness and then the actual strategy they are following (or would like to follow as Flytox pointed out).
When the misadventures of your boyfriend, I sympathize even if I doubt that he understood all the details of the problem before its assembly. For your information, I made less than 5L / 100 with a 650 Bandit with 7000 km on the odometer equipped with a green filter and a WITH. Without being a handle wringing freak, I'm rarely in sissy mode either. What I wanted above all to denounce is that when certain optimizations developed by individuals do as well if not better than research funded with millions of dollars, who benefits from "no progress"?

[oiseautempete]

Storm-bird, VSLA like pantone and other technos has not been the subject of any "serious and objective" study on the part of the manufacturers nor of the scientific community For info I make less than 5L / 100 with a 650 Bandit with 7000 km on the odometer equipped with a green filter and a AVEC. Without being a handle wringing freak, I'm rarely in sissy mode either. What I wanted above all to denounce is that when certain optimizations developed by individuals do as well if not better than research funded by millions, who benefits from "no progress"?

There you make me laugh: my 500 Honda CX50 (1981cv) was eating 5L / 100 and my 1999 Voxan (102hp) was eating 5.5L / 100 without WITH or DIY, but with Mécacyl (reduction of friction) ... all that driving normally ... The C2 90hp that I currently eats 6L / 100 on average and ... it is a gasoline ... still no WITH, but an efficient driving style (I do not drag myself to some, but I anticipate a max and brake a minimum, brand essence, because with the "supermarket" it eats more ...)
The "individual optimizations" so far I've never seen something that really holds the road over time: from time to time and under certain conditions it sometimes works, but a car manufacturer develops vehicles that must work in all the conditions, not necessarily ideal, and it must be reliable over time, because a malfunction on a series can sink a business (I don't think Toyota is laughing at the moment because of their problems and the millions of cars that must be modified because of the small detail that goes wrong) ...