Diesel WRC car?
#41
Proven Legendary Status
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 6,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jammy86
Some company came out with this system a number of years ago, but the lack of control methods made it un-useable as it was all mechanical.
I imagine that wasnt that economical though.
#43
10K+ Poster!!
Originally Posted by KW-rscos
Diesel is only good because the car manufacturers have put so muchdevelopment into them, petrol will soon be on its way back up, there was an interesting article on how the are going to make petrol more efficient than diesel, im not sure what the process is called but it involves very high pressure injectors pumping the fuel into a chamber that is at an angle to the side of the combustion chamber and the fuel is pumped away from the cylinder. anyone heard of this? think it came out of a university lab.
Petrol is almost out place to go - once everything is small and turbocharge thats about it.
Diesel on the other hand has MILES of development left in it. Have you heard of VVT on a diesel? Nope - not YET. It makes the same difference on a diesel as it does on a petrol. There just is no need to - consider need is driven by both emissions and customers.
The other point you refer to is petrol DI - Mitsubishi have been playing with that for years. Now its common on BMW's, MINIs, VAG etc etc. By directing the mixture to circle around the spark plug (wall guided with massive EGR for example) you can put very very little petrol into the combustion chamber and it will still ignite reliably.
Just my 2p worth!
Alex
#44
Proven Legendary Status
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 6,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AlexF
No it won't sadly.
Petrol is almost out place to go - once everything is small and turbocharge thats about it.
Diesel on the other hand has MILES of development left in it. Have you heard of VVT on a diesel? Nope - not YET. It makes the same difference on a diesel as it does on a petrol. There just is no need to - consider need is driven by both emissions and customers.
The other point you refer to is petrol DI - Mitsubishi have been playing with that for years. Now its common on BMW's, MINIs, VAG etc etc. By directing the mixture to circle around the spark plug (wall guided with massive EGR for example) you can put very very little petrol into the combustion chamber and it will still ignite reliably.
Just my 2p worth!
Alex
Petrol is almost out place to go - once everything is small and turbocharge thats about it.
Diesel on the other hand has MILES of development left in it. Have you heard of VVT on a diesel? Nope - not YET. It makes the same difference on a diesel as it does on a petrol. There just is no need to - consider need is driven by both emissions and customers.
The other point you refer to is petrol DI - Mitsubishi have been playing with that for years. Now its common on BMW's, MINIs, VAG etc etc. By directing the mixture to circle around the spark plug (wall guided with massive EGR for example) you can put very very little petrol into the combustion chamber and it will still ignite reliably.
Just my 2p worth!
Alex
We'll probably see Petrol become seen as the performance fuel. And manufacturers will use it in their high end vehicles. So you'll always have Petrol Ferraris/Porsches etc. But BMW and Merc will limit it to the M and AMG cars. And VAG for example will limit it to the Golf GTis and TT's of this world.
The backbone of their ranges will be predominately Desease-hell!
#45
Regular Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: lancashire
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are having a deisel class in next years British Rally Championship dont think many will enter .
After seeing the Golf and ZX (in the link on the first page) rallying in the 90s all i can say is CRAP.One of the best bits of watching rallying is the noise and deisels sound like a bag of spanners and people in summer wont be waring masks for the dust in the forests it will be because a smelly deisel is driving past
After seeing the Golf and ZX (in the link on the first page) rallying in the 90s all i can say is CRAP.One of the best bits of watching rallying is the noise and deisels sound like a bag of spanners and people in summer wont be waring masks for the dust in the forests it will be because a smelly deisel is driving past
#46
Ban[B][/B]ned
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Pool.
Posts: 34,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rich_w
Originally Posted by Benni
I've seen a video of a chipped STTDCi keeping just ahead of a new focus ST on a drag strip and it was probably getting twice the MPG if not more. And at then fordfair the same STTDCi got a 6.9 to 60 iirc
And "bullshit" that a TDCi was getting "twice the MPG if not more"
#47
Testing the future
Originally Posted by Benni
Originally Posted by Rich_w
Originally Posted by Benni
I've seen a video of a chipped STTDCi keeping just ahead of a new focus ST on a drag strip and it was probably getting twice the MPG if not more. And at then fordfair the same STTDCi got a 6.9 to 60 iirc
And "bullshit" that a TDCi was getting "twice the MPG if not more"
you can't have more power from a diseasel than from a petrol unless you're burning more fuel. simple as that. especially as diesel has a lower calorific value than petrol (less energy per kg).
the only reason that diesels are often quoted as giving more mpg as because most driving (and particularly the EC standard driving cycles) is done at part load where diesels run a very lean mixture (as can direct injection petrols as described by AxelF).
so, on the strip, the diesel was definately not getting beter mpg than the petrol, although it probably would on the way home
#50
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
The calorific value of all hydrocarbons is more or less the same. I did it all last year in one of my modules.
The problem is efficency. Diesel has no more energy in it that petrol. But we combust diesel at much higher compression ratio's than we do petrol, as it was much easier to keep the thicker oil from detonating at high CR's The effect of high CR is that it increases the BMEP (force) on the piston, hence diesels have high torque outputs.
The health problems associated with it are that you need to choose if you want to make mainly CO2 or NOx emmission, and so put the correct post combustion filter or cat in. As i mentioned before the CAAI looks to eliminate NOx emmisions.
The other problem are pp10's (i think they are called) I dont know much about them but as I understand it they are large enough molecules to lodge in the cells in your lungs and prevent oxygen transfer.
I dont think we'll see petrol die out as quickly as we think. Theres alot of development being done at the moment to massively improve efficency. The car manufactures need to be meeting CO2 emmission by 2008 which they wont meet and then if they dont meet even strickter regulations by 2012 then they wont be allowed to sell within the EU. Thats why I'm gonna go into engine development after uni, as its guarenteed work/cash.
JAmes
The problem is efficency. Diesel has no more energy in it that petrol. But we combust diesel at much higher compression ratio's than we do petrol, as it was much easier to keep the thicker oil from detonating at high CR's The effect of high CR is that it increases the BMEP (force) on the piston, hence diesels have high torque outputs.
The health problems associated with it are that you need to choose if you want to make mainly CO2 or NOx emmission, and so put the correct post combustion filter or cat in. As i mentioned before the CAAI looks to eliminate NOx emmisions.
The other problem are pp10's (i think they are called) I dont know much about them but as I understand it they are large enough molecules to lodge in the cells in your lungs and prevent oxygen transfer.
I dont think we'll see petrol die out as quickly as we think. Theres alot of development being done at the moment to massively improve efficency. The car manufactures need to be meeting CO2 emmission by 2008 which they wont meet and then if they dont meet even strickter regulations by 2012 then they wont be allowed to sell within the EU. Thats why I'm gonna go into engine development after uni, as its guarenteed work/cash.
JAmes
#51
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Middlesex & Windsor
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit I'm very happy with my golf diesel 150 - which has been remapped (made 200hp 315lbf·ft). For everyday use I think its perfect and it still does 400miles per tanks.
#53
10K+ Poster!!
Originally Posted by foreigneRS
Alex - no, but it sounded good
it seems that the calorific value of diesel and petrol are quite similar
it seems that the calorific value of diesel and petrol are quite similar
From a health point of view diesels with a filter (DPF) are cleaner in terms of:
NOx, CO, PPMs
than petrols!!
Alex
#54
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Originally Posted by AlexF
From a health point of view diesels with a filter (DPF) are cleaner in terms of:
NOx, CO, PPMs
than petrols!!
Alex
JAmes
#55
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: oxfordshire/berkshire
Posts: 7,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alot of the OFF ROAD Landrovers IE bowler tomcat ect RUN TD5 and 300TDI Motors in them Go EVERY WELL
www.awdc.co.uk not alot of info
Heres a pic of a bowler tomcat
www.awdc.co.uk not alot of info
Heres a pic of a bowler tomcat
#57
10K+ Poster!!
Originally Posted by jammy86
Originally Posted by AlexF
From a health point of view diesels with a filter (DPF) are cleaner in terms of:
NOx, CO, PPMs
than petrols!!
Alex
JAmes
What you can see does you no harm...
Alex
#58
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Originally Posted by AlexF
Originally Posted by jammy86
Originally Posted by AlexF
From a health point of view diesels with a filter (DPF) are cleaner in terms of:
NOx, CO, PPMs
than petrols!!
Alex
JAmes
What you can see does you no harm...
Alex
its the CO that harms, and the amount our diesel truck engines make at work would put pretty much any car on this board, or any other to shame
#59
Proven Legendary Status
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 6,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AlexF
From a health point of view diesels with a filter (DPF) are cleaner in terms of:
NOx, CO, PPMs
than petrols!!
Alex
Take a 2.0 Litre Turbo Petrol put it in shipping container. Get in the car with the window down. Shut the container up and start the engine.
You WILL NOT DIE.
Take a 2.0 Turbo Diesel repeat the test.
You WILL die.
Thats all for now.
#60
20K+ Super Poster.
Take a 2.0 Litre Turbo Petrol put it in shipping container. Get in the car with the window down. Shut the container up and start the engine.
You WILL NOT DIE.
You WILL NOT DIE.
#61
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Originally Posted by Rich_w
Originally Posted by AlexF
From a health point of view diesels with a filter (DPF) are cleaner in terms of:
NOx, CO, PPMs
than petrols!!
Alex
Take a 2.0 Litre Turbo Petrol put it in shipping container. Get in the car with the window down. Shut the container up and start the engine.
You WILL NOT DIE.
Take a 2.0 Turbo Diesel repeat the test.
You WILL die.
Thats all for now.
diesels produce, on average, less carbon monoxide than there petrol
equivalents
and thats the poisonous one
#62
DEYTUKURJERBS
Originally Posted by jammy86
Some company came out with this system a number of years ago, but the lack of control methods made it un-useable as it was all mechanical.
why would you need any control methods other than mechanical anyhow?
Originally Posted by Rich_w
And although the SC reduces it theres still a definete step as it goes from 1 to the other. Almost making it feel laggy.
Ive seen all the diagrams, but im not convinced yet thats how its done on them, and all the bullshit about how the lancia one worked is reason enough for me to be suspicious.
And you can feel the "step" on any performance car on earth TBH, turbo or not. As something comes into the powerband theres a sudden step of performance.
The whole point of twincharging is to give the drivability at all rpm a normally aspirated or turbo 1.4 of the same bhp would NEVER have.
#63
10K+ Poster!!
Originally Posted by Rich_w
Originally Posted by AlexF
From a health point of view diesels with a filter (DPF) are cleaner in terms of:
NOx, CO, PPMs
than petrols!!
Alex
Take a 2.0 Litre Turbo Petrol put it in shipping container. Get in the car with the window down. Shut the container up and start the engine.
You WILL NOT DIE.
Take a 2.0 Turbo Diesel repeat the test.
You WILL die.
Thats all for now.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the container is air tight you die either way!
Alex
#64
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: oxfordshire/berkshire
Posts: 7,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GARETH T
thats a wicked photo aswell,, i bet thats a V8 petrol though
Also if your intreasted the BOLWER TOMCAT is in the For sale part on www.awdc.co.uk @ ony £10,250 i will one day own for road use but there only got 2 seats
#65
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: louth, ireland
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alan s1
Originally Posted by GARETH T
thats a wicked photo aswell,, i bet thats a V8 petrol though
Also if your intreasted the BOLWER TOMCAT is in the For sale part on www.awdc.co.uk @ ony £10,250 i will one day own for road use but there only got 2 seats
#66
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Originally Posted by Stavros
Originally Posted by jammy86
Some company came out with this system a number of years ago, but the lack of control methods made it un-useable as it was all mechanical.
why would you need any control methods other than mechanical anyhow?
Originally Posted by Rich_w
And although the SC reduces it theres still a definete step as it goes from 1 to the other. Almost making it feel laggy.
Ive seen all the diagrams, but im not convinced yet thats how its done on them, and all the bullshit about how the lancia one worked is reason enough for me to be suspicious.
And you can feel the "step" on any performance car on earth TBH, turbo or not. As something comes into the powerband theres a sudden step of performance.
The whole point of twincharging is to give the drivability at all rpm a normally aspirated or turbo 1.4 of the same bhp would NEVER have.
Poor setup? are you talking shit? or you just thick? The point of the super charger is perfect, engineers have spend ages and millions on this. Do you really think there is no point? Do you think VW like pissing away cash on new engines to meet regulations when the old ones worked fine?
The point of it is to keep the compression ratio constant throughout the rev range and so improve the BMPE and so efficency.
JAmes
#67
DEYTUKURJERBS
WHY was it not useable on the road? Give me a reason? Not the usual internet bollocks about it, even these websites about the car all seem to be wrong.
Thick/Talking Shit? No, switching from one to another is pointless unless there some economy reason i cant fathom, there certainly only performance disadvantages from doing so.
Have you any real knowlege of the VW system or twincharging itself, or are you just abusing me cause its the internet and can say anything you like?
The VW diagrams show the charger before the turbo, and in that case it deffo needs a supercharger bypass as it will strangle the turbo otherwise (unless it was higher flowing than the turbo, which would make the turbo quite pointless) as its a sealed unit, but im not convinced it really works like that.
Offers less performance advantages to the way the Lancia worked, so cant see why really?
If the SC was clutched and disengaged at high revs i can see some slight reliability/economy advantages, but still in expense of twin charging it properly...
Twincharging is a FANTASTIC idea, im not saying that, im saying the "switching" thing is bizzare.
So please, tell me why the Lancia wasnt useable, and why the VW switching point is a benefit to its performance.
Thick/Talking Shit? No, switching from one to another is pointless unless there some economy reason i cant fathom, there certainly only performance disadvantages from doing so.
Have you any real knowlege of the VW system or twincharging itself, or are you just abusing me cause its the internet and can say anything you like?
The VW diagrams show the charger before the turbo, and in that case it deffo needs a supercharger bypass as it will strangle the turbo otherwise (unless it was higher flowing than the turbo, which would make the turbo quite pointless) as its a sealed unit, but im not convinced it really works like that.
Offers less performance advantages to the way the Lancia worked, so cant see why really?
If the SC was clutched and disengaged at high revs i can see some slight reliability/economy advantages, but still in expense of twin charging it properly...
Twincharging is a FANTASTIC idea, im not saying that, im saying the "switching" thing is bizzare.
So please, tell me why the Lancia wasnt useable, and why the VW switching point is a benefit to its performance.
#68
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
The theory behind the twincahrge is that the constant CR allows the engine to operate at an optimised efficency level. This is whats done for NASP cars. when you charge you increase the CR and so you decrease it to allow for this extra rise caused by the charger. Decreasing the CR then causes the engine not to opperate at an effective point when not on boost. This is commonly seen when people put massive turbo's on which dont kick in untill higher up in the rev range.
I belive the CR of the TSI is 10:1, with boost of 2.5bar.
The system works by: low-mid RPM the SC (+ve displacement i think) runs off the crank (drawing power from the engine) and provides the engine with pressureised air so that the lowered compression ratio is raised to a higher one (~3.47 psi of boost is a cr raise of 1) where the engine can run at higher efficency due to the higher combustion pressure and tempreatures. Once the exhaust gasses are able to sping up the Turbo (centrafugal compressor, needs about 20000rpm before any pressure rise) and the turbo is providing boost the SC switches off and decouples itself from the crank (to stop drawing power from the engine, increase efficency) The SC is bypassed and the trubo keeps the CR high and provides topend power.
The problem Lancia had was that the mechanical coupling between the SC and the crank was no good, it didnt last long enough to be put into a production vehical, but I assume was adaqute for motorsport use. This switch has now been replaced by a electrically controlled system which is much more repliable and should be able to meet the required service life. The other major factor when it was released was cost. Over the last 20 years the cost of production of turbochargers has decreased significantly, the cost of superchargers has too decreased but not by as much due to less investment. Evidently it was neither cost effective or reliable enough to make a production car.
The reason that VW (and other companies) have had to look into technologys like this (constant CR for charged engines, VVT, camless engines, pressure-hybrids, exhaust-gas-reuse, redundant cylinders, direct injection) is that the EU legislation says the by 2008 all manufacturers will be producing no more than 140 g of CO2 per Kilometer on a Standard European Drive Cylce, accross the range of their cars. If they fail to meet this in 2008 (which they will fail to do) then by 2012 they must meet a further reduction of 20g/k on SEDC. If they dont meet these regulations then they will not be allowed to sell cars within the EU.
The VW TSI engine I think is producing ~169. The 2ltr FSI-T (golf GTI) egnine is ~200. Though the power of the TSI isnt far off the FSI-T. Wether or not its nearly as driveable I dont know or if the figures are real life reflections, but the EU dont care about that either. The fuel efficency is said to be 20% lower for the TSI, given the current oil costs I think this is quite important for every day cars.
JAmes
I belive the CR of the TSI is 10:1, with boost of 2.5bar.
The system works by: low-mid RPM the SC (+ve displacement i think) runs off the crank (drawing power from the engine) and provides the engine with pressureised air so that the lowered compression ratio is raised to a higher one (~3.47 psi of boost is a cr raise of 1) where the engine can run at higher efficency due to the higher combustion pressure and tempreatures. Once the exhaust gasses are able to sping up the Turbo (centrafugal compressor, needs about 20000rpm before any pressure rise) and the turbo is providing boost the SC switches off and decouples itself from the crank (to stop drawing power from the engine, increase efficency) The SC is bypassed and the trubo keeps the CR high and provides topend power.
The problem Lancia had was that the mechanical coupling between the SC and the crank was no good, it didnt last long enough to be put into a production vehical, but I assume was adaqute for motorsport use. This switch has now been replaced by a electrically controlled system which is much more repliable and should be able to meet the required service life. The other major factor when it was released was cost. Over the last 20 years the cost of production of turbochargers has decreased significantly, the cost of superchargers has too decreased but not by as much due to less investment. Evidently it was neither cost effective or reliable enough to make a production car.
The reason that VW (and other companies) have had to look into technologys like this (constant CR for charged engines, VVT, camless engines, pressure-hybrids, exhaust-gas-reuse, redundant cylinders, direct injection) is that the EU legislation says the by 2008 all manufacturers will be producing no more than 140 g of CO2 per Kilometer on a Standard European Drive Cylce, accross the range of their cars. If they fail to meet this in 2008 (which they will fail to do) then by 2012 they must meet a further reduction of 20g/k on SEDC. If they dont meet these regulations then they will not be allowed to sell cars within the EU.
The VW TSI engine I think is producing ~169. The 2ltr FSI-T (golf GTI) egnine is ~200. Though the power of the TSI isnt far off the FSI-T. Wether or not its nearly as driveable I dont know or if the figures are real life reflections, but the EU dont care about that either. The fuel efficency is said to be 20% lower for the TSI, given the current oil costs I think this is quite important for every day cars.
JAmes
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Versus_Creations
Pictures, video & Photoshop Forum
24
05-08-2015 09:32 PM