backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by meef.. on Sep 10 at 5:31 AM


VW 1.4L TSI
VW engine will be the first 4-cylinder in the industry to use cylinder deactivation tech

With more stringent fuel economy standards looming in the U.S. and elsewhere, auto manufacturers are looking to pull out all the stops to improve economy as much as possible. Carmakers are turning to technology like direct injection and automatic start/stop. Several automakers are also using cylinder deactivation on their larger engines.

Cylinder deactivation is something that some carmakers in the U.S. and abroad have used for years. Chrysler has used the technology in its Hemi engines, Honda uses it on some of its V6 models, and Audi will use cylinder deactivation in its new line of “S” performance models.

VW is set to make a first in the automotive market by offering cylinder deactivation on its 4-cylinder models.

The VW tech will turn off two engine cylinders under certain conditions. The engine is called the 1.4L TSI and VW promises that it will offer a fuel savings of 0.4-liters/100km and when combined with start/stop technology the vehicle would save 0.6-liters of fuel. For those more familiar with U.S. mpg ratings, that works out to an improvement of in the range of 
3 to 4.5 mpg on average. 

The engine would turn off two of the cylinders under low to medium loads, and VW says that the tech will meet the future European EU6 emissions standards. The cylinders will be deactivated when the engine is operating between 1,400 and 4,000 rpm and the engine torque is in the range of 25 to 75Nm.

VW claims that operating range applies to about 70 percent of the driving distance in the EU fuel economy driving cycle. VW also points out that as soon as the driver presses the pedal the cylinders will reactivate without the driver being able to tell it happened. The cylinders also would not turn off if the vehicle were being driven in a sporty manner apparently. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good on paper..
By nocturne_81 on 9/6/2011 4:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The cylinders will be deactivated when the engine is operating between 1,400 and 4,000 rpm


It may just be me, but who regularly drives past 4000 rpm unless racing or speeding..?

It all sounds great on paper, but the real world practice will be the real test. Personally, I don't know why they don't go back to the 70s-80s concept of a light car with a 70hp engine that was just capable of reaching highway speeds. My girlfriend years back had an '88 Plymouth Sundance that got 40+ mpg, even with an intake manifold leak losing loads of vacuum.. Unless it's a sports car or truck, there's no reason for a vehicle to have much more than 100hp -- and otherwise only lends to a close friend's thought that his Mazda 6 is a super-car..




RE: Good on paper..
By FITCamaro on 9/6/2011 4:09:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In my opinion, unless it's a sports car or truck, there's no reason for a vehicle to have much more than 100hp


I for one like to have a vehicle that can get to 60 mph in under 15 seconds. I don't want a car that is BARELY capable of highway speeds.


RE: Good on paper..
By YashBudini on 9/6/2011 10:01:14 PM , Rating: 3
15 seconds may have been adequate in the days people saw cars attempting to merge onto the highway and actually moved over a lane to allow access. Now that rudeness and texting are the norm you risk your safety with anything that reaches 0-60 in more than 12 seconds.

quote:
there's no reason for a vehicle to have much more than 100hp

Underpowered cars suffer both performance and mileage hits. A prime example would be the Chevette, which excelled at underperforming at everything. The proper HP and gearing obtain optimal results.


RE: Good on paper..
By Calin on 9/7/2011 3:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
Look at the fuel economy for a car with smaller-to-larger engines. As the engine size increases, so does the fuel consumption.
If you drive carefully, you can get just a little bit worse mileage with a bigger engine, and have excess power when needed (passing at highway speeds, or maybe city driving accelerating away from a previously unseen danger, or rushing your way from a yield, or something).
So, underpowered cars don't suffer from mileage hits, but suffer from performance issues. Ideal would be a small engine and the capacity for quite large power surges, even if small in duration (50 HP sustained, with surges of 120+HP for 10 seconds or so). That would give you enough sprinting capacity to pass at highway speeds.
This VW engine gives instead the 40-50 or so HP in two cylinders mode and anything from some 80 to 100 HP in four cylinders mode.


RE: Good on paper..
By 0ldman on 9/7/2011 11:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously you've never owned an underpowered car. 1974 Mercury Comet with a weak 200. Pathetic power, poor mileage...

Older models did well, this one did not.


RE: Good on paper..
By Spuke on 9/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: Good on paper..
By Dorkyman on 9/7/2011 12:26:46 PM , Rating: 3
You miss the point.

A powerful engine at part throttle (high manifold vacuum) is a giant vacuum pump and very inefficient. What these designs try to do is to instantly reduce engine size so the throttle is more open, reducing manifold vacuum and increasing efficiency. Whether this switchover can be done in a way transparent to the driver is the big question, in my view.


RE: Good on paper..
By Spuke on 9/7/2011 1:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
Since this is already being done in other cars, a simple test drive should answer this question. BTW, the poster that I responded to did not mention pumping losses in his post so there was no reason for me to assume he had a clue as to what he was talking about. I didn't miss a thing. If anything, I brought a better explanation out with your post.

That said, I think you mean large displacement engine not powerful engine?? How are pumping losses greater with more hp as opposed to more displacement. I could see displacement being a factor but power? Also, how does this effect fuel efficiency? Ford's V6 gets 29 mpg, my "old" 04 Sentra 2.5L got 27 mpg (both EPA hwy 6 speed manuals). Since the Ford V6 has "more power" and hence more pumping losses, shouldn't it's fuel efficiency be worse than my old Sentra?


RE: Good on paper..
By Noya on 9/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Good on paper..
By Calin on 9/7/2011 3:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you gotta have something that can accelerate with aplomb

At least for a little while (and this capacity to accelerate quickly helps in city traffic too)


RE: Good on paper..
By Samus on 9/8/2011 1:29:25 AM , Rating: 2
My 2002 Focus already has this. It runs on three cylinders when it overheats, and alternates its firing order to not run one cylinder for each rotation, using it as an air pump to cool the engine.

There isn't even any added vibration as the non-firing order rotates back and fourth. There is a noticable power loss, but thats probably a combination of things the computer is doing to cool the engine down (a/f ratio, advance intake timing, retard spark)

Many ECU tunes for the SVT Focus offer an economy mode that enabled this technology for road trips, etc. People have logged hundreds of thousands of miles using it without problems.

However, the SVTF engines have various other technologies not in most engines, such as bottom feed oil squirters to cool pistons, an oil cooler, and a dual-feed oil pump that allows proper lubrication of non-firing cylinders.

So basically VW has copies Cosworth once again, but changed the technology ever so slightly :)


RE: Good on paper..
By KIJ on 9/7/2011 4:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
Had a VW with the 1.4L TSI engine. 160 HP took it from 0 - 60 mph in 8 seconds, and top-speed was just short of 140 mph... - quite okay I think...


RE: Good on paper..
By Spuke on 9/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: Good on paper..
By jang_clangle on 9/6/2011 5:25:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Unless it's a sports car or truck, there's no reason for a vehicle to have much more than 100hp


And 640 kb ought to be enough for anyone, right?


RE: Good on paper..
By lagomorpha on 9/6/2011 6:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It may just be me, but who regularly drives past 4000 rpm unless racing or speeding..?


The engine will run on 2 cylinders ONLY if between 1,400 and 4,000rpm AND the load conditions are satisfied. If you're trying to accelerate then the engine will use all 4 cylinders even if under 4,000rpm. There isn't just a sudden power surge at 4,000 when the other two cylinders come online.


RE: Good on paper..
By StevoLincolnite on 9/7/2011 6:16:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The engine will run on 2 cylinders ONLY if between 1,400 and 4,000rpm AND the load conditions are satisfied. If you're trying to accelerate then the engine will use all 4 cylinders even if under 4,000rpm. There isn't just a sudden power surge at 4,000 when the other two cylinders come online.


It almost reminds me of power gating on a CPU. Shut off the extra cores when not needed to conserve power.

IMHO if it's seamless and not noticeable by users, then it should be in every car.


RE: Good on paper..
By lagomorpha on 9/7/2011 6:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
More or less, it's a little more complicated in engines.

When you deactivate cylinders in an engine, the deactivated pistons continue to move up and down in their cylinders because there's no realistic way to segment the crankshaft. Because the pistons continue to move, air continues to be pumped in and out of the cylinder. Some of the cylinder deactivation schemes close all the vales to deactivated cylinders so that they expend less energy (like operating a spring; along half the travel you get most of the energy back).

So you aren't completely shutting down the cylinders, but where you do gain efficiency is because the remaining cylinders are run on higher load. Brake specific fuel consumption is lowest at highest load at lower rpm. This means a less powerful engine will generally use less fuel per work done than a larger engine at lower load... sometimes.


RE: Good on paper..
By nocturne_81 on 9/6/2011 6:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I should have said 'not much' instead of 'no'... And the quip about rpm's was more or less meant as a statement that while driving normally, 1400-4000 is the entire range of 'cruise' driving.

Personally, I drive an old Buick LeSabre with a v6 3800 block as my daily driver, and an '82 Trans Am with an emissions-free 383 stroker v8 -- so I obviously don't care much about efficiency while driving.

To those that do indeed care, though.. Why are compact cars marketed as more sporty than efficient? Why not put your money where your mouth is and drive a teeny little 'smart' car with horrible performance?

I'm just trying to make a simple observation that it is incredibly possible to create a small 3-4 cylinder diesel engine vehicle that can achieve over 70+ mpg and satisfy the needs of most drivers -- it's just nobody would want to drive it..


RE: Good on paper..
By Johnmcl7 on 9/6/2011 7:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just possible, those engines exist over here as an option for plenty of small cars. However diesel engines don't tend to work so well in small capacities and the additional cost against money saved in fuel effiency doesn't tend to be very good for small cars with small economic petrol engines. They certainly do not satisfy the needs of most drivers, like the small Smart car engines they're ok for driving within in a city but hopeless outwith as their 15+ seconds to 60 makes them painfully slow and they struggle to keep up with other traffic.

In the UK because the tax on fuel is very high and the road tax is based on emissions (which generally favours fuel efficient cars) most cars are chosen on their fuel effiency.


RE: Good on paper..
By Shining Arcanine on 9/7/2011 12:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
People keep saying that, but I do not think that they realize that the gallons in the UK are bigger than the ones in the US. When people in the US talk about 70mpg cars, they are talking what would be 84mpg cars in the UK, which I do not believe exist anywhere right now.


RE: Good on paper..
By Keeir on 9/7/2011 6:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Its also important to note the different Fuel Efficieny Measurements.

Based on Toyota and VW comparison points,

A 70 US EPA rating = 95-100 UK EU Rating


RE: Good on paper..
By Jeffk464 on 9/7/2011 7:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
You also don't worry about driving decent cars it seems.


RE: Good on paper..
By mindless1 on 9/6/2011 8:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Why not?

1) Safety features raise vehicle weight too much.

2) Emissions standards have gone up.

3) It's less profitable for manufacturers to make automobiles that, given today's material and manufacturing improvements, wouldn't break so often anymore and would be inexpensive to fix if the complexity weren't increased.

4) They don't do it because despite those vocal about "everyone else should drive shi!tcans to save gas", most people DO NOT WANT THESE ANEMIC CARS, they prefer a trade-off between fuel efficiency and other factors.

5) "Just capable of reaching highway speeds" would assume that other people are going to get out of your way when you are merging onto the highway, which is reckless driving. To safely drive you need a margin, an amount of acceleration beyond what you use regularly to deal with situations where there isn't a gap in traffic without speeding up or slowing down to fit into it and slowing down is NOT the better option merging into traffic going 60MPH+.

6) There's no good reason for a vehicle NOT to have 100HP+, with today's engine tech there is minimal weight added relative to total vehicle weight, and increases in efficiency per lb of motor weight, plus with the higher vehicle weight:size you need something capable of a little more torque.

In other words, if today's version of an '88 Sundance were made, the car would weigh more from safety *improvements* and get no better mileage tuned to today's emissions standards than what you can already buy, and would be less comfortable and handle worse. Also, while your GF might have had good luck, in general I don't recall small '88 Plymouths being particularly reliable vehicles... but at least you could buy them dirt cheap once they were used, small American cars at least had THAT going for them.


RE: Good on paper..
By YashBudini on 9/6/2011 10:23:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
3) It's less profitable for manufacturers to make automobiles that, given today's material and manufacturing improvements, wouldn't break so often anymore and would be inexpensive to fix if the complexity weren't increased.

Uh excuse me, but the average lifespan of a tie rod on a Chrysler 300 is about 30K miles. (Ask your local dealer if you doubt this.) Complexity isn't the problem here, so why does it break so often? Your should understand why when the dealer tells you "30K miles is normal."

It's not the complexity that makes many cars unreliable, it's the attitude.

And no, it's not normal, not for a high quality car.


RE: Good on paper..
By lagomorpha on 9/6/2011 11:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
"Complexity isn't the problem here, so why does it break so often?"

Because only morons buy Chryslers so Chrysler can get away with making its cars junk heaps. Anyone that knew better wouldn't buy a Dodge/Chrysler in the first place.


RE: Good on paper..
By FreeTard on 9/9/2011 3:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
You get 30k miles on your tierod??? I'm jealous I've got an 08 Wrangler. I get 9k on my ball joints, wheel bearings at 15k, and a differential that sucks in water at every puddle. Oh, let's not forget the MINIVAN engine on a vehicle shaped like a brick. Oh yeah and the transmission that runs too hot from the factory, with no sensor to warn you that you're overheating... you only find out after you've caught fire. Or the transmission cooler that was designed to leak oil. I could go on all day about how much I'd love to punch a Chrysler engineer in the balls.

I only bought the Jeep because it was a Jeep and because I can replace every part of it with a 3rd party. The only decent factory part is the frame... but I'm sure it sucks too. I wish they had sold it to Toyota. I curse those Chrysler pricks every time I work on the heap. Who in their right mind would decide to put 17mm bolts on one shock, and 7/8ths bolts on the other (on the rear). Who in their right mind would decide that a 16mm bolt is close enough to a 9/16th bolt hole on the track bar and control arms, thus destroying the bolt holes? Oh, a Chrysler engineer would.

10,000 parts all from the lowest bidder.


RE: Good on paper..
By Spuke on 9/7/2011 12:07:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your should understand why when the dealer tells you "30K miles is normal."
I know not everyone is a mechanic and we depend on these people to fix our cars BUT, I wouldn't take his word on it. And I sure as hell wouldn't buy a Chrysler.


RE: Good on paper..
By YashBudini on 9/7/2011 12:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
All I was inferring to is that the "service person" would find such terrible reliability to be normal. That they actually believe that? Yes, I think they do.


RE: Good on paper..
By Spuke on 9/7/2011 11:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That they actually believe that? Yes, I think they do.
I agree. Shame, huh?


RE: Good on paper..
By lagomorpha on 9/7/2011 6:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
A "service person" mostly sees cars that people bring to them to repair. If a component didn't break then the "service person" wouldn't see it often. At this point most know better than to buy Chryslers.


RE: Good on paper..
By mindless1 on 9/7/2011 4:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't you sort of align with what I wrote? That even after all these years of supposed refinements they find a more complex way (versus reuse of existing tie rod design with reasonable part lifespan) to make one more failure prone?

On the other hand, if you take the same sized car and weigh it down with (more complexity) safety improving features, you're putting more stress on the suspension, steering, etc.

All cars have their weak links though, and to some extent the weakest one is owners who drive like a bat out of hell thanks to their car having a peppy engine.


RE: Good on paper..
By YashBudini on 9/6/2011 10:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It may just be me, but who regularly drives past 4000 rpm unless racing or speeding..?

This only addresses intentional driving and not a need to accelerate quickly in an emergency to avoid a collision.

quote:
with a 70hp engine that was just capable of reaching highway speeds.

Picture if you purchased tires with this logic, only barely adequate for running around. You buy tires better than this yes for fun but also for a larger safety margin. And extra HP can translate into a type of safety margin. If you have any doubts just ask a motorcycle rider.


RE: Good on paper..
By Manch on 9/7/2011 4:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My girlfriend years back had an '88 Plymouth Sundance that got 40+ mpg, even with an intake manifold leak losing loads of vacuum..


umm...a leaking intake manifold would make fuel economy worse and that cars combined mpg for the time was only 25mpg. By todays standard that would probably be 21-22 if the car was in top shape.

http://mpgfacts.com/?year=1988&make=&class=&start=...

131 COMPACT CARS PLYMOUTH SUNDANCE 4 2.2 L M5 22 30 25


RE: Good on paper..
By nocturne_81 on 9/7/2011 5:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
I may have exaggerated a bit, but it got at least somewhere in the upper 30s... Don't ask me how, but the lil car was a trooper... Bought for $350 with 90k miles, drove for 5 yrs, then sold it for $500 with 130k miles (sold it rather than fix it.. the buyer then drove it another 2 yrs with the manifold leak before selling it to someone else..). Could drive from here to cleveland (1 hr), then to columbus (2hrs), and then back home on a single tank of gas with a bit to spare. In our harsh NE Ohio winters, it never got stuck -- never. Seemed like it was so light it just floated on top of the snow, where I'd get stuck pulling out right after..

That was then, though.. I could never in good conscience recommend a Chrysler now. It's like Chevy's switch from the cavalier to the cobalt. Shoddy as the cavalier was, any that ever drove both can certainly admit that the cobalt drives like a tin can on wheels.


RE: Good on paper..
By Jeff7181 on 9/7/2011 10:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally, I don't know why they don't go back to the 70s-80s concept of a light car with a 70hp engine that was just capable of reaching highway speeds.


Because it's dangerous. Try to merge onto a busy highway when it takes 15 seconds to go from 40 to 70 mph.


RE: Good on paper..
By bjacobson on 9/7/2011 6:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless it's a sports car or truck, there's no reason for a vehicle to have much more than 100hp


hey why don't we replace all our sugar with saccharine while we're at it? Then what's next? Hate week?


RE: Good on paper..
By bigdawg1988 on 9/8/2011 11:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
Unless it's a sports car or truck, there's no reason for a vehicle to have much more than 100hp

Yeah, try driving in a city like Atlanta with a car like that and you might get pulled over for holding up traffic... if they don't kill you first!


RE: Good on paper..
By mindless1 on 9/8/2011 11:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
Who regularly gets their engines past 4000 RPM without racing or speeding? All those econonuts who buy cars with anemic engines but don't want to be azzhatz holding up traffic.

It's really easy to get an economy car past 4000 RPM and be driving no faster than someone else does at far lower RPM.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki