|
|
Mike Kojima posted on November 13, 2011 22:18 
Mazda’s Skyactiv D, Diesel Technology, the Economy of a Hybrid With Performance!
By Mike Kojima
What would you think of a clean green car with the fuel efficiency of a hybrid, the performance of a relatively peppy gasoline engine and without the lifecycle costs to the environment of its battery pack? The car would be cheap to operate and relatively exciting to drive. Would you buy one if you could? If this sounds like you next car purchase, this technology is coming just around the corner in the form of Mazda’s new diesel technology called Skyactiv D.
 |
| We got to drive these heavily disguised 2012 Mazda 6 prototype mules in city and highway driving to get a good feel for Skyactiv D technology. We were pretty impressed. |
You might have read about Mazda’s gas engine green technology called Skyativ G here a little while ago, if not you can read all about it here. Skyactiv is some sort of Jinglish for Mazda’s latest design methodology called Jinba Ittai which roughly means fun to drive in English. This is a design methodology which makes cars nimbler and more responsive through improving throttle response through improvements in engine technology and mass reduction. It also calls for economical operation to please the customers pocketbook and greeness for environmental responsibility.
 |
| The Skyactiv D engine has a low for a diesel 14:1 compression. For instance, Project TDI has a 16.5:1 compression ratio. Lower compression means less internal pressure for less stress and less friction. The lower pressure means that the engine can use a lightweight alloy block and lighter internal parts for more than 50 lbs of weight saving over the previous engine. Cool beans. |
In our last look at Skyactiv technology we evaluated the gas version of the Skyactiv engine family and were impressed with its economy and cost of use. Its performance left us sorta impressed which means that we were pleasantly surprised that the engine was reasonably peppy feeling for all of its economy. The Skyactiv G engine was by no means a barnstormer for performance freaks, it was more like, “yeah this is pretty decent considering it gets 40 mpg”. Considering its fuel sipping capabilities we were left wanting the Skyactiv G as a daily driver.
 |
| Partly to save weight and partly to conserve a diesel's low exhaust energy to help spool the turbo, the Skyactiv D engine has the exhaust manifold integrated with the cylinder head. As you can see here, at least the passages are designed for flow in a better way than your typical log manifold. |
 |
| The front drives are integral for compactness and low NVH. |
Monday, November 14, 2011 5:52 AM
IMO another "hype motor" series from Mazda... them Tryin ta win those "Engine of the Year" awards again?? hope they don't grenade motors across the board before issuing "Voluntary recalls" coupla years of Renesis Rotary Recalls anyone?? Factory recommended oil Viscosity wrong/questionable? LoL what will Mazda blame for skyactiv D/G recalls this time?? insufficient fuel cetane/octane ratings?? =P whats up for Next Season's autoTrendy fad? Mazda gonna try to Perfect&Warranty Smokey's HVCE concept??
Monday, November 14, 2011 8:09 AM
Screw the 3 Put it in the 2, or better yet make a 1.5 liter version for the 2 with ~80mpg or better.
Monday, November 14, 2011 8:15 AM
So full of win even if only offered in the Mazda 6. My only concern is long-term (200k+ like other diesels) with the sacrifices at the friction altar. I also wonder if you can double the output with aftermarket parts like other diesels. 600lb-ft in a sedan, LOL!
Monday, November 14, 2011 8:19 AM
I really don't see diesels in America ever being offered in Mazda 2 or 3 sized vehicles. American pollution standards, plus intolerance of clatter, means diesel engines will be too complicated (read: expensive) to be offered in cheap, small cars. Too bad.
Monday, November 14, 2011 8:59 AM
^ I say boo to this. While I cannot argue the logic I want to see a 3 hatchback with this motor. Like Mike I would be all over it!
Monday, November 14, 2011 9:19 AM
Lessendz, I don't know about what you are saying because the Skyactiv engine has less internal stress and peak pressure than the engine it replaces.
Monday, November 14, 2011 9:45 AM
@Rockwood, I can see it now... a Mazda 6 with a Banks Power badge on the side.
Monday, November 14, 2011 10:29 AM
Don't feed the troll. It's just a sign that MotoIQ is getting bigger by the day. If Mazda markets the S-D engines right I think they would be successful in the 3 and 2. I've been driving my roommate's Fit and I can only imagine what doubling the torque would do to that little car. Browsing Craigslist there are plenty of (crazy) people who bought Rabbit TDIs back in the day and kept them alive for 30 years. I'm sure they would be happy to buy a 2 diesel if it was offered (similar size, modern convenience and modern fuel economy. It's basically Mazda's own Project Sipster but with a budget). Maybe they can nickname it the Rabbit trap.
Monday, November 14, 2011 11:09 AM
I agree that a diesel in the 2 would be great and would likely sell quite a few units. However, can the price come down enough for people to buy a cheap car with a relatively expensive engine in it? Perhaps by offering it in multiple vehicles instead of just the 6 they can cut cost in numbers produced. Why has diesel not caught on in America?
Monday, November 14, 2011 11:15 AM
Lessendz is a cool guy, no troll! His comments are welcome.
Monday, November 14, 2011 11:37 AM
@ Wes: I boo it as well, however, I have to be pragmatic. Modern diesels,, with the added emissions equipment and NVH engineering, are a $3-6k option over a standard gasoline engine. Hard to absorb that into a car that starts at ~$14k. That being said, I'd buy one. Mazdaspeed 3D. Has a nice ring to it.... :)
Monday, November 14, 2011 11:59 AM
i can't think of too many applications i wouldn't want this engine in. 2,3,6, heck, whatabout a pickup?
Monday, November 14, 2011 12:42 PM
I cant say that I would call SCR technology expensive or bothersome. Its just something new that people need to get used to. I would not put much faith in the longevity of any new egr-only diesel, but time will tell. Intake throttle valves have been around for a long time on many engines since DPFs showed up.
Monday, November 14, 2011 1:19 PM
Great article and site. However the colors on these photos makes me think someone slipped something in my morning coffee.
Monday, November 14, 2011 1:42 PM
Thanks for engine profile MK. Very interesting to see all the thought and engineering that has gone on inside! It's a jewell really and I imagine just as others have said here, it will be priced accordingly! Still it's always fascinating how global warming and CAFE requirements are forcing engine design, development and refinement in a direction which seems to give us our cake and let us eat it, too. And Kudo's to Mazda for understanding once you sit behind the wheel, how fun to drive also speaks to engineering and manufacturing excellence. The next fuel price gouging is likely just around the corner. Being able to offer solid hybrid-like mileage with gasoline engine-like response in a diesel sounds like a winning combo. Hey, my last diesel was in 84 Corolla hatchback which had previously lived in Guam. That little motor had the inner strength and reliability of a weightlifters wristwatch. Even in the darkness and cold of an upstate NY winter it never missed a beat. Did nearly 50mpg until the temps dropped and diesel got cut. Yeah, I'd do another diesel, especially the one described herein. Just make it affordable, ok?
Monday, November 14, 2011 1:43 PM
Looking at diesel motors is like trying to read a foreign language I've never even heard spoken before.
Monday, November 14, 2011 1:49 PM
Ha, the only two people I've seen really cover the Skyactiv-D so far are Dieselpower and Motoiq and you BLEW their write-up away Mike! Steve - You see now what I was talking about before, regarding the new connecting rod? I like reduction of mass and friction, but I'd be worried about taking too much of the after market to those rods. PK 386 - Banks customer service has some redemption to do in my book before I'd get excited about their stuff again :( Reagarding the Mazda 3 desires. I almost think Mazda is going to have to but they've got more logistical issues than anything. Motorweek reporting this weekend that the Skyactiv-G is a $3k premium over their standard gas motor. The Skyactive D would probably come with a 5-6k premium. Anyway, I think if the Cruze's diesel comes in and does as well as the TDIs, Mazda will have to think REAL hard not to include on in the 3. I think it would make the 2 way too nose heavy!
Monday, November 14, 2011 1:59 PM
@ DieselTech: What is SCR technology? Were you referencing my post about costs? Compared to a 180HP gasoline engine, a 180HP 4-cylinder turbodiesel that meets current emissions standards is considerably more expensive. Also, what do you mean by EGR-only diesels? The ALH TDI engines have EGR, and other than timing belt failure, are generally good for 300k miles or more if maintained properly. @ Phil: Yep. Diesel is already $0.60 more per gallon in many locales, and fuel prices have been climbing again. @ OMG Its Weasel: Yep. The key to the whole thing is to remember that diesels inject fuel in pretty much the same window as gasoline engines turn on spark plugs, and that leaner is cooler (and richer is hotter) for EGTs.
Monday, November 14, 2011 2:11 PM
@ Der Bruce: Yep. When I hear about bottom ends on a diesel that are similar to a gasoline engine's, I can't help but think about the ill-fated GM "small-block diesel". I'm certain that Mazda would never, ever, sink to that level of ineptitude, but I do wonder if these engines will live up to the legendary diesel longevity (300k miles). As far as I can tell, this engine doesn't weigh a huge amount more than a gasoline version, so I don't think it would make a 2 too heavy, it would just make it too expensive for mass-market appeal. I think the Mazda 6 is the best application for it: torque to pull amount the added mass and dull torque steer (remember, the 3 has trouble with the MS3 gasoline engine's torque), excellent fuel economy AND family-car size, and the MSRP to handle a $3-6k premium.
Monday, November 14, 2011 3:05 PM
@ Mr.Kojima i should Hope So judging by the sketchy balancing act game they're playing with the internal rotating assembly reworkings.. then again i'm not offering warranty on this product so i'm not worried~ i think the only CI engine i'd even consider would be an old Merc-Benz to restore with a biodiesel conversion.. we got a few running around Hawaii with exhaust smelling like frickin Korean BBq!! =) @ #8695Beaters the only Trollin i do is for FISH on a 2stroke boat and even then, i'd rather go BOTTOM-fishing than troll.. (Prizefish from the Bottom taste better IMHO) FYI: try reading MIT textbooks on I.C.E. instead of buying bookstore closeoutout specials on them.. it might cost ya 10x as much as them "closeout specials" but still 10x cheaper than blowing a motor or wasting money on parts.. BTW: i'm with DieselTech in not having too much faith in diesel EGR
Monday, November 14, 2011 3:20 PM
there are a few things that look very nice with this motor. that glow plug angle means they can be serviced without pulling the valve cover. this is FANTASTIC news! the built-in exhaust manifold is a bit of a downer, but it looks like it saves significant weight and no worries about cracked manifolds anymore. the .26 BSFC number was given without units, but if we assume it's lbs/(hp*h). it's an amazing number. that translates to 53.3% efficiency which is amazing. the TDI that everyone likes is only 42.5% efficient. if you were to combine this with a lightweight low drag car like the new FT-86 you'd probably get better mileage than any hybrid out there. and with this kind of HP, it should move a light car quite well. the only thing that bothers me, is why do the valves look so small in the combustion chamber? it seems like there's quite a bit of leftover area to get better airflow. but i'm probably wrong, there's gotta be a reason for it.
Monday, November 14, 2011 4:32 PM
Bout friggin time, how long has the market been calling for fuel efficient diesels? To bad they are sticking in this in a car that the US will hardly ever see, that will weight a metric shit ton.
Monday, November 14, 2011 4:45 PM
being I've spent the last year doing consulting work in the diesel performance/emissions world, I'm curious of the predicted urea consumption. Did they give you any kind of indication? It's ok, you can speak EPA test regs with me if that's all that they spit at you. SCR and DPF work is still making lots of development and is still quite pricey. They are also still easily poisoned, like bozos who decide to try and trick the urea derate and fill with water instead. As for EGR only diesels at this point in time, I point and laugh at International/Navistar LOL To further comment on intake and exhaust throttlebodies, they are largely used for temp control of the EATS (engine after-treatment system) as this is how a diesel lives and dies in today's emissions world.
Monday, November 14, 2011 4:47 PM
I'm also still wondering about the comment on this engine is a different vehicle based upon weight. Yes, it does require new calibration but by no means is HARD. We're legal whether a truck is bobtail, empty or 80,000 gcvw...and in a few cases 300,000 lb :)
Monday, November 14, 2011 5:41 PM
Micah, The predicted urea consumption rate is 0. The engine has no urea injection system at all.
Monday, November 14, 2011 5:51 PM
DerBruce, If Motorweek says Skyactiv-G is $3,000, they're confused. I just checked Mazdausa.com and the top MZR 2.0 car (with steelies) is $16,845, while the bottom Skyactiv-G car is $18,450 (with aluminum wheels, better stereo, cruise control, etc.). That's $1600 for the better engine, better transmission, better wheels, better stereo, and more buttons and shit on the steering wheel. There is no direct apples-to-apples car with the same features and a different engine, so this is the closest comparison you can make.
Monday, November 14, 2011 8:10 PM
am i crazy to want this in a miata?
Monday, November 14, 2011 8:47 PM
Very interesting. Give up a couple points of thermal efficiency by going to the lower compression ratio in order to reduce friction, weight, and NOx. Interesting in going with the no-SCR strategy as some companies are going to a no-EGR strategy. And those look like Garrett turbos.... I think....
Monday, November 14, 2011 10:01 PM
Dave - They actually said the base model 3 runs a "tick" over 15 and the base model Skyactiv comes with a $3k premium at over $18k. I swear my MazdaUSA window right now has the base Mazda 3 @ $15,200 and the base Skyactiv G @ $18,450. You are, however, CORRECT in that the only way to quantify exactly how much of a premium the Skyactiv would be is to look at models that have the same EXACT options with their only differences being the motor. I don't really see an option to do that on MAZDAUSA. BTW Dave, I still remember in your SCC days when you dared to respond to a readers question by suggesting a TDI as a fun frugal option. I loved that brilliance and remember that response to this day :) Steve - You're right in that the D probably isn't too much heavier than the G but the 2 comes with that 1.5 which I think(? - help someone) is a chunk lighter than both 2.0s. Will - Not crazy, brilliant! If I was English, that 'brilliant' would've sounded even better)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:57 AM
@Rockwood - SCR = selective catalytic reduction (urea injection). When I say new egr-only, Im referring to brand new 2010-up (Tier whatever-the-hell-its-up-to-now) diesels. Older (especially before 2007) egr diesels dont flow nearly as much egr as these new engines. SCR allows egr flow to be drastically reduced, and many Tier IV off road engines dont even require EGR, or a DPF, due to that fact that they burn so much cleaner IN THE CYLINDER. Dont kid yourselves about this engine, it probably burns VERY dirty. Low compression and high egr flow is a recipe for high PM. Thats why the DPF is there to keep it clean, and that means more regens, and more fuel burned. Though I will say that putting the DPF that close is a smart idea, as it probably requires a bit less extra fuel to get the temperature high enough. @Micah McMahan- We are not the only ones pointing and laughing at Navistar. Customers are waking up and the witch hunt against SCR is winding down.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:53 AM
@ Marc: Small valves probably have a lot to do with the 5200rpm redline. @ DieselTech: Ah, should've known on SCR. I do agree, I'm not a fan of recirculating diesel soot. However, small EGR duty cycles, especially when cold, are useful for heating the engine and reducing fuel consumption (some aftermarket TDI tuners have found that EGR activation only when cold nets increased fuel economy). I also agree that reducing DPF regen cycles is never a bad thing. And yeah, there are plenty of people laughing at Navistar, as well as plenty of people that want to drive their 03 to 07 Ford (as well as some 08-10s) into the R&D department.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:21 PM
@ Rockwood - Yes, the Ford diesel debate could go on endlessly, but I think what Micah McMahan was referring to, was their brand-new (in no way involved with Ford) 2010-up Maxxforce engines. They are currently the only on-highway truck engine manufacturer that is designing engines without SCR. As far as I know, they still are unable to get these engines to pass emissions and are getting them by using credits received in the 6.0L era. Cat was in the same boat with their Ag stuff and just ran out. Other then a small partnership with Navistar, they've basically written off the American market. As far as I know, John Deere is the only EGR-only company left in the Ag market, and they've got some seriously big DPFs hanging off their tractors, and more then a few reports of field fires due to the massive amounts of heat. I read a report a few months ago that Cummins initially tried going down that road with Navistar, but came to the conclusion that there was just no good way to do it. And yes, fewer regen cycles is always a good thing. Id have to double check, but I think Volvo is actually advertising NO parked regen for their new SCR engines. Mike, did they give you any information regarding the life cycle of the DPF? How many miles before they recommend a cleaning? Will Mazda dealers offer cleaning services or will it be and exchange process?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:52 PM
@Lessendez: when Mike responded I realized you were being ironic. Sorry.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:04 AM
@ DT: Yep, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Maxxforce. I was just saying that there are now two groups of people who don't think much of Navistar. Amazing what one study by a fraudulent doctor can do to an entire industry, huh?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:49 AM
I didn't ask about the DPF service cycle. They did talk a lot about how the low compression and advanced injection timing with the other tricks like cam timing and air from small turbo at low rpm would inherently result in lower NOx and particulates without after treatment.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:37 PM
-I'm laughing at myself on my urea comment! So I'm wondering if I missed the NOx handling feature of the vehicle, if there is one. I'm guessing it has a NOx box but I'm going to re-read now. -I was infact referring to the Maxxforce engines, not a 6.0 or 6.4L...though my old 7.3L is still tugging away ;) You are correct on the non-parked regens for the Volvo/Mack trucks however I can't really life into the details of that...patent stuff. -Cummins was originally trying EGR only but stopped fighting a losing battle and gave into the 'European' way and run's an SCR setup now. -Lower CR also reduces NOx, so I'd imagine that was a large part of Mazda's strategy. -@Rockwood, the VW tuners are increasing EGR for cold start?...not a good idea if the engine is going for a short distance (doesn't get warm) or just being moved around a driveway. For most of them, they're probably fine as the engine won't sit in a lot after a cold start up. Acid is not your friend.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:38 PM
Now after spitting all this 'boring' engine junk, I can't wait to get a break for a while...PRI can't come soon enough.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 2:29 PM
aHHHHH the Gift of gab!!! nothing like pointing to Modern Day technological tricks and mechanical gimmicks in attempts to burn an inherently dirty combustion cycle clean?? NOx & P's come with the territory.. Don't like the territory?? then get the heck outta Dodge!! we should all go back to FORD's 1908 technolgy!! heck its only 100 years old.. buuuuut PHYSICS on this planet hasn't changed since then. even the EPA acknowledges less "regulated emissions" MeOH SI > Diesel CI http://www.stonis-world.net/docs/engine_with_neat_alcohol_fuels.pdf
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:57 PM
@ Micah: Nope, I mean that they're retaining EGR function when cold then turning it off once warmed up.
Thursday, November 17, 2011 7:38 AM
People who dont understand why there are so much diesel engines around, please remember your country pricing for fuel. In France diesel fuel price is lower than regular gas price. But even then, the prices are awfully high ... we are talking of 1.5€/L for gas and 1.3€/L for diesel. For those who cant be bothered to do the maths, it equals to 7.7$/gallon for gas and 6.64$/gallon for diesel fuel. Maybe diesel is not really common in the US because fuel price is just not that high ... I am not driving a diesel car, but if that engine gets in a 3, i might. But i will keep my alcohol running S13 too :D
Thursday, November 17, 2011 10:42 AM
@ Crousti: Diesel, of late, is about $.60 more per gallon than gasoline. That, combined with not-so-fond memories of early 80s diesels for most Americans, means diesels will always be met with the same kind of response Lessendz had, unless you want a big pickup truck (at which point it's prestigious). Now that these newer diesels have been able to take advantage of huge technological leaps in engine control and fuel delivery, Americans are starting to turn around on diesel, but it will take time. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it doesn't make as much fiscal sense as it does in France.
Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:12 PM
@ Micah - This engine junk ain't boring! I love modern diesel technology. It excites me in ways gas engines never could! @ Mike - I suppose with this small of an engine that's entirely possible, but I'm just not sold on the longevity of the technology. I cant help but think in the long run its always going to cost the customer more, but we'll see. Im not very familiar with the options out there for small diesels, but Id like to see what a similarly sized SCR diesel can do MPG-wise.
Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:18 PM
@Rockwood, you're correct on most people hearing diesel and thinking dirty. What's awesome is we can take our 16L diesel, drive into DC, LA, NY, San Fran, etc and actually CLEAN the air by running our trucks. Most people kind of freak out when they hear the air coming out of our tailpipes is cleaner than the air they breath. The reminder being their's no oxygen though, so don't go huffing it ;)
Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:53 PM
Steve - I think Lessendz's response was more a tease of Mazda and their history with some of their "revolutionary" motors. As far as gas vs. Diesel price comparisons go, I typically respond with something like, "Even if diesel is 20% more and you're getting on average 25% better fuel economy, you're still winning." Now, I think more arguements are valid when comparing gas and diesel CARS but when it comes to full size pickups and SUVs, I think it's a NO BRAINER and that's where the public perception needs to be worked on. I'm just sayin........:)
Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:50 PM
@ Bruce: Well, a 5% decrease in cost per mile isn't worth the up-front price premium. When I bought my CTD Dodge, I bought it because I wanted diesel power, not to save money ($5/gallon diesel at the time lost that argument...). I did, however, buy the TDI to save money. However, that vehicle has nearly paid for itself now...
Friday, November 18, 2011 3:09 PM
@rockwood sorry i'm not old enough to remember any early 80's CI diesels.. but Giving up critical aspects of CI efficiency specifically to combat the inherently high NOx formation with that style of combustion.. sounds like a waste of engineering to me? Only arrogance in technology & its associated "marketing" allows geeks to believe that trick "controls" will fundamentally change the principals/limitations/outcome of a CI combustion cycle the cycle itself hasn't changed drastically, only our sequencing & control strategy of of it it is the same with technology & the SI gasoline combustion cycle... current manufacturer's trend is towards higher compression, trick valve timing adjustments on the fly & ignition retard strategies to help it survive.. tho this ignition retard doesn't do wonders for rated power nor throttle response.. EPA said the overall package is OK? while a CI diesel may beat a SI gasoline engine in many aspects.. a SI Alcohol engine destroys that diesel in regulated emission, combustion efficiency(pumping losses), & throttle response/power delivery @ MicahMcMahn i HIGHLY doubt your diesel tail pipe emissions are cleaner than the air here in Hawaii.. good try but u only get to make those silly claims in stupidly smodgged out cities..
Friday, November 18, 2011 10:02 PM
Steve - Remember, 5% decrease in cost per mile is a kind of an arbitrary number I picked for comparison. Most full size pickups I know of with the diesel option actually get 25-30% on average better fuel economy over their gas counterparts. In your case, you mave bought the CTD diesel for the diesel power but you also got better fuel economy, a more durable and long-lasting motor, a more tunable package and a MUCH better resale value over the long haul ;) Lessendz - While you continue to bring up good points and are making me ache for getting back to Hawaii, I must point out a couple of factoids for digestion. Looking at fuels and their BTU value aka energy density: Diesel > synthetic, edible diesel > gasoline > ethanol I think had Ethanol come about during the HP wars of the 60s, we'd have had actual HP was for the last 50 years with probably little regard for MPGs if it were home grown and cheap. Alas a shift now would take away from MPGs (a fact no one mentions with the E10 and up shift) and it's hard to argue with the scientific fact that diesel does carry the most energy of the exsisting automotive fuels.
Monday, November 21, 2011 8:20 AM
@ Lessendz: LOL @ alcohol. You seem to have forgotten one very important aspect in your quest for emissions/power: fuel economy. I'd love to convert my SE-R to E85, since I won't use it for long distance travel of any kind, nor for commuting. If I drove an alcohol-powered car as my only source of transportation, I'd go crazy with the short range. Oh yeah, you also forgot longevity. In regards to your response to Micah: nope, it wouldn't clean HI's air. Can you name a single ICE that will? Now, on the reducing compression to reduce emissions front, Sure, the compression ratio is lower, however, since the engine is not normally aspirated and diesel engines can run just about as lean as you want, I really don't think this has nearly the effect you think it does. @ Bruce: That 5% number was some simple math I did after subtracting the 20% increase in fuel cost. Sorry I didn't explain my math... ;-p BTW, spent last week in Texas. $2.87/gallon regular and 93 at every pump had me jealous.
Monday, November 21, 2011 2:19 PM
Lessendz; no shit, it's a tiny spec in the middle of the ocean, I'd know as I was born there. What dirty air does it have to worry about?...none. So now back to the 99%, just a little 'occupy' joke :p Rockwood, I think the only hope alcohol would have is as a blend or being sold on the grounds of a renewable resource...see algae or cellulosic development as using corn is a joke. However using it in a lean combustion process (see some MIT work on it that lead to work on the early EcoBoost development) were it is used in a direct injection manor either blended or dual fueled with gasoline. Now not to say too much but it has some pros to it's name much more than the blanketed bad fuel economy statement that we all hear from 'flex fuel' applications or 500whp e85 4-cylinders. Keeping in mind my senior project was an FSAE e85 250cc engine, static 11.5:1 running 18 psi from a GT12 making 94 bhp. Now add cam phasing, direct injection, make the engine larger, bump CR (a lot) and slow it down. Introduce the stratified injection as well and it starts shaping up for an economy use ethanol engine.
Friday, November 25, 2011 3:22 AM
I have to hand it to Mazda, with the SkyActiv Mz3. The 6 speed manual has pretty close 3rd to 4th gear ratios (particularly), the traction control / ESC button is right on the dash (versus buried deep in the HMI), and the steering continues to be electrically driven hydraulic PAS. Some have commented that Mazda is the only mfr (that mere mortals can afford) that has baked a pretty reasonable amount of sport into their entire line. Kudos, from my perspective.
Monday, November 28, 2011 1:54 PM
@ Micah: Yeah, saw the Ford Eco Boost work with DI E85 for diesel-like torque for reasonably long stretches of time. Not sure on how well E85 stores, as some geezers out there don't every floor their vehicles. And wow, 376HP/L is no joke.
Friday, December 09, 2011 2:01 PM
I realize this is a fairly old article at this point, but I had a chance to sit down and BS with one of our field service generator techs today. His 6.7L Ford service truck is using about 1 gal. of urea every 1,000 miles, slightly more if towing long distances. That doesn't seem too bad to me, as a quick price check shows a gallon of urea is about the same price as a gallon of diesel fuel. I would have to assume that reduced EGR flow and regens would save at least a gallon or more of diesel fuel over the course of 1,000 miles.
 
|
|
MotoIQ Proudly Presents Our Partners:
|