|
Now that we've got that all cleared up and this has had a good long cooldown period I can safely say we need to figure this one out. I will admit this topic has all the markings of an internet based argument. Something needs to change it's course.
The Atkinson cycle still uses fuel "better" than the Otto cycle. Even 20% would be substantial enough to warrant the spending of money. I don't see anything in the logic for the Miller cycle, you've trading 1/4 of the power for fuel economy but now you're boosting it. You're better off upgrading the engine size. A 2.5l 4-banger could easily replace a large number of the v6's out there if there was a power assist. There would have to be substantial efficiency gains to be worth it. And the usage of a supercharger/turbocharger reduced fuel economy overall unless in the rare case of downgrading displacement. The best case scenario, you're swapping it out of a V6 or V8 stock vehicle. I'm more averse to using an electric motor with the added weight of batteries in the case you just need something to boost stock MPG from a fuel miser. A supercharger/turbocharger is better than living with a V6 but you're trading engine life and reliability for it. Which really depends on how the person actually drives the car. If they rev it to compensate, you're digger bigger holes to fill in bigger problems. I should probably keep my examples to first person and what I'd do, but I'm trying to figure this out myself. I personally believe a 4-banger needs two torque peaks; 2500rpm and 5000rpm. A supercharger eats power despite what you do with it and the power difference between 2500rpm and 5000rpm is enough that you can cover all your bases.
__________________
-Allch Chcar
|