View Single Post
Old 12-08-2010, 12:02 AM   #186 (permalink)
NeilBlanchard
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,907

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,950 Times in 1,844 Posts
From a blog post I wrote a while back in 2008:

Quote:
For new 4-cylinder internal combustion engine designs, the crankshaft could be split with a hydraulic coupling that can automatically disengage two cylinders completely; saving all the pumping and friction losses, for situations when 2 cylinders are enough to provide the required torque to move the vehicle.
This may make the engine a little more efficient, but at the thermal efficiency level -- why isn't an internal combustion engine as efficient (or even close to the same efficiency) of an electric motor? I'm talking quantum leaps here. Streamlining cranks ain't going to be enough.

It has to be the connecting rod / crankshaft that are causing the greatest loss within the engine, or the long 3 strokes of coasting, or something basic, that is keeping ICE's from being 50-60-70-80-90% efficient, right? Why aren't they that efficient? Gasoline / diesel is a wonderfully compact fuel, right? Why can't we get a lot more work out of burning it?
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote