View Single Post
Old 03-02-2013, 11:16 PM   #16 (permalink)
Cortez
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 7

Zed - '11 Honda CR-Z
90 day: 43.91 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme1969 View Post
I know there must be at least 5 automotive engineers monitoring our threads here so here is a thought for you.
Honda I believe sucessfully breached the electronic valve issue delving into variable valve timing.
Has there been an atempt to get this next step of variable engine displacement?
An example would be a 90 degree V6 where 2 cylinders are 4" and 4 are 2.5".
utilizing cylinder cut out and injector deactivation with all cylinders @ same stroke length The torque could be doubled for acceleration then dropped for cruising speeds and economy.
couple that to a hybrid with regen and electric boosters like formula one uses.
It could teach todays sports cars a nasty little lesson while providing 50+mpg???????
Not magic power just better utilization of it, with much less waste!
Cadillac did it back in 1981. It was a disaster and almost put the company out of business. The engine was a 368 cid. At the time they called it modulated displacement or the V8-6-4. They actually run smooth......when the valve activation and deactivation works correctly....that's not often but it was the computer. It ran a basic TBI fuel delivery system and solenoids that would lock valves under certain conditions. They didn't have any balancing problems but then again the family tree that those engines came from were beast.

A lot of the problem with those engines was when the valves would open. Since it was fogging the manifold with fuel when cylinders reactivated it would deliver fuel very unevenly causing bogging...bucking..

With modern technology you could iron out the problems. They put out a prototype a couple of years ago called the Cadillac Sixteen that used it. Don't think they are putting out a sixteen cylinder engine anytime soon.

Last edited by Cortez; 03-02-2013 at 11:31 PM..
  Reply With Quote