Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
the complexity of the reactant (1/4 of the engine plus a whole new controller/sensor algorithm to reign in + various plumbing, might even need separate wide-band on the reactor cylinder plus a lot of fudge) for %10 doesn't seem like it is worth it. There is a lot of complexity there, not simplifying, nor cost saving, like the video goes on about.
And if you are talking fixed speed/load, as in series hybrid, then hcci w/a cam just got a lot easier too.
|
Electronics and software is cheap once in production. An extra injector is mentioned for the reaction cylinder (RxC). Port injectors cost about 10 USD wholesale. The reaction cylinder is of the same design and construction as the others. No cost there. There is the need for a wide-band O2 sensor to monitor the RxC output. That does incur a considerable cost penalty but doesn't break the bank at about 80-100 wholesale. It was implied the turbo was upgraded to a "two stage compressor" though more likely a variable vane turbo will be used in production. Many cars already come equipped with VVTs as standard fare. No real cost and complexity disadvantage there. The mixer and D-EGR piping would cost a few dollars and have a simple robust construction. They have already completed the FTP 75 test and PSA Peugeot Citroen, who partially funded the research, has committed to production by 2018 if not before. I do not think they share your concerns.
An engine such as this would see early introduction into higher end cars and trucks to market to people who are ready and willing to absorb the slightly higher costs. If PSA holds to it's announcements, they will have this tech applied across their entire model range by 2018.
HCCI is soon to follow but will be limited greatly in it's applications. HCCI, as well as the D-EGR system are just tools to reach the required mileage and emissions standards which become much more stringent as we move towards 2025.
Here is the link to the SAE Abstract.
A Demonstration of Dedicated EGR on a 2.0 L GDI Engine