Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
neglecting massive pumping losses in cylinder deactivation wthout closing the valves
|
except you completely ignored what's written in the parenthesis. Yes, I know about pumping losses, which is why I made it a point to include the "excluding" function that you were good enough to quote in the above post. Not sure where the breakdown in communication is here.
"Being a dick" as defined by your comment about the concept of pumping losses going over my head (the way you worded it, really), when I explicitly included that concept in a good portion of my posts.
Here, let me be specific. Pumping losses are identical in all 3 scenarios. What we're MISSING in Cylinder Deactivation is the GAIN (because no explosion) in whichever cylinders we've shut off. In each scenario, you still have to suck, squeeze, and blow.... you just don't get a "bang" in 1 or 2 cylinders.
However, we see a "conceptually similar" lack of GAIN in a lean-burning engine (because of the leaner-than-stoich AFR), except it's a much smaller loss, in a greater number of cylinders. In my initial theoretical concept, my original question, at the beginning of the thread, is this:
How much power would we lose by deactivating a cylinder or two, as opposed to running all 6 cylinders lean? Which method is better, when activated by means of changing fuel and spark strategies, without doing anything else?
I got an accurate answer to my questions. We're good. Thanks.
And you're an ex-nuke. You're an arrogant a-hole, just like me. We have that in common, let's get over it and agree that it really doesn't matter.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
