09-21-2017, 10:57 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
Not Doug
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 12,241
Thanks: 7,254
Thanked 2,234 Times in 1,724 Posts
|
Volkswagen's New Engine Cycle - The 'Budack' Cycle
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Xist For This Useful Post:
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
09-21-2017, 11:40 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 11,203
Thanks: 2,501
Thanked 2,588 Times in 1,555 Posts
|
Interesting, they're closing the intake valve early on the intake stroke vs leaving it open longer on the compression stroke. It seems like the Atkinson cycle would still be superior for efficiency purposes as it would reduce pumping losses more than the Budack cycle. However, there isn't air/fuel going back out the intake valve which is a nice thing. Overall I bet the differences between the two are negligible. Therefore it probably comes down to whatever is easier/cheaper to manufacture.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Daox For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-21-2017, 12:09 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
Not Doug
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 12,241
Thanks: 7,254
Thanked 2,234 Times in 1,724 Posts
|
Which cycles require licensing? That would affect manufacturing cost, right?
|
|
|
09-21-2017, 02:42 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
It's all about Diesel
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 12,923
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,697 Times in 1,515 Posts
|
Just another trick to emulate the Atkinson effect in an Otto engine, given a different name for marketing reasons. I could guess the intention of naming it as a new cycle might be also an effort to whitewash Volkswagen's reputation in the post-Dieselgate era.
|
|
|
09-21-2017, 03:08 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
It's all about Diesel
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 12,923
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,697 Times in 1,515 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man
Does NOT sound like a "ground-breaking" design breakthrough, by any means.
|
Actually, none of the improvements added to the Otto cycle engine throughout its history is worth being deemed "groundbreaking", since the basic operating principle remains exactly the same. Electronic controls, direct injection, forced induction, all did have some benefit to fuel-efficiency and/or performance, and so many valvetrain configurations eventually had their pros and cons, but it's all far from being so "revolutionary" as it's usually pointed out by enthusiasts of each setup. Maybe only the HCCI is going to be an outstanding departure from the original concept of Otto engines.
|
|
|
09-21-2017, 04:36 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
Not Doug
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 12,241
Thanks: 7,254
Thanked 2,234 Times in 1,724 Posts
|
It sounds more like the difference between six and half a dozen.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 07:41 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
Eco-ventor
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,645
Thanks: 76
Thanked 709 Times in 450 Posts
|
The Fiat MultiAir had early intake valve closing in one of it's modes of operation.
__________________
2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 08:27 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5,097
Thanks: 2,907
Thanked 2,572 Times in 1,594 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daox
Interesting, they're closing the intake valve early on the intake stroke vs leaving it open longer on the compression stroke. It seems like the Atkinson cycle would still be superior for efficiency purposes as it would reduce pumping losses more than the Budack cycle. However, there isn't air/fuel going back out the intake valve which is a nice thing. Overall I bet the differences between the two are negligible. Therefore it probably comes down to whatever is easier/cheaper to manufacture.
|
I'm thinking the opposite is true - with the Atkinson cycle, the piston has to do the work of both pulling the air into, and pushing it back out of the cylinder, which to my logic takes more energy.
Also, because you end up with a piston creating lower pressure in the cylinder with the remainder of the downstroke, you're depressurizing the air and may actually be pulling heat out of the cylinder walls, rather than losing it into them, which would be a net thermodynamic gain.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:28 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
It's all about Diesel
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 12,923
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,697 Times in 1,515 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky
because you end up with a piston creating lower pressure in the cylinder with the remainder of the downstroke, you're depressurizing the air and may actually be pulling heat out of the cylinder walls, rather than losing it into them, which would be a net thermodynamic gain
|
That makes sense.
|
|
|
09-23-2017, 08:55 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5,097
Thanks: 2,907
Thanked 2,572 Times in 1,594 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man
Pulling a "suction" takes energy just as pushing a "compression" does.
|
Yes, but in a closed cylinder, the air acts as a spring, with the only significant losses (not related to friction, which would be there anyway) being the heat losses when the compressed air losses energy to the cylinder walls.
This is why cylinder deactivation works better if you close all of the valves, rather than leave them all open. Open, and you're doing the work of pushing air through the valves. Closed, and although you're compressing the air, after TDC that compressed air gives its energy back to the piston.
|
|
|
|