Slashdot Mirror


Diesel-Like Engine Could Boost Fuel Economy By 50%

bonch writes "Autoparts manufacturer Delphi has developed a diesel-like ignition engine running on gasoline, providing a potential 50 percent efficiency improvement over existing gas-powered engines. Engineers have long sought to run diesel-like engines on gasoline for its higher efficiency and low emissions. Delphi's engine, using a technique called gasoline-direct-injection compression ignition, could rival the performance of hybrid automobiles at a cheaper cost."

37 of 721 comments (clear)

  1. Well let me be the first to say... by krept · · Score: 5, Funny

    WOOHOOO!!!
    I don't really care about the karma here, but there's been so much bad news lately this is rather refreshing.
    I'll let the critics speak and explain why this is not as good as it sounds, but FTS it's inspiring.

    --
    None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
    1. Re:Well let me be the first to say... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For the vast majority of uses it won't matter. If you could get me 60mpg I would take 20 seconds 0-60. Old beetles were that bad and lots of people bought those. They also had crap for a top speed and were not what anyone would call responsive.

    2. Re:Well let me be the first to say... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well with normal diesel cars, we don't hear about problems like that. For most of these issues, is is more about the gearing then how the fuel spins the cylinders.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Well let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is niether a bad idea nor magic. By pulsing injections they make the combustion behave closer to the Carnot cycle ideal, which is more efficient than the Otto cycle.

      That aside, I have my doubts about the 50% improvement. And diesels are already closer to the Carnot cycle so you could say they are effectively running a diesel on gasoline.

      One important benefit it could have over diesels though, is that diesel burns fairly slowly compared to gasoline - which is the reason why diesels rarely rev above 5000 or so. If they manage to get diesel-type efficiency but with faster-burning gasoline, it could result in an engine that feels and behaves like a gasoline engine but has the mileage of a diesel. That would be nice.

    4. Re:Well let me be the first to say... by tomhath · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have my doubts about the 50% improvement.

      Careful reading reveals that your doubt is well placed, but you misread their claim:

      technology that could improve the fuel economy of gas-powered cars by 50 percent...Diesel engines are 40 to 45 percent efficient in using the energy in fuel to propel a vehicle, compared to roughly 30 percent efficiency for gasoline engines.

      So all they really claim is that a diesel engine that runs on gasoline has roughly the same efficiency as a fuel-oil powered diesel.

    5. Re:Well let me be the first to say... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who is WV, is that like a chinese knockoff of a VW?

    6. Re:Well let me be the first to say... by LDAPMAN · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can see from your email address that your in the UK. In the US diesel is actually more expensive than gasoline. This is primarily due to taxes but the pricing is also influenced by refinery capacity. In any case, diesel is not substantially cheaper at the retail level.

    7. Re:Well let me be the first to say... by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because there are countries like the U.S., where the infrastructure for gasoline is much better than for diesel. And diesel exhaust has more CO2 per Joule than gasoline, because longer carbohydride molecules have a higher carbon/hydrogenium ratio than the shorter ones.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:Well let me be the first to say... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The people I end up behind on the surface streets might be able to do 0-60 in less than 10 seconds, but for some reason they won't even do 0-45 in less than 20, if they get there at all. Even when I'm getting on the interstate... less than half the people seem to use the onramp to accelerate up to the speed of traffic, they go slow the whole way and only speed up where the lanes actually merge.

      I guess what I'm saying is I'd prefer 0-60 in 20 seconds if

      people actually did that

      compared to what they are doing with their much higher performance cars now.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:Well let me be the first to say... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I sometimes drive a Ford Anglia. Has a 1L engine, about 39 HP. Does 0-60 in 30 seconds, which is slower than everything except loaded trucks and Model Ts.

      You come to appreciate just what jackrabbits most cars are, and that acceleration is not that important. They jump out to a big lead, and then I catch up because they can't make traffic go faster and can't make lights turn green in time to avoid coming to a stop. I get to my destination as fast or almost as fast as with a modern car. There are a few situations where the lack of power can be a problem: a too short entrance ramp to a freeway built 50 years ago and in bad need of a redesign, the highway with 60 mph speed limits and a stoplight every mile (you reach 60 mph just as you approach the next light), trying to turn onto a busy highway at an intersection without a light, and mountain driving. You can't be in a hurry in that car. Forces the driver to take it easier.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  2. Was only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From what I understand, the major challenge of combustion without a spark plug for gasoline is preignition. High pressure direct injection allows normal spark-plug motors to run at higher compression ratios with lower chance of knock (preignition), so that was part of it, but I wonder what other fabulous tech was used to get this to be feasibly production ready. Very cool.

    1. Re:Was only a matter of time by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, as the article pointed out, they are using a much finer grained control of the injection precisely to control knock, injecting fuel in up to three shorter bursts.

      This also allows them to space those bursts at precise times during the power stroke, such as when the piston is going down, and the expansion of the initial burst of fuel is losing effectiveness due to combustion chamber expansion reducing the instantaneous pressure. Adding a burst of fuel at that point gets you extra power at what would otherwise be the downward (backside) of the power curve.

      Previous approaches to this were attempted with variable valve actuation, (essentially getting rid of the cam shaft and using other means of controlling valves more precisely). Costly, but effective.

      This approach (precisely controlling fuel delivery) allows you to shape the combustion profile to the continuously varying cylinder volume and perhaps adjusting that for changes in engine loading as well.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. Jevons Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People will just drive more to make up for the greater efficiency, and still whine about gas prices...

    1. Re:Jevons Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's limits to this effect. My florescent lightbulb on my desk lamp is 400% more efficient than the incandescent bulb it replaced, but that doesn't make me sit at my desk 4 times longer.

    2. Re:Jevons Paradox by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Err, no. Driving has some significant extra costs that aren't captured by how much I spend on gas in a week: the time I sit in the car, being utterly unproductive. For some - specifically for those who drive for fun or work - this might lead to a zero reduction in gas costs. But it will reduce it for a whole lot of other people.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Jevons Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...but that doesn't make me sit at my desk 4 times longer.

      I couldn't log into the Diablo III servers either. Had to move to the couch and find the damn remote.

  4. Re:Redundant by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can't wait to have my self-driving electric flying car by 2032.

  5. Re:Redundant by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean everything is moving over the next two decades to electric anyway.

    Electric has a moving target to hit, just as it has for the last 100+ years. Batteries are not the only technology that can improve in the next two decades.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  6. From a buffoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What keeps diesel engines from becoming a standard in the US? I know regulations nearly disappeared them from the market, but that was for environmental reasons, which are the very reasons why diesel cars are attractive. While in Europe it is not outside the norm, here it seems like you are committing a crime if you run a diesel engine.

    Also - since diesel engines are so efficient and all - what stops them from making a hybrid car that benefits from the even greater efficiency of diesel? or this new type of diesel like gas engine for that matter?

    1. Re:From a buffoon by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      High fuel taxes on diesel, because 18-wheelers are business assets and gov't loves to tax business, since it's hidden from the consumer.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:From a buffoon by demonbug · · Score: 5, Informative

      What keeps diesel engines from becoming a standard in the US? I know regulations nearly disappeared them from the market, but that was for environmental reasons, which are the very reasons why diesel cars are attractive. While in Europe it is not outside the norm, here it seems like you are committing a crime if you run a diesel engine.

      Also - since diesel engines are so efficient and all - what stops them from making a hybrid car that benefits from the even greater efficiency of diesel? or this new type of diesel like gas engine for that matter?

      Many reasons diesel hasn't been popular in the U.S. One reason is environmental concerns - at least in the north east U.S. and California, our emissions standards, particularly for particulates and sulfur compounds, are much stricter than Europe. A second reason is that people tend to buy cars based on horsepower, and diesels lag there. Third, lots of people have bad memories of noisy, smelly diesel engines from the 80's. Fourth, diesels cost more. All that said, they are making a comeback with the newer offerings from VW and BMW (and Mercedes?).

      I believe the reason diesels haven't been seen in hybrids is a combination of several factors. One, they are heavier than gasoline engines which in a hybrid already facing weight issues due to batteries could be a problem. Second, they are more expensive than gasoline engines, and again hybrids already face a cost problem. Third, the efficiency gains using gasoline engines have been sufficient to set them significantly apart from most non-hybrid cars, so the additional mileage you might get from using a diesel instead isn't worth the additional cost and weight.

    3. Re:From a buffoon by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      High fuel taxes on diesel, because 18-wheelers are business assets and gov't loves to tax business, since it's hidden from the consumer.

      Since big rigs account for about 99% of road damage, the truck companies are still coming out ahead of car drivers on fuel tax paid vs. government entitlements received.

    4. Re:From a buffoon by flink · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really? 99%?

      Could you cite that?

      Thanks.

      I don't know if it actually works out to 99%, but in general, road wear rises with the 4th power of axle weight, so trucks account for the lion's share of wear and tear on roads:
      http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/equivalent-single-axle-load/

      On the other hand, 99% might not be that far off:

      Roads are usually designed assuming that a single axle on a big truck carries a maximum of 18,000 pounds. Compared to a typical car carrying 2,000 pounds per axle, a fully loaded truck stresses the road surface 6,561 times as much.
        http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2974/why-cant-they-make-highways-last-forever

  7. Re:Redundant by Nkwe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems a bit redundant really, I mean everything is moving over the next two decades to electric anyway.

    Perhaps. It will depend on if we can figure out how to store electricity in the car less expensively then we can store the equivalent energy in a liquid fuel tank.

  8. Re:What's the advantage over diesel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTFA: Diesel is dirty and requires expensive exhaust systems.

  9. Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's probably inevitable-- it's just a question of when. Battery cost per kWh has been decreasing at around 10% per year, and gasoline is getting consistently more expensive. It seems incredibly unlikely that both of these would stop moving toward the crossover point.

  10. We need new power plants ... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems a bit redundant really, I mean everything is moving over the next two decades to electric anyway.

    Until we see new power plants being built I am not so sure we will have a large scale transition to electrically powered vehicles. Various parts of our electrical grid are already pretty stressed out and seeing periodic brown outs and black outs. This could put a damper on large scale adoption of electric vehicles.

  11. Rival hybrids? I don't think so... by davidwr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least they won't rival the hybrid version of this engine.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  12. Re:What's the advantage over diesel? by nigelo · · Score: 4, Funny

    > I'm asking. Someone here knows, I bet.

    Read the article. I'm begging you. Read it!

    --
    *Still* negative function...
  13. Would prefer this over a hybrid by takaitra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't forget that, when considering the extra mining and transportation of rare earth metals required to build a hybrid car, its overall environmental impact might not be any better than a conventional gasoline engine. My choice would be to buy a gasoline powered car with 50% improved efficiency over hybrid--at least until battery technology (and China's environmental policies!) improve.

  14. Re:Any engine technicians around to translate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The key distinction, as I'm aware, between diesel and gasoline is all about the ignition to begin with. In a gas engine, you create a spark to ignite a carefully mixed gas/air vapor. In a diesel, you don't need the spark, instead using sheer pressure from a much higher compression ratio. (this also leads to higher power per stroke, and therefore greater theoretical efficiency) Presumably they've found some way to reliably ignite gasoline without said spark, thus reaping the same compression ratio benefits or some such thing, I would guess.

  15. Re:Better than conservation by Aquitaine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You keep using that word "justice." I do not think it means what you think it means.

    If by "economic social justice" you mean "ways I believe that I should spend your money" and if by "unjust" you mean "bad because it is not how I would allocate your resources," then maybe.

    But "justice" is the application of law to achieve a fair, reasonable, and consistent outcome. If your neighbor gets fined $100 for leaving trash on the street and you do the same thing but don't get fined, that's unjust.

    Enabling or subsidizing somebody else to have access to something that they do not currently have may be altruistic or philanthropic and it may even be a good idea, but it's got nothing to do with justice. "Social Justice" might have meant something once, but it's been hijacked in pursuit of so many agendas (because everybody likes Justice, right?!?) that it's about as meaningful as the names of laws, where you regularly see things like "The American Equal Opportunity And High Paying Jobs For Everyone Act" that does nothing like what the title says.

  16. Re:Redundant by Surt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think it's much of a moving target ... electric needs to reach a 600 mile range and charge in 10 minutes. That will make it an effective transportation alternative for all current automotive travel. It really doesn't need to get any better than that.

    It's hard to see how electric can be beat in the long run. Even a 50% decrease in fuel use won't make gasoline fueling the cheaper choice.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  17. Re:Redundant by KillaBeave · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's probably inevitable-- it's just a question of when. Battery cost per kWh has been decreasing at around 10% per year, and gasoline is getting consistently more expensive. It seems incredibly unlikely that both of these would stop moving toward the crossover point.

    Gasoline engines have been keeping up with that 10% though. In 1998 the Ford Mustang GT with a 4.6L V8 had about 215hp. In 2011 the Mustang GT 5.0L V8 packed in 412hp. That's about 7% a year increase in power and a slight increase in mileage. It stands to reason if that extra efficiency was put towards more mpg instead of more power, that crossover point could be farther out than you think.

    The good news is it's getting better on both fronts and fast!

  18. Re:Redundant by ocdude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    long distances like the beach

    If you're a long distance from a beach, you're doing it wrong.

  19. Re:Redundant... What's "This."? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Informative

    It means "I approve of the above message which neatly encapsulates most of my feelings on the matter".

  20. Re:Any engine technicians around to translate? by necro81 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you work out the math of various combustion-work cycles (see Otto Cycle, Diesel Cycle), and then take a look at how they are implemented in a typical gasoline or diesel engine, one of the things you immediately find is that efficiency is directly proportional to compression ratio. That is, the more you compress the air (or air-fuel mixture) before igniting the fuel, the better your efficiency.

    Gasoline engines tend to be limited in their compression ratios, because if you compress the air-fuel mixture too much, it'll spontaneously ignite while the piston is on the upstroke, a phenomenon called pre-ignition or engine knock (because of how it sounds, I suppose). Diesel fuel burns a bit differently than gasoline, and diesel engines take advantage of spontaneous ignition: they purposefully have high compression ratios to heat up air in the cylinder, then inject the fuel when the piston is at/near the top of its stroke, where it immediately ignites. But diesel, as a fuel, has some practical downsides which has limited its more widespread adoption, primarily how cleanly it burns.

    If, on the other hand, you could produce an gasoline engine that uses diesel-like compression ratios, and inject the gasoline at maximum compression, as a diesel engine does, you could have the best of both world: greater efficiency due to high compression ratio, cleaner running due to burning gasoline. But such an engine, for various technical reasons, has historically been difficult to achieve. Maybe these guys are really on to something.