Feasibility of the 3 litre per 100 Km small family petrol car with regular port injection

1. Cranfield university Feasibility of the 3 litre per 100 Km small family petrol car with regular port injection Luis E. Arimany Supervisor : Matthew Harrison Supported by AVL, Austria

2. Objectives of the thesis • To use a structured approach to explore the feasibility of the 3 litre per 100 km fuel consumption car • The project is focused in the alternative of a small gasoline engine with regular port injection

3. Thesis structure • Why 3 litre per 100 km? • How ? • Problems ? • Assume a car • Design the engine • Calculate fuel consumption

4. Why 3 litre / 100 Km? • Global warming • Agreements • Economy CO2

5. Why 3 litre / 100 Km? • Global warming • Agreements • Economy • UNFCCC • Kyoto Protocol • 2153rd Council Meeting

6. Why 3 litre / 100 Km? • Global warming • Agreements • Economy • UNFCCC • Kyoto Protocol • 2153rd Council Meeting

8. Low weight Low rolling resistance Low aerodynamic drag Redesign gears Hybrid powertrain Fuel cells Alternative fuels EGR Lean burn. GDI Turbocharge Variable valve timing Variable lift timing Camless How ?

9. Problems of the 3 litre car target • Technical problems • Cost • Customer expectation • Drivability and NVH

10. Target of the project • Gasoline engine • Cancer risk • Diesel pollutes more • “A litre of diesel is not a litre of gasoline” • Small engine • Optimum bsfc • Less friction • Less weight and improve packaging • Regular port injection

11. Assumed car

12. Engine designed

13. Engine designed 2

14. Torque and Power bsfc Nm W 350 60 30000 300 50 25000 250 40 20000 200 g/KWh 30 15000 150 20 10000 100 10 5000 50 0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 rpm rpm Boost results

15. Boost results

16. Europeancycleprogram • Why? Flexibility • Calculates fuel consumption in ECE 15, EUDC and Combined • Check engine capacity • Sensitivity analysis

17. Results • Importance of idle in the ECE and therefore in the Combined • Importance of engine deactivation

18. Results (2) Fuel consumption 4.25 4.2 • Little change • Mass more sensitivity • Not possible to achieve 3 litre target with only this strategy 4.15 mass 4.1 L/100Km 4.05 Cd 4 Frontal area 3.95 3.9 3.85 -20 -10 0 10 20 % parametre change

19. Validation of the results. Torque and Power bsfc Nm W 350 60 30000 • 41.7 kW/ litre vs. 45 kW/litre • 86.5 Nm/ litre vs. 90 Nm • 243 g/kWh vs. 260 300 50 25000 250 40 20000 200 g/KWh 30 15000 150 20 10000 100 10 5000 50 0 0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 rpm rpm

20. Validation of the results. Comparison with MCC Smart • 600 cc • Turbocharged • 6 gears • Small • 31% more power • 34% more torque • 19.8 % worst fuel economy

21. Conclusions • Weight, drag coefficient and frontal area reductions is not enough • Engine deactivation is compulsory. Care with cool down and not additional fuel consumption • Although 3.45 l/100km, the 3 litre car is possible, but low performance. • It would be 600 cc, 28 kW and 55 Nm

22. Work done • Study of technologies which improve fuel economy • Study of engine simulation, its advantages and its limitations • Study valves and fmep • Design an engine • Write a fuel consumption program • Derive important conclusions

23. Any question?