1 / 23

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

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. Objectives of the thesis.

onslow
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

  7. 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 ?

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

  9. 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

  10. Assumed car

  11. Engine designed

  12. Engine designed 2

  13. 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

  14. Boost results

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

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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. Any question?

More Related