Feasibility of the 3 litre per 100 km small family petrol car with regular port injection
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 23

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


  • 51 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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

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


Thesis structure

Thesis structure

  • Why 3 litre per 100 km?

  • How ?

  • Problems ?

  • Assume a car

  • Design the engine

  • Calculate fuel consumption


Why 3 litre 100 km

Why 3 litre / 100 Km?

  • Global warming

  • Agreements

  • Economy

CO2


Why 3 litre 100 km1

Why 3 litre / 100 Km?

  • Global warming

  • Agreements

  • Economy

  • UNFCCC

  • Kyoto Protocol

  • 2153rd Council Meeting


Why 3 litre 100 km2

Why 3 litre / 100 Km?

  • Global warming

  • Agreements

  • Economy

  • UNFCCC

  • Kyoto Protocol

  • 2153rd Council Meeting


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

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 ?


Problems of the 3 litre car target

Problems of the 3 litre car target

  • Technical problems

  • Cost

  • Customer expectation

  • Drivability and NVH


Target of the project

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


Assumed car

Assumed car


Engine designed

Engine designed


Engine designed 2

Engine designed 2


Boost results

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


Boost results1

Boost results


Europeancycleprogram

Europeancycleprogram

  • Why? Flexibility

  • Calculates fuel consumption in ECE 15, EUDC and Combined

  • Check engine capacity

  • Sensitivity analysis


Results

Results

  • Importance of idle in the ECE and therefore in the Combined

  • Importance of engine deactivation


Results 2

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


Validation of the results

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


Validation of the results comparison with mcc smart

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


Conclusions

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


Work done

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


Any question

Any question?


  • Login