| Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Erik Nielsen (judge4re gmail.com)
|
|
| Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 14:55:17 -0700 (PDT) | |
| All right, the little one has his iPad and is distracted again. In very simple terms, an engine is an air pump. If you want more power, you want more fuel and air to push through. That’s it. Plain and simple. Only everyone started realizing a few years ago that using dead dinosaurs probably was a finite resource, plus the stuff coming out the back of the car kept most of LA from seeing the Hollywood sign. Regulators start getting involved circa 1967. First big issue that was trying to be addressed was CO and HC, hence the “thermal reactors” that sort of worked get introduced. Still work with carbs, but CFD wasn’t even a wet dream at this point, so header and exhaust design was basically a lot of trial and error. You could still use a carb, but they were limited in that you really didn’t have a lot of adjustment, they were more or less “set and forget” devices, problem is your air pump is running at all sorts of different conditions from cold starts in northern Maine where even the locals said “screw it, the maple syrup has the consistency of asphalt” to the bumper to bumper joy of the 405. On any day. At any time. Fuel injection is nothing new, it came out in 1902. Don’t believe me? Look it up. Once the guys in white coats at Bosch started playing with it, the questions they started asking was “how much fuel do you need and when”. And that’s been where most of the development has gone. As control systems have gotten better, more variables come into play. The average control system is looking at about 1800 channels of data now, all trying to mainly squeeze in the best amount of performance without sacrificing any efficiency. Pretty tough to do that on a Holley carb with only two screws. FI is here to stay. Now we have two different sets of regulations looking at trying to improve efficiency. The Americans went down the route of fuel economy, the Europeans look at CO2 per km, both approaches lead to the same engineering approach, make things smaller and lighter. Most of Europe went with diesel for passenger cars (> 50% market share), encouraged with more taxes on gasoline. The USA was content with CAFE requirements, which is leading to engine downsizing and turbo charging (think Ford’s Ecoboost). All sorts of cool tricks are being played now, but most of it is direct injection turbo charging. The bad thing is that if you push for performance too hard, you make soot. Soot is nasty. But the regulations are coming soon on that one and I’m waiting for more patents to be issued before I say more. There is a huge argument about if electrics really make sense on an overall energy basis, but you have to ask if you’d rather regulate pollution at a few large emission sources (power plants) or on each of the ~16 million new point sources on light duty gasoline vehicles sold in the USA this year? Or the 253 million already out there? Feel free to ask me to go down any rabbit hole you want on this… Respectfully, Erik By the way, if you want to impress friends at the next cocktail hour give them this tidbit. The F35 fighter uses 8 million lines of code. The Chevy Volt runs off of 10 million...
|
- Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB, (continued)
- Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB Fellippe Galletta, April 16 2016
- Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB Erik Nielsen, April 16 2016
- Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB Robert W. Garven Jr., April 16 2016
- Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB clyderomerof4, April 16 2016
- Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB Erik Nielsen, April 16 2016
- Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB Rick Moseley, April 17 2016
- Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB Doug & Terri, April 16 2016
- Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB Erik Nielsen, April 16 2016
- Re: 930 Air cooled v. 512BB Rick Moseley, April 16 2016
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.