How Engines Are Becoming More Fuel Efficient
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- The abrupt rise of fuel economy in the US was a direct result of a shift of fuel economy policy in 1975, in response to the oil price shock of the early 1970s. This caused a transition towards smaller cars with less powerful, smaller engines.
Manufacturers took note of this and started exploring technologies that would bring power and robustness back to their vehicles while still maintaining good fuel economy.
An engine extracts energy from the burning of gasoline. It does this by first taking in a mixture of fuel and air into a cylinder. The total working volume of all of the cylinders in an engine is known as its displacement.
It then compresses the mixture and ignites it with a spark plug. As the mixture burns, it expands, pushing down a piston, which rotates a crankshaft. The spent gases are then pushed out through the exhaust. Power is sent from the rotating crankshaft, through the drivetrain, then to the wheels.
The first step is to reduce the size of the vehicle. We can now reduce the size of the powertrain. A lower displacement engine with fewer cylinders loses less energy getting power to the wheels. This is called a parasitic loss.
The amount of fuel-air mixture an engine can aspirate to create power is directly related to its displacement and number of cylinders. By reducing engine displacement size, you lower the amount of power an engine can make but also the amount of fuel it consumes.
The first steps were to control the fuel usage of the engine more accurately. In order to do this, we need to understand when fuel is used most and why.
Engines in cars have 5 modes of operation. Starting, idling, accelerating, cruising, and decelerating. Acceleration and cruising. These two modes are where most fuel consumption occurs.
Throttling open an engine to make more power is where its highest fuel consumption occurs. Cruising, on the other hand, occurs when the throttle is held slightly open, keeping the engine speed and power output steady. This is where we can hone in the fuel efficiency of an engine.
Most of the fuel we use driving is caused by a combination of short bursts of acceleration and longer periods of cruising. The key to balancing power and fuel economy is having strong acceleration characteristics but efficient cruising characteristics
The ideal ratio of air to gasoline is 14.7 to 1. This is known as a stoichiometric mixture. But in practice, this ratio becomes difficult to achieve.
To compensate for this more fuel is added, enriching it. This allows more fuel to be burned without ideal mixing. Enriching is used primarily under acceleration to ensure maximum power generation. Unburnt fuel is wasted.
With cruising, since our power requirements are constant and relatively low, mixtures closer to 14.7 to 1 or even slightly higher are used. This is known as running lean since were not utilizing all of the air in combustion. Running lean uses less fuel but can be damaging. Uncontrolled self-ignition of the mixture is called detonation and it can cause overheating and damage to an engine.
Incoming fuel is used to cool the combustion chamber and control the rate of burning, reducing the chances of detonation. This limit how lean we can run an engine.
Up until the 1980s, most cars relied on carburetors to meter out fuel. Because of its mechanical nature, carburetors lack precise control over air-fuel mixture and required maintenance to keep them functioning correctly. Electronic fuel injection was embraced by manufacturers.
Fuel injection works by precisely spraying pressurized fuel through computer controlled injectors. The computer that meters out fuel is known as an engine control unit or ECU. Some of the key parameters measured are engine rpm, air temperature, air flow into the engine, throttle position and engine temperature. Manufacturers could now tune fuel systems much closer to the ideals for both power and fuel economy.
Because the injected fuel is sprayed at higher pressures, better air-fuel mixing occurs. It requires less enrichment overall and improves both fuel economy and power.
On most engines, the fuel injection system and the ignition system are merged. This allows the ECU to adjust the ignition point timing relative to the combustion cycle. Creating a spark earlier in the cycle, or advancing the timing can produce more power by starting combustion sooner.
Another advantage of fuel injection is that it allows for the use of feedback in the fuel delivery system. During cruising, the leanness of combustion is monitored by an oxygen sensor is in the exhaust stream, providing feedback to the ECU. The ECU can use this data to trim the air-fuel mixture closer to ideal, boosting fuel economy.
Sensors to detect detonation are also present on some fuel injection systems. Early sensors work by listening for the acoustical signature of detonation on the engine block.
SUPPORT NEW MIND ON PATREON
/ newmind
For everyone looking for Part 2, head over to Gear Quest! - czcams.com/video/G2y6cU5mN9Y/video.html
When you think about the fact that BF 109 had fuel injection you start to wonder why did the automotive industry catch up so late
To REALLY increase engine efficiency , the best and most obvious thing is : eliminate the 3 parasitic cycles of the 4 stroke engine (why they are 20% or less efficient) duh....
The difference in mpg from the 70s up until 2019 is mostly due to impotent of Japanese and European cars
JUNK SCIENCE
At 5m45sec your Venturi illustration is incorrect, the proper placement of the throttle butterfly is after the Venturi. A butterfly before the Venturi is a choke.
It's only a matter of time before Skillshare is all over this channel
I'll gladly take some dollar shave club money too :P
@@NewMind I know you'll be ballin when I see an engineering breakdown of a Casper's mattress.
Rip, but good for him
@@johndowe7003 Yeah but if the content is decent I don't mind them making money
@@chrisjinks5197 yep, others are just money whores this guy is alright.
What manufacturers do now is put more sensors, and fancy mechanical stuff on the engines to make them more fuel efficient. Bad news for people like me who are mechanics. It's getting harder and harder to work on cars yourself unfortunately
oh don't worry
i will still need you to take a look at my 1998 honda hornet
the only electronic thing in there is a transistor for the ignition 😂
everything else is electromechanical
Nah just get the right tools and you're good to go
Just keep loving god and youll find a way. You can always do it until you tell yourself you cant. Good luck.
@@magsteel9891 are you aware on the amount of money needed for those tools??
@@andresrodriguez1447 apparently CZcams won't let me tell you about some low cost options. I don't know why
I really like the density of information that is introduced at a speed I can understand.
this sounds like a paid endorsement.
2x
You hit it right on the head.
Not too lean or rich of a mixture I'd say. 🤔🤗
such a succinct way to put it. if you dont mind i am gonna use that for other videos.
The best way to improve fuel economy is to drive downhill only.
Cut it out, yer' killin' me!
@@tommieduhswamy6860 I'm serious man. That's what I do. I never drive uphill, and I get like 300 miles to the gallon.
@@timhallas4275 I hear ya man. I would walk to school everyday...uphill both ways. Hard times.
@@timhallas4275 lmao
@@tommieduhswamy6860: For me, it was downhill both ways. We must have passed each other on that slope.
6:55 ish. You got a sub out of that just because you literally took the time to draw every specific one of the sensors out individually....bringing back all those aggravating moments from my youth. Sharp.
I found that pretty impressive as well
I actually paused to look more closely just to make sure I wasnt imagining the accuracy
Nice video! It would be important to note that advances in transmission design, as well as better aerodynamics increased mileage as well.
Very true
However the video is primarily concerned with ability of an engine to be as fuel efficient as possible
Introductions such as
Better transmission design
Airflow design
Aerodynamic design - both over the car and under it
Tyre design
And other techniques and technologies I am not privy to
All have contributed to vehicle efficiency gains
I see it as a fruitless endeavour though
Use of crude oil based technology is at the cusp of becoming obsolete
Newer, better, vastly superior technologies are being developed
We are the generation that will bear witness to science fiction be coming reality and I for one can not wait
@@edwardtrickett6064 every generation after the beginning of the industrial revolution has been the one to witness sci-fi become reality. The steam engine, telegraph, telephone, automobiles, aircraft, radio, television, nuclear weapons, computers, air conditioning, portable power tools, emergency medicine, cell phones, internet, streaming video and now electric self driving cars. All of these seemed like a crazy dream at one point.
I think you'll be disappointed at the time it actually takes to stop using crude oil. If you listen to Elon Musk it's ten years. Problem is there is so much infrastructure that has been paid for already. In addition to battery technology not being anywhere close to equal. Telephones as an example. While land lines are not nearly as convenient as a phone in your pocket 40% of US homes still have one. 30+ years and the land line is still going. And the switch to cell phones was an arguably less difficult transition to make.
@@9HighFlyer9 you make a valid point
That which is considered normal now, was at one point science fiction.
I don't think there's much choice with fossil fuel though. It is contributing to climate change and action needs to be taken.
Large scale infrastructure changes need to happen. I think it will happen faster than you realise, because it has to.
Just my opinion
Drew Shuller - Yes, a 6+ speed transmission will not only be able to “choose” a better gear, but the transmission can spend more time with the torque converter locked. Modern automatics are more efficient than manuals, and have been for awhile.
Edward Trickett LOL I’m sorry, even assuming man made climate change is not only real, but has that much of a dramatic effect... to honestly believe that fuel economy in the first world, is going to have ANY effect on it. While we sit here pretending we are making a difference, China and India pollute more than everyone else combined. Your little efficient car, means so little on the grand scheme of things, that patting yourself on the back for it, is just absurdly laughable.
Was expecting you to show turbos haha, because thats the new trend small engines with powerful turbos so they dont lack power and are very fuel efficient
They rev higher meaning more fuel is getting pumped in overtime which is less fuel efficient its common sense turbos making an engine more fuel efficient is a myth
@@patrickbateman2869 nah they rev lower as turbo does more work so you dont need to put foot down as much. My turbo kicks in around 2500rpm which is low to say i can rev to 6500rpm. But on some newer cars they kick in even lower.
Twin turbo seems to work pretty efficiently on my F150. If I drive like a sane person, it's fairly fuel efficient. If I stomp on it, she goes like stink, and definitely uses more fuel than usual, but still less than my old F150
@@patrickbateman2869 completely wrong
@@patrickbateman2869 actually turbos use waste exhougasses to make power making them efficient. Since it uses energy that otherwise would be wasted
Pretty freaking awesome. If I may suggest, mention the achievements of Koenigsegg's variable valve timing achieving a record 55% fuel efficiency
It's alright but Toyota is more realistic
A clear and understandable description of topic taken. I can say with certainty that I am an early subscriber to a big CZcams channel of future.
I just noticed the spark plug at 3:55 is upside down XD
😂😂😂😂😂
That's for Australian cars only ;-)
That only for reverse 😆
@@Galatzo they dont have spark plugs, they have electric motors
Absolutely excellent video. Looking forward to more thanks for all the effort. It really shows 👍
Where is the next video? And please do mention about cylinder deactivation too as well as tumbling and, HCCI (e.g. Mazda Skyactiv-X technology) which manipulates higher compression ratio to increase efficiency.
Madzdas Skyactive X is no HCCI....it is SPCCI, a spark is still needed to induce the rapid burn of the lean mix! Pure HCCI doesn't need a spark plug, it does it simply by compression and some free radicals from EGR (like the small COX engines)
I have a Nissan Versa that has dinosaur tech (late 90s engine design) and early 2010s software. It makes 42.2 mpg in the highway :v
Considering it costed me almost nothing and has never broken down, I guess I got a good deal
noice
90s is not ancient for cars its not like a pc or phone
Used to be a Nissan master. Good Idea. Simple, only fail Nissan has is the CVT transmission. Any time a Customer receives a Nissan with out a CVT transmission, instead have a Manual Transmission. Dependability has increased Dramatically. CVT design is nice, durability/Longevity is Flawed.
@@JohnDoe-ic8hy wish my manual transmission in my 240sx worked perfectly today but I'm surprised it's held on so long with not too bad of issues.
@@fakedanielsong8954 lol. Who has a 240sx and doesnt beat the car up? I have not seen a 'STOCK' S13 or S14 in years.
Thanks a bunch. This clears up a bunch of misconceptions that I couldn't verbalize.
Such clarity! Please upload the next part soon!
Can’t talk, busy hitting VTEC.
VTEC yo.
VTEC Just kicked in yo!
A 1983 Volvo 240 which is shaped like a brick and has a 4 speed transmission with overdrive geared for 55mph highway driving still gets about 42mpg highway at 70mph. All my experiences with new cars have gotten about 30mpg highway so in my opinion new cars are useless at creating efficient engines, especially turbocharged 4 cylinder engines.
some gearboxes have really crappy gearing for improved "acceleration"
Really not nessecary for so much rpm on the highway
Stop buying low mpg new cars then lmao
This is by far my favorite channel on youtube. More vids PLEASE!!!
Best channel on youtube (can't believe the production quality on your most recent videos especially--they're better than freaking TV shows).
"Working volume" is a bit vague re: displacement, but I'm picking nits here of course. Piston swept volume would be more precise. Good video all the same. Cheers!
I own a 2014 Ford Focus SE. I recently completed a 1,400 mile trip. I averaged 47.5mpg (48mpg on the way out, 47mpg on the way back).
According to the EPA my car should do 28mpg city, 39mpg highway. According to Ford my car should do 27mpg city, 37mpg highway.
When I drive the car to/from work and around town I average 38mpg-39mpg.
I believe any car can get AMAZING gas mileage, it's all about how you drive it.
Also depend what condition of the road as well. And yes, your driving style.
It's about what kind of vehicle the manufacturer used to test the consumption. They use the lightest export model and then the fuel tank has a relatively low level and the battery is fully charged.
No way your car can do it.
@@arvedludwig3584 he just said his car gets BETTER than factory predicted mileage
@@TheRedneckSage ah shit, that's the tricky part. Here in Europe it's the other way around. We measure fuel consumption by liter per 100 kilometer.
I’m glad you like your Ford Fecus ...
Fascinating, well done!
Great video keep it up. Waiting for the second part.
What a fantastic video. This is an outstanding job.
Nice work as usual dude. Looking forward to the next video already. Lots of custom animations. I feel like you put in a ton of effort. Probably could even use more stock footage like some other youtubers but I guess it would make it more generic. I'm really excited to see what your 'personal style' develops into :)
Thanks! I’m still exploring what works and what doesn’t. Not gonna lie it gets exhausting sometimes but it’s definitely worth it, especially when I hear supportive words like yours. 👍
@@NewMind
Did the part 2 engine efficiency video ever come out?
am super glad that the CZcams algo finally recommended something good!
very good. Been wondering about this for a while
The way that the spark plug is shown upside down kinda grinds my gears.
I was gonna say that
Ptsd momento
@@GhostOfDamned dude I wrote that a year ago wow. Respect. Glad that someone read my comment :)
@@petejerry6169 people complain to me most of the times
Why ArE yOu RepLyInG tO 1 yEaR oLd cOmMeNtS
@@GhostOfDamned Im not complaining I'm just surprised.
A rich mixture produces more power primarily because of the effect it has on reducing knock and combustion temperature. Though it's true some of the power comes from using up all the available oxygen, it's mainly from the additional ignition timing and (if turbocharged) boost that can be added with an enriched mixture.
That's right, that's exactly what water injection does, it gives you the ability to up your timing and or boost when the water injection is utilized, some people mistakenly think that the alchohol mixed in is what does it but it's primarily in it to keep it from freezing in lower temps, although with proper tuning the alchohol does add a little power it's the increase from being able to jack up the boost and timing from the cooling effect of the water injection that's most of the power increase, I know several guys that are street racers that got sick of messing with the mixture and re-mapped their systems to run water only (fair weather cars) and have told me that by the seat of their pants they can't tell the difference between straight water and the water/alchohol mix.
Engines actually make more power when slightly lean, the reason rich mixtures are run, especially on high performance engines is to control cylinder temperatures. Its always a compromise when tuning an engine between max power and blowing up/melting and engine. There is a tradeoff between running more timing and then running a little rich to drop cylinder temperatures to counter knock potential. But lean with a lot of timing would make more power but would be a ticking time bomb. For background I'm a mechanic that specializes in high performance Subarus, and work alot with building/tuning turbo cars.
Lean makes more power.
was getting a Factorio vibe with those assembly arms and the music near the end. awesome video! my newest favorite channel
Informative video! Lots of info covered in a short duration of time.
Modern engines ARE amazing. My car has a 2.0 turbodiesel that produces 184 horsepower and it will average 60+ MPG on a long motorway trip. I'm only 46 and remember when I was a kid that you could smell cars as they drove past you down the road. You rarely, if ever, smell that now because fuel metering is so accurate and efficient.
What car are you driving?
@@thinhtranba5352 It's a 2014 Seat Leon FR.
Diesels are great but i dont think gas cars will ever come close to what the diesels can do. I remembermy dad telling me he had an old early 70s 4cyl 5 speed gettig over 40mpg no emmisions just a little old 4 cylinder. Yes emmissions are nessasary now but we were able to get better miles per gallon without them. Even my diesel truck gets better mpg without all the emissions crap on it. Went from 16.7 to 23 after all the mods
Guy that’s not what I would call good I have a 92 v8 falcon that gets over 35mpg when I’m carting my work tools around and it done over 250 000 miles, if I had the engine rebuilt and didn’t have all the weight in the boot all the time my economy would be comparable with yours and my car is a nearly 30 year old car I threw together with leftovers, what is your car worth
That's true, the only time I can smell a car these days is on cold starts. Catalyst is too cold to function plus a rich AFR to compensate for a lack of fuel atomization in a cold engine. That or someone that has had their car tuned.
In case you don't live in America. Most cars here are giant SUVs and Pickup trucks that do 8-15mpg. The only car that was capable of 45mpg was VW Golf TDI which resulted in "Emissions Scandal"
Well in Europe, Euro regulation are so strict that stating car are most fuel efficient is laughable compared to us. A standard car (non hybrid) can easily achieve 5l/100 or less depending on age of the car. The problem is how Americans are stuck with the idea of big engines, 75hp for a car here is commun.
@Mido Alaaeldin That has nothing to do with efficiency
Sasha Z There are far more than one type of car that has good mileage here in America.
@Douglas Hamner the mpg ratings are using different gallons in the us and uk, the US uses us gallons and the UK uses imperial gallons which more volume.
Foxycat 21 totally agree, uk fuel is better quality too, my 2008 88bhp Yaris gets 60 mpg, now in 2019 cars still aren’t getting much if anymore mpg, I do have a Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.7 V8 as a weekend car though so I do like a bit of Americana
Wonderful visuals, amazingly informative. This and the flatness video have earned you another subscriber. Suscribed
Very clear explanations. Thank you!
No matter how advance fuel efficiency may go,I still got love for Carburetors
Same 🤙
ok booomer
also over the last 40 years average engine temperatures have increased greatly to increase efficiency.
Compression has gotten better even without lead additives. I do not understand why. Is is all tiny improvements in timing, heat distribution, injection, ... ?
It’s because of the insane control that direct injection gives you.
In WWII... Britain was dependent on 100+ octane fuel from the USA to power the Spitfire which used a carb. They also had to run rich both to keep the temperatures down (due to cooling effect of vapourizing fuel) and to prevent detonation from a poorly mixed charge being too lean in the furthest cylinders from the carb.
Germany was getting the same performance out of 87 octane because they used direct injection. Each cylinder had a specific injector tuned to the airflow it would receive to make an almost perfect mixture... so they could boost the living daylights out of it and not have to worry about detonation.
Even with sequential port fuel injection you can’t get precise enough control.
Today’s cars are almost all direct injection and they use a lean burn... on the other side of peak where you can get detonation. Anti knock sensors will instantly retard the ignition timing if they sense detonation and also if you use regular grade fuel instead of premium if your car is made for it.
@@calvinnickel9995 THX,
I did not know until recently that there were knock sensors on each cylinder.
@@calvinnickel9995 most gas engines have indirect injection. Diesel engines utilize direct injection which helps with fuel efficiency
Good quality content..precise and to the point
The engine you showed being built is a GDI, (Gasoline Direct Injection) engine. Which works slightly differently. Mostly in that it does what it sounds like and directly injects the fuel into the combustion chamber. It does this at much higher pressure than standard fuel injection, and allows running an ultra lean burn for greater efficiency.
*laughs nervously in constantly floored 88 f150 getting like 7mpg*
Yeah, that's nothing. 01 chevy 6.0 that gets 10 going easy on it. I just thought my fords were thirsty til I met this junk. And it gets like 1/3 of that now, since apparently the intake gasket or intake itself cracked a couple weeks ago when I drove through a rather large puddle. Even my carbed 390 with no overdrive blew this thing away. With power and efficiency.
I remember the highly efficient Datsun 180U of the seventies. And the Opels of the eighties. I wonder if you dare to compare fuel consumption according to car weight.
And emissions. More NOx, more MPG
No safety features, either. Today’s cars weigh almost as much as 1970s cars because of the safety features required.
Where is the 2nd part of the video ? And this video was very nice, thank you
Wow. Fantastic video and production. Well done
You forgot about in between carburetor and fuel injection. the throttle body injection that came before fuel injection and I was right after carbureted injection
I got normaly with ac on and 3 people in car 47mpg Mitsubishi lancer ex 1.6l 4 cylinder non turbo engine 2015 117 hp manual 5 gear transmision
It's always mystified me the huge engines yet low power of the average US engine.
Engines from the eu and Japan are around 1.6-2.0 litres.
The best explanation I ever see GREATE JOB
Glad to see your sub count rising, you make top notch content.
In the Uk a 1.9tdi can do 50+ mpg
Different units. 50 mpg(Imperial) = 42 mpg(US). And Diesels have awful NOx and particulate emissions that are ridiculously bad for human health. Diesel cars are dying, sales are massively down year on year and I say good riddance.
@@xeigen2
It's really unfortunate though. Diesel offers vastly better thermal efficiency and part load efficiency, though variable compression, variable valve timing, and direct injection are bringing gasoline engines closer to turbodiesels in terms of efficiency, while having inherently better emissions characteristics.
Still waiting for the part 2
Did part 2 ever come out?
Great explanation of the earliest major developments in fuel economy. I believe you got one interesting fact a little wrong though: Emission regulated engines actually aren't targeting stoichiometric ratios. Instead they are targeting slightly richer (more fuel) ratios that will make the catalytic converters work a lot better. They actually cycle between moments of rich mixtures and near stoichiometric ones so that the catalytic converters can store some oxygen for their chemical reactions.
I bought a 1979 Chevy half ton, full time 4WD pickup in 1984. It had the small block 350 and got about 10 mpg. I put lockout hubs, converted the transfer case to part time, dual exhaust, an Edelbrock Performer intake manifold, and a Holley 600 carb on it and increased the mpg to about 14-15. Mind you this was at speeds of 60-65 mph. That combination maybe put 200 hp to the rear wheels. I just did 1500 miles in my 2019 Silverado crew cab with 4WD and the 6.2 engine which puts about 350 hp to the rear wheels. At speeds of 70-85 mph I averaged 21 mpg. The improved efficiency of the new vehicles along with substantially (night and day) increase in power is truly mind blowing to me. I have no doubt I could average 23-25 mpg with the 2019 if I actually drove as slow now as we did back in the 80s when the speed limit was 55.
You know cars from the 50s could have got 50 miles to the gallon right all they had to do was add a heated carburetor that made it suck in more fuel Vapor than actual fuel liquid
@Randy Wiesendanger It is.
My 1950's Austin A30 got 50MPG (850cc, four gears, manual). There is a CZcams video of a test drive on the road where this is demonstrated driving on average roads of that era.
OTOH, my 1950's Ford 105E (1200cc, side valve, 3 completely useless gears, manual) got 22 MPG, while my 2010 Ford Fusion (1400cc, 4-speed auto box) also got 22MPG.
My 2010 Nissan X-Trail, and my 2013 Peugeot (both 1600cc turbo Diesel with intercooler) get 50MPG (with aircon off). Nissan got over 25MPG towing a caravan (Average over about 7,000 miles).
Here (Europe), inlet and exhaust manifolds are normally bolted together to preheat the fuel/air mix. I am pretty sure they were doing that before WW2.
Progress? Only in the level of dishonesty involved in reporting advances in fuel efficiency. Americans appear unable to design/build reasonably efficient car engines.
(All car models and gallons are UK, but I have driven French, Italian and German cars, and the fuel efficiency was similar, although the performance and reliability was definitely not).
I really think they should take advantage of the heat generated by an engine instead of just wasting in in a radiator.
That's how your car heater usually works, and one of the reasons why EV's are less efficient in winter. Otherwise, there's no real efficient/effective way of putting a heat based engine to generate power in your car because it would make the car too heavy/bulky. Also, it's generally inefficient to just radiate away heat, but it is necessary in this case or the coolant will become too hot, so it needs to be cooled down faster, which makes it even less efficient
Is it that impossible?
Then how did Leonard Dyer make one in 1915? And Bruce Crower do it again in 2006?
@@MrManerd I didn't say it's impossible. I was merely saying that it's not worth it.
And that is where you are wrong. 40% better gas mileage is worth it. If you're saying the design would be to difficult to make in order to be worth it, then you clearly did not even google either of the two names I gave you.
@@MrManerd bruh I'm saying it's not worth it for car manufacturers
This is a good informative video
Great video!
The main causes of efficiency improvement was from electronic fuel injection, and high compression ratios. That was 90% of it the rest is from gasoline direct injection or computer tuning. However the most efficient engine is opposed piston.
You missed the deceleration phase (deliberately?) where carburettors fail too and EFI is so much more efficient. When the throttle is closed at speed the sudden increase in manifold vacuum draws additional fuel into the intake, which although burnt as part of the combustion process serves no useful purpose.
EFI has the ability to disable the injectors completely above a certain engine speed (often around 1500-1800rpm for a 4 cylinder engine) with the throttle closed, and thereby using no fuel at all. This is an argument I often use against people who insist that 'coasting' (eg depressing the clutch and letting the engine idle during deceleration) is more economical.
My car on decline only disable injectors if i don't press the pedal. il i don't press the trotle, consumption fall to zero but motor brake. If i press the clutch and don't press gas pedal consumption falls to zero and no motor brake. It's a recent suzuki. An improvement on fuel economy will be to automaticaly press the clutch to desactivate all the motor on decline (no motor brake). On shell chalenge with 1 liter they make 3500 km but they drive quite time on free wheeling.
Nice and informative video
Dude... how do you know so much. This is a fantastic channel.
He researches subjects to make educational videos obviously. Still takes a lot of knowledge and work to do properly.
the 1978 Honda Civic got 40mpg with a carbuator. Put FI on that and it should get 50mpg.
I read about someone who claimed to get ~130 mpg in a Honda N600 by driving it carefully, and never going above 30-40 mph.
Carb gets the same as injections
@@Owiko7 Makes sense, since the N600 has only a 600cc engine.
My friend has the CVCC, it has a motorcycle engine!
The Insight hybrid goes over 70mpg on highways too, three cylinder, aluminum body.
My 1989 Prelude used to get 43mpg on the highway regularly. I don't see how they haven't improved on that
2017 camry can get 38mpg at 75-80 with ac, 48 hypermiling
You are most likely not a typical driver (i.e. using your brain). The context that matters is how most people drive (no brain).
Yeah, and how much did it weigh and how much power did it have and what features and safety mechanisms did it have... stupid comparison. Today you’re getting MUCH MORE out of those 43mpg.
Great video
i love your channel. congrats on an excellent job.
I am enjoying your videos, however, I have been enchanted by the background music of this video, can you share the artist and title?
Glad I found your channel and looking forward to more. Suggestion: don't run animations unless you are directly talking about them. This was especially distracting at 6:43, and could simply be changed by pausing the piston animation.
Loved it! When is the next one coming out?
Very interesting video!
I would like to see a sequel including other type of engines and for other purposes (other than automotive I mean). For example used for residential generators harvesting some types of energy (like solar). I give residential generators as example because (not only I'm personally interested in them :) but) it's a use-case where highest possible efficiency can be the priority, and most of the limitations of the automotive engines are not present or very minor (like space, weight, speed ...).
For example what engines can be used for harvesting Concentrated Solar Power (ie like with parabolic-like mirrors) and then converting it to electricity by Stirling engine for example.
Wow, ICEs have come so far. I remember when we used carborators, a mechanical distributor, points, rotors.. Now, it's just a 'setting'.. Lol
Absolutely not true.
Absolutely true... Just saying something isn't t true, doesn't make it true. Mechanical is damn near always more reliable, and when it isn't you can fix it with a hammer. Not literally, so shut up. And I don't mean an old wore out mechanical engine vs a brand new zero mile electronic. More parts, means more chances for things to break, especially sensors that are adversely affected by the elements and just the engine running itself. I have a perfect example in my driveway. If it were carbureted, there wouldn't really be a problem. 99% of people wouldn't even notice it. But since it's efi, and a particularly poor design, the slightly cracked intake gasket tells the computer to make it run like complete crap. Not that efi is bad, I like it. But only properly designed systems, that don't require tons of maintenance or that I drive like a granny. But manufacturers are going off the deep end, and really not giving you what you pay for. My 76 390 Ford would run like a bat out of hell, and got better mileage than the 01 chevy 6.0 I spoke of earlier. And was MUCH more reliable. I've been easy on this thing, and it still sucks down fuel and breaks all the time. So, newer doesn't mean better, old doesn't mean obsolete. If you use modern manufacturing techniques, applied to simpler, proven designs, you get better reliability. Look at mechanical diesels, they run forever. I have a '68 Ford 3000 tractor my grandpa bought new, that is still running great with nothing more than basic maintenance. And his john deere that was bought around 02 has been nothing but trouble. One of the first parts to go out on any vehicle is the electric fuel pump. If it's all mechanical, it starts out with an advantage. To say computers don't fail is just plain delusional ignorance. And you absolutely have to have a scanner because you can't just tune it by sound. Or even know what's going on. You really need more, just reading codes only tell you the first part. Where an older engine will tell you the problem, basically just with the problem. It doesn't create a problem where there really aren't any, the ecu just thinks there is.
Yes, and a lot of those are still on the road and running good even though their 45 years old. Computerized sensor controlled cars become obsolete (unrepairable) quickly.
Absolutely not true... and here’s why.
Mechanical things literally wear out. Nobody drove anywhere without a spare set of ignition points and a condenser. You needed to do a tune up every 10,000 miles and major engine work every 50,000 miles.
Plus, you picked literally two of the worst modern vehicles for electrical problems... Audi which is 1000% more complex than other cars and bottom-of-the-barrel often-bankrupt Chrysler. Both of those make 1980s GM cars look like the epitome of reliability.
The last time I had a computer module fail on a vehicle was early 90s GM. After that... nothing.
When i started my mechanic apprentership in 2002 cars where getting towed in everyday. Cars still get towed in now but its much less common. Most drive them into the shop because an engine light has come on.
The 90's where a dark time for cars and the EFI systems where terrible, although still better then points and carbys.
Cars are much better now. They use much less fuel, are safer and more reliable. The only reason most need to open the hood now is to top up the windscreen washer.
Did this mention aerodynamics? That is important. New cars are gradually getting more aero. Example: the coefficient of drag on a mk7 VW Golf is 10% lower than the previous mk6 Golf. That makes a big difference. I can get as much as 40mpg when conditions are favorable, and it also has 260hp! (Because of sofware tune...)
Drag only makes a big difference at speeds that are not legal on public roadways.
@@jeffhooper3447 I don't want to sound super disagreable, but what are you talking about?? Either you live in a country where traveling above 45mph is super illegal, or you are just making stuff up. The point where aero drag exceeds engine and drive train losses is ~45mph. Feel free to verify this independently. I'm not making it up.
I was unable to find the second video. Please provide the link. Thanks.
What a great channel!
Should have told us up front that this video only covered 20 year old technology, and added a link to the next vid..
I was about to say.. felt like I was watching a video from the 80s.
Right? I guess it's the target audience though. It was a good introduction to internal combustion engines. Now everyone can go over to Engineering Explained and start to understand turbos, variable cam timing, hybridisation and compensation for super high compression ratios.
niice channel, got here before the massive growth
cool
1:40 that's iconic Maruti Suzuki 800 😍🤗, I can still see two of those parking outside, from my window....
But the car in the video is a VW Golf MK2 :P
@@TheRobinLiljegren I've never seen a VW Golf, maybe they both look same ....
What a great video!
Fuel injection...better oils/ fuels...lighter engine components...aero dynamics...lighter cars..computer controlled trans..better engine design's. List goes on.
And turbo
and future is electric with ICE (modern 2 stroke opposed piston like achates ~55% thermal eff) as a power generator running at ideal rpm & load, which is ultra efficient durable (simple) and light at the same time
Actually, no. The future are electric cars, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not, especially considering the restrictions imposed (which are IMO a bit lax) by most European countries.
Douglas Hamner The range isn’t that bad, though. While it’s still not good for traveling due to charging infrastructure not being there yet (unless you have a Tesla), it’s fantastic for day to day use, which, if you’re like most people, represents the great majority of fuel usage. And electricity is cheaper than an equivalent quantity gasoline or diesel in most of the world, so it’s cheaper to operate.
@@GRBtutorials not only range but weight. It has to be made from nano material. Unless engine that weights ~200+ lbs is better option, then you doesn't care bout range 60-80 miles is enough.
@@GRBtutorials EU restrictions are lax ?? :D NOx, SOx and particles are ~ok, but CO2 restrictions are BS - electric cars have higher carbon footprint
Wrightspeed plug in hybrids where all electric isn't enough and that's not often.
At 6:50 in the slide with the sensors used with fuel injection systems, you forgot air pressure sensor.
Fantastic video
Its mental how inefficient cars still are in the USA.
Lol stay in your euro train world and leave American cars alone. We have something called choice. I know it’s hard for you to wrap your head around such things. People that want efficient cars get them. Those that don’t, don’t. We have just as efficient cars as whatever country you’re trying to compare us to. But because our governments don’t tax the hell out of fuel, and steal our money for trains, we can actually choose to have a less efficient car.
j p and that’s a good thing?
@@thomas_nl_ yeah, the logic is mind boggling but sadly all too common. as everyone already knows - 5% of the world's population but use 20% of the world's resources. bsically, parasites.
@@thomas_nl_ It isn't? Not having an authority cuckolding your choice of car by stealing your money is bad?
@@fokjohnpainkiller Chris Fokjohn Well I don't like paying taxes either, but:
1. It's better for the environment
2. It's not stealing; the money is used for other things like infrastructure, we have our railsystem, roads and social system are way better than whatever they have in the US.
3. SUVs suck
I feel that this is all incredibly impressive and it shows how well we've mastered making these engines, but it also shows why (imo) electric motors are far superior. All of these advancements have been made in order to improve efficiency, resulting in designs that are incredibly complex. This video showcases a lot of that complexity while also just scratching the surface of how internal combustion engines function. And despite all this advancement, internal combustion engines cannot break 40% efficiency, because they are heat engines. Electric motors, on the other hand, are capable of over 90% efficiency in converting electric power in to mechanical energy out while being far simpler. It would seem, at least to me, that it may be better to look to electric systems for greater efficiency and maybe even to consider electrochemical methods of using fuels, like fuel cells or thermionic converters.
Thats just me tho lol anyway if you read this far hey hows it goin
good, what about you?
I know this is an old comment, but there are newer engines that are over 50 percent efficient.
Give us a video of your career story. It’s interesting how you know so much technology.
Got all these features in my twenty year old jaguar but it still does 20/22 mpg.
Jag sold out to India, should have had hybrids and electrics decades ago. Nice interiors.
Old technology was still fuel efficient. For example an old Volkswagen 1980 carburated had pretty good fuel economy. It was in is 40's mpg. An old 1983 ford ranger pick up had a 4 cylinder diesel perkins engine. It to got 40 mpg. The technology was there. What happened. People's desire for new made these classic obsolete. And now we have new cars and trucks with sophisticated computer nightmares. Now adays you need technitians to repair new clunkers.
Peoples desire didnt kill fuel efficient vehicles. Diesel is a filthy nasty fuel. Sure older diesels had excellent fuel economy, they also had terrible emissions.
The emissions equipment they were required to install killed the fuel efficiency. Now the MPGs are climbing again, but the cost of that equipment and the rarity of diesel means it will never return.
Old cars like that were fuel efficient because they were extremely light, small and underpowered by todays standards. People were ok with very small interiors and the lack of need for safety meant very thin structures too.
@@Bob_Lob_Law Look at a 2 stroke diesel opposed piston. Use ultra low sulfur diesel with a regen system and it will be good.
@@armandomendoza3167 Those make good train engines. Nobody will ever put them into a passenger vehicle.
With rising electric drive trains, combined with diesels relative obscurity in many parts of the world, its days are numbered.
@@Bob_Lob_Law Ford already did
Can you also talk about the downsides of these ever-tightening of emissions output on automobiles? Ie. How most diesel engines require EGR (exhaust gas re-circulation) which in theory sounds good, but causes long-term carbon buildup in the intake manifolds and ports which makes the engine lose power and inefficient. Same goes with Direct Injection in Gasoline engines which does the same thing.
Having healthy lungs is such a downside to the emissions regulations.
Douglas Hamner
It becomes a problem in densely populated cities. Not so much of of town.
Air quality in London is outside EU limits.
I think the particulates and NOX requiring diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction with ammonia is really what is driving up the cost and complexity of diesels, not exhaust gas recirculation. Also, variable valve timing, variable compression, and direct injection are bringing gasoline engines closer to diesels in terms of efficiency, while already possessing inherently better emissions characteristics.
I drove my 2003 Toyota Camry from Brunswick Maine to the Jersey shore. I made the trip at night and obeyed the speed limits and used a little over a half tank of gas and got over "FORTY" miles per gallon. A four cyl. engine. I still have the car and it still drives great. The fuel tank holds just over 18 gallons of fuel. The trip was about four hundred miles.
Most of the innovations in the auto industry from the late seventies until now have been designed by one freelance designer.
Now that I have retired, I have designed an anti-knock device in my free time. It is one of my greatest achievements along with my Skyactiv designs. I will be keeping this one for myself! Running 38 degrees BTDC is not A problem with the device.
Follow the roadmap...
VTEC, Vortec, Voltec, Duratec, Ecotec and Ecoboost are just A few of my other designs.
More efficient engines and more expensive fuel. Looks like a good deal to me.
this half of your "How engines are becoming more fuel efficient" is old news. I was expecting much more up to date info!
Nice!
Do more on fuel economy.
The information about lean and rich mixtures here is not quite right. While it's true that if you are making a rich (less than stoichiometric) mixture more lean, it will increase combustion temperature; but making a lean mixture (greater than stoichiometric) more lean will *reduce* combustion temperature. This is because peak combustion temperature is at stoichiometric ratio.
Added: In practice, in order for a stoichometric ratio to be achieved at the point of combustion, usually you need to create a charge that is leaner than stoichiometric in order for it to mix adequately; keep in mind that these ratios only map to combustion temperature if they are the ratio *as mixed*.
Wrong.
@Douglas Hamner It depends on how lean, and how rich. With a lean mixture and a rich mixture at the same combustion temperature, IIRC the NOx production will be higher with the richer mixture.
@@randypullman1155 Enlighten us.
@Douglas Hamner Mea culpa! I see weird readouts because in my use case we use really aggressive EGR; you're right that leaning out with atmospheric air is likely to produce more NOx (particularly close to stoich, less so as you get even leaner, but still worse than richer mixtures for NOx).
Nonetheless, I think you're wrong about the temperatures, but right about the NOx (in the atmospheric air case). I see combustion temperatures drop dramatically as I lean out past effective stoichometric.
@Douglas Hamner Peak combustion temperature and NOx occurs around 16:1 AFR. Any leaner than that and both temperature and NOx production decrease. Around 20:1 NOx emissions are down to what they were with a 12:1 rich mixture.
Can't hear with the background music competing against the voice.
My aunt had an Audi A2 with a 1.2L 3 cyl diesel engine that used as little as 3L/100 km or 78 MPG.
When is part 2 coming?
Why is there spark plug upside down?:D At 1:09
Also the exhaust valve is out of sync and would hit the piston.
LOL! Me with my Suburban...
8.5 MPG
Operator 801 Back in the ‘70s, my buddy had a GTO with 400 c/i and dual quads. You could watch the fuel gage go down in real time.
@@clayz1 Damn! So many awesome words there... GTO, 400ci, dual quads! :D I wish I was American, in the 70's! :D
Operator 801 you fuckin idiot
Sounds like you have a pretty good handle on the subject.
I knew a retired engineer. In 1992 He had the blueprints to a "Carburetor"
He used the term
" Carburetor" so that I would understand what he was talking about because I was nothing more than a mechanic and a woodworker. This "Carburetor" got 75 miles to the gallon with the big V8 engines. I said what? Why the hell are we using it?
He told me the oil companies bought the rights to it & all he had left of it was the blueprints. He had 3 pages of super intricate blueprints. The only reason I got to see the blueprints was because, I told him I was learning how to read blueprints as a cabinet maker. That's when he said " would you like to see some blueprints?" I waited for him come out with the blueprints that took about 10 or 15 minutes because this gentleman was extremely eccentric! He owned a auto parts store & kept it stocked like a hoarder would. There was a 2-foot path that led to the desk but no one dare entered the building. You went to his door and a hollered. He came to the door and you told him what you needed then somehow, he would dig through that stuff and he knew exactly where everything was it only took them 10 or 15 minutes to find it. He had all the rare parts for the older cars. Parts that all the other auto parts stores did not have. He rode around in an old 60s Dodge car that had a 383 Hemi in it & he was proud of that engine! He also had three 426 Hemi engines that were new in the crates. Try pricing those on eBay someday. They're not your typical Hemi Motors!
He drove his car around Stack to Brooke sealing full of car parts and who-knows-what but the car was always squatting and you could not see in the back seat.
This guy was the real deal.
One day he disappeared. A bulldozer came where the hell racquetball knocked his two story building to the ground and bulldozed it. All his Auto Parts along with his blueprints we're home. Off to the dump. They tore his house down. Five years later I seen him what's a lady going in a doctor's office. He had that had a stroke and his surviving son was the person responsible for destroying everything this man owned.
The technology is out there but the oil companies or the government will make it go away!
Ronnie Pirtle Jr interesting. I don’t want to know how much humanity is being held back just because of some greedy bastards withholding patents. But then again, ICE vehicles are dead meat anyway, so why bother?!