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....
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.
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
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.
i watched fuel consumption of a corolla through the years-minor ups and downs in fuel consumption,where do you get data saying ICU has gotten any better in fuel consumption?
Though we're slowly reaching the end of combustion engines as a suitable tech we're not fully done with them yet some say: MicroWaveIgnition is said to be a simple manner to reduce fuel up to a value of 30% and it can be installed on older engines too the developpers say. Then there is opposing piston technology for diesel fuel, gets a higher rate of making use of the expension phase. I still think we should timely switch to electric cars in personel ones, but cargo hauling and heavy mashinery should be using highly developed combustion engines a while longer, it is quite hard to get other energy storage mediums integrated into cars and trucks that have the same energy/mass ratio. I firmly believe that H2 is currently the best contender in question, as it can be made cheaply AND ecological IF renewables are used, especially during the nights, when electricity is way cheaper because everyone is sleeping.
I completely disagree with your first point. The ICE are still young in their development. If you look at incremental gains of ICEs vs (ie) EVs, ICEs continue to make BOUNDS in comparison. With the electrification of the power train, cylinder downsizing, and fuel/oil/building material improvements, we will continue to see ICEs improve and be the source of performance in the automotive industry. EVs are about "capped" out on efficiency and generally limited to battery /power delivery tech and with capacitors recently making huge gains, I don't see more improvement coming anytime soon(graphene and energy production being the largest factors in upgrades and posing a significant costs but improvements there would MASSIVELY change the scope and potential of most technologies so I'll leave it out of my thoughts). As for ICEs we see EXCELLENT efficiency ratings of 50% out of even the most cutting edge technology (Mercedes) leaving far more energy capable of being harvested vs the improvement of electric motors. As for personal transportation, EVs are the best short term/distance option. I believe EVs and most other forms of human transportation will eventually succumb to a renewable public rail system and this switch to be within the ICEs dominant reign. H2 has a fairly poor energy density and is fairly expensive(I find H2 for $12-$16 per kg, double the cost/mile of even current ICEs). I see some solar conversion technology making gains, but generally hydrogen has 2 MAJOR shortcomings. 1 it is expensive to produce as means for production scale poorly or are reliant on sunlight and 2 storage of hydrogen is also VERY problematic due to it's volatility and lack of density. I will agree 'heavy' work will be dominated by ICEs for a long time to come, but again, everything is going to be electrified. By using computer systems and converting wasted energies into usable forms, we can greatly increase the production and longevity of these engines. With ICEs it's all about the efficiency.
@@TheRhonorful I respectfully disagree with you in allmost every point and I study engineering. The increments of ICE's are getting smaller and smaller, as we are nearly done with what we can get away with in terms of material science (currently that is). Then there is thermodynamics, the carnaut equations give us a maximum possible output when ignoring every loss of energy (thats quite a lot actually) and there isn't too much wiggleroom left, in EV's there's lot's of space for improvements, as nearly noone has seriously done improvements in decades, most of whats availble is rather recent and even small changes are still having rather big impacts in this field. I don't hate IcE's but we're slowly but steadily reaching the end of what's possible. And yes I know what I'm talking about in terms of EV's the FormulaStudent team I was part of did EV's only after they were bringing back trophies for a few years. Public transportation, allways the best option, but not everytime and everyplace a viable solution, cars could be shared, or get way smaller, most of the time all that's needed is 1-2 seats and a midsized trunk. (Funnily enough this would bring down weight and help ICE's and EV's by allowing for even smaller engines/motors.) Hydrogen, I spotted a few minor missconceptions there, it is not realy that easy to get H2 to explode you know. As for the price, there have been gains made, it's just that not enough people are interested in this tech. As per usuall if a tech becomes more availble the price goes down. As for the energy requirements, I live in northern Germany, there's almost allways wind, even at night, that's dirtcheap electricity ready to be used for electrolysis. The methods of doing electrolysis and materials first and foremost, are getting cheaper and more efficient too. That's ignoring other sources for electricity like geothermic etc. As for the timeframe of ICE's in heavy work fields, wear and tear are usually dominated by "overbreed" engines, their materials and corporate greed. I guesstimate they effectively have 50years in the 1st world left, before their extinction starts. As pointed out before, we're reaching the max of the threshhold with ICE's and we will never fully reach it, as the increments are following the trend of an asymptote. Allways getting closer never quite making it, or as a female colleage put it briefly during the math lectures: "Friendzone!".
@@TheRhonorful I can see in the message tab that you've answered, but when I get down here to the comment section it's not here? This is what I can see in the tab: "TheRhonorful hat Folgendes geantwortet: "EnraEnerato I am a mechanical engineering student in Nevada, USA :) I will use USA average prices as USA is one of the largest car owning markets per capita while" and now it ends, weird?
@@TheRhonorful Considering I that I even rebooted the pc due to an update I'm not sure what kind of brainfart the algorythms have. I found the text in the email making me aware of your reply though. Unfortunately sleep deprived me is an idiot and deleted it, before I could make a usefull reply...
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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
"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!
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.
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 RU-vid 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
@@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.
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.
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.
Here's my issue, i owned a 1987 nissan maxima V-6 (3.0 i think) it got 40+ MPG. Had individual cyl fuel injection, and exhaust plugs. (fired injector only on intake stroke of each cyl) they had a recall on "injector boots" when i got it back they had changed injectors, replaced wiring harness (for injectors) and reprogrammed ECU for "bank injection". Car now got 17 MPG. Hmmm tell me again about how hard it is to improve fuel economy? It's smoke and mirrors.
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.
Car buyers: 2010 to 2021 car buyers want more fuel efficient cars. Also Car Buyers: Heavy SUV'S with poor aerodynamics become the most popular selling vehicles.
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
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.
Engines are just a disaster anymore! Anything breaks, BIG $$$ You have to have a 1000 dollar computer for doing anything with them. Truthfully more like 2k or 3k. They pushed us to the point where if anything serious happens to your car, it's makes financially better sense for you to get a new car & oh yeah will give you a loan for that if you qualify so that you can pay us interest and it immediately drop 50% when you pull it off the lot. But don't worry you have rocket technology in that engine compartment! And I used to work in a garage for 5 years! :-)
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.
@@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.
I would like to pinpoint that we have to fix human stupidity and traffic laws to become more efficient. I can't stand traffic lights every 100 meters or so nor being cut from my lane by an idiot and having to full stop to begin again
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.
Improving this, improving that... This is not the right way to do it. Even improving everything to the extreme, the efficiency cannot be driven above the theoretical Carnot, which is 1 - Tc/Th. To actually improve the engine efficiency the temperature ratio of the cold air in and the temperature of combustion needs to be much smaller. For a gasoline engine this is prevented by "knocking" and materials limitation, so the max efficiency is around 50%. Diesel engines are a bit more efficient to about 55%. The max efficiency I've seen for a thermal engine is about 60%, for aircraft gas turbines as the intake temperatures are -60 C at 10,000 m. As for best car efficiency, the winner is the electric motor at above 98% efficient. Even considering controllers, charge and discharge cycles, the overall efficiency it's still over 90%
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.
oh and i forgot to mention , the proof is in the exhaust. If you think modern cars are becoming more efficient take a look at their exhaust systems and how complex they are how many metrics they have to meet to be allowed to be sold in a particular area that should speak volumes as to the toxicity of the output of the engine. It is directly related to how much raw fuel goes in the engine and right out the other in as a hydrocarbon. The vaporizing engines emit almost no toxic gas. Check it out there's facts out there to back it up
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.
@@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.
@@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
5 лет назад
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.
5 лет назад
@@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.
5 лет назад
@@GRBtutorials EU restrictions are lax ?? :D NOx, SOx and particles are ~ok, but CO2 restrictions are BS - electric cars have higher carbon footprint
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
Sails i get 18.5 mix usage with my 18 150 5.0 liter. Americans car cars can’t compete in Europe because they like small cars and Americans don’t so American companies invest all their r&d in trucks and suvs.
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*.
@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.
@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.
The 1908 Model T got 21 mpg. 1:29 in the video shows whats wrong with modern motors. If this graphic was your car, the engine would be destroyed and sent to the scrap heap. The piston just smashed into the exhaust valve. The piston head is cracked and the valve is bent. There are bits on aluminum probably spinning at 2500 RPM's destroying the crankcase. This is called an "interference" motor and companies like Honda have been doing it for years to get cheap power from their motors. If you don't change your timing belt regularly, your engine is shot.
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.
The trend towards fuel efficient vehicles in the late 1970s wasn't unappealing, it was unavailable. People didn't turn away from the Ford Pinto because it was fuel efficient, it wasn't. They turned away from it because it would explode if it was hit from behind due to a design flaw that Ford tried to cover up.
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
I wonder how the turbo works? Because it's function is to add more air on the intake and gives extra power to the engine, isn't gonna lead to a lean mixture? Can somebody explain?
Yeah, the idea is to recover exhaust energy. Gasoline engines must hold the fuel air ratio constant by injecting more fuel, but diesel engines run lean constantly and don't necessarily have to in increase fuel under boost.
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. 👍
car engines are NOT becoming more fuel efficient when you consider how light cars are actually getting!! To start with cars have more plastic and Styrofoam in them then cars did 30 or 40 years ago, and those cheaply made plastic pulleys and gears wear out faster and don't last at all!! Besides too car engines are getting smaller and smaller, with less and less horsepower, which in my neck of the woods, DOES NOT TRANSLATE to "gas economy" see I live in New York with hills EVERYWHERE, if you are NOT going up hill you are going down a hill, and it takes a lot more gas in a tiny lawn mower engine to go UP those hills!!! I tried to explain that to my second wife, but she was too stupid to realize you need a car with a bigger engine that had more horsepower and torque to climb up a hill, but then she thought she KNEW everything anyhow, even though I was trained as an auto mechanic!! Guess that explains why she is NOW my second ex wife!! Of course she also thought too the "best truck to own" for a family of four was one that had a "standard cab" because according to her the kids could ride in the back (bed) of the truck!! Try explaining that to cops after trying to explain that to my stupid wife!!! Four grown people DO NOT fit on a single bench seat anymore and new trucks are narrower as well too!! Gas prices too DO NOT need to be has high as they are to begin with anyhow!! Even in my local pumps there are 85% Ethanol gas which isn't even gasoline to start with...it is alcohol!!! So explain to me why it should cost $4 a gallon when there isn't that much actual GASOLINE in it to start with?! I have even considered building my own still just to make my own fuel, because per gallon I am sure I can make it cheaper than they tax and sell it for at that point!!! In the end new cars are WORSE then they ever have been!! Not only has "planned obsolescence" KILLED the car market, the price of a car NOT BUILT by humans keeps going up as well!! Is there some robot uprising we don't know about, that the cheapest car has to still cost well over $20,000??? More so when you can press one button and out pops 400 parts from a plastic injection molding machine, that somehow "new" that part costs $300 to buy but only $0.11 cents to make! Today's cars are junk no matter how you cut them, even in the "nicest" skin, of a Mustang or Challenger, then are cheaply built and too expensive to own for the "common person"!! And a pain if you live in an area like me where public transportation doesn't exist!! Yeah some places cars are a necessary evil, and I refuse to own anything built after 1999!!!!
I don't know what fantasy 'the good old days were better' world you live in, but cars these days are significantly more powerful and faster accelerating than they used to be. Old cars were terrible quality and unreliable, especially American and British made stuff. You're probably one of those "I'm not going to crash so I don't need a safe car" guys. But just look at the crash test of a '59 Bel Air vs an '09 Malibu. Your big "strong" old school steel, zero plastic parts cars crush like a tin can.
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.
Cars are getting more fuel efficient by adding incredible complex add on's. Like heat exchangers that combine oil and water, separated by a sub millimeter wall of aluminum. One in the engine, and one in the auto box. These engines are getting so complicated that they are no longer repairable. So what you save in fuel is only a small percentage of the cost when you repair or replaces these throw away engines. Most of these functions are so integrated that you cannot fit another type of engine to a car. Knowledgeable people are now buying older model cars that they can keep repairing and running well into the future. next you will see the government banning these fixable cars.
Knowledgeable people learn how to fix the new engines. That does not mean knowledgeable people don't like older cars, I know plenty of highly intelligent enthusiasts that prefer the older cars, and are willing to pay the extra money in gas to have those cars. Those that choose to have modern cars however, choose to learn how to overcome the challenges of fixing them, rather then refuse to buy them because maintenance is hard.
Douglas Hamner im not a boomer by far but i hate how complex new engines are. with older cars theres less that can really go wrong and the parts last a while. with the new cars it's impossible to try and fix a problem let alone spend money to fix it!! now by law every car has an electric filter for gas fumes! gas fumes!?!?! seriously?!!?!?
《白关》Pakkwun Less that could go wrong, but went wrong more often than any modern engine. Which is why millennials have no idea about the basics of a engine, that have no need to.
And then engineers realized the direct fuel injection (GDI) is causing carbon deposits on the intake valves so they came with a 'fix' : injecting much more fuel at cold starts to have the valves 'washed' by the excess of fuel. Basically, this ruined the fuel economy from direct injection. Here's a bunch of designs to reduce fuel consumption - in no particular order - direct fuel injection - low tension compression rings on pistons - Eco driving modes - smart alternators that cut the current output and have the car run on the 12v battery alone every few minutes - variable-speed A/C compressors - lower oil viscosity - higher compression engines - electric coolant thermostats that vary the coolant temperature depending on the driving conditions - engine auto stop-start - electric power steering - low resistance tires - extra gears on standard automatic transmissions - CVT transmissions - dual clutch transmissions
It's a lot simpler than you think first you have to eliminate some of the excess Parts take out the crankshaft the carburetor Pistons valves valve springs the cylinders and then you get rid of the engine block then you take some magnets and a coil and a couple of wires who you have the most efficient engine possible
I wonder if it would be efficient to make a car that runs on electricity stored in a battery that was generated by an on-board generator. This way, the generator could run at an optimal rate at all times to ensure stoichiometric usage of gas. However, I'm not aware of battery charging efficiency, so this could severely negatively impact the overall efficiency. I think hybrid cars do something similar, but using the car itself as the fly wheel of a generator.
4 cyl (thats what i know best) engines (diesel and petrol) DIDNT get more efficient. We got more HP and "less poluting" exhaust, but cars on average still needs as much l/100km as in the 80's
Simply put a modern engine in a 80s car that has the same power level and you will see that your fuel consumption drops significantly. The engine is more efficient but the whole car is not because cars gained +50% weight.
Nice contradiction. "They got faster using the same amount of gas, so less efficient" summed up your comment. And you're... wrong. Factually and objectively
Volumetric Efficiency per cylinder may have been included in this explanation, however we do understand that this is merely an introduction to the subject of gasoline engine fuel efficiency.
