CGI for the Next gen Ecoboost engines

[Biker16]

Those words should never be spoken inside of Ford Powertrain Engineering, at least for US applications ! Ford has been caught by the EPA 2 times in the past 40 years using that "defeat device" (EPAs terminology). Last time is was very expensive !

 

They use egr to make lean burn permissible under EPA regs.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Biker16

[theoldwizard]

They use egr to make lean burn permissible under EPA regs.

Then it is not really "lean burn". As I stated, EPA considers "lean burn" a defeat device. Period. End of discussion.

 

Any shift from Lambda =1 during steady state operation falls in that category. Lean burn = Higher NOx.

[jpd80]

Then it is not really "lean burn". As I stated, EPA considers "lean burn" a defeat device. Period. End of discussion.

 

Any shift from Lambda =1 during steady state operation falls in that category. Lean burn = Higher NOx.

There's more to that story than you're telling us but I see how the EPA would consider "Lean Burn" without the stability of DI and effective control of NOx as a defeat device.

The big leap forward in technology and program development happened with Ecoboost. What Ford learned and added to DI development is amazing, especially EGR rates

not even dreamed of a few years ago. They can now achieve sustained periods of lean boost with Ecoboost that would be practically impossible with competitors' NA DI set ups.outside of flat undisturbed steady state running. It's what Ecoboost does on the transient throttle enrichment responses that is more important,

 

 

The fact that Ecoboost is here now, approved and generations will use even more lean boost and higher EGR says that Ford has found the path through the maze.

It's as though Ford is rewriting the book on achieving "Lean boost" and Lean burn" the right way with Ecoboost. I think the technology is so far in front of the EPA's

understanding and experience with emission that they just have to accept the data of Ford's testing - or maybe they do understand and like what they see.....

Edited November 12, 2012 by jpd80

[jpd80]

With regards to CGI in newer engines:

Outside of diesel applications I can see manufacturers looking at Magnesium before CGI as it more readily aligns

with existing Aluminum processes and continues the philosophy of lightweight easily machinable materials

[Biker16]

Then it is not really "lean burn". As I stated, EPA considers "lean burn" a defeat device. Period. End of discussion.

 

Any shift from Lambda =1 during steady state operation falls in that category. Lean burn = Higher NOx.

 

the EPA measures the O-2 intake rate and the fuel rate to make sure that the ratio never falls below Stoicometric.

 

using EGR to substitute for intake air allows for "quasi" lean-burn which is the key to skirting EPA rules.

 

If the future Gen 4.0 ecoboost and NA GDI begin to use HCCI or sparkless ignition you need much Stronger engines to handle it, espcially on the garbage fuel in the US.

 

I really Cannot see any more revoltuionary tech to give that leap ahead for gasoline ICE technology.

 

higher compression ratios, higher boost, and greater use of EGR requires out of the box thinking.

 

Magnisuim is not as mature as CGI. Ford has experience with CGI they don't with magnisium yet.

[jpd80]

Magnisuim is not as mature as CGI. Ford has experience with CGI they don't with magnisium yet.

The difference is that a lot of Ford's engine and transmission parts are made using Aluminum, components sourced from suppliers,

a switch to magnesium means those alloy parts then become two thirds the weight of Aluminum and the tooling can still be used.

[theoldwizard]

It is amazing how 2 internet "experts" who were not at the MANDATORY self-imposed retraining session for THOUSANDS of engineers can quote so eloquently about this topic.

 

First go do research something called the EPA Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA). Basically it say, the EPA has the right to select consumer owned vehicles with less than 50k miles on them, perform regular maintenance (usually oil, oil filter and air filter change) and then subject them to testing OUTSIDE of the standard emissions testing methodology. Typically this means driving them on the road with an exhaust gas analyzer hooked up (which sometimes involves a chase vehicle). If the major regulated emission components (CO, HC, and NOx) fall outside the mandated standards, you fail. If this type of testing is done on enough vehicles to prove, statistically, that it is common to all vehicles in that family, a fine will be imposed and there will be a recall.

 

If the EPA determines that some mechanism was used to prevent this operating mode from occurring during "normal testing conditions" then it is deemed to be a "defeat device', and larger fines as well as other measure are imposed (having thousands of employees sitting through hours of re-training, even one who have no responsibility over emission calibration or certification was quite costly).

 

For jpd, EU has no SEA, therefore the enforcement agencies can not prove you are actually operating beyond the limits. Plus the whole testing methodolgy is different.

 

EcoBoost did originate in EU, from Bosch. The first US application, (Taurus 3.5L) never did meet its projected highway fuel economy because the engine had to be held closer to stoich than what was being done in EU !

 

 

Look, I am NOT saying EGR is not used during part throttle operation ! I am only saying, the use of EGR and of significantly leaner operations during any driving mode is not allowed by the EPA. What is the deference between "lean: and :significantly leaner" ? I don't know.

 

I do know, "lean cruise" is not part of the vocabulary of Ford US emission engineers, who are legally, personally, liable for their calibrations containing "no defeat devices". Yes, they do sign a piece pf paper that is submitted to the EPA.

 

 

 

As for CG iron in non-combustion ignited engines, I will believe it when I see it !

[jpd80]

What you're not getting is that when you replace excess oxygen in the combustion chamber with more cooled exhaust gas. the emissions stay within limits even though less fuel is used. It's kind of complex but in a way like variable displacement on a chemical level, adding more inert into the chamber volume actually reduces the volume of combustible mixture. What is different is the non-combustible gas is stable and non-reactive therefore there is no rise in Nox.

 

And in the end all the EPA does is measure emissions after combustion, so there fore if the burn strategy uses less fuel, finer droplets, less oxygen but more exhaust gas, fuel consumption is reduced and what we see or call a "leaner charge" is actually less reactive mixture in the combustion chamber filled with more inert material.

 

TOW, I think we're talking about two different things, EPA catching Ford with lean burn/high NOx outside normal testing parameters

versus Ecoboost in a situation with small dense charge supported by more EGR, it might be closer to stoch but smaller charge size..

Does that seem more reasonable?

Edited November 13, 2012 by jpd80

[Biker16]

The difference is that a lot of Ford's engine and transmission parts are made using Aluminum, components sourced from suppliers,

a switch to magnesium means those alloy parts then become two thirds the weight of Aluminum and the tooling can still be used.

 

but there are issues with water and fire, and the fact they stronger engines more than lighter engines.

[jpd80]

but there are issues with water and fire, and the fact they stronger engines more than lighter engines.

Weight is everything...

[theoldwizard]

TOW, I think we're talking about two different things, EPA catching Ford with lean burn/high NOx outside normal testing parameters

versus Ecoboost in a situation with small dense charge supported by more EGR, it might be closer to stoch but smaller charge size..

Does that seem more reasonable?

Yes, but don't call it "lean cruise" or even "lean burn". All US manufacturers have been using some EGR at part throttle to do what you say. I don't know if the US version of the EcoBoost engines uses more than other non-turbo, non-DI engine or not. This kind of comparative data is not readily available.

 

Back in the late 80s/early 90s, Ford actually built a few models without EGR because it was a huge cost savings. They put EGR back on because it gave them a extra mile or two on their highway numbers.

 

I do know that EcoBoost engine in EU runs substantially leaner, with substantially higher NOx, during certain operating modes.

[jpd80]

Yes, but don't call it "lean cruise" or even "lean burn".

OK, got that loud and clear.

All US manufacturers have been using some EGR at part throttle to do what you say. I don't know if the US version of the EcoBoost engines uses more than other non-turbo, non-DI engine or not. This kind of comparative data is not readily available.

Ford have a pdf on line that spells out development goals of new 2.3 variable architecture Ecoboost due after 2014., very interesting as it lays out some of the strategies....

 

http://www1.eere.ene...aver_2012_o.pdf

Ford Motor Company Objectives:



Demonstrate 25% fuel economy improvement in a mid-sized sedan using a downsized, advanced gasoline turbocharged direct injection (GTDI) engine with no or limited degradation in vehicle level metrics.



Demonstrate vehicle is capable of meeting Tier 2 Bin 2 emissions on FTP-75 cycle.

 

 

 

Back in the late 80s/early 90s, Ford actually built a few models without EGR because it was a huge cost savings. They put EGR back on because it gave them a extra mile or two on their highway numbers.

 

I do know that EcoBoost engine in EU runs substantially leaner, with substantially higher NOx, during certain operating modes.

Early ecoboost was developed with only Euro requirements in mind and as you said previously, Kuzak saw it and ran with it before due diligence was done....

Edited November 13, 2012 by jpd80

[2b2]

THANKS, Jpd80

&

just cuz I posted this elsewhere

page 7:

 

and...

Electric tiVCT page 18

[jpd80]

SinterCast President Steve Dawson declines to reveal details, but says he is expecting more gasoline engine contracts as auto makers design smaller, more power-dense engines for the future.

 

As power grows and cylinder pressures rise, the increasingly ferocious downward pressure of pistons during their power strokes can crack engine blocks and main bearings if they are not robust enough, he says

Pushing his own barrow.

 

Here's what Ford is saying about it new 2.3 variable architecture ecoboost due out after 2014:

 

 

8



Attribute Assumptions

Peak Power = 80 kW / L @ 6000 rpm

Peak Torque = 20 bar BMEP @ 2000 –

4500 rpm

Naturally Asp Torque @ 1500 rpm = 8 bar BMEP

Peak Boosted Torque @ 1500 rpm = 16 bar BMEP

Time-To-Torque @ 1500 rpm = 1.5 s

As Shipped Inertia = 0.0005 kg-m2 / kW



Architecture Assumptions

Displacement / Cylinder = 565 cm3

Bore & Stroke = 87.5 & 94.0 mm

Compression Ratio = 11.5:1

Bore Spacing = 96.0 mm

Bore Bridge = 8.5 mm

Deck Height = 222 mm

Max Cylinder Pressure (mean + 3σ) = 100 bar

Max Exhaust Gas Temperature = 960 C

Fuel Octane = 98 RON

[theoldwizard]

OK, got that loud and clear.

Ford have a pdf on line that spells out development goals of new 2.3 variable architecture Ecoboost due after 2014., very interesting as it lays out some of the strategies....

Good find From the DOE about Ecoboost

http://www1.eere.ene...vich_2011_o.pdf

A very interesting executive summary that I somehow looked over early in these discussions.

 

If you believe 100% of that then a man in a red suit with white hair and a beard will be visiting you next month and it won't be me !

 

Much of what is i that report are items that have been being researched for some time but have not made it to "production ready" status or has been tried before

• Cooled EGR is ancient history (EEC-II, 5.8L, circa 1980). Dropped (cost and reliability)
  
• In cylinder combustion sensing (a holy grail for many years)
  
• Aftertreatmemt (TWC + LNT / SCR) (another grail hunt)
  

Let us not forget the "challenges" they list

• Transport delay during speed & load transients
  
• Mechanical robustness of charge air cooler and compressor due to EGR exposure
  
• Additional controls requirements for EGR valve and throttle
  

Could all of this happen ? It is possible, but not likely.

 

One of the big game changers that sent the RIC folks off on this project is cost. With the new US fuel regulations "cost is no object" and the consumer will bear the bill !

 

 

 

And I did not find CGI mentioned anywhere in this report !

Edited November 14, 2012 by theoldwizard

[jpd80]

A very interesting executive summary that I somehow looked over early in these discussions.

 

If you believe 100% of that then a man in a red suit with white hair and a beard will be visiting you next month and it won't be me !

I don't believe all of it, a lot sounds reminiscent of Kuzak's original Ecoboost presentations.

Is this another mountain that Ford powertrain has to climb?

Much of what is i that report are items that have been being researched for some time but have not made it to "production ready" status or has been tried before

• Cooled EGR is ancient history (EEC-II, 5.8L, circa 1980). Dropped (cost and reliability)
  
• In cylinder combustion sensing (a holy grail for many years)
  
• Aftertreatmemt (TWC + LNT / SCR) (another grail hunt)
  

Let us not forget the "challenges" they list

• Transport delay during speed & load transients
  
• Mechanical robustness of charge air cooler and compressor due to EGR exposure
  
• Additional controls requirements for EGR valve and throttle
  

Could all of this happen ? It is possible, but not likely.

 

One of the big game changers that sent the RIC folks off on this project is cost. With the new US fuel regulations "cost is no object" and the consumer will bear the bill !

The cost of gasoline and impending CAFE regulations are a huge incentives, especially if the engine can be used across lots of vehicles..

I sense from the 80 Kw per liter limit that power is not the main factor here, what seems to be the major goal is that diesel like fuel economy,

Maybe Europe's diesels are coming to crunch time post Euro 6, I have a hunch that diesels are going to get very tricky with lower emissions levels.

 

 

 

And I did not find CGI mentioned anywhere in this report !

Precisely, CGI for diesels maybe but not Ecoboost.

Edited November 14, 2012 by jpd80

[Biker16]

Weight is everything...

 

no power density is everything.

 

so replacing the 1.6 with a equally powerful 1.0 or 1.2 liter I-3 will negate any weight advantage that going to magnesium would gain especially on a Turbo engine, with it's heavy plumbing.

 

the advantage of going strong vs going light is more aggressive downsizing.

 

Moving from 125hp/liter to 150-170hp/liter, means a GTDI 1 liter engine can replace a GTDI 1.6 liter engine.

[jpd80]

no power density is everything.

 

so replacing the 1.6 with a equally powerful 1.0 or 1.2 liter I-3 will negate any weight advantage that going to magnesium would gain especially on a Turbo engine, with it's heavy plumbing.

 

the advantage of going strong vs going light is more aggressive downsizing.

 

Moving from 125hp/liter to 150-170hp/liter, means a GTDI 1 liter engine can replace a GTDI 1.6 liter engine.

A CGI block is not justified for the anticipated power levels in 1.2 to 2.3 liter EB applications, you can take that to the bank.

There are limits to downsizing and Ford knows that ultimately, weight reduction is key in the second half of this decade.,

Increased uptake of electrification as in hybrids will increase the use of Atkinson cycle engines requiring a lighter block.

Edited November 14, 2012 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

no power density is everything.

But not just of the powertrain !

 

Ford needs to figure out how to make much lighter vehicles ! Can you imagine what the Explorer would be like if it came in a under 4,000 lbs instead of about 4,500 lbs ?

Edited November 16, 2012 by theoldwizard

[Biker16]

But not st of the powertrain !

 

Ford needs to figure out how to make much lighter vehicles ! Can you imagine what the Explorer would be like if it came in a under 4,000 lbs instead of about 4,500 lbs ?

 

the best to lower engine weight is to use a smaller engine,

[Biker16]

A CGI block is not justified for the anticipated power levels in 1.2 to 2.3 liter EB applications, you can take that to the bank.

There are limits to downsizing and Ford knows that ultimately, weight reduction is key in the second half of this decade.,

Increased uptake of electrification as in hybrids will increase the use of Atkinson cycle engines requiring a lighter block.

 

what is the limit of downsizing ?

[jpd80]

There is a limit to downsizing capacities in vehicles, you cannot put a 1.0 liter EB in an F150 and be a commercial success..

therefore if you accept that then there is a finite limit governed by factors other than physics and pure engineering.

Now that Ford outsources its alloy castings and there is a world glut of aluminum, Ford can push down the price of castings,

something you can't do with CGI and the more difficult machining processes required

 

And the reason FoE chose Cast iron over alloy was for low cost and lack of substantial weight savings with an alloy block in such a small engine.

The cost of a CGI casting for the anticipated ROI is just not there in the vehicle suite used.

Edited November 15, 2012 by jpd80

[jpd80]

In the second half of this decade, the emphasis will begin to shift away from engine tech to actual changes in vehicle weight,

reducing the need for increasingly power dense units, the actual problem is the weight shifted, reduce that and fuel consumption decreases.

[Biker16]

There is a limit to downsizing capacities in vehicles, you cannot put a 1.0 liter EB in an F150 and be a commercial success..

therefore if you accept that then there is a finite limit governed by factors other than physics and pure engineering.

Now that Ford outsources its alloy castings and there is a world glut of aluminum, Ford can push down the price of castings,

something you can't do with CGI and the more difficult machining processes required

 

You cannot say that the F-150 will not have a I-4 when it is redesigned, it is possible that only 10 years ago the F-150 had a base engine of 4.2 liters making 202hp being replaced by 260hp 2.3 liter Ecoboost engine.

 

To go from a 3.5 liter GTDI engine to 1.0liter GTDi engine is a bit excessive. To do that you would need to break 365hp per liter, that just isn't going to happen.

 

A more reasonable assumption is 150hp per liter is possible at the high end with optimum efficiency somewhere around 113hp today and 125hp in a Few years, making that jump to an optimum efficient 150hp per liter will require a different set of tools and technology.

 

the obstacle still is the chemistry of the combustion process and with how to get the most mechanical energy out of it.

 

even with the most efficient engine Ford has we have not reached the maximum thermal efficiency of ~37% we are only at ~20% even with Ecoboost.

 

To improve efficiency you fundamentally have to increase the expansion ratio, so that each drop of fuel does more work, HCCI does this.

 

http://autotechreview.com/component/k2/item/download/12.html

 

And the reason FoE chose Cast iron over alloy was for low cost and lack of substantial weight savings with an alloy block in such a small engine.

The cost of a CGI casting for the anticipated ROI is just not there in the vehicle suite used.

 

Another advantage of cast iron is its thermal dynamic properties, aluminum is a great conductor of heat, while Iron isn't as good of a conductor of heat.

 

With modern engines being more efficient they are producing less heat, and with a aluminum engine it makes it harder to get the engine up to operating temperature quickly because so much heat is being lost to the atmosphere through the engine block.

 

for combustion temperatures It may be that the latent thermal mass helps keep the temperatures down because it takes longer to increase the temperature of the black.

 

example would be the under peak load the water temperature would rise more slowly because the block itself can act as a sink, keeping the engine cooler longer than an aluminum engine before having to dump the heat into the radiator.

 

Of course the heat has to go somewhere but it may be possible under these transient load situations that the iron block would be better able to handle combustion temperatures spikes than an alloy block.

 

http://www.foundryworld.com/uploadfile/200912130928203.pdf

 

CGI vs. aluminium

In comparison to aluminium, the mechanical properties of CGI

provide opportunities for:

● Smaller package size;

● Higher specifi c performance;

● Reduced cylinder bore distortion and improved oil

consumption;

● No cylinder liners or surface etchant/coating;

● Improved NVH;

● Lower production cost;

● Improved recyclability.

Due to the considerable density difference between CGI

(7.1 g/cc) and aluminium (2.7 g/cc), it is to be expected that a

CGI cylinder block will be heavier than a similar displacement

aluminium block. However, because of the higher strength and

stiffness of CGI, the main bearing thickness can be reduced to

provide a signifi cantly shorter cylinder block. Accordingly, all

of the components that span the length of the cylinder block,

such as the cylinder heads, crankshaft, camshaft and bedplate,

can also be made shorter, and thus lighter. This is particularly

advantageous in V-blocks with two cylinder banks. The net

result is that a fully assembled CGI engine can indeed have

the same weight as a fully assembled aluminium engine. This

result is evident from Table 6 which shows that the Audi 4.2

litre V8 TDI (based on a CGI cylinder block) is actually 4 kg

lighter than the Mercedes 4.0 litre V8 CDI aluminium engine.

[fordmantpw]

You cannot say that the F-150 will not have a I-4 when it is redesigned,

 

He didn't...he said it wouldn't have the 1.0L, which, IIRC, is an I-3.