www.luisarimany.com

Feasibility of the 3 litre per 100 Km small family petrol car with

regular port injection

Luis E. Arimany

Supervisor : Matthew Harrison

Supported by AVL, Austria

www.luisarimany.com

Objectives of the thesis

• To use a structured approach to explore the feasibility of the 3 litre per 100 km fuel consumption car

• The project is focused in the alternative of a small gasoline engine with regular port injection

www.luisarimany.com

Thesis structure

• Why 3 litre per 100 km?

• How ?

• Problems ?

• Assume a car

• Design the engine

• Calculate fuel consumption

www.luisarimany.com

Why 3 litre / 100 Km?

• Global warming

• Agreements

• Economy CO2

www.luisarimany.com

Why 3 litre / 100 Km?

• Global warming

• Agreements

• Economy

• UNFCCC

• Kyoto Protocol

• 2153rd Council Meeting

www.luisarimany.com

Why 3 litre / 100 Km?

• Global warming

• Agreements

• Economy

• UNFCCC

• Kyoto Protocol

• 2153rd Council Meeting

www.luisarimany.com

www.luisarimany.com

How ?

• Low weight• Low rolling resistance• Low aerodynamic

drag• Redesign gears• Hybrid powertrain• Fuel cells

• Alternative fuels• EGR• Lean burn. GDI• Turbocharge• Variable valve timing• Variable lift timing• Camless

www.luisarimany.com

Problems of the 3 litre car target

• Technical problems

• Cost

• Customer expectation

• Drivability and NVH

www.luisarimany.com

Target of the project

• Gasoline engine– Cancer risk– Diesel pollutes more– “A litre of diesel is not a litre of gasoline”

• Small engine– Optimum bsfc– Less friction– Less weight and improve packaging

• Regular port injection

www.luisarimany.com

Assumed car

Main car parameters assumed

Mass 800 Kg

Drag coefficient 0.25

Frontal area 1.9 m2

Gear ratios Hyundai Atos

Tires 155/65 R14

Gears efficiency 0.95

www.luisarimany.com

Engine designed

www.luisarimany.com

Engine designed 2

Engine

N cylinders 3 Swept volume 600 cc

Bore 62 mm Stroke 65 mm

Con rod 113 mm AFR 14.5

Compression ratio 10.5

Valves Intake Exhaust

Number 2 Number 2 Diametre 23 mm Diametre 19 mm

Opening time 350º Opening

time 170º

Duration 220º Duration 220º Lift 10 mm Lift 10 mm

fmep

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

rpm

bar

www.luisarimany.com

bsfc

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

rpm

g/K

Wh

Boost resultsTorque and Power

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

rpm

Nm

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

W

www.luisarimany.com

bsfc

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

rpm

g/K

Wh

Boost resultsTorque and Power

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

rpm

Nm

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

W

www.luisarimany.com

Europeancycleprogram

• Why? Flexibility

• Calculates fuel consumption in ECE 15, EUDC and Combined

• Check engine capacity

• Sensitivity analysis

www.luisarimany.com

Results

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

• Importance of engine deactivation

Modelled vehicle.

Idle=1000 rpm

Modelled vehicle. Idle=800 rpm BASELINE

With idle engine

deactivation

ECE 5.28 4.99 3.48 EUDC 3.59 3.57 3.43

Combined 4.21 4.09 3.45

www.luisarimany.com

Results (2)

• Little change• Mass more sensitivity• Not possible to achieve 3 litre target with

only this strategy

Fuel consumption

3.85

3.9

3.95

4

4.05

4.1

4.15

4.2

4.25

-20 -10 0 10 20

% parametre change

L/1

00

Km mass

Cd

Frontal area

www.luisarimany.com

Validation of the results.

• 41.7 kW/ litre vs. 45 kW/litre

• 86.5 Nm/ litre vs. 90 Nm

• 243 g/kWh vs. 260

Torque and Power

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

rpm

Nm

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Wbsfc

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

rpm

g/K

Wh

www.luisarimany.com

Validation of the results. Comparison with MCC Smart

• 600 cc

• Turbocharged

• 6 gears

• Small

• 31% more power

• 34% more torque

• 19.8 % worst fuel economy

• 31% more power

• 34% more torque

• 19.8 % worst fuel economy

www.luisarimany.com

Conclusions

• Weight, drag coefficient and frontal area reductions is not enough

• Engine deactivation is compulsory. Care with cool down and not additional fuel consumption

• Although 3.45 l/100km, the 3 litre car is possible, but low performance.

600 cc, 28 kW and 55 Nm600 cc, 28 kW and 55 Nm• It would be

www.luisarimany.com

Work done

• Study of technologies which improve fuel economy

• Study of engine simulation, its advantages and its limitations

• Study valves and fmep• Design an engine• Write a fuel consumption program• Derive important conclusions

www.luisarimany.com

Any question?