VWs Miller Cycle 1.5L I4 TSI with Cylinder Deactivation and Dynamic FAS!

Discussion in 'In the News' started by xcel, Aug 17, 2017.

  1. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    [​IMG] Pushing the limits of combustion efficiency without electrification is alive and well in Europe.

    Wayne Gerdes – CleanMPG – Aug. 17, 2017

    Row of new European 2017 VW Golfs

    [​IMG]

    Volkswagen’s range of engines for the European Golf has been expanded with an all-new 128 hp and 148 lb.-ft. of torque 1.5 TSI with a bevy of unique efficiency boosting enhancements. Fantastic! The all-new VW 1.5L engine design is based on the Miller combustion cycle which is forced charged through a late intake valve opening Atkinson cycle thanks to the turbo and a high level of compression. The turbo itself is variable vane turbine providing high torque even at low RPMs.

    The high-torque and fuel-efficient direct injection, turbocharged I4 works on the Miller combustion cycle while providing lower NVH than its predecessors. This engine allows the Golf to reach a top speed of 130 mph.

    Dynamic FAS

    For the first time, VW can coast with the engine off thanks to what it calls 'eco-coasting'. At speeds of up to 80 mph, the I4 and its dual clutch AT completely cuts out whenever the driver lifts off the accelerator. The car then 'coasts'. A compact Li-Ion battery supplies basic 12V power to the standard electrical equipment including windshield wipers, headlamps, and the audio system.

    Cylinder Deactivation

    When travelling within the engine speed range of 1,400 – 3,200 rpm, the Active Cylinder Management shuts down two of the four cylinders at low load.

    The 128 hp 1.5 TSI can be ordered both for the Golf and Golf Variants in Comfortline and Highline trims, plus in the special SOUND model version.

    While fuel prices are too low to see this here in the U.S. today, it is only a matter of time… Another I cannot wait to drive! :)
     
    TheFordFamily, JonNC and BillLin like this.
  2. EdwinTheMagnificent

    EdwinTheMagnificent Legend In His Mind

    The ICE car is far from dead. This looks like a winner ! When will we see this engine in a VW here ? Yeah, I know.
     
    TheFordFamily, BillLin and xcel like this.
  3. Carcus

    Carcus Well-Known Member

    Very tough for plug-ins to compete if the ICE is going to be clearing 60 mpg. The electrics will have to emphasize performance.

    / Although this isn't what VW has here ... I still think 60+ mpg cng cars could be the best transportation into the future. There are 100s of years of methane out there to be mined, and it's a renewable fuel beyond that.
     
    TheFordFamily, Jay and xcel like this.
  4. BillLin

    BillLin MASS: 2012 Pip and 2017 Prime

    I don't quite agree with that thinking... Plug-ins (EVs and hybrid plug-ins) get double that "mileage" running on battery power. In my mind, ICE cars cannot compete with electrics.

    However, on the practical front, EVs come with some large cost differentials right now, unless you consider used EVs.

    Also, what works for ICE technology improvements, those same improvements can be applied to hybrids and hybrid plug-ins (non-full-EV). For the same reasons hybrids are beating ICE cars yesterday and today in MPG, they will still beat improved ICE vehicles tomorrow in the real world. Think about the cold starts and short range trips, and all the conditions that do not favor steady-state moderate-speed highway runs. The latter is the zone in which ICE vehicles come closest to the hybrids in efficiency. With more engine off coasting being built into ICE vehicles, they'll asymptotically approach hybrids on the highway, all else being equal. That's still not the real world for everyone, hence the different ratings for city vs. highway. When/if the ICE vehicles can have combined ratings approaching hybrids and hybrid plug-ins, then I'll concede. I won't concede for full EVs, though. :D
     
    TheFordFamily, Carcus and xcel like this.
  5. Carcus

    Carcus Well-Known Member

    I'll list a few 60 mpg cng advantages:

    CNG is 1.50/gge where I'm at. Compare 60 mpg at that price vs 4 mi/kwh at .12/kwh and it's cheaper to run the CNG. (15,000mi/yr: CNG= $375, eV= $450).
    CNG car can be left sitting for months (in the heat or cold) , no worries.
    CNG tanks: At 60 mpg the "where to put the tank" problem is solved for CNG (small tanks will fit and range will work), CNG tanks last 20 years and small tanks aren't that expensive.
    Refill in less than 5 minutes.
    No recycling worries.
    No way for an electronic "hiccup" (or owner oversight) to "brick" 1/2 the value of the car.
    Purpose built cng engines: they run clean -- less complication, less maintenance -- CNG vehicles will likely be "300,000 mile" vehicles

    /Once you get above 60 mpg(e) or 4 mi/kwh, the efficiency pretty much drops out of the buying decision (80 mpg, 120 mpg .... who cares?) ... and takes a back seat to all the other considerations (range, reliability, lifespan of vehicle, maintenance costs etc...).
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
    xcel and BillLin like this.
  6. Trollbait

    Trollbait Well-Known Member

    CNG has the same issue as hydrogen. Refills can be less than 5 minutes, but they also can be 15 to 20 minutes.
    Otherwise, they have many advantages over gasoline.
     
    xcel and BillLin like this.
  7. BillLin

    BillLin MASS: 2012 Pip and 2017 Prime

    I didn't realize CNG was that popular or widely available. I've never come across a CNG station. I've never encountered a CNG vehicle in the sales ads, only some mentions about fleets and perhaps government agency experiments/demonstrations.

    I looked for a CNG vehicle online over the weekend. There is one 2004 Honda Civic LX with 100k miles on it for sale within 50 miles of me. 2 more within a 100 miles. (a 2010 Mazda 3 and a 2007 Mini Cooper) Other than the Honda, I never knew these other cars existed. Based on my reading long ago, I believe Honda had a home CNG kit available, but you'd have to have a natural gas line at the house of course. So if you had to compress your own, what would the cost per GGE become?

    So is a CNG powered car reasonable in the near future or too far behind the curve due to lack of interest? And is the infrastructure in place?
     
    xcel likes this.
  8. EdwinTheMagnificent

    EdwinTheMagnificent Legend In His Mind

    Bill , that's correct , you could fill your tank at home with a ($$$) compressor. Many of us , especially in the Midwest , use natural gas for heating and cooking. There is one place in the Chicago area that I could fill up , out of my way by 20 miles, of course. But the big hurdle was the approx. $5K hit over a gasoline Civic.
     
    xcel and BillLin like this.
  9. Trollbait

    Trollbait Well-Known Member

    I'm guessing the Mazda and Mini were conversions. The Crown Vic was fleet sale only up to 2005, and had a factory CNG option. I think Ford offers a factory conversion assist package on its pick ups. GM had bi-fuel Silverado and Impala in the works. I don't know if they ever became available, or still are if they did.

    The home CNG filling stations were costly; around $5000 with an annual service up to $1000. They were also slow; taking all night to fill a Civic. That Civic also only had a range of 220 miles. With the few public stations available possibly taking 20 minutes to fill the car up, a Bolt might be more practical.

    Honda also stopped supporting the home fill stations. Turns out they were not adequately cleaning and drying the domestic NG supply, resulting in the car's fuel system rotting out.

    Improved ICE efficiency can improve range, but not if you want to shrink the size of the fuel tank. Not as bulky and cumbersome as a 10k psi hydrogen tank, a CNG tank is still a pressure vessel with the same limitations to packaging in a car. The Pickens' Plan called for CNG in heavy trucks, and personal vehicles going electric.
     
    xcel and BillLin like this.
  10. BillLin

    BillLin MASS: 2012 Pip and 2017 Prime

    Thanks. Great info!
     
    xcel likes this.
  11. Carcus

    Carcus Well-Known Member

    The Audi g-tron has decent cng packaging, .. 7.4 gge and marginal loss of trunk (16.9 to 13.8 ft3) .. AND it's bi-fuel with a gasoline tank as well. Put that 7.4 gge set-up into a 60 mpg dedicated cng car and you're talking 400 miles range (lose the gas tank and associated plumbing -- probably can get the trunk space back as well).

    http://www.greencarreports.com/news...rive-of-natural-gas-luxury-sport-sedan/page-2
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2017
    BillLin and xcel like this.

Share This Page