You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
First, the US regulations on advertised HP require that the statement only be true within +/- 10%. So my 300HP 2001 C4 may only have 270HP. I hope not, maybe on the 330HP "side".
The best we can do is go off the manufacturer's numbers and assume they would put forth their technology in the best light while doing there best to avoid a public backlash when they don't meet the numbers.
You seem to believe that SKYACTIV is a more efficient and powerful technology. I pointed out HARD numbers on production vehicles from both manufacturers that don't support your belief. It would be nice if you had hard numbers to support your case instead of a theoretical +/- 10% and some non-related Corvette reference.
With the advent of GDI/DFI capability Ford initially went, remains predominantly, in the direction of using that additional compression capability to provide BOOST "space", of use maybe 1% of the time. Probably only as high as 1% if the driver happens to be of the "boy-racer" mentality/persuasion.
EcoBoost/TwinForce increases the "effective" compression ratio to 12-14:1 using turbo BOOST, wasting the DFI/GDI capability the clear majority of driving time.
Whereas SkyActiv, increasing the base/native CR to 12-14:1, increases FE >98% of the time.
Then why don't we see SKYACTIV being more efficient in the 2.0L Mazda3/Focus example I gave? We can also wait and see how the 2013 CX-5 compares to the 2013 Escape, since both will be sporting SKYACTIV/EcoBoost. Early indications are that the 1.6L Ecoboost option will have the more power output to the 2.0L SKYACTIV (173HP/155HP) (170/150ft.lbs).
$5.00 gas? Sure. $6, $7, $8, $9, $10 or more, eventually. But let's make a point here.
Ford is using their technology to meet customer/market demands and offer class leading FE in MANY categories (please, see all my previous links for examples/info). Until we see SKYACTIV beating, notably exceeding, Ford's FE and power, I don't see how you can say Ford's Engineers should be embarrassed!
You would BOTH be wrong. Think about it, firing up the ~100HP ICE only to power the 5-7HP A/C represents a horrible waste. Compare that to the ICE being able to more efficiently, and with a much shorter period, to fully RECHARGE the HV battery.
In the initial case the ICE must run for the entirety of the compressor cycle(s). In charging the HV battery the ICE can be run at the most optimal overall level, high percentage of that ~100HP capability going directly into the battery.
Using the HV battery to run the A/C might therefore result in a RADICALLY lower ICE duty cycle and higher FE vs running the A/C directly..
I never said you had to waste the rest of the power from the idling ICE.
If you would read my full response you would see that I addressed that in the very next line, "...there is an ICE load/efficiency point that can be used where excess charge is captured for future propulsion. Since the ICE is already running, you might as well target a efficiency point of the engine and store that excess when possible."
I can tell you that the 2008 FEH does charge the battery while being forced to idle due to cooling request. The problem comes when the SOC is maxed out. Obviously, a larger capacity battery would help in this case (and many others).
With the current battery capacity, it seems that the best of both worlds would have been a hybrid compressor that can be belt or electric driven. That way, you can leverage the battery when ICE-OFF and the ICE when ICE-ON. But then you introduce more complexity and cost and some people would complain about that.
I'm with Gary on any topic, especially since he actually owns an FEH and gets the best MPG figures around. If his empirical data shows better MPG overall with the belt ICE, then that is the way it is. I don't get (or try to get) anywhere near that with my 2008 AWD.
But at least I own the vehicle I'm writing about, and at least I have correctly researched Toyota/Ford patents, etc. But really, I have never yet found any value in posts from certain individuals who don't own the FEH, yet feel compelled to put out information of questionable value.
Feeding trolls is never advisable... they go away if ignored.
I never said you had to waste the rest of the power from the idling ICE.
If you would read my full response you would see that I addressed that in the very next line, "...there is an ICE load/efficiency point that can be used where excess charge is captured for future propulsion. Since the ICE is already running, you might as well target a efficiency point of the engine and store that excess when possible."
I can tell you that the 2008 FEH does charge the battery while being forced to idle due to cooling request. The problem comes when the SOC is maxed out. Obviously, a larger capacity battery would help in this case (and many others).
With the current battery capacity, it seems that the best of both worlds would have been a hybrid compressor that can be belt or electric driven. That way, you can leverage the battery when ICE-OFF and the ICE when ICE-ON. But then you introduce more complexity and cost and some people would complain about that.
"...best of both worlds would be.."
I like your willingness to compromise, I would write it as "if both the SOC were low or close to marginal AND there was an HVAC cooling (NOT dehumidification!) requirement". Or, of course, if the ICE were already running for any other reason.
But then we should also look, consider, the additionally complexity and cost of a "dual drive" method A/C compressor.
In the end, all things considered, it seems to me that the most optimal compromise was made.
Might the A/C compressor be driven off an extended output shaft of one of the MGs within the CVT/PSD...? Best of both worlds,...Truly?
Ford engineers should be mightily embarrassed (quite possibly ARE) that almost any mechanic, a shade-tree mechanic even, could take an gas-guzzling (relatively) EcoBoost/TwinForce engine and quickly convert it to the SkyActiv design and thereby end up with substantially improved FE.
New information from a recent interview by Car and Driver Magazine with Robert Davis, senior vice president of Mazda U.S. operations:
"And what of a SkyActiv V6? Davis makes it clear there's no room in the SkyActiv stable for a six-cylinder, saying that the company will focus on lighter platforms and forced-induction four-cylinder engines instead"
Forced-induction 4-cyl with direct injection and high compression ratios, sure sounds a lot like EcoBoost to me. Maybe the Ford engineers should be flattered instead of embarrassed?
Re: 2012 Battery Fan Noise
