More Reasons For Fiat To Return

From Automobile: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6476771/green/fiat-multiair-technology-increases-power-lowers-emissions/index.html

"The system can cut CO2 emissions by between 10% and 25% and it can reduce the emission of other pollutants by up to 60%. It can also increase performance by 10% and improve low RPM torque by up to 15%."

very very cool.. Fiat sometimes seems very forwards looking

Wow, that is fantastic. It can be hard to justify being an Environmental Science major and a car guy but when I see things like that, it makes it much easier.

Stuff like this is a good idea, IMO finding ways to use oil more fficiently to power cars is alot more important than designing electric cars that are magically going to replace gas and diesel powered ones (but always 5-10 years in the future).

I don't fully understand exactly how this system works. It seems fascinating, and I want to understand it.

Looks like, the static valve timing is set for high rpm power, staying open early and long... but the solenoid lowers the valve away from the cam lobes during partial throttle conditions, thus shortening the duration the intake valves are open. Basically a better system than the standard one of advancing intake cam timing, so the valves open earlier, but for the same period of time.

Is that how other people are reading this? It's a really nifty concept.

sort of.. I am reading it the other way.. that instead of lowering the valve, it shortens the contact between the valve and cam... thus shortening the duration

Travis_K wrote: Stuff like this is a good idea, IMO finding ways to use oil more fficiently to power cars is alot more important than designing electric cars that are magically going to replace gas and diesel powered ones (but always 5-10 years in the future).

I'm confused as to whether you are serious or not....

The big difference is that normally the cam lifts up on one end of the rocker, while the middle is held in place and the other pushes on the valve. What they have done with this setup is put the electronic actuator on one end, then the cam is in the middle pushing down on the rocker, and the valve is at the end. The electronic actuator will be much better because instead of having to overcome the valve spring at a high rate of speed, now all it has to do is drop a certain distance when it is beneficial. Basically it is a simpler and better way of having variable cam lobes. Because now instead of just having two different lobes or lifts, it can actually vary the duration and lift.

The design is nice but really is just a backwards and better designed V-Tec. And those performance and efficiency gains are compared to engines without variable valve train technology. It is not in comparison to other current VVT setups. Where I would assume that it is better than the current ones, it will only be marginal.

I think it would be better than Vtec.. Vtex is two different lobes per cam.. this appears to be a lot more variable

Which is what I said.

So why not go fully cam less? Then you have 100% variable lift, duration and timing. Oh wait we can't afford f1 tech LOL.

would fully camless survive 100,000 miles? Especially with the way some people (and manufacturers) treat maintance?

I was serious. IMO, right now there is not even a remote possibility of completly replacing oil with something else that will allow people to still drive as much as they do now. A little bit certainly helps, but spending billions of dollars to develop hydrogen and electric cars while people drive 20 mpg crossover station wagon things with traction and stability control, 20 airbags, active collision avoidance, and everything else is kinda dumb.

Well how long do you plan to keep pushing it off then? At some point in time the bullet has to get bitten, and the bill will have to be paid. And until it is, all the money and resources dumped into stretching old technology out is essentially wasted. It's dumping money into a loss cause. Trying to stretch a conventional piston engine out little by little isn't making any progress. And as much as MPG is touted these days, 20mpg+ in 4000lb+ cars with huge V8's has been around for half a century now.

I don't know why the US is so hard to catch onto the easy temporary solution. 50mpg+ diesel technology is every day in Europe.

wherethefmi2000 wrote: So why not go fully cam less? Then you have 100% variable lift, duration and timing. Oh wait we can't afford f1 tech LOL.

No F1 team has ever run a cam less engine.

I don't know why the US is so hard to catch onto the easy temporary solution. 50mpg+ diesel technology is every day in Europe.

halle-berkeleying-lujah. 3-cyl turbo diesels ftw.

blaze86vic wrote: Well how long do you plan to keep pushing it off then? At some point in time the bullet has to get bitten, and the bill will have to be paid. And until it is, all the money and resources dumped into stretching old technology out is essentially wasted. It's dumping money into a loss cause. Trying to stretch a conventional piston engine out little by little isn't making any progress. And as much as MPG is touted these days, 20mpg+ in 4000lb+ cars with huge V8's has been around for half a century now. I don't know why the US is so hard to catch onto the easy temporary solution. 50mpg+ diesel technology is every day in Europe.

wherethefmi2000 wrote: So why not go fully cam less? Then you have 100% variable lift, duration and timing. Oh wait we can't afford f1 tech LOL.

No F1 team has ever run a cam less engine.

Maybe it was Moto gp then but there was a fully pnumatic valved engine out there

The pneumatic valve is a system that replaces the valve springs only, not the cam it self. F1 does use that, as the current metallurgy is not up to making a springs that can handle the stress of the extreme RPMs reached in F1 engines.

Thats the whole point, why not step by step reduce the amount of oil we use. The first step would be more small diesels, hybrids, small cars that get trhe kind of fuel economy small cars did 15 years ago,m along with a small amount of alternative fuel vehicles to see what works and go from there. What is happending is the cars you can actually buy are getting worse and worse milage, and no one thinks gas engines are worth it becasue its old technology. But, right now there is anothing ready for acomplete replacement, so in the next 50 to 100 years it will take for it to maybe be possible to completey go to some other type of fuel, try to cut the consumption of new gas powered cars in half (i think that could be done if people wanted to bad enough).

BTW, i dont mean to argue with anyone i just find it frustrating. I know it has less safety equipment than a new car, but my dad used to drive a 1992 nissan sentra that got 37 mpg in mixed city/highway driving for work, and now you couldnt find much other than a prius that could get that kind of mileage, and thngs like the cobalt XFE are impressive becasue they get 32 highway. If we could make cars 15 years ago that could get 40 mpg, why is eveyone driving cars that get 20?

I do agree... cars today are not as efficent as they could be.. mostly because they are too loaded up with crap they do not need

Cars today are not as efficient as they could be because the buying public still doesn't value efficiency all that much.

True, true. Everyone wants absolute silence, climate control, navigation, heated and cooled cupholders, ABS, airbags in every nook and cranny, ultimate comfortable big fluffy 6 way power seats, power windows, power locks, enough room to haul a water buffalo family and acceleration like a Top Fuel dragster. Somehow fuel efficiency got lost in the shuffle.

Turbo diesel is the answer and for some reason people reject it. My roomate's TDI Jetta is awesome. Upgraded inter-cooler and a re-tuned ECU and the thing is pretty fast, (not fast fast, but it'll get the job done most times) and he still gets 50mpg regularly.