“Mazda announces breakthrough in long-coveted engine technology” (Reuters):
The new compression ignition engine is 20 percent to 30 percent more fuel efficient than the Japanese automaker’s current engines and uses a technology that has eluded the likes of Daimler AG and General Motors Co.
A homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) engine ignites petrol through compression, eliminating spark plugs. Its fuel economy potentially matches that of a diesel engine without high emissions of nitrogen oxides or sooty particulates.
Mazda’s engine employs spark plugs under certain conditions, such as at low temperatures, to overcome technical hurdles that have hampered commercialization of the technology.
On a pure “energy-consumed” basis it was always tough to justify an electric car compared to putting a super-efficient diesel engine in a lightweight vehicle, right? Now it seems that Mazda will be changing the efficiency calculations. But maybe it doesn’t matter because people buy electric cars with their hearts, not their heads? (or at least governments use their hearts to hand out electric car subsidies to virtuous rich people?)
Separately, this would be truly revolutionary if it could be adapted to aircraft. People have used Mazda rotary engines in experimental planes before. Imagine this new engine in a legacy airframe, such as the Cirrus. The range could be extended from about 1000 miles to at least 1250 miles, for example (or payload increased due to the need to carry less fuel on any given trip).
Related:
- Porsche PFM 3200 engine, about 80 of which were sold in the 1980s. This Flying Magazine review highlights the lack of vibration compared to the conventional 1950s engines, and implies that efficiency was improved by at least 20 percent (fuel capacity was reduced from 75 to 60 gallons).
While increased efficiency for burning gas is always welcomed, we should remember to include hybrids in the discussion. My 2005 Prius gets 45 mpg, and it replaced a 2004 Civic, which was smaller and lighter, that only got 32 mpg, in mixed driving. This is in real world driving, not the lab. Hybrids are the sweet spot, for the time being, for most drivers.
Extending the range of a Cirrus from 5 hours without a bathroom break to 6 hours without a bathroom break does not pass the wife/girlfriend test.
gn: Have all passengers identify as men for the duration of the flight?
No way could I go more than 3 hours now without a bathroom break in a small plane but I am an old man. Back when I was young we did small plane trips of 4ish hours and they were challenging for this reason. You had to cut way back on liquids before the trip.
And I agree that this might make hybrids and big SUVs and aircraft much better if the technology is reliable and expandable. But it also may be like the rotary Mazda engine, just never reliable or scale able.
But it will not stop the electric car boom. Cities are just killing people with dirty air from cars and planes etc.. So no pollution is the only cure. And for those that live in Phoenix or LA it is easy to see that airplanes are a big part of the air pollution problem.
GC
2015 Civic is more powerful and heavier and in real world driving gets combined 37.5 mpg and is good for at least 300,000 miles. I understand that Li in car batteries is at premium and of limited supply; and hybrid is rarely driven past 100,000 miles, definitely not on same battery, at 1.5 cost and 0.7 of utility of gasoline engine Civic.
Bill, you are no Charles Lindbergh!
More on Civics:
My ’98 Civic got about 30 MPG on a good week. My new ’17 Civic (a bigger, heavier car with many more features and an automatic transmission) regularly gets 41 MPG if I don’t need to run the A/C much. Driving performance of the new car is improved.
So, car companies getting ICE engines to near-hybrid performance isn’t big news, just routine incremental improvement.
Good luck with that. The ICE can pretty much be 100% more efficient with no emissions regulations & unlimited money. If it was made of inconel, the compression ratio could match rocket engines.
Electricity is not a fuel. You still have to burn fuel or access some energy source to make electricity and then there are losses between the point where the electricity is generated and the point where gets applied to the electric motor in your car. So if (and this is a big if because regular gasoline engines waste much of the energy in the fuel as heat rather than motion) you can produce an efficient IC engine that powers the wheels directly, you might be able to get farther on a pound of carbon that you burn right on the spot than that same pound burned at some distant generator and converted to electricity and sent many miles and stored in a battery and THEN converted to motion. (Not to mention all the carbon needed to make the batteries, transmission lines, etc.)
It’s too bad that, from a liability perspective, it’d be insane for any large engine-maker to develop and sell a novel light aircraft engine, regardless of technology.
@jack crossfire
Since you are claiming efficiency can double, can you set me straight about what are the effective hot and cold reservoir temperatures for a regular gasoline engine?
If I use 400K for cooling water (Hot reservoir?) temperature, and 300K for ambient (cold Reservoir?). I get 25% as theoretical maximum efficiency.
http://www.endmemo.com/physics/heatengine.php
@jack crossfire (2)
How does high vs low compression effect Carnot efficiency? I understand high compression diesel engines are somewhat more efficient than gasoline engines, but in terms of the Carnot cycle, it seems like they should be the same, as I don’t think diesel engines have a higher engine coolant temperature.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota-gasoline-engine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent
The important temperature is not the coolant but the exhaust temperature at the point where it leaves the cylinder. That is much higher than 400K.
“or at least governments use their hearts to hand out electric car subsidies to virtuous rich people?”
No, they’re using their heads too, in response to the large sums of money socially-acceptable lobby groups stuff in their pockets.
How are diesel emissions worse than petrol emissions?
Hmm, a little late to this particular discussion, but I always thought these guys should spin off an aviation engine: http://achatespower.com
My cynical “we’ll just see when they actually start shipping this engine” self is somewhat pessimistic about the Mazda engine. As someone else already mentioned, the whole Wankel adventure makes me a bit cautious about Mazda pulling some major technology off that the brutes like Toyota / Honda / GM haven’t made work. Maybe this time it will work.
Myself I’m totally sold on electric cars and plug in hybrids, having previously had a BEV and, after it being crashed by my daughter, getting a Volt. Currently waiting on Mr. Musk for an AWD Model 3 to be available.