Speaking of Mitsibishi, this morning Chrysler cut whatever association they had with them, suggesting they are in bad shape.

Back to the HCCI research, a "pure" version may be the goal, but a modified HCCI might make it into production and still offer significant fuel economy improvements.

Honda might put an ignition system in an HCCI to merely start the engine - something like that.

I don't know much about diesels, but heard some have glow plugs, even though in theory they are not needed at all.

 

Yes, all diesels have glowplugs to get the engines to start. In older cars, you get in, turn the key to the ON position and sit there while waiting for the glow-plug light on the dash to go out, indicating it's ready to start up. In newer models, like some VW/Audi products with keyless entry, it fires the glow-plugs whenever you unlock the doors with the keyless entry. The theory being that it will have long since completed heating the glowplugs by the time you actually get in the car - a very smart idea, if you asked me.

I still can't picture any HCCI motors even being discussed for production until they have fully utilized all available standard spark ignition technology. Honda's JDM center-mounted DI engine is close, but from what I've read, it does not have an atkinson-cycle profile for the "small" cam. A 3-stage VTEC may be optimal for such an engine so you can do super-lean direct injection with atkinson-cycle wherever possible, then have a standard otto-cycle low lift, low overlap profile, and finally a 4000+ rpm high lift, high overlap cycle for full power accelleration.

I think if Honda had been able to use direct injection on the 2006 Civic Hybrid, for example, they could have made that same 93 horsepower from an even smaller engine; perhaps 1.1 liters instead of 1.3 liters. At the same time, because the DI motor is more efficient at all engine speeds and also provides the ability to run at up to 65:1 lean, they probably could have gotten at least another 10% more fuel economy. DI adds a lot of cost and you really need ultra-low sulpher gasoline to do the ultra-lean mixtures, which the USA does not have. I think we'll see the above mentioned type of engine in production before anything HCCI can arrive, and even at that, since you won't be able to run HCCI all the time, it's advantages over a fully exploited DI motor are very small - no where near the 30% number often thrown around.

 

One thing I like about Honda is they have always emphasised engine efficiency. That goes back to the 1970's with the Honda Civic CVCC engine. It burned cleanly enough it did not need a catalyic converter.

 

Hi Delta_Flyer:

___Honda has the efficiency of their ICE’s right. The problem however is that a hybrid is not just the ICE. The Prius II weighs as much as 300 #’s more and is larger by some margin then either the HCH-I and II. Even still, they (Prius II's) can knock out 60 mpg's in the EPA's FTP75 test. Honda’s of any type simply cannot do that as of this write up due to lack of a pure EV mode. Remember, the Prius II’s low powered ICE is only worth ~ 32 mpg in the FTP75 test. It is the rest of the drivetrain (HSD) that makes up for it

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

 

Wayne, do you know (or does anyone), how an HSD drivetrain compares to an ICE-only drivetrain, in terms of mass?
I know in the Prius II the ICE plus electric motors etc.. of course have a greater mass than the ICE alone. The question though is, how does the complete drivetrain compare:
For the PII HSD that would be the combined mass for:
ICE, all ancillary devices (including electric AC compressor), planetary gear box, two electric motors, battery, inverter.
(I probably missed some parts there)
For a fair comparison, for a non-hybrid drivetrain the mass of these components should be summed:
ICE of a size able to deliver teh combined power output of the HSD drive, torque converter and transmission (to compare automatic style drivetrains), water pump, alternator, starter, all ancillary devices (belt-driven AC compressor).

I have never quite been able to sum up the comparison. Sure the HSD has the added mass of battery, inverter, 2 'lectric motor/generators, etc.. However, it should have some mass savings too: the ICE is smaller, it does not have a starter, nor an alternator, it does not have a torque converter and the gearbox is much smaller.

How do all these balance out?

 

Hi MGBGT:

___That was an excellent question and one I have no way to even look up an answer for?

___Here are a few to consider?

Corolla LE 4-door: 2,550 #’s -
Matrix XR 5-door: 2,778 #’s - 96.2/21.8 Cu. Ft.
Prius II 5-door: 2,890 #’s - 96.2/16.1 Cu. Ft.
Camry LE: 3,164 #’s
Camry XLE: 3,241 #’s

___The Prius II has the Corolla underpinnings and ECHO block so that is why I included it. The Matrix XR is the ~ size as that of the Prius II so it looks like a pretty good match? Maybe an extra 100 - 125 #’s for HSD minus the un-needed items possibly?

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

 

My gut feeling is Honda can and should put an EV mode into the IMA. Honda's emphasis has been an efficient ICE - Toyota's has been recovery of otherwise wasted energy into the hybrid system. I prefer Honda's approach of driving the car efficiently before you factor in regenerative braking to capture the waste. That does not mean I would not like Honda to work on the hybrid part more. I'll admit my familiarity with Honda favors them, but I also like the fact the IMA can use a 5-speed.