[aaggoswami]

Yes, its correct that Mitsubishi has more patents for GDI, it was way ahead than what Europeans were, but unfortunately it was too early. And now Mitsubishi is in not so healthy form.

Regarding GDI there are two view of mine:

1) I agree with GTO that it has more to do with costs. But over and above costs which would increase, another reason is maintenance. If at all there is higher maintenance, it wont go down well with car owners. Cost remains a tough constraint. An Alto with GDI + turbo would be a great deal, but the FE ( due to performance available ) might decrease, more maintenance, and over and above that expensive spares. This wont be digestible to lower spectrum of market.

2) Ignorance. Its not that GDI + Turbo is not available to Toyota or Suzuki. Suzuki is selling Turbo 660cc engines since long. Given the Suzuki's expertise in small car tech, they can have a small GDI+turbo combo, but what about parameters like fuel quality, etc. Still people go to local mechanics who are not well versed with complex mechanics of modern cars in many cases. What would happen then ?

The fuel quality, maintenance cost are two major hurdles IMO.

Originally Posted by GTO

A relevant point : The Japanese simply don't innovate the way that the Europeans do. I mean, Honda & Toyota are still selling the same kinda petrol engines they used to in the nineties. Where is the step ahead? Where are the improvements?

Agreed, but Japanese have proven to be quite competitive, I mean they are not stagnant. A 1.2 without turbo in Europe can produce around 90 bhp., which means that specific outputs have gone up. Without turbo the Japs have managed to meet the tough emission norms in EU. So, IMO, they are working in a positive direction.

But as far innovation is concerned, IIRC, Honda openly admitted that they were left behind in turbo petrol tech. Suzuki and Toyota via Daihatsu can bring this technology to India in small cars IMO, but it will take time.

[vina]

Originally Posted by GTO

...A relevant point : The Japanese simply don't innovate the way that the Europeans do. I mean, Honda & Toyota are still selling the same kinda petrol engines they used to in the nineties. Where is the step ahead? Where are the improvements?

I am not competent to comment on the rest, but wouldn't let the opportunity to pass where I can poke GTO


Let me ask as question - suppose there is a company A and a company B. Assume in 2000 they had very similar technology and markets and everything else (whatever is relevant to this discussion) and you could not find major differences between their products. Then in 2001 came generation A1 of company A and generation B1 of company B. Let us say B1 was far superior than A1.

Now company A gave A2 in 2002, A3 in 2003 ... B9 in 2009; and Company B gave B2 in 2005 (while B1 remained superior to even A5) and B3 in 2009 (while B2 remained superior to even A9)

Would you call company A a more innovative design house or would you call them catch up artists?

Merely because somebody is cranking out a new design every year doesn't make that guy more innovative. Look at the number of models Apple produces and the number their competitors do (by the way, I'm NOT an Apple fan - I never buy or recommend their products and sometimes do make fun of their customers).

The above is not to say that the Japanese's products are better, but just to mention that if a company's marketing department doesn't think there is any merit in bringing a new kind of engine to the market, they will not bring it. That doesn't make the company less innovative.




My experience is limited to electronics and I have worked with Japanese, Americans and Europeans in their R&D departments and frankly as far as innovation goes americans are open to trying out more things than either of the other two, Japanese are eager to finish more things (i.e. they think and work it through very well to mass production) and Europeans were usually in between on both. Now trying out new things may sound sexy but it is useless unless you are prepared to go the whole hog.

Overall all three were similar when it came to end results.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by SirAlec

All Mercedes CGI engines are Gasoline Direct injection. I think its their marketing name.

There absence from common cars are attributed to their high cost. The engine parts needs to be made very rugged to handle the high pressure that is involved. Gasoline is already very combustible in normal state.

That is true
Mercedes-Benz India - Facts & Figures - Drive system & chassis
They offer all that is being discussed - Direct Injection, Turbocharging and Variable Valve Timing. That is the reason for their relatively good FE.

Common rail requires advanced technology, and most important advanced materials, hence it increases the price a lot, especially if the numbers are low. That said, if a mass market models, say K10 of MUL or the Kappa 2 of Hyundai introduce them, then prices will fall drastically and the difference to the consumer will be reasonable (say 10-20K).

[vijayvb]

Now coming to 2013, we are seeing more and more turbo charged direct injection engines in the market. skoda, vw, ford being the few who have introduced it. The output of these engines are awesome! But how about the durability? I remember race enthusiasts turbo charging existing engines and getting insane power output out of it. But they were all designed to last for 1 race distance. How do these engines perform on the road. Is there a higher likelihood of failures before even they cross the 1lack mark?

Can any one with some background on this tech throw some light into it?

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by vijayvb

Now coming to 2013, we are seeing more and more turbo charged direct injection engines in the market. skoda, vw, ford being the few who have introduced it. The output of these engines are awesome! But how about the durability? I remember race enthusiasts turbo charging existing engines and getting insane power output out of it. But they were all designed to last for 1 race distance. How do these engines perform on the road. Is there a higher likelihood of failures before even they cross the 1lack mark?

Can any one with some background on this tech throw some light into it?

As far as I can recollect, engines tuned for racing have
Much higher compression ratios and RPM range, which results in higher stresses and temperatures. Modern engines are as sophisticated as racing engines of a couple of generations older, so
. Pistons & valves are made lighter, tougher and can bear higher temperatures
. Camshafts and crank shafts are lighter, tougher and have harder surfaces
. Bearings are redesigned for faster rotation
. Fuel has much higher Octane rating and in extreme cases is highly corrosive, which means upgrading all the fuel delivery related components. As tolerances are much tighter fuel contamination has to be contained much betters so larger and finer filters changed at shorter intervals.
. To cater to higher HP and RPM, the gear box and the transmission system is beefed up

So in a nutshell all components from engine to wheels are uprated to yield that increase in speed. The performance increase is there but at a much steeper costs. For optimum performance and in order to prevent disasters, a lot of electronics is used to monitor the operational factors and take appropriate action (soft shut down?) when things are about to get out of hand. That again adds to the cost.

We will get smaller and higher performing engines with fantastic FE, but as they say there is always a cost, and at present it is quite high.

Regarding failures, as experienced by the DSG gearbox owners, electronics is the primary point of failure, so more electronics in a car the more chances of premature failure.

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by vijayvb

... But how about the durability? I remember race enthusiasts turbo charging existing engines and getting insane power output out of it. But they were all designed to last for 1 race distance. How do these engines perform on the road. Is there a higher likelihood of failures before even they cross the 1lack mark? ...

1. The comparison between race and road engines is not apt - the objectives are different, and one doesn't put one type in another (BTW, the race engines are not designed to last 1 race. Just that no on wants to take a chance with using it in another race. Who wants to lose a race by cutting corners?)

2. These engines perform no different than comparable manifold injection engines. But then, that is the wrong way of looking at the issue. Duty cycle remaining the same (road duty, not track or off-road), the performance considerations are the same. Better controllability of fuel injection makes some difference in power delivery profile and emissions

3. All engines are projected to last at least 200K Km, and injection method doesn't matter. There are many who have clocked a few million Km in their cars. Most people sell their cars before 100K Km. (usual inflection point for likelihood of failures), so very few test it longer than that. The ones who buy cars with that or more on the odo, generally don't care how long it lasts - they reconcile themselves to expected repairs.