2.0L turbo 4 cylinder Hurricane engine

[The Great Grape Ape]

Don't be nationalist. Fiat is Italian company and have cooperation with Italian universities. Of-course that presentation will be in Italian.

Don't be silly. It's not english, this is an english forum, act accordingly. It's not being provincial it's being open, which your link isn't.
The graph clearly shows no increase in torque, and even their crowing of earlier delivery is a bit corrupted by their 2,000 RPM power figures showing higher torque at the same time period as the 2,500 RPM, so is it truly that far behind especially when at 3 seconds and 4 seconds it's essentially the same.
Questionabke real-world boost, and coming on at 3 seconds is still laggy at 2,000 RPM and late for a 'low-end' boost it's similar to the current Pentastar with those %s in the 90s, and that not even comoared to the PSU/PUG.

Barely a slight shift of the torque curve, neither of which make up for the turbo-lag represented in the graphs, nor push a 250HP typical 2L tiny turbo into Pentastar numbers, let alone Alfa and Volvo.

Obviusly and you can find it in document. System in Giulietta is not BSG.

So then the Citroen or Mercedes which carry even worse drawbacks for belt wear and cold starts, and for less than 10 HP boost.
Still seems like it's not about to push the Hurricane into Pentastar range let alone Alfa or Volvo numbers, but it will add more headaches... not looking better.

If you want to take a look at mild hybrid systems and possible FCA usage in India:
http://www.ijrter.com/papers/volume...ter-generator-bsg-for-2-0-l-diesel-engine.pdf

Interesting 12V BSG on a Fiat 2.0 diesel.. Guess I overestimated the power on tap ..maximum of 3kW power is available from a motor-generator due to which e-assist, regeneration functionality is limited." So 4 HP boost, yeah that's not doing much.
Even their test data showing more driveshaft torque from the non-BSG engine, and barely any change to delivery.

And once again, that article points out the more headaches with wear, plus the batteries needing added cooling, all in a cramped hot turbo engine bay.

Sure, it'll help a bit, but it's not about to turn it into the performance engines from Alfa or Volvo unlike your intial claims.

Like I said originally the "BSG it typically offers 10-15HP of e-assist, so nothing special, and in the case of the hurricane, is likely there to overcome significant lag of a stop/start turbo." which is exactly what you own data shows, with an improvement of significant lag.

Sponsored

 

[kidney]

Don't be silly. It's not english, this is an english forum, act accordingly. It's not being provincial it's being open, which your link isn't.

http://turbo-moteurs.cnam.fr/workshopvva/VVAWorkshop_Pitesti.pdf

Excellent example how they with less technology compared to competitors made a competitive engine. Peak torque for 80 kW/l version at 1400 rpm.

Barely a slight shift of the torque curve, neither of which make up for the turbo-lag represented in the graphs, nor push a 250HP typical 2L tiny turbo into Pentastar numbers, let alone Alfa and Volvo.

Most likely that such a "tiny" (it's only like that in Merica) engine has more power than Pentastar all the way to 4000 rpm.

Interesting 12V BSG on a Fiat 2.0 diesel.. Guess I overestimated the power on tap ..maximum of 3kW power is available from a motor-generator due to which e-assist, regeneration functionality is limited." So 4 HP boost, yeah that's not doing much.

And something like 7% improvement in real life fuel economy?

The reason for 12V BSG is Indian market or what is available there. They can not make 48V BSG there or they could at insane cost.

Sure, it'll help a bit, but it's not about to turn it into the performance engines from Alfa or Volvo unlike your intial claims.

Alfa's engine is not performance engine. They could put more money in it compared to Chrysler. It has cooled EGR, MultiAir and twin-scroll turbo.

Performance 2.0 engine will come in the future.

Like I said originally the "BSG it typically offers 10-15HP of e-assist, so nothing special, and in the case of the hurricane, is likely there to overcome significant lag of a stop/start turbo." which is exactly what you own data shows, with an improvement of significant lag.

It's said for 48V BSG up to 16 kW (21.5 HP). IMO that's a lot if you take into account that it's available instantaneously when you hit the throttle from stand start.
And what's important is up to 20% saving in fuel.

FCA clearly opted for 48V BSG as their strategic choice for the future.

http://products.bosch-mobility-solu...brid_systems/low_voltage_hybrid_systems.html#

http://www.invetr.com/control-and-electronics/48-v-perfet-hybrid-system

Or what is Audi doing:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/07/20170711-a8.html#more

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Excellent example how they with less technology compared to competitors made a competitive engine. Peak torque for 80 kW/l version at 1400 rpm.

But the power is coming on later in that graph for the higher output per litre.So that seems to be showing a trade-off again.

And with the Pentastar already providing 96% of it's torque 250/260 @1800 RPM and fairly flat after that to it's peak of 260 at 4800, the the PUG/PSU is likely to shift it in a similar fashion with the expensive compinent that graph mentions ie Variable Valve Lift.

And something like 7% improvement in real life fuel economy?

NO, not,REAL-ly.

Did you bother to read that study you posted, I mean other that just the surface? (specifically pg 329 / or 13 of 18)

First it's simulated on a treadmill @ max speed of 80kph, versus the EPA's own 80MPH cycle, ie a factor of 1.6x difference on an unaerodynamic high weight/inertia brick.

Also, and most importantly 5% of that theoretical 7.4% improvement came from ESS ,which the Pentastar will also have (and their theoretical figures is also higher than FCA's own 3% number) so for that study they only got 2.4% out of BSG, or half of the ESS benefits. Which means using the 'half-benefit' calculation BSG would derive less than 1.5% theoretical savings, and even they don't know 'real life'.

Even the study's authors conclude: "Hence, it can be concluded that torque assist and recuperation do not have major impact in fuel economy improvement."

That's why having it in a language both parties can read is important, so we can both see the caveats results and testing parameters.

Alfa's engine is not performance engine.

Yet according to folks in the know, the Hurricane is an open deck design and the Alfa a closed deck, first sign of different performance targets & roles for the engines

It's said for 48V BSG up to 16 kW (21.5 HP). IMO that's a lot if you take into account that it's available instantaneously when you hit the throttle from stand start.
And what's important is up to 20% saving in fuel.

No one argued it wouldn't be efficient that's kind of its purpose it's when it doesn't accomplish that like in the india study that it's noteworthy.

As for performance, explain why the Wrangler would be blessed with the 'up to 16KW' variant for a non-performance vehicle platform instead of a more pedestrian 7-15KW variant?

FCA clearly opted for 48V BSG as their strategic choice for the future.

As I said previously, people are using the prior roadmap to justify it as a full-on implementation including inflated E-boost numbers, rather than just ESS assist, which is the whole point. Even you are preaching top of the scale (beyond the scale really) 16KW benefit of that indian paper, and not the more realistic 10KW which is inside the current quoted 7-15KW ranges from suppliers.

Even your link for the Audi A8 (far more a performance vehicle than a Wrangler) clearly states: "an energy recovery output of up to 12 kW" or 75% of your number and only a minimal boost, and that's for a high performance Audi, not a pedestrian VW or Wrangler.

Your links don't support this huge boost in performance you're claiming/predicting.

 

[SoCalRubicon]

 

[kidney]

But the power is coming on later in that graph for the higher output per litre.So that seems to be showing a trade-off again.

Maximum torque is coming later.... But this 200 HP from 1.75 liter is 230 HP from 2 liter. 320 Nm from 1.75 liter is equivalent 365 Nm from 2 liter at 1400 rpm.

They could play games like GM does and say that engine has close to 280 HP while it's just European similar as European competition with 240-250 HP.

And with the Pentastar already providing 96% of it's torque 250/260 @1800 RPM and fairly flat after that to it's peak of 260 at 4800, the the PUG/PSU is likely to shift it in a similar fashion with the expensive compinent that graph mentions ie Variable Valve Lift.

And less than 80% at 1600 rpm? Dual VL mode will certainly help.

NO, not,REAL-ly.

Did you bother to read that study you posted, I mean other that just the surface? (specifically pg 329 / or 13 of 18)

First it's simulated on a treadmill @ max speed of 80kph, versus the EPA's own 80MPH cycle, ie a factor of 1.6x difference on an unaerodynamic high weight/inertia brick.

Also, and most importantly 5% of that theoretical 7.4% improvement came from ESS ,which the Pentastar will also have (and their theoretical figures is also higher than FCA's own 3% number) so for that study they only got 2.4% out of BSG, or half of the ESS benefits. Which means using the 'half-benefit' calculation BSG would derive less than 1.5% theoretical savings, and even they don't know 'real life'.

It seems that you are better in cherry picking arguments.

It's very nice to see that you are picking the one which help your agenda.

There is one part just bellow 4.5% and 7.5% FE improvments which says:
It should be noted that torque assist and recuperation function is not simulated. This can further improve fuel economy. Since the vehicle program is in early days, on road results are not available.

Also there are different fuel economy test cycles around the world.

Yet according to folks in the know, the Hurricane is an open deck design and the Alfa a closed deck, first sign of different performance targets & roles for the engines

Open deck for Alfa's 200 and 280 HP versions. I must find it. But for you. Look at Fiat ePER and you will find it.

As for performance, explain why the Wrangler would be blessed with the 'up to 16KW' variant for a non-performance vehicle platform instead of a more pedestrian 7-15KW variant?

As I said previously, people are using the prior roadmap to justify it as a full-on implementation including inflated E-boost numbers, rather than just ESS assist, which is the whole point. Even you are preaching top of the scale (beyond the scale really) 16KW benefit of that indian paper, and not the more realistic 10KW which is inside the current quoted 7-15KW ranges from suppliers.

Even your link for the Audi A8 (far more a performance vehicle than a Wrangler) clearly states: "an energy recovery output of up to 12 kW" or 75% of your number and only a minimal boost, and that's for a high performance Audi, not a pedestrian VW or Wrangler.

It helps where it matters, at low rpm. Also it does provide fuel economy improvements in city driving. Or would you say there is no improvements when you driving from stand start to 22 km/h on all electric?

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

And less than 80% at 1600 rpm? Dual VL mode will certainly help.

Where are you getting that number? 210-225 @ 1600 is 81-86% of 260, not less than 80, even then that's the OLD 3.6 with the most sedate variant, not the Grand Cherokee, Challenger, or RAM and not the PSU/PUG update.

It seems that you are better in cherry picking arguments.

That's rich after you provide a 16KW number none of the suppliers even use, and picking fuel efficiency from results combining ESS and BSG with ESS providing the biggest benefit.

Talk about cherry picking and distorting reality.

There is one part just bellow 4.5% and 7.5% FE improvments which says:
It should be noted that torque assist and recuperation function is not simulated. This can further improve fuel economy. Since the vehicle program is in early days, on road results are not available.

Meaning not 'real life', despite your claim.
So a theoretical test that at best shows mediocre to poor results in power delivery and fuel economy change within the margin of error, thus not the big boost you claimed for either.

And remember their own conclusion right after your quote above: "it can be concluded that torque assist and recuperation do not have major impact", even despite combining numbers.

Also there are different fuel economy test cycles around the world.

Sure there are, but neither Euro NEDC, nor US EPA, nor any developed country has 80Kph as their HWY speed. Both N. America and Europe have highspeed numbers 80 MPH / 120 KPH respectively in their test cycle so over 50% faster, and none has 80 kph as even their old number, meaning again the test isn't a reflection of the real world, and the next Euro/World WLTP test ups the speed to 130+KPH, so the 80kph test is very VERY far from the 'real life' results you claim.

IT helps where it matters, at low rpm.

NO, not really, it helps ESS not bog a zero-back-pressure turbo from taking twice as long to accelerate from an full stop.

It's not boosting power at low RPM the way a Wrangler needs for rock crawling and moving big heavy tires, No, this is helping it make it through an intersection in town. Meanwhile you make it sound like it's got full HEV power on tap which would help a Wrangler, and yet it's barely a blip.

Even your mention of the 22km/h on what would be a sub-compact micro efficiency car with low rolling resistance tires isn't impressive when you consider applying that to a heavy Wrangler with 31-33" stock tires.

Bottom line, it's undeniably nice for a compact commuter car, but it's not gonna provide this big boost you speak of on a Wrangler.

 

[kidney]

Where are you getting that number? 210-225 @ 1600 is 81-86% of 260, not less than 80, even then that's the OLD 3.6 with the most sedate variant, not the Grand Cherokee, Challenger, or RAM and not the PSU/PUG update.

Sorry, I was wrong. It's exactly 80.7% of maximum torque at 1600 rpm for current Wrangler version, less than 80% at 1500 rpm.

That's rich after you provide a 16KW number none of the suppliers even use, and picking fuel efficiency from results combining ESS and BSG with ESS providing the biggest benefit.

Up to 16 kW... And Audi came with first modern BSG system in A8 (it will be an option on new A6 and A7) and it has 12 kW. We could expect only better in the future.

Sure there are, but neither Euro NEDC, nor US EPA, nor any developed country has 80Kph as their HWY speed. Both N. America and Europe have highspeed numbers 80 MPH / 120 KPH respectively in their test cycle so over 50% faster, and none has 80 kph as even their old number, meaning again the test isn't a reflection of the real world, and the next Euro/World WLTP test ups the speed to 130+KPH, so the 80kph test is very VERY far from the 'real life' results you claim.

130 km/h is highest speed limit on motorway in EU. Germany is exception. There is a lot countries with lesser limits. So you are suggestin that real life scenario is when you want to lose your licence? Nice!

It's not boosting power at low RPM the way a Wrangler needs for rock crawling and moving big heavy tires, No, this is helping it make it through an intersection in town. Meanwhile you make it sound like it's got full HEV power on tap which would help a Wrangler, and yet it's barely a blip.

You are spinning my comments. I clearly said my opinion about Wrangler engine line-up:

It depends on use. I can see 2.0 as the best choice for daily driver, of-course with new permanent AWD. And 3.0 V6 diesel for trails. But... IMO, Pentastar is here for those who don't want to pay for diesel.

In Europe most people will chose 2.2 liter diesel which will not be available in US.

Bottom line, it's undeniably nice for a compact commuter car, but it's not gonna provide this big boost you speak of on a Wrangler.

A8 is very nice compact car.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Up to 16 kW... And Audi came with first modern BSG system in A8 (it will be an option on new A6 and A7) and it has 12 kW. We could expect only better in the future.

We're not talking about the distant future or a top tier model in a premium line-up like the A8, we're talking about the base trim of a low-mid priced SUV, so it's not getting off-the-future scale components, it's getting normal middle of the road for what the current suppliers have as a range, and you're cherry picking your numbers again only acknowledging the lowest of the Pentastar numbers and then overstating the BSG numbers, and even then it's still not a compelling argument to match the Alfa or Volvo

130 km/h is highest speed limit on motorway in EU. Germany is exception. There is a lot countries with lesser limits. So you are suggestin that real life scenario is when you want to lose your licence? Nice!

What a lame attempt by you to try and cover up for poor testing methods, the EU tests currently are 120KPH and will eventually move to 131.3 like I said, so stating that you're going to lose your license because of going 131.3 in a 130 zone is the same type of hyperbolic exaggeration of the difference as you use for Scaving and BSG. Most importantly the test you provided nowhere near resembles the 'real life' tests used to calculate the Wrangler's fuel efficiency in it's main markets, therefore not reflecting the Wrangler's realities.

You are spinning my comments. I clearly said my opinion about Wrangler engine line-up:..

I'm not spinning your comments , but you're spinning for sure.
And again you're cherry picking, now this time your own comments to try and diminish what you over-stated earlier;

Kid quotes that state big gains from the near-term implementation in the Wrangler, not a future A8;

• "The other one is BSG inside of Wrangler. So it's a mild hybrid unlike current GME inside of Alfa. And if this is a 48V mild hybrid miracles could be done."

• "Scavenging helps. How much? On turbo DI engine a lot."

No I wasn't taking exception at the milder comment you decide to recall which were stated long after the original hyperbole, it was your statement that the TinyTurbo4 will be 'miraculous' in a Wrangler and implying much larger boost in power from what is really ESS-assist and likely will only have mild acceleration assist, and not e-boost for the turbos which you also claimed as a funcion of BSG which it isn't it's a function of some more robust 48V systems.
The crux of the issue is that as previously stated it will fall well short of anything rivaling the Alfa (let alone the Volvo 2L turbo) in engine design or power, even with the Wrangler getting a BSG.

Again.. it's not significantly boosting power at low RPM the way a Wrangler needs for even moving big heavy tires on pavement, let alone off-roading, and it's not gonna provide this big 'miraculous' boost you speak of.. for a Wrangler.

 

[kidney]

Engine block as in currently available Alfa's GME T4 M engines, taken from Fiat ePER:

Again.. it's not significantly boosting power at low RPM the way a Wrangler needs for even moving big heavy tires on pavement, let alone off-roading, and it's not gonna provide this big 'miraculous' boost you speak of.. for a Wrangler.

We'll see that when we get fuel economy, e-boost numbers, and torque curves for PUG and GME T4 D engines inside of Wrangler. For now I stay with GME T4 D on-road superiority.

 

[ThirtyOne]

Unsubscribe

 

[Billy]

Unsubscribe

There's a button on the top right of each thread page to unfollow...

 

[four low]

Boys ! Stop the Pissing Match, points Made .
Onward !

 

[BillyHW]

Is the 2.0L Turbo engine going to require premium gas?

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Is the 2.0L Turbo engine going to require premium gas?

Probably. Depends on if FCA looks for higher output or higher efficiency, but current design on the platform would essentially require premium fuel, although at altitude you might be able to get away with mid-grade, but even then.. probably not.

A few of the small turbos out there like the VW 2.0L B-cycle in the Tiguan can use 87 Octane, but most require premium 91.

The problem being that often the efficiency gains are lost by the cost of fuel. As you know, here in AB it's a 15-25c premium... for Premium (sometimes 20c or more for midgrade), which can amount to 20-30% higher fuel costs kinda killing the benefits.

One thing that was great about driving in the maritimes this summer was premium being only ~ 5c more than regular (though all much higher than our reg) so went for the altitude and octane power boost while out there.

 

[kidney]

Higher octane can help with both higher power and fuel economy if they opt for Miller cycle.

We in Europe in most countries have Super 95 as base gasoline fuel. All turbo engines can run on it but at least Super 98 is desirable. You can feel the difference.

Sponsored