Miller Cycle engine as good as they say? What's wrong with it? Its a Mazda?
Tim
> >Miller Cycle engine as good as they say? What's wrong with it? Its a Mazda?
> Mazda's using it, not to be confused with the ***el (rotary) used in
> the RX-7's.
> Miller cycle refers to the valve timing. Other than than, it's a
> conventional piston engine. I'm not 100% sure on the theory, but
> Mazda's been using it on Japan market cars since the 80's.
> Tim
I knew the car was supercharged, but I thought that Miller cycle
referred to the intake valves staying open longer as the piston came
up on the compression stroke. <???>
You can intercool and supercharge any engine, but that won't make it
Miller Cycle. The super charger lets it do this and still fill the
cylinder fast enough once the intake valve closes.
I'm not 100% on the process, but I am relatively certain Miller Cycle
refers to the valve timing, and not supercharging.
Tim
>>The Miller Cycle engine refers to the fact that it possesses a belt driven
>>Supercharger (ie... Blower not Turbo) and twin Inner-coolers that cool
the
>>air-charge and the turbulance caused by the Supercharger forcing air into
the
>>intake-manifold. My wife says it Kicks ***(and it does). As to the
durability,
>>I'll let ya know. For ANY 2.6 liter engine to produce over 200hp is quite
an
>>accomplishment in itself. The biggest drawback with that is durability.
You can
>>produce 5000hp with an 8.0 liter engine but not for very long.
>I knew the car was supercharged, but I thought that Miller cycle
>referred to the intake valves staying open longer as the piston came
>up on the compression stroke. <???>
>You can intercool and supercharge any engine, but that won't make it
>Miller Cycle. The super charger lets it do this and still fill the
>cylinder fast enough once the intake valve closes.
>I'm not 100% on the process, but I am relatively certain Miller Cycle
>refers to the valve timing, and not supercharging.
>Tim
What's the big deal, you ask? Well, it has a couple benefits, the most obvious being
that it's cheaper (in terms of torque) to crank. That supercharger is going to eat
torque when its pushing against closed valves, and the compression stroke is going to
eat torque when its pushing against a closed valve. Why not leave the valve open and
let both work together for a while?
It also increases the charge at a given boost level by giving the supercharger a
little bit longer to push air/fuel into the chamber. More charge at lower boost
means reduced detonation.
It's not revolutionary, but it's pretty cool engineering, nonetheless.
--
Brian
Getting 200+ BHP from a 2.6 liter engine doesn't sound like that big of
a deal to me. Nowadays I think 100 BHP/liter is a relaistic expectation
of good engine design.
Glenn
> I thought that the "Miller Cycle" meant that, near the end of the
> compression stroke, a little bit of beer was injected to help prevent
> detonation.
> >>I'll let ya know. For ANY 2.6 liter engine to produce over 200hp is quite
> an
> >>accomplishment in itself. The biggest drawback with that is durability.
> You can
> >>produce 5000hp with an 8.0 liter engine but not for very long.