Another Henry Smokey Yunick Hot Vapor Engine Thread 7

[SameName4Everything]

First, I am not an automotive engineer and I didn't spend the night at Holiday Inn. I jumped into this project only a few months ago and had a leg up because I know Danny Soliz very well and he is a life long adherent of Smokey, has studied the HVE and actually has 5 of the 10 known HVEs including the numbers matching Horizon and its engine. Overview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNLpHGy3fVw

Running on a stand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDL65UUjOss&t=431s

Discussing cams for the Iron Duke version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS9serKZ30s&t=263s

After having read what was readily available I have gone further down the research trail than most. I was aided by documents from DeLorean's files and other documents and articles from the past. What I have gleaned is that it is a polarizing issue driven by Smokey's legend, myth or infamous reputation. The claims are well know, but there is no proof. My question is this: Would the data pulled from 12 Dyno pulls and 10 road tests of MPG from SwRI be proof? How about reports by engineers at SwRI? Or reports and quotes from someone like Gregory Flynn who ran GM's Motor Division attesting to it working? If those showed approximately the 50MPG, Zero Emissions, 1.8 HP/CI from a 1.3l Engine using a carburetor and other tech available in 1982, would that be enough for people to say it worked?

 

[SameName4Everything]

Quick update. I was able to track down one of the original engineers that tested the engine in 81/82. Had a great conversation. Meeting with him Saturday. I will keep y'all posted. Still looking at having the car run on the 9th of May.

 

[SameName4Everything]

We will not make the run of the Horizon this weekend, but I will be posting some of the Dyno pulls on Sunday. We do, now, have all three tests results, Mar 81, APR 81 and Jan 82. so, we can track progress. Meanwhile, here are some pictures from the testing done in 82 and the DMC on the Dyno.

 

[SameName4Everything]

DYNO and other Data Here:

https://www.facebook.com/ThePhoenixEngine

 

[SameName4Everything]

 

[SameName4Everything]

 

[Lou Scannon]

It may be that Smokey correctly anticipated the current downsized, turbocharged trend for gasoline passenger car engines, but I don't see anything remarkable in those results.
It could be that by time they were able to meet emissions with a validated deterioration factor (this typically involves sacrificing some power and efficiency), assuming they got that far, there wasn't enough advantage left to justify further development at that time.

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

 

[BrianPetersen]

If they were discussing when to change gears, I smell shenanigans. When performing the EPA test procedure, thou shalt upshift to 2nd gear at 15 miles per hour. Thou shalt upshift to 3rd at 25 mph, and 4th at 40 mph. The end. All cars are treated the same. The absence of being able to factor in engine load is a lot of why modern automatics do better than manuals (that wasn't true in Smokey's era, in which three speec automatics were the norm and lock-up torque converters with simplistic control logic were a new invention).

 

[SameName4Everything]

If they were discussing when to change gears, I smell shenanigans. When performing the EPA test procedure, thou shalt upshift to 2nd gear at 15 miles per hour. Thou shalt upshift to 3rd at 25 mph, and 4th at 40 mph. The end. All cars are treated the same. The absence of being able to factor in engine load is a lot of why modern automatics do better than manuals (that wasn't true in Smokey's era, in which three speec automatics were the norm and lock-up torque converters with simplistic control logic were a new invention)

I discussed some of this with Mel Ingalls, one of the SwRI engineers and writer of a couple of the reports. The reason you are aware of the shift points is precisely how you know there are no shenanigans. SwRI was there to report everything that happened and how the tests were conducted. The test where they passed emissions was the third. This report was from the first. They made improvements each of the series of test. Mel was amazed that Smokey was able to digest and apply what he was told concerning the causes and solutions to emission failures. Smokey's world had always been about power, speed and quickness. He had to rethink, which he did.

 

[SameName4Everything]

It may be that Smokey correctly anticipated the current downsized, turbocharged trend for gasoline passenger car engines, but I don't see anything remarkable in those results.
It could be that by time they were able to meet emissions with a validated deterioration factor (this typically involves sacrificing some power and efficiency), assuming they got that far, there wasn't enough advantage left to justify further development at that time.

At the end of the testing cycle of the three runs at SwRI, MPG determined through a city and highway loop and other testing, they did decide to go forward. Money was paid. De Lorean out bid GM. If you take a look at the post from 1APR21 at 2254 or so you will see that no sacrifice was made in power, in fact the opposite was true. 48.25 alone would put this car top 10 all time and all the other cars on that list are hybrids: The following description, found in the patent came from a report on the engine that Gregory Flynn wrote. I can't see how anyone would not find them remarkable. In fact they are so remarkable that people have been denouncing the engine for years. Now, that concrete proof is being unearthed that the engine did, in fact, work and did achieve results not achieve prior of since, they claim that todays engines out perform the HVE. I have a completely open mind and would gladly admit that I am wrong if some one can show me an engine with the following performance characteristics.

An engine and fuel system embodying the present invention was constructed and installed in a 1980 Buick Skylark. The vehicle weighed 3,005 lbs, two passengers, full fuel accelerated 0-060 M.P.H. in 9.4 seconds. The mechanical parameters for the engine are listed in Table I. A measured torque curve is illustrated in FIG. 10 and indicates a remarkably level torque output, in excess of 225 ft-lbs, for an operating range of 2000-4400 rpm. Those in the art will recognize that the disclosed power output for a three-cylinder engine having a displacement of 125 cubic inches and weighing only 320 lbs. in its operating mode including clutch and bell housing is substantially more than one would expect from an engine this size. Moreover, it was found that the engine was remarkably vibration free and the radiator with which the above identified vehicle was originally equipped was reduced in size and capacity by about 50%.
TABLE I
Engine Type:3 cyl,overhead valve
Displacement: 125 cu.in.
Bore:3.950 in.
Stroke:3.4 in.
Rod length6.5 in.
Horsepower 240 Hp at 4000 RPM (special high performance fuel-test code 20 with 21 pound boost)
Horsepower 190 Hp at 4400 RPM (93 octane unleaded gasoline with 10 pound boost)
Weight 320 lbs.
Fuel economy 48.25 MPG (combined city and highway)

 

[Lou Scannon]

In the SWRI report I'm seeing just a little over half the 48.25 fuel economy you just posted. That's actually a pretty miraculous number, and indicates an engine thermal efficiency that is, let's say, unthinkable, if this is all wrapped in a state of the art 1980 Buick Skylark.
If the technology really worked, there should be a modern example of the same technology achieving even better results. Where is it?

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

 

[BrianPetersen]

Just to be clear, the 48 mpg US was not an EPA test procedure number. The SWRI test above suggests 29-ish mpg combined in the Federal Test Procedure.

I would submit that today's VW Jetta 1.4T is roughly comparable in size and weight to that Skylark (actually weighs more), not too far off in power output (147 hp), and it has EPA ratings of 30 city 40 highway 34 combined, and that's using the modified reporting used nowadays that intentionally down-rates the actual EPA test numbers in order to more closely coincide with what people actually get ... and it conforms to today's emission standards.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Pow...9&make=Volkswagen&baseModel=Jetta&srchtyp=ymm

And I don't mean to take away from anything Smokey did back then. (See my posts early in in this thread. Still true.) Many of the objectives that Smokey had back then, have since been achieved by other means. The 1.4T is also a downsized turbocharged engine. The 1.4T has variable valve timing - hadn't been put into production in Smokey's era. The 1.4T has direct-injection, which solves the fuel maldistribution that Smokey was trying to address, although it achieves that by different means. The 1.4T is connected to a better transmission than what was the norm in Smokey's era. The 1.4T has electronic engine management that does stuff that was unimaginable back then. The VW 1.4T could not have been built, and properly controlled, in the early 1980s. Smokey is to be commended for recognising what some of the issues were, and taking a good crack at fixing them.

 

[BrianPetersen]

I should add that 48 mpg was achieved on a loop on public roads, as I understand it, and driving at the posted speed limit. Not having to adhere to the EPA's rigidly prescribed manual-transmission gear-shift speeds opens up some opportunity for the driver to be more efficient, and driving at the speed limits (whatever they happen to be, I gather that this test was at lower speeds) also opens some opportunity for beating the EPA highway test numbers. I'm pretty sure the above-mentioned Jetta 1.4T can be coaxed to get 48 mpg US (about 5 litres per 100 km) by driving like that.

 

[CWB1]

Not having to adhere to the EPA's rigidly prescribed manual-transmission gear-shift speeds opens up some opportunity for the driver to be more efficient...

Yup, hence the ease with which a conscious driver can beat the average. My MY10 driver is rated at 25/35 & 29 combined, yet I average ~35 most weeks, live in the city, and commute ~50 miles daily.

 

[SameName4Everything]

Just to be clear, the 48 mpg US was not an EPA test procedure number. The SWRI test above suggests 29-ish mpg combined in the Federal Test Procedure.

I would submit that today's VW Jetta 1.4T is roughly comparable in size and weight to that Skylark (actually weighs more), not too far off in power output (147 hp), and it has EPA ratings of 30 city 40 highway 34 combined, and that's using the modified reporting used nowadays that intentionally down-rates the actual EPA test numbers in order to more closely coincide with what people actually get ... and it conforms to today's emission standards.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?act...

And I don't mean to take away from anything Smokey did back then. (See my posts early in in this thread. Still true.) Many of the objectives that Smokey had back then, have since been achieved by other means. The 1.4T is also a downsized turbocharged engine. The 1.4T has variable valve timing - hadn't been put into production in Smokey's era. The 1.4T has direct-injection, which solves the fuel maldistribution that Smokey was trying to address, although it achieves that by different means. The 1.4T is connected to a better transmission than what was the norm in Smokey's era. The 1.4T has electronic engine management that does stuff that was unimaginable back then. The VW 1.4T could not have been built, and properly controlled, in the early 1980s. Smokey is to be commended for recognising what some of the issues were, and taking a good crack at fixing them.

147HP is sort of far off of 190HP.

I don't want to misquote Melvin Ingalls, so I will wait for clarification. He can go on for hours about the testing and the accuracy of a road vs a bag test. But I am pretty sure he said something about which was the more accurate test.

Many people sort of back into the potential, even while expressing doubt and concerns of the limitations. So maybe it is a mater of expression. Let's state it a different way: The basic I.C.E. vehicle of 1980 has been vastly improved by the advent of, variable timing, fabrication materials, fabrication processes, advances in lubrication, transmission technology, EFI, onboard computer monitoring and control and turbo power and efficiency. What should the expected results be if you applied the same upgrades to an engine that was superior in almost, if not, every way?

 

[3DDave]

Depending on the as-yet undetermined actual reason for the seemingly "superior in almost every way" engine, it could be that it gets worse. Overlapping techniques to produce the same results tend to prevent either from peak performance.

The modern changes all have directly attributable effects, but so far there seems to be no more explanation for this engine than "something that is not understood" happens.

I really don't care much about fuel economy of an entire car, that's affected by a large number of non-engine factors.

What is the horsepower specific fuel consumption compared to similar engines against the RPM?

If it's better, then where is the energy lost in the other engines that is being captured to the crankshaft by this one?

 

[BrianPetersen]

What should the expected results be if you applied the same upgrades to an engine that was superior in almost, if not, every way?

I would expect limited benefit, if any, and potentially adverse effects due to this concept not being designed into the system and thus interfering with other aspects of its operation.

If you have a source of loss, and you can (ideally) eliminate that loss by method A, or eliminate that loss by method B, you cannot eliminate it twice once you have eliminate it!

It is perhaps worthy of note that the VW 1.4T is intercooled ... and it has a 10.0:1 compression ratio despite being forced induction ... and it is operating at somewhere near 1 bar (15 psi) maximum boost pressure. If you want higher intake temp then it would be a simple matter of disabling the intercooler (or not installing one). But that isn't the chosen route. I'm thinking that the real efficiency benefit from having a 10:1 compression ratio is better.

The 1.4T is direct-injection using a much higher injection pressure than the norm in port-injected engines. If it weren't direct-injection, they wouldn't be able to use as much compression. Single-point injection upstream of a turbo compressor is a non-starter for emissions compliance reasons (among others).

The 1.4T uses variable valve timing which allows the engine to simulate the Atkinson cycle when running at part load. What would be gained by raising the intake temperature?

If the 1.4TSI doesn't make enough power for you, use the 1.8TSI or the 2.0TSI. But those engines aren't marketed or calibrated for economy.

 

[TugboatEng]

I did some emissions upgrades on some 71 series Detroit Diesel engines a few years back. I was able to talk with the inventor of the kit. He was similar to Smokey as he didn't have formal education, he liked to call it "school of hard knocks". The kit he developed was called Clean Cam Technology. The kit was able to achieve US EPA Tier 2 without electronic controls, EGR, or after treatment which was remarkable. The kit consisted of an exhaust cam with much of the lift ground off. On the 2-stroke engine this prevents the cylinder from scavenging correctly so a large amount of exhaust stays in the cylinder. This acts as an in cylinder EGR to drop NOx emissions, he also claimed that the second burn reduced PM. The highest tension spring available was used in the oil control ring pack. A turbocharger is added to make up for the lost air flow from the reduced valve opening. There was a drop in compression ratio as well, I think 18 down to 16 but the second generation brought it up to 17. The engines in my fleet have performed fantastically. They have 24k hours each but they will be getting phased out this year to take advantage of funding available.

 

[GregLocock]

Until we see a bsfc map then this is fun, but idle, speculation.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Lou Scannon]

Great idea! How about NOx, HC and CO maps into the bargain? I'll settle for catalyst out. But then the BSFC map needs to be with catalyst fitted.

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

 

[TugboatEng]

I should post, the Clean Cams kit got certified but the company is now defunct.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/eqpr/kits/ccts/ccts.htm