Car remapping

[dweezil]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

225 kW version
Introduced in May 2019 this engine features a reinforced crankshaft with larger main bearings and new pistons with a lower 9.5:1 compression ratio, this allows the engine to take more boost pressure from a larger turbocharger, which blows compressed air through a reworked intake tract.

We used to have the same discussion about some diesels in tractors where engines up the range looked identical: go through the parts list as the power increased and loads of components were upgraded.

 

[PaulMB]

I'm the poster Paul is referencing in his post and whilst I don't "hang it from the big bell" it's never been a secret that I work as an engine designer within The Motoren Werke in Bavaria.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

In that case could you design, just for me, an UNBLOWN straight six in the 3.0 - 3.5 liter range? 200 - 250 HP is plenty and I don't care about fuel consumption.
I had one of your 2 liter straight sixes and now a 2.8, both beautiful engines!

 

[paul rich]

Yes, I had one. A 1992 2L 8v petrol Vauxhall Opel that ran in my hands to 155k miles, then in the less than sympathetic hands of my friend who took it beyond 200k miles/300k km. When it eventually died, the car having fallen apart around the engine, the engine ran like a Swiss watch, no knocks, rattles, no oil burning, nothing. Now OK, that engine didn't meet the latest EU standards, but there is no reason why it couldn't take on the latest sensors, ECU, etc to do so. The fundamental engine design hasn't changed that much AFAIA aware, the emissions are all about control of injection, ignition, etc and not the fundamental design. The Cav, by the way, got to 200k miles and I know for a fact that the cam cover was never taken off. So no "major overhaul", no overhaul at all, just 9k mile oil and filter changes, spark plugs and cam belts. No, I didn't believe it either.

With respect, your 1992 Vauxhall would not qualify as an answer to my question to Bor: "meets latest Euro emissions limits".

I took a 1988 BMW 530i upto about 250,000 miles, servicing aside it's engine only needed a water pump. It used neither water nor oil between services. This petrol engine produced 188bhp from 3000cc. A current 2000cc BMW engine produces 181bhp at roughly the same engine speed. Same power at 2/3 of the capacity, I think for a low cost mass produced engine that has to degrade longevity.

Emissions on the new engine are a fraction of those of the older one. Its not as simple as "control of injection and ignition". There are mechanical design features that improve combustion to reduce NOx and particulates and to reduce fuel consumption. Not all changes complement engine longevity.

 

[Tony Lockhart]

As long as BMW stop fitting floppy timing chains to the rear of some of their engines, the world will be a better place. But that was 4 cylinder diesel engines that ate themselves, and the world doesn’t care about them now.

Direct injection has changed a lot about the design of a cylinder head, I’d have thought. No more trying to ‘swirl’ the incoming charge to get the most out of it.

 

[paul rich]

Surely that’s easy?

Yes, various sensors will need to be replaced, maybe the GPF could cause issues, and the turbocharger might give up, but a major overhaul in under 200,000 miles? Naaa, it’ll be fine, as long as bad luck or regular thrashing from cold don’t feature.

I can't find the press release to reference it, but during dieselgate a Mercedes spokesperson said that it wasn't possible to meet modern emissions limits and produce 200k miles engines.

 

[Tony Lockhart]

I can't find the press release to reference it, but during dieselgate a Mercedes spokesperson said that it wasn't possible to meet modern emissions limits and produce 200k miles engines.

And he'll have to excuse the whole world if they choose, based on history/reputation, not to believe a single word he says.

My OM651 engined C Class covered about 150,000 miles under my ownership from new, and at the last MoT it had covered another 50,000 miles. That will have been on the original engine, as a knackered engine would make the car beyond economic repair. They CAN do it, but they don't want to admit certain aspects of the result.

Remember the hoohaa about unleaded being introduced, and leaded being phased out?

 

[dweezil]

And he'll have to excuse the whole world if they choose, based on history/reputation, not to believe a single word he says.

My OM651 engined C Class covered about 150,000 miles under my ownership from new, and at the last MoT it had covered another 50,000 miles. That will have been on the original engine, as a knackered engine would make the car beyond economic repair. They CAN do it, but they don't want to admit certain aspects of the result.

Remember the hoohaa about unleaded being introduced, and leaded being phased out?

Remember it well, had hardened valve seats put in my Midget.

Previous owner had a major overhaul done at 30k miles, with hardened seats running on a good synthetic with plenty of zddp it was as good as new when i sold it with another 60k on the clock.

 

[gez]

The non-turbocharged engine would produce too little power, and be overpriced. It wouldn’t sell.

When I had a VW Bora with the 130bhp TDi engine, I had people tell me their lower rated engine was the same as mine except for the ECU because theirs would remap to 130bhp. But, I would reply, mine remaps to 170bhp. And that was limited by the clutch. And the 150bhp engine would remap to about 190, as it had a few differences here and there.

What it all comes down to is trying to find out what you might be letting yourself in for before buying. No manufacturer or remapper is going to cough up for a new engine if piston crowns melt, I can pretty much guarantee that.

Hmmmm it would work as you describe, but........such a low compression engine, ready for a turbo to be fitted would be pretty poor without the turbo. Fuel consumption, power and torque would all be very inferior to an engine of the same capacity but with a compression ratio optimised for normally aspirated induction. I've never heard of a company doing this and can't imagine why one would.

Yes, but the point was just that the engine would be technically viable. Obviously it would be underpowered and non saleable. What I was trying to illustrate is that an engine can be built and be able to support a range of turbo boost levels and thus a car manufacturer could easily provide various models using the engine with various power outputs. Just like BMW (and likely other marques) do.

 

[gez]

What it all comes down to is trying to find out what you might be letting yourself in for before buying. No manufacturer or remapper is going to cough up for a new engine if piston crowns melt, I can pretty much guarantee that.

Absolutely! Always doubt claims.

 

[gez]

LOL, what a coincidence. I am pleased I accurately conveyed your message over to this forum, I would have felt embarrassed if you had taken me to task over inaccuracies

I'd like to take up your offer of asking a question. Do you think it is possible to build a standard mass production petrol engine that meets latest Euro emissions limits and if serviced correctly can run reliably without major overhaul to say 300,000km?

A lot is going to depend on what you define a "major overhaul" as. Different people have different opinions on that, e.g. some may not consider it a major overhaul unless cams are replaced, bores resleaved etc. Others would consider it a major overhaul for far less.

 

[stevec67]

With respect, your 1992 Vauxhall would not qualify as an answer to my question to Bor: "meets latest Euro emissions limits".

I took a 1988 BMW 530i upto about 250,000 miles, servicing aside it's engine only needed a water pump. It used neither water nor oil between services. This petrol engine produced 188bhp from 3000cc. A current 2000cc BMW engine produces 181bhp at roughly the same engine speed. Same power at 2/3 of the capacity, I think for a low cost mass produced engine that has to degrade longevity.

Emissions on the new engine are a fraction of those of the older one. Its not as simple as "control of injection and ignition". There are mechanical design features that improve combustion to reduce NOx and particulates and to reduce fuel consumption. Not all changes complement engine longevity.

I noted that that's what you said, and I'm suggesting that the engine design characteristic that made it last to 200k miles could be transferred to a modern engine, if it were fitted with all of the emissions sensors that ensured that it ran clean. Some designs may have other mechanical changes to make them cleaner, but I've never heard of these having a hugely negative impact on longevity. Of course, we chould also near in mind that turbos don't help longevity, nor does high power.

 

[gez]

In that case could you design, just for me, an UNBLOWN straight six in the 3.0 - 3.5 liter range? 200 - 250 HP is plenty and I don't care about fuel consumption.
I had one of your 2 liter straight sixes and now a 2.8, both beautiful engines!

Already done, it's called the N52. 3L straight six with either 218 or 265ps (in the UK at least). The E8x 1 series BMWs have them (specifically the 125i coupe & 130i hatch).

 

[stevec67]

I can't find the press release to reference it, but during dieselgate a Mercedes spokesperson said that it wasn't possible to meet modern emissions limits and produce 200k miles engines.

Smells like Grade A BS.

 

[Tony Lockhart]

Yes, but the point was just that the engine would be technically viable. Obviously it would be underpowered and non saleable. What I was trying to illustrate is that an engine can be built and be able to support a range of turbo boost levels and thus a car manufacturer could easily provide various models using the engine with various power outputs. Just like BMW (and likely other marques) do.

A large number of posts in this thread already mention the same basic engine with different states of tune.

However, a non-turbo engine is pretty much a non-starter now anyway.

The differences between the cylinder head design, induction, exhaust, cooling, fuel deliver would make it a non-starter.

As time has gone by in the last 20 years, turbochargers have become more and more integrated into the exhaust manifold and now the cylinder head. You really can’t have the engine in my Passat without a turbo, it would need a complete redesign.

 

[bor]

We used to have the same discussion about some diesels in tractors where engines up the range looked identical: go through the parts list as the power increased and loads of components were upgraded.

Just a quick comment on this, because we see it in regard to our "building block" strategy, and it can be misleading:

Part A is fitted to the 100BHP motor
Part B is fitted to the 200BHP motor

Because they are geometrically similar, I always propose that we release Part B as the spare part for both engines.

Anyone looking at the spare part document might then wrongly assume that the 100BHP production engine is also fitted with the part that is good for 200BHP, which generally isn't the case.

 

[stevec67]

A lot is going to depend on what you define a "major overhaul" as. Different people have different opinions on that, e.g. some may not consider it a major overhaul unless cams are replaced, bores resleaved etc. Others would consider it a major overhaul for far less.

I'd call major overhaul any engine internal bearings (mains, big ends, camshaft), bores, pistons, rings or cam replacement. What I do know is that the Cav That Would Not Die did 200k miles without the cam cover ever coming off (or the sump, for that matter).

I'm currently driving a 203k mile, 2009 Audi 3.0 v6 that has done similar on, astonishingly, 20k mile oil changes. I've now got it on 10k intervals, because it's cheap insurance.

 

[PaulMB]

Already done, it's called the N52. 3L straight six with either 218 or 265ps (in the UK at least). The E8x 1 series BMWs have them (specifically the 125i coupe & 130i hatch).

Yes, but they don't make it anymore. At least not in an unblown version.

 

[bor]

Do you think it is possible to build a standard mass production petrol engine that meets latest Euro emissions limits and if serviced correctly can run reliably without major overhaul to say 300,000km?

EURO 7 is about to be introduced, but we don't see too many problems meeting this, at least in our area. Diesel might be a lot harder due to their ongoing sensitivity to DPF clogging.

For petrol engines we will be making some tweaks, but that should not have any negative effects on the base components reaching 300k.

Might be harder for the fuel injectors for example.

 

[gez]

Yes, but they don't make it anymore. At least not in an unblown version.

Ah ok, didn't realise you needed new. Also, best as I can tell the N52 was never turbocharged. N54 certainly was obviously. N52 was the last NA inline 6 BMW built (as I'm sure you know). Hence why I'm hanging on to my car until such time as I can afford to replace it with a vehicle wrapped around a 6 cylinder NA boxer engine

 

[bor]

In that case could you design, just for me, an UNBLOWN straight six in the 3.0 - 3.5 liter range? 200 - 250 HP is plenty and I don't care about fuel consumption.

I think that ship has sailed I'm afraid. I think the market acceptance for a non-turbo engine would be too low to make a convincing business case.