Nissan’s plans for the future? A lot fewer internal combustion engines according to this report from Nikkei Asia.
The article says that Nissan plans to end the development of new engines in many of its core markets and instead focus solely on electric vehicles.
The United States, one of those markets, will supposedly still get a “limited development” of …
FWIW, I loved my SR20DE.
David S. Wallens said:FWIW, I loved my SR20DE.
As I've now been flogging the same Nissan A12 engine for the past 38 years I'm pretty sure I'll be fine.
I thought Nissan stopped developing new engines like 10 years ago
Maybe they could focus on building a CVT tranny that lasts a while.
In reply to maschinenbau :
No. That was sporty cars & it was 20 years ago...
secretariata (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to maschinenbau :
No. That was sporty cars & it was 20 years ago...
So RWD 2 seaters are not sporty? Tough crowd.
There really isn't a whole lot more to be squeezed out of an internal combustion engine. Certainly not enough to spend six to eight billion to develop an entirely new platform, anyway, because it's not like Ford leaving the flathead behind to build an overhead valve engine. Any technical improvements developed in the future could be bolt on parts. The basic architecture is fine.
In reply to parker :
I was commenting on the lack of development considering the "Z" is basically the same since 2003...
In reply to Streetwiseguy :
It's not so much a matter of squeezing more out of it, but decreasing the emissions while keeping the squeeze the same. Also, fuel economy targets are climbing. The gains are getting more and more difficult, that's for sure.
parker said:secretariata (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to maschinenbau :
No. That was sporty cars & it was 20 years ago...
So RWD 2 seaters are not sporty? Tough crowd.
A fullsize pickup can be a RWD 2 seater. For instance.
Streetwiseguy said:There really isn't a whole lot more to be squeezed out of an internal combustion engine. Certainly not enough to spend six to eight billion to develop an entirely new platform, anyway, because it's not like Ford leaving the flathead behind to build an overhead valve engine. Any technical improvements developed in the future could be bolt on parts. The basic architecture is fine.
There's still room.
One big fuel economy/emissions gain will be when large engines in MD and HD trucks can run stoich even at full throttle. That's a hard material issue.
But in terms of emissions and efficiency- there's still a lot that can be done, especially as part of a hybrid system.
alfadriver said:Streetwiseguy said:There really isn't a whole lot more to be squeezed out of an internal combustion engine. Certainly not enough to spend six to eight billion to develop an entirely new platform, anyway, because it's not like Ford leaving the flathead behind to build an overhead valve engine. Any technical improvements developed in the future could be bolt on parts. The basic architecture is fine.
There's still room.
One big fuel economy/emissions gain will be when large engines in MD and HD trucks can run stoich even at full throttle. That's a hard material issue.
But in terms of emissions and efficiency- there's still a lot that can be done, especially as part of a hybrid system.
Sure, there is still room, but how much of it is dependant on creating an engine with different bore centers, or taller deck height?
In reply to Streetwiseguy :
With the shift to heavily underbored engines, enough.
Even still, the head-piston-injector-ignighter system is being incredibly scrutinized, not exactly "bolt on" parts.
secretariata (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to parker :
I was commenting on the lack of development considering the "Z" is basically the same since 2003...
Exactly. The "new" Z is still on the same platform as the 2003 350Z/G35, and uses an engine architecture from the same decade.
alfadriver said:There's still room.
One big fuel economy/emissions gain will be when large engines in MD and HD trucks can run stoich even at full throttle. That's a hard material issue.
But in terms of emissions and efficiency- there's still a lot that can be done, especially as part of a hybrid system.
Agreed. That's such a big gain that in some cases, I've seen dropping a gear, raising RPM by 40% and getting out of power enrichment when pulling a heavy load yield the same or better fuel economy despite the significantly increased pumping losses at higher rpm / less throttle and higher windage and friction losses.
alfadriver said:There's still room.
One big fuel economy/emissions gain will be when large engines in MD and HD trucks can run stoich even at full throttle. That's a hard material issue.
But in terms of emissions and efficiency- there's still a lot that can be done, especially as part of a hybrid system.
I'm not sure it is really just a hard material issue. My 8.1, for example, doesn't have PE even at WOT and doesn't have any compensation to make up for it in the VE table or anything. They just dial timing way back to try to limit knock, which is a huge part of why such a big engine is rated at 340 horsepower (325 for the later ones). After all the timing modifiers and KR, if you are running 87 octane you're lucky to see 15 degrees advance at WOT.
Some of the stuff I have seen doing some work with the new Ford 7.3 says that it also has extremely limited PE for the F450+ version. You can't make any power doing this, though. I think the HD version of the Ford engine is down 80 horsepower versus the light truck version and has a torque curve very similar to the old GM 8.1, and it appears to be mostly because of this tuning strategy. It makes a lot of sense for the MD/HD market but consumer demands being what they are, I doubt sales would be very good in the LD market for an engine like that making tiny power numbers today. Talking a little further out of my wheelhouse, but I think there are also some negatives on the NOx side of running near stoich at WOT because you are playing with that fine line of pinging/detonation and things get pretty hot.
The flipside of this is that direct injection can let you do some interesting things with stratified charges that can potentially allow much leaner combustion at partial throttle, but again I think NOx goes through the roof and your controls and injection have to be extremely precise. In practice, this is much easier to do for the life of an engine with diesel than with gas. DI is an architecture jump, but Nissan has already made it on the latest iterations of their engines I think.
In reply to gearheadE30 :
Some engines go pretty light or nonexistent on PE when you first go WOT, but will richen up more if you stay WOT for more than a few seconds to keep things from getting excessively hot. I'd be surprised if the 8.1 truly has no PE at any point.
Streetwiseguy said:alfadriver said:Streetwiseguy said:There really isn't a whole lot more to be squeezed out of an internal combustion engine. Certainly not enough to spend six to eight billion to develop an entirely new platform, anyway, because it's not like Ford leaving the flathead behind to build an overhead valve engine. Any technical improvements developed in the future could be bolt on parts. The basic architecture is fine.
There's still room.
One big fuel economy/emissions gain will be when large engines in MD and HD trucks can run stoich even at full throttle. That's a hard material issue.
But in terms of emissions and efficiency- there's still a lot that can be done, especially as part of a hybrid system.
Sure, there is still room, but how much of it is dependant on creating an engine with different bore centers, or taller deck height?
This is an interesting time, because in the past it looked like VW had painted itself into a corner with their 88mm bore centers so their only options for larger displacement engines was more cylinders.
Now, it looks like they hit the sweet spot...
Streetwiseguy said:There really isn't a whole lot more to be squeezed out of an internal combustion engine. Certainly not enough to spend six to eight billion to develop an entirely new platform, anyway, because it's not like Ford leaving the flathead behind to build an overhead valve engine. Any technical improvements developed in the future could be bolt on parts. The basic architecture is fine.
Kind of this. The incremental gains are geometry in the cylinder heads (ever see a late model Mercedes engine's head?) or crazy yet adaptable things like Hyundai's continuously variable camshaft duration.
It should be noted that when Ford hatched the Y block, which had overhead valves and five main bearings and other crazy things, the block itself looked superficially a lot like a Flathead with mushroom tappets and the deck had vestigial valve seat casting holes.
So, this thing isn't the future then..VC Turbo
Koenigsegg's FreeValve tech is the only recent ICE development that's been exciting for me. No throttle body or camshafts, individually actuated valves were the stuff of dreams when computers started controlling engine functions.
In reply to gearheadE30 :
The enrichment isn't for power, it's for component protection. For the most part, the heads have been taken care of- valve seat materials have been developed to deal with >1000C without recession. In the exhaust, you can use cast stainless manifolds, which can exceed 1050C- but the current weakness is the O2 sensors and the catalyst. There has been a massive change in catalyst washcoats that allow for >1000C exhaust, but they are still being developed. The part that really has expensive issues are turbos- which is one more reason really large engines are making a comeback.
Dealing with WOT NOx isn't a big deal, as it may seem- as long as you have a good control over the a/f (which everyone really does now), it's easy to convert. And even for those, there are some add on's in terms of catalysts that are being developed to deal with CO that does an incredible job on NOx.
The actual power reduction for staying lean is far more about knock than it is about fuel- the fuel on it's own only is about 5% better, but the knock reduction is a lot more. So if knock can be mitigated at WOT-stoich, that would be the major path.
A very big deal that is coming up in '27 is the requirement that the US06 matches the FTP test in terms of NMOG+NOx for all vehicles.
There is really a lot coming.
j_tso said:Koenigsegg's FreeValve tech is the only recent ICE development that's been exciting for me. No throttle body or camshafts, individually actuated valves were the stuff of dreams when computers started controlling engine functions.
Don't hold your breath. They are the last ones left working on it- as pretty much every OEM out there sunk a lot of money into that without finding a good enough solution. And since there are a lot of ideas for much of the freevalve benefits but with a cam driven device- I don't see anyone going freevalve before EV's take over the entire market.
alfadriver said:j_tso said:Koenigsegg's FreeValve tech is the only recent ICE development that's been exciting for me. No throttle body or camshafts, individually actuated valves were the stuff of dreams when computers started controlling engine functions.
Don't hold your breath. They are the last ones left working on it- as pretty much every OEM out there sunk a lot of money into that without finding a good enough solution. And since there are a lot of ideas for much of the freevalve benefits but with a cam driven device- I don't see anyone going freevalve before EV's take over the entire market.
Interesting, I figured Freevalve wouldn't make it to market before EVs took over, but it seemed like a sure thing that it would for whatever ICE vehicles are still being produced...the benefits seem huge if you can make it last. I assume the cam-driven alternative would be something like a combination of desmodromic valves and BMW's valve-throttling?
You'll need to log in to post.
