New to the consumer. I would recommend, for the average Joe, wait 2 to five years before buying and wait till well off consumers get the experience and the headaches of the engine. Looks like more moving parts more problems and expense to repair.
Finally the engine everyone dream of that nobody could correctly build. Hands off to the Japanese again for a superior engine design. This engine will be use to make some insane power in later years
Apparently NHTSA is investigating why there are so many engines being replaced due to stalling, knocking, and failure. I hope they don't issue a recall, as I have a 2022 that (to me) has been fine. I just hate how the AC/heat system doesn't work properly and he dealership doesn't have a fix. I don't want to go through an engine replacement in the near future, the car will never be right.
It's probably over-engineered to reduce failures. I would wager the first generation will be the most stout, and subsequent generations will approach the fine line of just right design.
My Variable compression ratio design would be an eccentric intake camshaft and a hydraulic based variable valve lift and event system. Instead of using a complicated multilink system, it varies the intake valve lift duration to prevent knock (ranging from otto cycle to miller cycle and anywhere in between to effectively vary the compression ratio from 16:1 to 11.5:1) and homogeneous charge compression ignition at lower rpms combined with electric assist and cylinder deactivation for maximum fuel economy and torque that rivals a 2 liter turbo 4 in a sculpted CGI block naturally aspirated 3.4 liter V6 package with a target of 295 ft-lbs at the mid 3000s and 311 hp at the mid 6000s and a 7000 rpm redline. And also a soundaktor and acoustic tubes for ultimate in cabin engine sound. Also instead of FWD it will use a small diameter boron steel driveshaft RWD drive CV axle system. Also eliminate the accessory belt completely and use a 48 volt brushless DC air conditioner compressor, electric power steering, an integrated harmonic balancer and motor generator rotor for the 48 volt system, and electric water pump and eliminate the thermostat.
I think it would work better if you put springs on the piston. If your just want that extra fuel economy. Would give better strock. All you need is a spring in each piston rated at 10ft pound or so. When the piston compress it would give you that 8:1 then at low rpms and low psi the piston would go back to a 10:1. Would give you more horses and low mass add to rotating asinbly, and it would work on V engines.
So many negative comments here. Good grief! Well if you don't want it or can't afford it then don't buy it!! I myself would get it once they iron out the kinks.
Excellent summary and cool tech. As for whether it's too complicated to be reliable, doesn't seem so- it looks like an extra shaft and connection, w/ out balancing shafts. Volvo is putting turbo and supercharged engines in production, can't be more complicated and stressed than that.
even if it isn't practical at all, it's still nice to see people trying to go back to the drawing board. it seems to my not so practiced self quite a monument to properly distribute the force applied to a crankshaft in motion, its why we dont. but if you COULD, that opens up alot of interesting doors. i'd say the bottom end of the ICB hasn't really changed terribly much in function since... ever.
Except for the oil consumption there wasn't a whole lot wrong with the outgoing VQ motor so why would you replace that with an over engineered four-banger?
What kind of fuel they will be burning if they are so confident? As a result of the new mechanical engagement, when leverages and sub camshaft are adjusted to higher compression ratio the piston is engaged in "Gonzales" speed versus crank rotation ???
Compression ratio until 14:1. It should go to about 30:1. The second conrod of each cilinder sholuld rotate about 180 degrees, then the motor could be less tall. Sorry by my english. Compressão até 14:1. Deveria ir até uns 30:1. A segunda biela de cada cilindro deveria rotacionar mais ou menos 180 graus, de modo q o motor seria mais baixo.
Cromo 30:1 compression ratio? Good luck with that 14:1 is already really high for a small gasoline engine big block dodges in the 60's had such high compression that they blew spark plugs out of the engines and they were no were near 20:1 much less 30:1
Removing the 180-degree rod rotation is a primary reason for not needing a counterbalancer. It also allows the rod to be at near vertical on the compression/power stroke, reducing piston friction and wear-and-tear on the cylinder sleeve. It's all clearly explained in this video.
I didn't say anything about the 30:1 ratio. That's a different poster. Nonetheless, a 30:1 compression is going into diesel-engine territory. Gasoline engines will not tolerate such a high compression ratio due to engine knock.
Gmon750 I thought you were seconding his claim of 30:1 c/r and your exactly right that's what I was trying to explain to the other guy that gasoline engines can't handle extreme compression similar to 30:1 as far as I know the highest reliable compression ratio in a gas engine is 16:1
Shantnu Mehta you will only get the 14:1 cr if you’re running premium fuel(which is recommended) which at that point the engine isn’t experiencing knock.
This design is literally an atkinson engine. Holding the intake valve open at the start of the compression stroke is not atkinson, thats boudack or immitation atkinson. An atkinson engine has compression that is changed on the compresdion stroke which is performed by varying the stroke mechanically. The atkinson cycle is as old as the otto cycle and came out in the 1880's. The only improvement here is the ability to adjust the affect. Atkinsons engines were fixed and had a different cr for up stroke than it had for downstroke.
the saab svc was much simpler, too bad GM axed it. i'd like to see this engine in a racing environment for a few years, to foster accelerated development.
The UAW builds what they're told to. Engineers have to come up with a workable, durable design. Hopefully, Infiniti has. Sam answered my question, have they tested this thing to death?
I dont' think so, too much cost. DEF injection systems to control NO2. Canister filters to capture soot and burn it off when the filter starts to clog up. Diesel in the US is going nowhere. GM is history no matter what they build. GM couldn't build diesel, gas or anything else.
Smokey Walker The colorado has a diesel, the half tons are getting a diesel, the terrain has a diesel, i really wouldn't be surprised if more gm cars went that way. Americans are slowly starting to embrace diesels. The dpf's aren't as bad as people make them out to be. There were problems when the technology was first introduced but it's fairly solid at this point. Bmw, mercedes, and jag diesel sales are decent, and the fact that we're getting them at all means there's a demand. Look at the terrain, 38mpg in an suv. People with diesel 3 series are reporting up to 50mpg. Diesel emissions are naturally low other than particulate emissions. With a dpf in place, almost 3/4 of particulate emissions are removed. Maybe not gm in particular, but i do believe diesel is out immediate future. Obviously we will need a clean renewable fuel at some point, but diesel is a grear option for the time being.
Your really stupid are you. People wanna buy one car that can do both power and efficient driving to work. Now you can choose instead of buying two seperate cars. This will reduce taxes, and insurance of having two seperate cars.
Stressed out everything Nissan or infinity makes and has failure is replaced as a unit on newer cars. I miss working Nissan. Now I'm with dodge and they still rebuild most everything, but some of the new tech failure gets a new unit.
Infinity invests hundreds of millions of dollars on this design and did their homework. You, random internet poster magically knows what the market wants. I'll put my bet on Infinity.
I don't know if BMW sells more than Infinity, but Infinity is the luxury division of Nissan and I'm quite certain Nissan the car company sells a lot more (dependable) cars than BMW. So it's reasonable to expect that if this design is successful, they'll use it in their Nissan line as well. They have to start somewhere, so better in their high-end cars to justify the price tag and start paying off that R&D. It's an elegant design. The conventional crank/rod/piston design while efficient, does have problems that this design addresses. Kudos for Nissan/Infinity for not accepting the status quo. If it proves successful, I would not be surprised if the other car companies being designing similar engines. 27% fuel efficiency improvement compared to regular engines without sacrificing power means they're on to something.
Gmon750 The thing is its millions of dollars invested into the wrong thing with mediocre results. The average mpg rating for the qx50 with this engine is only 2mpg better than an audi q5 or bmw x3. And doubling the moving parts in an environment as stressful as an engine is never good. There were cars that got 40+ mpg in the 80s and 90s. The problem is two things: 1. Cars are too damn heavy. Every year something is added and there are new requirements. It wasn't unheard-of to see cars in the 2500lb range in the 90s. Try to find a car under 3200lbs now. You can't. This is the biggest factor that affects fuel economy and no one is doing anything about it. 2. We already have a cleaner fuel at the same price. Diesel. Better mpg, simpler design, cleaner running. A new diesel with a dpf will run cleaner than any gas engine. So after all this money invested in this complicated, unproven engine, they could have just used a diesel engine and gotten better results all around.
This is about an engine design. Why are you bringing up car weight, cleaner fuel, diesel, etc? It has nothing to do with the discussion here. It's obvious you think this design is a failure, without knowing anything about its real-world performance. Cars are getting heavier because well... people and laws demand that more and more stuff gets added to a car. It's still cheaper to make cars out of cheaper metal than say carbon-fiber. There is a cost to use lighter, more advanced materials and the public at large aren't ready to pay that. Auto manufacturers are also forced to make more power from ever-smaller engines to meet stringent emission requirements. "IF" this design works for the masses, I personally think it's a game-changer for ICE design. Yes, adding additional moving parts to an already stressed engine is generally not a good idea, but considering this motor has been in development since 1996, they would certainly have figured out stress-issues, more so than say Ford's botched FocusRS engine.
![ไปอยู่ไสมา - ช๊อปเปอร์ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sWuVNbRTJbc/mqdefault.jpg)
New to the consumer. I would recommend, for the average Joe, wait 2 to five years before buying and wait till well off consumers get the experience and the headaches of the engine. Looks like more moving parts more problems and expense to repair.
Just like the CVT mess up with Nissan.
Remarkable! I wonder what the exhaust note sounds like with the various compression and displacement changes...
Finally the engine everyone dream of that nobody could correctly build. Hands off to the Japanese again for a superior engine design. This engine will be use to make some insane power in later years
Apparently NHTSA is investigating why there are so many engines being replaced due to stalling, knocking, and failure. I hope they don't issue a recall, as I have a 2022 that (to me) has been fine. I just hate how the AC/heat system doesn't work properly and he dealership doesn't have a fix. I don't want to go through an engine replacement in the near future, the car will never be right.
It's probably over-engineered to reduce failures. I would wager the first generation will be the most stout, and subsequent generations will approach the fine line of just right design.
Thanks for this presentation. I really like when you do these technical features similar to what Car and Driver does. Keep up the good work.
My Variable compression ratio design would be an eccentric intake camshaft and a hydraulic based variable valve lift and event system. Instead of using a complicated multilink system, it varies the intake valve lift duration to prevent knock (ranging from otto cycle to miller cycle and anywhere in between to effectively vary the compression ratio from 16:1 to 11.5:1) and homogeneous charge compression ignition at lower rpms combined with electric assist and cylinder deactivation for maximum fuel economy and torque that rivals a 2 liter turbo 4 in a sculpted CGI block naturally aspirated 3.4 liter V6 package with a target of 295 ft-lbs at the mid 3000s and 311 hp at the mid 6000s and a 7000 rpm redline. And also a soundaktor and acoustic tubes for ultimate in cabin engine sound. Also instead of FWD it will use a small diameter boron steel driveshaft RWD drive CV axle system. Also eliminate the accessory belt completely and use a 48 volt brushless DC air conditioner compressor, electric power steering, an integrated harmonic balancer and motor generator rotor for the 48 volt system, and electric water pump and eliminate the thermostat.
Wow that is future
Can't wait to get my hands on that engine. I want to break it all the way down and see what's what (=
Great video and a BIG Thumbs up!
I think it would work better if you put springs on the piston. If your just want that extra fuel economy. Would give better strock. All you need is a spring in each piston rated at 10ft pound or so. When the piston compress it would give you that 8:1 then at low rpms and low psi the piston would go back to a 10:1. Would give you more horses and low mass add to rotating asinbly, and it would work on V engines.
So many negative comments here. Good grief! Well if you don't want it or can't afford it then don't buy it!! I myself would get it once they iron out the kinks.
Excellent summary and cool tech. As for whether it's too complicated to be reliable, doesn't seem so- it looks like an extra shaft and connection, w/ out balancing shafts. Volvo is putting turbo and supercharged engines in production, can't be more complicated and stressed than that.
even if it isn't practical at all, it's still nice to see people trying to go back to the drawing board. it seems to my not so practiced self quite a monument to properly distribute the force applied to a crankshaft in motion, its why we dont. but if you COULD, that opens up alot of interesting doors. i'd say the bottom end of the ICB hasn't really changed terribly much in function since... ever.
perhaps a optimal engine for bivalent operation for example Gasoline/LPG
It's like VTech for pistons, yo!
WOW! Great summary, this was definitely LInkedIn-worthy.
Aún no entiendo cuál es la idea de que tenga el cigüeñal flotante
Except for the oil consumption there wasn't a whole lot wrong with the outgoing VQ motor so why would you replace that with an over engineered four-banger?
awesome engineering
What kind of fuel they will be burning if they are so confident? As a result of the new mechanical engagement, when leverages and sub camshaft are adjusted to higher compression ratio the piston is engaged in "Gonzales" speed versus crank rotation ???
Well done Sam, thanks.
throw it in hardtail bobber frame would be awesome lol
thank you for your nice video
good info.nice new tech.
ini bagus idenya,
But it dose not matter much feel it saveds if the it has a lot mass.
I subscribed u buddy very nice video
Compression ratio until 14:1. It should go to about 30:1. The second conrod of each cilinder sholuld rotate about 180 degrees, then the motor could be less tall. Sorry by my english.
Compressão até 14:1. Deveria ir até uns 30:1. A segunda biela de cada cilindro deveria rotacionar mais ou menos 180 graus, de modo q o motor seria mais baixo.
Cromo 30:1 compression ratio? Good luck with that 14:1 is already really high for a small gasoline engine big block dodges in the 60's had such high compression that they blew spark plugs out of the engines and they were no were near 20:1 much less 30:1
Removing the 180-degree rod rotation is a primary reason for not needing a counterbalancer. It also allows the rod to be at near vertical on the compression/power stroke, reducing piston friction and wear-and-tear on the cylinder sleeve. It's all clearly explained in this video.
Gmon750 your misunderstanding the point at 30:1 compression you will blow your gaskets no matter how low the friction the compression will be to high
I didn't say anything about the 30:1 ratio. That's a different poster. Nonetheless, a 30:1 compression is going into diesel-engine territory. Gasoline engines will not tolerate such a high compression ratio due to engine knock.
Gmon750 I thought you were seconding his claim of 30:1 c/r and your exactly right that's what I was trying to explain to the other guy that gasoline engines can't handle extreme compression similar to 30:1 as far as I know the highest reliable compression ratio in a gas engine is 16:1
Can u imagine the maintenance cost n how difficult it'll be to work on. N it being a new design, they're bound to be flawed down the line
What happens to the knocking at 14:1, how did they overcome that?
Shantnu Mehta you will only get the 14:1 cr if you’re running premium fuel(which is recommended) which at that point the engine isn’t experiencing knock.
This design is literally an atkinson engine. Holding the intake valve open at the start of the compression stroke is not atkinson, thats boudack or immitation atkinson.
An atkinson engine has compression that is changed on the compresdion stroke which is performed by varying the stroke mechanically.
The atkinson cycle is as old as the otto cycle and came out in the 1880's.
The only improvement here is the ability to adjust the affect. Atkinsons engines were fixed and had a different cr for up stroke than it had for downstroke.
Is it 8:1 to 14:1 or is it 8:1 or 14:1
To....meaning variable range between.
TestDrivenTV wow that is big
They Have to make a new transmission and get rid of the 7 speed!!!
the saab svc was much simpler, too bad GM axed it. i'd like to see this engine in a racing environment for a few years, to foster accelerated development.
+V.C. it comes to market next year
do you now know what Nissan car that engine is going in?
next generation QX50
Steevenoo why an SUV?
An s16 240sx...one can dream!
Just give a prototype
Every person in Detroit is going to rush out and order one of these since GM and the UAW couldn't build something like this in 1000 years.
gm got the saab variable compression a while ago, it was much simpler, i'm still hoping it works and they've just stored it for later use.
The UAW builds what they're told to. Engineers have to come up with a workable, durable design.
Hopefully, Infiniti has. Sam answered my question, have they tested this thing to death?
Nope. Gm is going diesel. The new terrain is the same size as the qx50 and is rated almost 10 mpg higher.
I dont' think so, too much cost. DEF injection systems to control NO2. Canister filters to capture soot and burn it off when the filter starts to clog up. Diesel in the US is going nowhere. GM is history no matter what they build. GM couldn't build diesel, gas or anything else.
Smokey Walker The colorado has a diesel, the half tons are getting a diesel, the terrain has a diesel, i really wouldn't be surprised if more gm cars went that way. Americans are slowly starting to embrace diesels. The dpf's aren't as bad as people make them out to be. There were problems when the technology was first introduced but it's fairly solid at this point. Bmw, mercedes, and jag diesel sales are decent, and the fact that we're getting them at all means there's a demand. Look at the terrain, 38mpg in an suv. People with diesel 3 series are reporting up to 50mpg.
Diesel emissions are naturally low other than particulate emissions. With a dpf in place, almost 3/4 of particulate emissions are removed.
Maybe not gm in particular, but i do believe diesel is out immediate future. Obviously we will need a clean renewable fuel at some point, but diesel is a grear option for the time being.
Stop making shit more complicated.
i have buy vc turbo2.0，
Looks like a costly engine - so many parts.
No thank you. For your average "I need a car to get me from A to B" just wait.
Pura publicidad
Wouldnt this be nissan engine?
Sorry say it would better at high rpms. 👆
Why not jus make engines with max power instead of wngines that make less then more
#becaseCAFEstandards
Your really stupid are you. People wanna buy one car that can do both power and efficient driving to work. Now you can choose instead of buying two seperate cars. This will reduce taxes, and insurance of having two seperate cars.
way to much going on. without extream quality this will flop.
we will see. good effort thou
grin and bear it -
they've been experimenting with it for decades. probably worked out all the flaws I hope
its just the forerunner to whatever will come, if it works. kinda like the iphone, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, S, E...
To many moving parts hooked to that crank. Looks like they had fun to try get it balanced
This engine will replace the 2.0t from Mercedes
Or it will end up under the hood of Mercedes-Benz ;)
Don’t steal my stuff I will suit
un asco..muchas partes moviles y creo que hay mas friccion en ese motor..los motores modernos deberian ser mas simples y eficientes en todo aspecto...
Say bye bye to the mechanic shop Because I know this is to advance
Stressed out everything Nissan or infinity makes and has failure is replaced as a unit on newer cars. I miss working Nissan. Now I'm with dodge and they still rebuild most everything, but some of the new tech failure gets a new unit.
Steven R I see
My prototype is better...😁
No thanks
It will be PRICY!!
Literally nobody wants this
Infinity invests hundreds of millions of dollars on this design and did their homework. You, random internet poster magically knows what the market wants.
I'll put my bet on Infinity.
Gmon750 Yea clearly they know what people want with their whopping 0.8% market share. Bmw sells as many 3 series' as infiniti cars in total.
I don't know if BMW sells more than Infinity, but Infinity is the luxury division of Nissan and I'm quite certain Nissan the car company sells a lot more (dependable) cars than BMW.
So it's reasonable to expect that if this design is successful, they'll use it in their Nissan line as well. They have to start somewhere, so better in their high-end cars to justify the price tag and start paying off that R&D.
It's an elegant design. The conventional crank/rod/piston design while efficient, does have problems that this design addresses. Kudos for Nissan/Infinity for not accepting the status quo. If it proves successful, I would not be surprised if the other car companies being designing similar engines.
27% fuel efficiency improvement compared to regular engines without sacrificing power means they're on to something.
Gmon750 The thing is its millions of dollars invested into the wrong thing with mediocre results. The average mpg rating for the qx50 with this engine is only 2mpg better than an audi q5 or bmw x3. And doubling the moving parts in an environment as stressful as an engine is never good. There were cars that got 40+ mpg in the 80s and 90s.
The problem is two things:
1. Cars are too damn heavy. Every year something is added and there are new requirements. It wasn't unheard-of to see cars in the 2500lb range in the 90s. Try to find a car under 3200lbs now. You can't. This is the biggest factor that affects fuel economy and no one is doing anything about it.
2. We already have a cleaner fuel at the same price. Diesel. Better mpg, simpler design, cleaner running. A new diesel with a dpf will run cleaner than any gas engine. So after all this money invested in this complicated, unproven engine, they could have just used a diesel engine and gotten better results all around.
This is about an engine design. Why are you bringing up car weight, cleaner fuel, diesel, etc? It has nothing to do with the discussion here. It's obvious you think this design is a failure, without knowing anything about its real-world performance.
Cars are getting heavier because well... people and laws demand that more and more stuff gets added to a car. It's still cheaper to make cars out of cheaper metal than say carbon-fiber. There is a cost to use lighter, more advanced materials and the public at large aren't ready to pay that. Auto manufacturers are also forced to make more power from ever-smaller engines to meet stringent emission requirements. "IF" this design works for the masses, I personally think it's a game-changer for ICE design. Yes, adding additional moving parts to an already stressed engine is generally not a good idea, but considering this motor has been in development since 1996, they would certainly have figured out stress-issues, more so than say Ford's botched FocusRS engine.