|
Maybe I'll try and give it more of an overview.
An engine can be significantly more efficient if it had a larger expansion ratio (power stroke) then compression ratio (compression stroke). The larger expansion ratio allows the engine to extract more heat energy from the charge and the lower compression ratio makes it easier to manage knock. This, of cause, is easier said then done.
The Miller Cycle works on two fronts:
1) Efficiency: The Miller Cycle uses an engine with a higher then normal compression ratio, then delaying the closing of the intake valve(s) during the compression stroke, which in effect reduces the compression ratio, and retains a full power stroke. All else being equal, this would give you a more efficient engine when compared to a typical Otto Cycle gasoline engine and comparable power per displacement if we only measure the displacement from the point the intake valve(s) are closed. This design can theoretically improve the engine’s efficiencies by 15-20%. (The 2004 Toyota Prius hybrid uses their VVT-i system to achieve this)
2) Improved Power per Displacement: Positive displacement superchargers are reasonably efficient at low pressures. By using a low pressure positive displacement supercharger, power per displacement can be improved by 15-25%. However, the low pressure supercharger does rob a little bit of the efficiency. It’s 2-5% less efficient then a normally aspirated engine.
Altogether, the Miller Cycle can be 15% more efficient AND 10% higher power output per given displacement then a standard Otto Cycle engine.
However, as you can clearly see, the Miller Cycle is more complex then the Otto Cycle. Additionally, because it is better at extracting energy from the charge, the exhaust is measurable cooler. This makes it more difficult to design the catalytic converter to have it work effectively at the lower exhaust temp.
|