After 4 years of development and $147 million spent, Hyundai is introducing direct injection in their next generation Sonata 2.4 liter I-4 engine. It has more power and 10% better fuel economy. It sounds like they will roll this technology out to their other gas engines as well.
Interesting to see everyone rushing to introduce technology that's been around for a few years. Although DI has obvious advantages in turbocharged applications I really don't any substantial benefits or gains in normally aspirated applications vs the associated costs. I think Honda didn't further pursue this technology as the results didn't outweigh the return.
CivicB18 wrote: Interesting to see everyone rushing to introduce technology that's been around for a few years. Although DI has obvious advantages in turbocharged applications I really don't any substantial benefits or gains in normally aspirated applications vs the associated costs. I think Honda didn't further pursue this technology as the results didn't outweigh the return.
~Patrick
I think GM has had good results with this technology, and I understand the 2011 3.7 V-6 Ford Mustang will be D.I., going up against the D.I. 3.6 V-6 in the Camaro.
Australian car maker Holden is now using D.I. on the 3.0 and 3.6 V-6's in their model line-up.
I think this would be a better technology to pursue than the VCM that is used on the Honda V-6, which seems to offer no real gas mileage advantage and less power!
CivicB18 wrote: Interesting to see everyone rushing to introduce technology that's been around for a few years. Although DI has obvious advantages in turbocharged applications I really don't any substantial benefits or gains in normally aspirated applications vs the associated costs. I think Honda didn't further pursue this technology as the results didn't outweigh the return.
~Patrick
I think GM has had good results with this technology, and I understand the 2011 3.7 V-6 Ford Mustang will be D.I., going up against the D.I. 3.6 V-6 in the Camaro.
Australian car maker Holden is now using D.I. on the 3.0 and 3.6 V-6's in their model line-up.
I think this would be a better technology to pursue than the VCM that is used on the Honda V-6, which seems to offer no real gas mileage advantage and less power!
Disagree, the Accord with the VCM, 271 hp, and a very large car has very good mileage. I don't see other cars beating it, with or without Direct Injection. Direct Injection isn't some magic cure all! I for one question the long term reliablilty.
With a VCM motor you aren't getting close to 271 hp near the ground, more like 225 if I remember the dyno results done here. Since the non VCM 6MT was actually putting about 265 to the wheels(again, it's early, my memory is fuzzy), his point was that VCM robs a lot of power (over 18%) for an meager return on fuel economy.
CivicB18 wrote: Interesting to see everyone rushing to introduce technology that's been around for a few years. Although DI has obvious advantages in turbocharged applications I really don't any substantial benefits or gains in normally aspirated applications vs the associated costs. I think Honda didn't further pursue this technology as the results didn't outweigh the return.
~Patrick
I think GM has had good results with this technology, and I understand the 2011 3.7 V-6 Ford Mustang will be D.I., going up against the D.I. 3.6 V-6 in the Camaro.
Australian car maker Holden is now using D.I. on the 3.0 and 3.6 V-6's in their model line-up.
I think this would be a better technology to pursue than the VCM that is used on the Honda V-6, which seems to offer no real gas mileage advantage and less power!
Disagree, the Accord with the VCM, 271 hp, and a very large car has very good mileage. I don't see other cars beating it, with or without Direct Injection. Direct Injection isn't some magic cure all! I for one question the long term reliablilty.
I question the long-term reliability of a VCM engine far more than one with DI. VCM is making the engine operate unnaturally and creating a lot vibration and imbalance that has to be dealt with by special measures to absorb it and deaden sound. IMO VCM is a horrible band-aid that Honda applied to a problem that it previously would have engineered its way out of without hampering the way the engine operates and then trying to mask it with different engine mounts and active noise cancellation and garbage like that.
I guess none of us have any data but I think this is positive development.
Based on the reviews I have seen, VCM is not a success story for Honda. I'm just wondering what engine technologies Honda is working on. Hopefully it's not all hybrid.
norcalinternet wrote: With a VCM motor you aren't getting close to 271 hp near the ground, more like 225 if I remember the dyno results done here. Since the non VCM 6MT was actually putting about 265 to the wheels(again, it's early, my memory is fuzzy), his point was that VCM robs a lot of power (over 18%) for an meager return on fuel economy.
If you are referring to the TOV dyno results, remember the automatic in the Accord can't properly be graphed below ~4500rpm....making that comparison completely bogus, but we can compare the EPA estimates of the two motors you have mentioned.
VCM V6, 29mpg highway in the larger, heaver sedan
nonVCM, 25mpg highway in the smaller lighter coupe.
Honda should realy start working on DI, because they are the only Japanese brand that doesn't have it. Nissan has already been using DI on some of its engine sinds 1997!
norcalinternet wrote: With a VCM motor you aren't getting close to 271 hp near the ground, more like 225 if I remember the dyno results done here. Since the non VCM 6MT was actually putting about 265 to the wheels(again, it's early, my memory is fuzzy), his point was that VCM robs a lot of power (over 18%) for an meager return on fuel economy.
If you are referring to the TOV dyno results, remember the automatic in the Accord can't properly be graphed below ~4500rpm....making that comparison completely bogus, but we can compare the EPA estimates of the two motors you have mentioned.
VCM V6, 29mpg highway in the larger, heaver sedan
nonVCM, 25mpg highway in the smaller lighter coupe.
The fact is that VCM is a band-aid. By reducing the weight of a car (hard to do) and reducing r.p.m.'s (6 speed auto. for example), along with the use of D.I. you can improve mileage and power without any smoke and mirrors. I have heard of no recalls related to direct injection in the 3 years it has been available on G.M. products.
norcalinternet wrote: With a VCM motor you aren't getting close to 271 hp near the ground, more like 225 if I remember the dyno results done here. Since the non VCM 6MT was actually putting about 265 to the wheels(again, it's early, my memory is fuzzy), his point was that VCM robs a lot of power (over 18%) for an meager return on fuel economy.
If you are referring to the TOV dyno results, remember the automatic in the Accord can't properly be graphed below ~4500rpm....making that comparison completely bogus, but we can compare the EPA estimates of the two motors you have mentioned.
VCM V6, 29mpg highway in the larger, heaver sedan
nonVCM, 25mpg highway in the smaller lighter coupe.
You sir obviously haven't read many of the complaints here on TOV. Even Jeff, Shawn, etc. agree they dont' see the benefits (I believe the Accord V6 dynoed at around 215hp?). Infact, they see far less HP and even worse gas mileage.
CivicB18 wrote: Interesting to see everyone rushing to introduce technology that's been around for a few years. Although DI has obvious advantages in turbocharged applications I really don't any substantial benefits or gains in normally aspirated applications vs the associated costs. I think Honda didn't further pursue this technology as the results didn't outweigh the return.
~Patrick
I think GM has had good results with this technology, and I understand the 2011 3.7 V-6 Ford Mustang will be D.I., going up against the D.I. 3.6 V-6 in the Camaro.
Australian car maker Holden is now using D.I. on the 3.0 and 3.6 V-6's in their model line-up.
I think this would be a better technology to pursue than the VCM that is used on the Honda V-6, which seems to offer no real gas mileage advantage and less power!
Disagree, the Accord with the VCM, 271 hp, and a very large car has very good mileage. I don't see other cars beating it, with or without Direct Injection. Direct Injection isn't some magic cure all! I for one question the long term reliablilty.
I question the long-term reliability of a VCM engine far more than one with DI. VCM is making the engine operate unnaturally and creating a lot vibration and imbalance that has to be dealt with by special measures to absorb it and deaden sound. IMO VCM is a horrible band-aid that Honda applied to a problem that it previously would have engineered its way out of without hampering the way the engine operates and then trying to mask it with different engine mounts and active noise cancellation and garbage like that.
VCM uses existing mechanical hardware that was already present in the VTEC system. As far as durability is concerned, I think Honda has addressed all and any potential durability issues just like they've done with past technologies. I know this has been brought up before and but can't remember all the details.
The system is actually quite simple and doesn't cost much of anything to implement as the tools are already in place. I'm not validating the VCM system as I think Honda could have found a better solution for better fuel mileage and I'm not validating DI either as given the costs to develop and implement vs the results simply aren't justified. Also the potential issues of DI (build up) have yet to be solved.
norcalinternet wrote: With a VCM motor you aren't getting close to 271 hp near the ground, more like 225 if I remember the dyno results done here. Since the non VCM 6MT was actually putting about 265 to the wheels(again, it's early, my memory is fuzzy), his point was that VCM robs a lot of power (over 18%) for an meager return on fuel economy.
The V6 in the 6MT was underrated plus the extra drivetrain loss of the automatic make the VCM V6 look and perform even worse. VCM simply hurts low/midrange torque production and engine response. The 5AT is a large part of the VCM V6's lower dyno numbers.
With DI, there is nothing to clean the valves. I am pretty sure if you bought a Honda product, and had this problem in 50K you would be raising hell that Honda had cut costs, and was cheaping out, etc.
DI is currently flawed. Until these issues are solved, then it isn't something I want in my car, especially not for 1-2MPG and a few HP.
Honda doesn't need to hurry up and follow. They were among the first to release DI to the market, but they subsequently pulled it, my guess being that it had something to do with problems like the ones in the link.
2) Everyone throws around DI as some savior technology, but the fact of the matter is that most of the engines with the technology only match the Honda's. That is usually on paper. The fact of the matter is that there is a whole lot of other technology that could be leveraged with much more marginal downsides that would probably provide an equal gain.
3) Comparing MT dynos to AT dynos has a couple of issues.
A) The AT has about a 5% higher frictional loss than the MT.
B) It is impossible to plot the auto below 4500 because the tranny kicks down, destroying the validity of the plot.
C) The MT engine is under-rated. It is probably closer to 280-290HP based on dyno numbers.
Having said all that, I am NOT a fan of VCM. The engine only feels very marginally stronger than the last 3.0 in the Accord V6, despite having an extra .5 liters, and the MPG is NOT better. I think a big part of that is the gearing required to allow the engine to run in cylinder off modes, which translates into too many RPM and thus poor MPG when all 6 are firing.
In contrast, according to Jeff, the TSX V6 not only makes more power and torque everywhere, but it does so while weighing a similar amount and returning better MPG. That engine is the engine the Accord SHOULD have had, which is essentially the 6MT engine with an AT. VCM is a good example of a GM move. It makes the MPG numbers look better on paper than they will be in the real world. We have always gotten BETTER than advertised performance out of our Honda's (just averaged 35MPG mixed in my Si), and the VCM just does not deliver. In any way.
I am not anxious to see Honda jump on the DI bandwagon, because it is pretty clear there are MAJOR downsides. Not only is this one reason I still doubt the longer term durability of the now "equal ________ (insert brand here)" but it was clear there was a reason they didn't continue development when they took the first production DI engine off the market. Honda is all about engine technology, but they typically eschew gimmicky technology that doesn't pan out in the real world, especially in terms of durability.
I am sure they are working on solutions, as it is hard to deny some of the potential benefits, but frankly, as long as an engine needs EGR to meet emmissions, DI is DOA.
norcalinternet wrote: With a VCM motor you aren't getting close to 271 hp near the ground, more like 225 if I remember the dyno results done here. Since the non VCM 6MT was actually putting about 265 to the wheels(again, it's early, my memory is fuzzy), his point was that VCM robs a lot of power (over 18%) for an meager return on fuel economy.
If you are referring to the TOV dyno results, remember the automatic in the Accord can't properly be graphed below ~4500rpm....making that comparison completely bogus, but we can compare the EPA estimates of the two motors you have mentioned.
VCM V6, 29mpg highway in the larger, heaver sedan
nonVCM, 25mpg highway in the smaller lighter coupe.
Honda stated that torque production and engine response in low to mid engine speeds was sacrificed because of the electronic and mechanical portions that make up the VCM system. VCM eliminates the performance mechanicals of the VTEC system.
In regards to the EPA estimates you posted, the 6MT V6 has much closer gear ratios vs the 5AT which helps reduce those estimates vs it's VCM brother.
I think Honda really could have introduced something else besides VCM to better fuel economy with no sacrifice in power/torque production and engine response. This was clearly evident in previous non VCM 5AT vs 6MT Honda and Acura vehicles such as the 03-07 Accord 5AT/6MT J30 V6 and 04-08 TL 5AT/6MT J32/J35 V6. These drivetrain combos proved to be efficient without the associated sacrifices the VCM system provides.
STJ wrote: Honda should realy start working on DI, because they are the only Japanese brand that doesn't have it. Nissan has already been using DI on some of its engine sinds 1997!
Honda had a DOHC DI engine on the market way back in 2003. The next generation engine dropped the DI, used a SOHC configuration yet made similar performance and fuel economy. Honda did more with less.
owequitit wrote: 1) Direct injection is a technology with TONS of problems, especially in the long term.
I am sure they are working on solutions, as it is hard to deny some of the potential benefits, but frankly, as long as an engine needs EGR to meet emmissions, DI is DOA.
Here is an excerpt from an article regarding Australia's Holden.
If this technology is DOA I guess somebody forgot to tell them
Overseas orders for the Global V6, and increased demand for the Commodore locally, have seen numbers increased this week to 440 per day.
In June, the global financial crisis saw production drop to one shift, with around 240 to 320 engines produced per day.
“Holden has received an increase in orders for our Global V6 engines which are exported to markets including South Korea, China and Mexico and we are lifting production of our engines as a result,” Powertrain Lead Executive, Martin Cray said.
“We are also seeing increased local demand for Commodore after launching the new advanced Spark Ignition Direct Injection (SIDI) engine in 3.0 and 3.6 litre variants.”
The increase to 440 engines per day is expected to last until the end of the year, with January and February to see 400 engines produced per day.
owequitit wrote: 1) Direct injection is a technology with TONS of problems, especially in the long term.
I am sure they are working on solutions, as it is hard to deny some of the potential benefits, but frankly, as long as an engine needs EGR to meet emmissions, DI is DOA.
Here is an excerpt from an article regarding Australia's Holden.
If this technology is DOA I guess somebody forgot to tell them
Overseas orders for the Global V6, and increased demand for the Commodore locally, have seen numbers increased this week to 440 per day.
In June, the global financial crisis saw production drop to one shift, with around 240 to 320 engines produced per day.
“Holden has received an increase in orders for our Global V6 engines which are exported to markets including South Korea, China and Mexico and we are lifting production of our engines as a result,” Powertrain Lead Executive, Martin Cray said.
“We are also seeing increased local demand for Commodore after launching the new advanced Spark Ignition Direct Injection (SIDI) engine in 3.0 and 3.6 litre variants.”
The increase to 440 engines per day is expected to last until the end of the year, with January and February to see 400 engines produced per day.
holden-production-assembly-line
You missed the point. ENTIRELY.
What are all these people that don't know anything about engines going to do in 3 years when they are having major problems due to buildup?
It is like all of the people on here kicking and screaming about HAVING TO HAVE DI, with absolutely no CLUE what the problem with it is and WHY Honda is NOT using it. They bitch and complain that Honda is inferior, and is losing their grip because they don't have DI. But what they FAIL to realize is that VW owners, and BMW owners and anybody with DI engines that are around 3-5 years old are starting to have major problems with those engines associated with valve build up, injector problems and fuel pump failures.
People don't understand that the oil vapor that circulates in the EGR starts to build massive carbon deposits on the back of the valve because there is no atomized gasoline to keep the back of the valve wet and prevent the deposits from hardening on the back of the vavle. Thus, as you drive the engine, it starts forming these deposits from day 1. I hate to be a realist and break it to you, but the reality of these repairs is going to be more expensive than the car ever saved in fuel most likely, especially if it has a combination of the problems over time, and is not isolated to just one singlular one.
My guess is that you completely failed to read the links I provided.
People want it now, and "gotta have it" now, but I bet their tune will change in just a few years time unless someone figures out how to work around the whole valve deposit issue. So far, Lexus' system seems to be the only one that might not have longer term issues, because it uses both port and direct injection. However, most likely it will also experience some sort of issue long term, because anytime it is running in DI mode, and the port injector is turned off, there is an opportunity for the deposits to build, so they will probably just build more slowly.
Also, as a downside, if there is no injector in the intake tract, there is no easy way to clean the valves once they have built up, because it isn't like you can just put some fuel cleaner in the tank and have it clean the back of the valves...so you are probably looking at head disassembly and valve work/replacement in order to solve the problem. At $700 just for the machine work and probably another $1000+ for the labor, is that really worth it?
Go ahead, read the links. You might just learn something.
norcalinternet wrote: With a VCM motor you aren't getting close to 271 hp near the ground, more like 225 if I remember the dyno results done here. Since the non VCM 6MT was actually putting about 265 to the wheels(again, it's early, my memory is fuzzy), his point was that VCM robs a lot of power (over 18%) for an meager return on fuel economy.
If you are referring to the TOV dyno results, remember the automatic in the Accord can't properly be graphed below ~4500rpm....making that comparison completely bogus, but we can compare the EPA estimates of the two motors you have mentioned.
VCM V6, 29mpg highway in the larger, heaver sedan
nonVCM, 25mpg highway in the smaller lighter coupe.
The fact is that VCM is a band-aid. By reducing the weight of a car (hard to do) and reducing r.p.m.'s (6 speed auto. for example), along with the use of D.I. you can improve mileage and power without any smoke and mirrors. I have heard of no recalls related to direct injection in the 3 years it has been available on G.M. products.
1)VCM is not the best solution, but it is not exactly "smoke and mirrors" either. At least no more so than GM putting a super tall 6th gear on their cars so they can claim phenomonal MPG in the EPA numbers. The Vette is a glaring example of this, as is the new Terrain/Acadia(?) which probably realistically get NOWHERE near 32MPG on the highway in the real world. In fact, I would put money on it.
Where VCM mostly fails is in having to require lower gearing for 3cyl and 4 cyl modes, which are too low to get good MPG in 6 cyl mode. The compromised powerband also doesn't help because in addition to having the lower gearing adversely affect MPG, you don't spend as much time with cylinders shut down because the engine needs 4 and 6 cylinder mode more frequently in order to accelerate.
If VCM qualifies as "smoke and mirrors" then so do GM's EPA strategies. Period.
2) DI has not been widespread in GM's vehicles long enough to start to show the issues. Those valve deposits don't happen over night. They happen over time. VW's engines didn't actually debut on a widespread basis here in the states until 2003. They have been having problems with them for awhile now, but VW is just beginning to acknowledge those problems... GM's direct injection engines have been on the market for quite sometime less, with the turbocharged ECOTEC being the first IIRC.
Since they also use EGR, you will see the same problems.
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
