Peugeot Applies New 2.2-Liter 4-Cylinder Dual-Turbo Diesel to the 407
07 June 2006
|The 407 with 2.2 HDi|
Peugeot is introducing the new 2.2-liter, four-cylinder HDi sequential dual-turbo for its 407 sedan and wagon. The engine, announced last year, represents the fourth phase of cooperation between PSA Peugeot Citroën and Ford Motor Company. (Earlier post.)
The new engine delivers 125 kW of power (170 hp) at 4,000 rpm and 370 Nm of torque at 1,500 rpm—54% more than the previous generation of 2.2-liter HDi engines at this engine speed. Acceleration from 0-62 mph takes 8.7 seconds.
Mated with a six-speed manual transmission, the 2.2 HDi offers fuel consumption of 6.1 liters/100km on the combined cycle (38.6 mpg US) and emits 160 g CO2/km.
The engine features a sequential, parallel dual-turbo system—the first on a four-cylinder engine—patented with Honeywell Turbo Technology; a new type of combustion chamber; and third-generation common rail injection with pressure to 1,800 bar.
|The dual turbo. Click to enlarge.|
Dual Turbo. At low engine speeds, a single turbocharger ensures engine responsiveness. It is then supported by a second turbo, which starts to operate in parallel between 2,600 and 3,200 rpm according to the required load and atmospheric conditions. This covers the entire range of engine speeds. The system is controlled entirely by the engine ECU.
The low inertia resulting from the small size of the turbos reduces response time when they start to operate.
Combustion chamber. The Extreme Conventional Combustion System (ECCS) is characterized by a reduced compression ratio (16.6 compared to 18 previously) and a larger diameter (+25%), helping to reduce the quantity of incompletely burned fuel by limiting the proportion of fuel in contact with the walls.
This effect is obtained as a result of a special piston design and geometry (manufactured from aluminium with a very high mechanical strength and thermal resistance). This geometry also makes it possible to significantly reduce swirl by limiting thermal losses against the walls.
These developments allow greater homogeneity of the air-fuel blend, resulting in a significant improvement to the engine’s overall efficiency, as well as quieter combustion.
Injection system. The third-generation Bosch common rail injection system supports a pressure increase to 1,800 bar, compared to 1,350 bar for the first generation. New piezo-electric injectors have seven apertures (instead of five previously) with a diameter of 135 microns, allowing the number of injections to be multiplied (potentially up to six per cycle) and ensuring uniformity of the diesel spray.
This optimized air/diesel blend helps combustion be more complete and uniform, and reduces emissions at the source. The combination of the new combustion chamber and 1,800-bar common rail system support a reduction of emissions of around 30% compared to the previous generation. The new 2.2 HDi is equipped with a particulate filter and is Euro-4 compliant.
There's nothing here that Ford and GM shouldn't or couldn't have done twenty years ago.
All they needed were some innovative and creative engineers, who were given freedom to think by the suits.
Posted by: Lucas | 07 June 2006 at 04:05 PM
Diesels will be dying a slow death in cars because the cost of all the systems required to meet smog will push it into a high end niche.
So if you pay big bucks for a status car, you want best performance, and a diesel will not give it.
Plus, any failure, of any of the systems, will wipe out any potential long tern operating cost advantage.
Gas IC car will alwys be cheaper than a diesel.
Posted by: tony chilling | 07 June 2006 at 04:47 PM
I wonder how much the turbo alone sets you back. I believe I could get a standard single small turbo of moderate efficiency with a standard thrust bearing for around $700...
Posted by: Patrick | 07 June 2006 at 05:04 PM
Tony can you back up your statement with research, statistics, or at least some elaborated conjecture? Are you speaking of lifecycle cost? It seems that the range of bio, waste, and syn diesel production options, the new emissions compliant diesel offerings coming to market, and the well documented longevity and superior fuel efficiency of diesel versus gasoline ICE, all point to a long life for the diesel powered vehicles at all price points. Seems that the most recent 24 hours of Le Man was won using a diesel powerplant.. Sounds like "best" performance to me.
Posted by: john galt | 07 June 2006 at 08:28 PM
not to mention how much easier biodiesel is to make than biopetrol.
conceptually easier, anyway (just squeeze vs concentrate sugars, ferment, dewater). and the little that i've read seems to indicate a much more positive energy in/out ratio for biodiesel.
Posted by: shaun mann | 07 June 2006 at 10:20 PM
Tony Chilling - I am a german living in the US..back in germany I have driven 600000 miles as a parcel contractor in 10 years-all with turbo-diesel vans..different brands,
Fiat, VW, Peugoet, Renault..my only problems in 10 years where 2 blown turbo-chargers..about 1000$ to fix..probably
my own fault as I went flat out after coming home from holidays(turbo chargers don't like that I was told). I have also driven privately diesels( VW Jetta, Golf and Fiat Diesel) When I consider that my fully loaden and sharp driven delivery vans had a much better mileage than my wife's subaru legacy at moderate US speeds than I don't wonder why more than every 2nd car in germany now is a diesel. Commercial vans are hardly available there in a gas version and nowbody would even consider to by a gas delivery van..
In europe you can get now very powerful diesel with 200 -300 hp (audi, bmw) and their low rev, very high torque and still good gas mileage I would prever to any gas car. If a private diesel car makes financely sense is a
different question..they do in europe( also diesel costs now allmost the same than gas), I have never calculated it here..maybe fuelprices are still to low in the US that a private diesel car makes sense...
Posted by: Mike Weindl | 07 June 2006 at 11:04 PM
In Europe you have a high percentage of Diesel sales, around 80% in some states. In my country 90%+ of BMW and Mercedes are diesels. There are several key factors for the sucess of diesels in Europe even if they price were at first higher than similar gas versions.
1º-Taxation - In some EU states the fuel tax is lower for diesel, resulting in a 20% lower price per gallon.
2º-Economy - Usually you get 30% to 40% more fuel economy.
3º-Neck Braking Performance - If you cannot afford high performance gas cars buy a diesel. A 4pot 177hp diesel feels like a 6pot gas guzzler with more than 250hp in most drive conditions.
Posted by: MH | 08 June 2006 at 12:48 AM
Some surprising lack of factual statements here:
>There's nothing here that Ford and GM shouldn't or >couldn't have done twenty years ago.
So that would be using the Common rail injection system that was invented in the 90s which has resulted in the biggest gains in efficiency and output while avoiding smoke and noise issues that have traditionally hampered diesels? And which was invented by CRF (Italy) and productionised by Bosch (Germany).
Oh and not using diesel fuel so poor and variable in lubricity that it destroys the modern, accurate fuel injection systems required to achieve these levels of output ie US market diesel fuel.
US diesel: Report by Bosch to CARB:
>Diesels will be dying a slow death in cars because the >cost of all the systems required to meet smog will push >it into a high end niche.
Well, the aftertreatment required for diesels is very similar to that required for any lean burn engine and that includes GDI. If you wish to go lean and save fuel while producing low NOx then you need a lean burn aftertreatment system. They will be substantially similar between GDI Petrol lean burn and common rail diesels so your argument is not particularly valid unless you don't care about fuel economy improvements.
Diesels typically run about 2/3rds of the exhaust gas temperatures that petrol engines do. This means that all diesel turbochargers have a significantly better service life than their petrol engined counterparts.
Diesels will always feel more powerful at lower engine speeds than a petrol engine of comparable size. It is this prodigious torque output at low speeds that characterises modern diesels. This is why I can't understand why more USers don't go for them all that V8 beating torque with parsimonious fuel consumption. No need to buy a 6litre engine to get torque when a 3.5 litre diesel engine does just as well.
Posted by: Ruaraidh | 08 June 2006 at 03:26 AM
Interesting fact is that, everybody that use pickup to tow stuff, once they switch to diesel will never go back to petrol. I am just wondering why did ford killed V6 Diesel for they pickups. It would probably be a big seller for people that use pickups to tow or to carry heavy stuff ( that's what pickups are design to do, right??).
Going back to article, How does this dual turbo compare to variable geometry turbochargers? VG Turbos need moving parts inside hot stream of gases, while dual turbo probably uses fixed turbines. Cheaper parts that would probably last longer but x2. Dual turbos should beat VG turbos in a range of efficient boost. Dual turbos need more parts, so are more expensive when compared to one VG Turbo. Anything else I missed??
Posted by: W2 | 08 June 2006 at 05:54 AM
Diesels will never be big in the USA until a standard common diesel blend is produced both for onroad and offroad applications. I dont think that will ever happen. Right now, or, before June 1, there were offroad diesel blends which had a red dye in them, if I am not mistaken, to be used only offroad. Onroad diesel had a greenish tint. This "red" offroad diesel is to be used in tractors and offroad diesels. These diesel engines could date back to the 1940's or 1950's. This "red" blend of diesel will continue to be made, which means there will always be a reliability issue of using the new blends of diesel in this older stuff, and also at the same time, using the older blend (offroad "red") in the newer vehicles, creating warranty and liability issues. For this reason, I feel diesels will never proliferate here in the USA, as they have in Europe. Couple that with some recent studies which suggest diesel is one of the biggest cancer causing substances around, and you see why it will not proliferate here in the sue-happy USA.
Posted by: Mark A | 08 June 2006 at 06:15 AM
Diesel will never be big in US?? That is incorrect. Show me one 18 wheeler that runs on something else than diesel. Diesel cars are big ( and will be for many years)
If you would said that diesel is never going to be big in light duty cars, then yes it is possible.
And as far as your argument for on and offraod diesel having different characteristics it doesn't matter. If you use red dyed diesel in onroad vehicles you will be fined into obliviation.
Posted by: W2 | 08 June 2006 at 06:47 AM
To W2, thanks for correcting me. I didnt know I had to be that specific on this website, especially since it is green-CAR-congress.
I also understand the fine for using red dye diesel, but dont see it enforced very well, especially in my area. But I do see problems in using the older "red died" (sulfur perhaps?) diesel in these types of newer design diesels, coming to markets in Europe. Will not work here, especially with injection pressures approaching 26,000 PSI. Would hate to see something go wrong there, and have all that pressure blow off around me! Thats the liability and warranty issue I refered to. I also see problems with trying to use the newer cleaner diesel in older tractors and bulldozers built 40-50 years ago. Failing engines, and expensive fixes.
I am not against diesels by any means, I just dont know how it can be implemented. A low priced,no frills, small, light weight Cobra sized, two seat commuter-sports car, with a small diesel and a manual trans, getting 60+ mpg would be an ideal vehicle for many. Maybe I will build it myself........But I dont see how, as there is a reason that there will currently be only one new diesel car available for sale here in the US to meet the current emission standards.
Posted by: Mark A | 08 June 2006 at 07:49 AM
What does your comment have to do with the cost of the turbo? What does your comment have to do with my comment?
Do you think I was trying to elude to replacement costs of a turbo? Sorry, I would have said that directly. There were no hidden questions or meanings in my message.
I was going to add a whole spiel on the cost of VNT/VGT turbos and those with lightweight composite wheels, or more advanced center cartridges but quite frankly I'm not sure how much those cost and didn't feel like looking it up. If this turbo cost less than any of the turbos I mention in this paragraph then that is a good deal otherwise I could mock up a dual turbo system of my own for around $1500 without the cost of the plumbing to interface with the exhaust and intake of the car.
Posted by: Patrick | 08 June 2006 at 07:53 AM
A cost of a turbo, not surprisingly, is based on the temperatures and stresses it is expected to see in production.
In addition, if you go for the cheap turbo you are advocating you cannot make the benefits that this engine does.
In order to make torque you need fuel and in order to use the fuel without making smoke you need boost. Early and at low speed. A modern diesel lives or dies by its turbo technology
If you then throw all the turbo technology out to get a cheap turbo, you throw out all the advances that make the new improved diesel what it is.
I wasn't implying you were hiding anything, rather that if you simplify the turbo arrangment, you throw the bay out with the bathwater.
A VNT does do a very similar thing to the above twin parallel device but is very much more expensive to make than two relatively simple turbos and a control valve.
The above device looks hideously complex from the picture but it just two relatively ordinary turbos packaged very closely side by side to one another.
Nothing all that complex at all! Good bit of engineering though
Posted by: Ruaraidh | 08 June 2006 at 08:44 AM
I guess we won't know long term longevity until it's been out a while, but what a nice engine! (Can't help but think it's slightly overkill for the car it's mated to). I have a four banger Honda Odyssey: this diesel engine would absolutely smoke it in both performance AND fuel economy, and that's saying a lot because our van might be the cheapest on gas out of all the vans out there right now. Who wouldn't want to buy these engines, now that clean diesel is (almost) here?
The current crop of clean diesels coming out is phenomenal. Diesel's dying a slow death? I doubt that one very much, as does VW, Honda, Mitsubushi, etc, etc.
Posted by: John W. | 08 June 2006 at 09:29 AM
The turbo I was thinking of (in the $700 range) is perfect for this size of engine. I have never dealt with diesels so I'm not sure of the specific application but a 2.2L or engine which uses the amount of air required to support roughly ~175hp would work great on a single Garrett T25 with a bit of lag (full boost wouldn't be reached until around 2200rpm with a proper setup) and the T25 would provide the air very efficiently (low heat for the amount of pressure and volume flow) in the 170 to 200 hp range on a gasoline engine.
I could see using something like a Mitsubishi TDO3- 9b used in a twin parallel configuration such as this with an controller getting a feed line off the rpm sensor to activate the solenoid controlling the gate to the second turbo. Not counting my labor for programming the controller and welding it together the parts could be had for $1500 and would potentially work just as well. Of course, unless there are some benefits to this over a single turbo (what, a tiny bit of lag removal?) it adds unnecessary weight, creates a second point for possible failure - just see what happens if an oil line to the center cartridge fails...in this case you have two center cartridges and two oil lines. If it is water cooled that is even more complexity.
Posted by: Patrick | 08 June 2006 at 12:28 PM
Diesel engine is a workhorse of commercial vehicles, and will be in foreseen future, no doubt about it. However, for specific conditions of use of family sedan in US (25K km/year, mostly city driving, high power, automatic transmission) most of advantages of diesel engine are irrelevant
Longetivity: gasoline engine, built according to diesel engine standards, lasts, well, forever. Look, for example, to Honda industrial gasoline engines. The fair story of diesel engine longetivity is based on very simple fact: one just can not build short-lived diesel engine because it will be destroyed too quickly by violent explosion of fuel fumes ignited at the end of ignition delay (thus diesel noise). Modern gasoline engines using synthetic oil last for more then 500K km – more then enough for family sedan. In addition, diesel engines can not utilize in full advantages amazing properties of modern synthetic oil – diesel soot adsorbs friction modifying components in the lubricating oil and arrests it on the oil filter.
Diesel engine are invariably more expensive (it have to be built to much higher tolerances and from better materials to withstand higher detonation stresses), heavier, and universally require turbocharging Cost of repair for high pressure injection components, turbocharger, injectors, exhaust aftertreatment system are much higher then gasoline counterpart. This cost is largely multiplied by insurance premiums for more expensive engine and hence car itself.
Torque: in the environment of overtaxed and underpowered European cars switch to diesel power is just natural. However, with about 120 hp per 1200kg US subcompact car, automatic transmission offers better fuel efficiency then manual (on 90 hp 1100 kg European-style car it is pronouncedly different). This is from results of government tests, in real life it is not true; however, in real life average driver is far less experienced with manual gear switch then on-board computer of automatic transmission then expert driver undergoing government tests. And US-style (not European-style automatic transmission, which is barely wet clutch) torque converter on AT have a nice habit to DOUBLE engine torque from stand-still start, beating diesel/manual to the ground.
Fuel efficiency: diesel engine have better fuel efficiency then gasoline engine. Moreover, unlike diesel, gasoline engine looses a lot of fuel efficiency at partial load (closed throttle) and at idle. Enter hybrid electric drive, especially Prius-like. No idle fuel consumption, regenerative braking, and vastly improved fuel efficiency due to continuously variable transmission allowing to run wider throttle opening with lower RPM. City driving is way more efficient then conventional diesel car, but still highway driving is slightly worse. Enter lean burn engine. Paradoxically, drive of diesel engine manufacturers to attain emissions comparable to gasoline engine spells the death of diesel engine for passenger car application. The exact moment lean combustion aftertreatment will be economically feasible ( it is already technologically), lean-burn hybrid will be way better at any respect then conventional diesel. And because diesel engine benefit much less from hybrid drivetrain then gasoline engine, diesel hybrid for family sedan most probably will be not feasible.
And I argue you do not listen for European establishments arrogant drive against hybrids. It is mostly driven by fear of loosing fuel tax revenue then real desire to lower emission and fuel consumption.
Posted by: Andrey | 09 June 2006 at 02:41 AM
Andrey, you really think about some things:
>mostly city driving
>advantages of diesel engine are irrelevant
Then you say this:
>unlike diesel, gasoline engine looses a lot of fuel efficiency at partial load (closed throttle) and at idle
So in fact diesel's advantages are *precisely* what is required in city driving.
You then appear to go off on an slightly ill-informed rant against Euro cars and taxation policy:
Euro vs US Autos? Modern autoshift manuals were developed to get the benefits of a full torque converter autobox but without the cosumption penalties. ie no converter losses, no high pressure pump losses etc etc. We USED to have the same autos as the US then we progressed. Poor driver gear selection, yes I'm sure that is true in the US where few manual are used and drivers are not taught to use them but you cannot extend that argument to most European countries. Europeans tend to view full automatics with disdain, expecially in small cars hence they are not sold. This is where the new generation of ASM gearboxes comes in. Not for the reasons you give at all. It's about what the market wants and it's about people not wanting lazy, slow, poor shifting, slushy feeling, inefficient US type automatics!
You appear to need all that torque multiplication as you keep insisting on wanting more torque but then buy petrol engines!! Just buy a torquier more efficient engine and then use a more efficient transmission and save fuel twice ie better engine and better transmission.
Diesels are more expensive, this is true but they are also generally more durable. Your arguments are incorrect about the life of the engines as noone would build a petrol engine to the same strength levels, what would be the point. You also need to look at the effect of modern common rail injection with multiple pilot inejctions on diesel noise. Finally, in this country they also cost less to insure than an equivalent petrol engined model too. Not how you came to this conclusion.
Overtaxed and underpowered? Hmm, not sure where you've been but the latest diesels are hardly underpowered! 170hp in an Golf? Underpowered? Not really. The latest Ford Mondeo 2.2 Diesel makes over 150hp and has susbstantial torque. Try looking at the big German A8 and 7 Series limos with Diesels, that just shows that the skie's the limit.
Diesel vs Hybrid. There is not some conspiracy going on here: diesels are used widely and this has been the case for more than a DECADE! And not just because diesel has a lower tax in a lot of European countries but because fuel generally is highly taxed: Market forces therefore ensure that people wish to save fuel so they buy an economical engine choice (ie they don't live in countries that have 5% of the world's population but burn 43% of the world's petrol) They do not have to compromise on peformance to achieve this aim though.
This is a good thing, Europeans have been buying cars that save fuel for a long time before hybrids came along. As they have really on achieved critical mass in the last few years, most people look on them as expensive, slightly odd, show no real benefit over the diesel they already own and ignore them. It's a different marketplace, one that can embrace a range of fuels and solutions on the basis of benefit rather than long held misconceptions and misinformation.
I really don't think you have any grounds to make out that hydrids are a panacea when so few exist in the US as a proportion of the national fleet, when diesels are a significant part of the Euro market helping millions to save fuel every day.
I actually agree that hybrids are a great thing, just that one should be careful not to become overly fixated with one solution to the exclusion of all others.
Posted by: Ruaraidh | 09 June 2006 at 03:32 AM
So if the engine revs to 4krpm and makes useful torque at 1500rpm, you've proposed a turbo that throws fully 30% of that powerband (2200-4000) away. The WHOLE point of the turbo installation above is to win that extra 30% (from 1500-2200) so that higher gear ratios can be used and fuel saved.
The difference between diesel and petrol is that a diesel is smoke limited. You can't make torque without air to push that smoke limit back. No air = no go. What you propose would put the diesel back in the mid 80s.
Oh, and in full production, a turbo costs the OEM nothing like the 700USD that a retail item costs!!
Posted by: Ruaraidh | 09 June 2006 at 03:36 AM
Well, emotions and personal opinions aside, pure numbers:
Same subclass of vehicles, same EPA tests, same country (US), both vehicles imported:
Honda Civic sedan, gasoline engine, 5 speed AT:
140 hp, 1210 kg, 15600 US$, 30/40 mpg.
WV Jetta sedan (the only one diesel sedan in US market), turbo diesel, 5 speed MT:
100 hp, 1440 kg, 21600 US$, 36/41 mpg.
You do the math. And yes, it is the last year WV diesel is sold in US – can not comply with emission regulations.
Posted by: Andrey | 09 June 2006 at 10:05 PM
Well apart from the fact that we're talking about Europe (where more comparisons are readily available)
I don't think that your comaprison proves anything other than one vehicle is 15% heavier than than the other!
You'd be far better off camparing like with like.
There are no emotions here: the Euro market doesn't like conventional autos except in large lusury cars period.
And almost all (apart from your cherry picked example) show that conventional autos are less efficient. That's a no-brainer irrespective of how many "exceptions to the rule" you pull out.
Posted by: Ruaraidh | 12 June 2006 at 02:17 AM