Very impressive efficiency for such a ride--but that's one complex drive train.

I know it is complex, but it is exactly the type of thing I wish I could buy in 5 years. It would be really cool if they could also add in some sort of heat recovery system, like BMW's turbosteamer. I know....I'm being greedy, but I would like to see someone attempt to combine all of the known ICE efficiency improving technologies.

Oh, yeah....maybe throw in E85 compatibility. That shouldn't be much of a problem though - according to GM, HCCI works fine with ethanol.

For simplicity, durability, minimum moving parts, clean operations, almost fail proof, could we have a vehicle with an upgradable modular EESU + in-wheel high efficiency electric motors + an optional APU for long distances (if required)?

I don't think this is intended in any way to suggest this will be the mainstream technology of the future. This is a concept aimed at a potential S-class variant 5 years from now - not a mainstream vehicle by any means.

Yes, no one needs such technology, but many people want it. What, it's ok for my home electronics to evolve into a ridiculously complex instruments, but it's not ok for automobiles? What is so terribly complex about what they are proposing? 15 years ago, we had to live with carburators, static cam lift/timing profiles, and 3-speed automatics. Should we have stopped there? I know I wouldn't be happy driving around a Ford Tempo or Chevy Citation today.

In the past months we've seen three different drive line configuration from GM; the BEV, PHEV and The FCEV. I think these and many of the other car company concepts are nothing more than scrambling to hedge their bets and as pointed out, minimize mistakes.

This business, for the established auto companies, has always been about moving slow. I remember when the only difference between the '53 and '54 Chevy was the chrome pieces; you only had to change the grill and tail light assemblies to move up a year.

It's taken 100 years for us to get here and what do you know, it's the same place we started only with more sophisticated technology. When Ford built the first T model it was designed to run on ethanol. Then he and the Standard Oil company put gasoline in the ICE, ran the BEV companies out of the business, and so here we are after running in an evolutionary circle, looking at HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs all over again.

I know it is complex
It's not any more complex than any other ICE with a turbo & variable timing.
The only thing complex is the software to control it all.
Despite what you may have heard, engine software doesn't have to be rotated & balanced every 50,00 miles.

DS:

"It's not any more complex than any other ICE with a turbo & variable timing."

I would assume that variable compression makes for an additional layer of mechanical complexity. This is beyond glorified Honda iVTEC. In addition, it's got a mild hybrid setup with batteries, starter/motor/generator, controller, etc.

I'm not concerned about the complexity of the programming; I'm wondering about the cost, complexity and reliability of all those moving electro and mechanical parts. It may be a tour-de-force, but it looks awfully expensive to me.

@ Terry -

zank you, you vill be here al ze week. Try ze veal.

Btw, engine knock is a secondary, *uncontrolled* auto-ignition of a gas pocket near the edge of the combustion chamber, triggered by acoustic supercompression. This is caused by the pressure wave emanating radially from a spark plug in conventional SI and must be avoided because it can very quickly cause the engine to fail.

This is entirely different from *controlled* auto ignition, a combustion concept in which there is no spark, no flame front and therefore no dominant radial pressure wave. Instead, combustion occurs spontaneously at many locations almost simultaneously and is over and done with before any flame front can even form. It's still loud but the pressure signature is much more benign, i.e. there is no risk of damage to the engine.

"Knock, knock, knock, knock, knock, knock.......Who's there?.....DiesOtto"

Auto who?
Auto-ignition, you foo! :P

Sorry it takes 24 hrs to post this response.

Me Likey!!!

@ Andrey -

if flameless combustion were cheap and easy to control, we'd all be driving around with engines that use it in part load. It is hard and expensive, but with modern variable valve trains, GDI, in-cylinder pressure sensors (e.g. by using the spark plug in reverse to measure ion current) and control electronics, it is becoming feasible. On the diesel side, the hard part is precise control of EGR cooling and mass flow. Pressure sensors integrated into the glow plug are available but still expensive.

Btw: smooth mode transitions have been demonstrated in multi-cylinder engines in various prototypes. The hard part is making absolutely sure it is absolutely robust in all weather and operating conditions, with conventional ignition a fallback option if any component of the control system fails or is at least deemed suspect by plausability checks. Also, customer acceptance is not yet a given, both in terms of aural comfort and in terms of cost.

@ doggydoggworld -

agreed, using a gasoline HCCI engine in a genset is pointless. You're better off using a smaller, lighter and running that at high load (open throttle) with a three-way catalyst. Only if you decide to use a diesel *and* you need to meet T2B5 *and* you want to avoid the expense of a LNT or SCR system would flameless combustion make sense in PHEV genset. It would be expensive and the extra weight would reduce the fuel economy benefit, which is anyhow not much at high load.

And yes, DiesOtto is a poorly chosen term. In English, no-one refers to a spark ignition engine as an Otto engine, as the Germans do. Therefore, Joe Average doesn#t even know what the Otto part refers to. Moreover, he's likely to guess that the engine is running on diesel fuel - and all the prejudice that entails - which it is not. Finally, flameless combustion is neither conventional spark nor conventional compression ignition - it is best thought of as distinct from both. Therefore, DiesOtto is not just confusing and misleading, it is also factually wrong, at least wrt the flameless combustion.

I prefer flameless combustion or volume ignition to describe what's going on. It can be achieved for a variety of fuels including gasoline and diesel, but the implementation must be adapted to the intrinsic properties of the target fuel.

I agree that HCCI combustion has nothing to do with diesel, it´s very diferent in nature:
HCCI: constant volume
diesel: constant pressure
HCCI:homogeneous (well mixed)
diesel:stratified and heterogeneous(poorly mixed)
HCCI: cold combustion
diesel: very hot combustion
HCCI: fuel must resist some compression (requires octane rated fuels)
diesel:fuel should ignite easily on temperature (cetane rating), which is inapropriate for HCCI.
The HCCI combustion is a clean and efficient one because it´s well mixed, fast and cold, the very opposite to diesel.
Hcci is the way to go and not diesel, as a matter of fact, diesel has delayed what should have always been.