Hartech ECO-POWER Engines

[bazhart]

Just thought some of you might be puzzled if you see our development HARTECH ECO-POWER car driving about the North West (pictured below), so here are some answers.

Exploiting something I discovered 45 years ago while dyno testing two stroke racing engines - (that applied to power and torque) - our capacity increased engines started to get reported back as not only improving power, torque and driveability - but better fuel economy as well (about 10%) which also therefore translates to a 10% reduction in emissions - more torque - more power - less emissions, less fuel costs - what's not to like?

But thinking about why - I realised that although most of my working life with engines has been about performance - the force that pushes down on the piston comes from how much energy is released from the fuel in the cylinder, how well it mixes with air, how much air is in there and how high a pressure it is therefore compressed to - so anything that increases performance also has the capacity to improve engine/fuel efficiency.

As long as you allow for the stroke being calculated to the point of ignition (which is usually before TDC) valve overlap losses or gains etc - the compression pressure before ignition is roughly close to the C/R * atmospheric pressure * volumetric efficiency (VE). Close enough to realise that even if you have a C/R high - at low revs (when the VE is low) and part throttle openings (when VE is low) the resulting compression pressure at the point of ignition is also low and fuel efficiency is a exponential curve that falls away dramatically at lower revs and C/R's.

So our capacity conversion have improved VE (at lower revs) and hence improved mpg as well which automatically reduces emissions by the same proportion at least.

Our Eco-Power engine has taken things a step further and improved low and mid range fuel efficiency and power even further but the problem then is always to prevent knock (detonation) when it is driven flat out - and it is that area our patent has covered and that our invention is being tested to achieve - and so far it is all working as predicted and really well (as the guy said after he jumped off the Empire State Building - as he passed the 3rd floor and was heard to say "so far so good"!

Having already had reports usually of a 10% mpg improvement (with our standard increased capacity engines) and some claiming even more - we expect to better that significantly - but no funds available it seems any more for such improvements (that could apply to all remanufactured engines and the remaining ICE engines being manufactured) so not confident we can spread the benefit enough to apply globally - at least we are doing our bit for the environment without reducing the performance we all buy the cars to experience and enjoy occasionally (actually improving it).

Baz

 

[coullstar]

Intriguing, Im sure you dont want to give much away but keep update please.

I can see my man maths and skills being used with my wife now as a justification for capacity increase - it will save me money in the long run dear :thumb:

 

[Alex]

Excellent stuff Baz!!

I can see getting any funding being nigh on impossible as it's not 'trendy' to progress with anything ICE. I think your only hope (apart from crowd funding) is either through a mainstream manufacturer (like Porsche themselves) or an oil company.

People (especially politicians) are so blinkered when it comes to problem solving and once they have a notion in their head it's hard to change it.

You only have to do some simple maths to realise its a political agenda and not what's best for the planet....... even if you believe man-made CO2 is the temperature controller for the planet :floor: :floor: :floor: :floor:

 

[infrasilver]

I saw pictures of the car online and thought it a good idea to promote that side of things even if you are not able to get the funding, it's just another plus point for getting a capacity increase.

I know you tried to explain this to me Baz when we chatted up at yours before I had decided on a capacity increase but it mostly went over my head and I took it with a pinch of salt but I am truly amazed at my MPG figures that are being returned at the moment.

After running it in I was getting 33 mpg and then being able to open the engine up a bit more I was still getting over 31 mpg for the first 2500 miles, I had assumed this was because I was taking it easy in the running in period but it turned out not to be. Even after hooning the car around the Alps for 2500 miles 2 weeks ago, with 3 full days on mountain passes, it only dropped to 29.5 mpg, where before it would have got 23 in normal driving and 20 up and down passes at high revs, that's getting on for 30%, I'm unsure why my build is that good on fuel? Even though I'd never really bothered myself with my mpg as you wouldn't expect good figures from a Porsche, I am monitoring it now as I can't quite believe what I am seeing especially considering how hard I drive it.

 

[Alex]

Those figures are amazing.

 

[bazhart]

Thanks Infrasilver, Your figures do seem better than we expected and higher than others report (although those are still in the 10 to 15% range) so I wonder if some of it is explained by the other small faults with your car that you revealed as you rebuilt it and found the need to change a few things and perhaps not all just to do with our capacity increase?

The Hartech ECO-POWER is specifically designed to increase that benefit much further but unfortunately few R & D projects covered the ranges and combustion conditions we are interested in so we need to do a lot of R & D ourselves to fully exploit the invention.

Those that know how busy we always are and how hard our small business works will appreciate what a huge strain that places on us without external funding - but we will plod on and do our best to contribute maybe a small thing but at least something to help reduce our engines emissions, improve their driveability and clean up the environment for our grandchildren.

Baz

 

[Alex]

Chris' figures what he used to get blasting round Europe do seem the norm. If I'm really cautious I can pull early 30s on a long run, but as soon as you get on the fun bit and start hoofing it you're easily down into the teens.

 

[infrasilver]

Thanks Infrasilver, Your figures do seem better than we expected and higher than others report (although those are still in the 10 to 15% range) so I wonder if some of it is explained by the other small faults with your car that you revealed as you rebuilt it and found the need to change a few things and perhaps not all just to do with our capacity increase?

I don't think it is due to my pre rebuild issues because since I have had the car, +10 years, it's always been around 23 on average.

 

[bazhart]

Then it is truly amazing! thanks

Baz

 

[nickyg63]

16A5AB40-F247-4C70-A904-42EEA16DDCC0 by Nick Goodess, on Flickr

mine during running in on a 1000 mile trip around Scotland!!!

 

[Alex]

Holy Fook!!!!


Where do I sign?

 

[Robertb]

Good grief, that's amazing.

 

[infrasilver]

mine during running in on a 1000 mile trip around Scotland!!!

40.4 is great, I only get 47 from my 18 month old diesel Golf, to be fair it does also get driven very hard.

 

[nickyg63]

mine during running in on a 1000 mile trip around Scotland!!!

40.4 is great, I only get 47 from my 18 month old diesel Golf, to be fair it does also get driven very hard.

this was running in so not revving over 4k, and cruise set at 70mph. now getting 35 on a run which is amazing considering its close to 4ltrs, I ran a golf GTD for 3yrs and got about the same as you!!

 

[bazhart]

OK My original feedback was from the first engines we remanufactured as capacity conversions and they were 3.4 to 3.7's (which are not as efficient due to the cylinder head being less sophisticated and relatively smaller).

The 3.6 to 3.9's show a better improvement compared to 3.7's in efficiency of about 50% so I might have expected 15% better economy but I guess the added torque means you use less throttle to achieve the same performance but the figures are still amazing and thank you guys for adding this independent feedback.

The improvements do seem to mirror or follow the head design and capacity increases so the 3.2 Boxster S to 3.7 (without changing the heads, valves, inlet or exhaust) is only about 10% more torquey for a 15% increase in capacity.

The 3.4 996 to 3.7 (with better breathing as standard) is 16.7% more torque compared to 8.8 % increase in capacity (so twice the benefit).

The 3.6 to 3.9 is 25% better torque from 8.3% increase in capacity (so 3 times the improvement).

The Cayman S 3.4 to 3.9 is an 19% increase in torque for a 15% increase in capacity (27%).

I mention comparisons with Torque because it is just about the nearest thing to thermal efficiency comparison you can get but don't forget these figures are obtained on full throttle (WOT) and your economy is not achieved like that so it shows that at lower revs and small throttle openings (i.e. lower volumetric efficiency) these engines work even better.

Its torque that accelerates the car not BHP so although BHP is also increased it is the torque that is more relevant for both acceleration and efficiency (fuel consumption) but a lot depends on whether you use the extra potential to drive faster or drive much the same as before the conversion (therefore using less throttle and fuel).

Baz