I know I've posted a lot of stuff so you may have missed it, but he's full of crap.. CDI was pioneered by Bosch, MB and Alpa Romeo.. TOGETHER.

 

More innovation..

 

Reading tonight over some of this threads I noticed the strong will power of krispykrme to glorify Toyota. And no doubt most of us are doing the same with our very fine german engineered cars (krispkrme owns several, so there must be something good about them.....). OK, so what are the facts, the technical arguments. Let me try some more, although I probably should go and drink a beer with krispykrme and understand what he is really about, as this written discussion is starting to become a bit of a pissing match (and I know of being guilty of starting it).

So after understanding that we are actually talking about the "Toyota" engine used in the new Lexus IS350, I reviewed the information on the web at the Lexus website to understand what they have done to generate the comparative high power numbers at high revs. Bingo, direct injection of gasoline, used here (with high suplhur content fuel in the US) to improve output at high end revs.

However, direct injection itself is just doing that, more power at high revs, unless it is applied to run the engine lean, as can be done for example in Europe with low sulphur content fuel.

However, this is not the only measure to consider. In fact it does not say much as to the success of designing a powerful, felixble yet efficient engine. It is the torque as a function of revs (with Power = Torque x Revs) which matters. For information I have attached a plot of the new MB 272 E35 engine with DIN horsepower and torque information presented. The MB engineers did a damn good job of getting 87% of maximum torque at 1500 rpm and achieve a flat curve all the way from 2400 to 5000 rpm. This due to the technology indicated in my earlier post. By the way, the same excellent technology and flat torque behaviour are part of the new M 273 E 55 as to be used in the S500 (S550 in the US) and E500 (or E550 in the US, I am not sure as to MB plans?), great !!

It would be interested to see how the IS350 engine compares. Maybe krispykrme can provide us with such a plot?

With regards to the revised SAE Standard J1349 as mentioned in krispykrme thread, the definition of horsepower is an involved topic. However reading up on the new US standard it seems it is now catching up with the DIN standard as used on German cars for as long as I know.

So before you all tell me that 1 HP (SAE) is more than 1 HP or 1PS ((DIN), you are right. The "Imperial" horsepower (1 hp = 33,000 ft·lbf·min-1) and German pferdstarke (nowadays defined in terms of SI units: 1 PS = 75 kp·m/s = 735.49875 W) differ slightly. In fact 1 hp = 1.014 PS. This explains for example that the MB M272 E35 engine measured in Germany at 272PS (DIN) is quoted as 268HP (SAE) in the US.

However the DIN and now the revised SAE J1349 standard (as "finally" used by Lexus) are measured at the engine flywheel with all engine accessories attached, alternator fully loaded, emissions-control equipment installed, and the production exhaust system attached.

Prior to revised SAE J1349 US manufacturers used SAE gross horsepower. This tested the engine's power at the flywheel without most accessories attached, no pollution control equipment, and an open, unrestricted exhaust system. This gave power figures upto approx 20% higher than SAE net, although there is much variation.

Looks to me the argument of the new SAE is just catching up were the Germans already have been for a while. No need for Mercedes to retest at the revised SAE standard I would say.

All enjoy your fine german cars. Just cursious, who were actually the folk to get mankind to the moon.....?

 

OK. My little attempt to show some unbias info regarding Common Rail (which I am not interested nor do I have any desire to purchase any Diesel in the near future)

Common rail direct injection
Main article: Common rail
The common rail system on its prototype was already developed in late sixties with Mr. Hiber in Switzerland. After that, Ganser of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology focusing on his research the common rail technology was advanced. In mid nineties, Dr. Shohei Itoh and Masahiko Miyaki, Japanese automotive parts manufacturer Denso Corporation, developed the Common Rail Fuel System for Heavy Duty Vehicles and finally turned into its first practical use on their ECD-U2 common Rail system, which was mounted on the HINO RAISING RANGER truck and sold for general use in 1995. Later in 1997 the German automotive parts manufacturer Robert Bosch GmbH extended its use for passenger car. Today the common rail system is responsible for a revolution in diesel engine technology. Delphi Automotive Systems of the US also make common-rail systems. Different car makers refer to their common rail engines by different names, e.g. DaimlerChrysler's CDI, Ford Motor Company's TDCi (most of these engines are manufactured by PSA), Fiat Group's (Fiat, Alfa Romeo and Lancia) JTD, Renault's DCi, GM/Opel's CDTi (most of these engines are manufactured by Fiat, other by Isuzu), PSA Peugeot Citroen's HDI, Toyota's D-4D, and so on

source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine

From that above article, it does appear that DENSO was actively involved with this technology in addition to Bosch, Delphi and others.

p.s. Before I sign off, FWIW, the article from http://www.swedespeed.com/news/publi...inter_272.html had the source of Robert Bosch GmbH and thus Bosch centric.

 

Very well written response btw..


As for your question (rhetorical I assume) well, the names:

Hermann Julius Oberth
Gen. (Wehrmact) Walter Dornberger
Eugen Sänger

and a team of 130 German scientists lead by Dr. Wernher von Braun may have had something to do with it.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online...ky3/space2.htm

 

Companies today don't make false claims when it comes to proprietary and innovative accomplishments.. there are too many lawyers involved in these types of things for this to be anything other than 100% accurate.

 

I am not saying that Bosch is making false claims. If you read between the lines, you will see that the article focuses on the accomplishment of Bosch in Common Rail technology and not mentioned the advancement of this technology by her competitors.

 

Point well taken, but nevertheless, the facts are the first production common rail cars were in 1997 with the Bosch system, and they were MB & Alpha.

to wit

 

.... AND according to the article that I posted earlier

"...Japanese automotive parts manufacturer Denso Corporation, developed the Common Rail Fuel System for Heavy Duty Vehicles and finally turned into its first practical use on their ECD-U2 common Rail system, which was mounted on the HINO RAISING RANGER truck and sold for general use in 1995..."

BTW, I have NO LOVE for Toyota but facts are facts, it appears that DENSO did put out Common Rail Fuel System in a truck before Alfa and MB introduced Common Rail into passenger vehicles.

 

I concede that common rail was deployed first by a Japanese company (HINO) in a Semi truck.. but what does this have to do with the discussion about Toyota & Lexus cars, and diesel cars...

My point was that MB was among the first cars to have it.. therefore MB lead the way in this technology.... irrespective of whether Bosch or Denso "invented" it.. I'm sure the R&D on this was in parallel development for years before the first car makers too interest, but it appears that Fiat & Bosch were the pioneers from the corporate standpoint... as they were the first to pump R&D into it... But this debate is about cars, otherwise we can segway into marine diesels, and diesel turbine applications in ships, etc..


source: http://www.turbocompressori.net/common_rail.htm

 

Nothing. Like I said before, I have NO LOVE for TOY/LEX cars

My 'intervention' is to bring to some light that not everything with Bosch or MB is first or best. I personally have 2 MBs, 2 Bimmers and 1 Honda on my driveway and there are some days I love my MBs to death and on other days, think they are overated when compared to my other cars.