goddamm

"Fuck small cars" (5812f7a4-db57-496f-88b8-ebf9e665c53e) 07/29/2014 at 07:59 • Filed to: None

0

9

Just overheard two co-workers discuss cars.

coworker 1: I was also looking at acura NSX.

coworker 2: oh, you mean the RSX?

coworker 1: almost similar. NSX.

WTF.

PS9 > Fuck small cars 07/29/2014 at 08:12

1

Well, Acura made the both of them, so basically they're the same car, right? Kind of like how ford makes the mustang as well as the expedition. Those are basically the same too, right?

Rock Bottom > Fuck small cars 07/29/2014 at 08:20

0

If it makes you feel any better, I overheard a conversation at work yesterday where one engineer told another engineer that the Atkinson Cycle and the Miller Cycle were the same.

Engineers.

At a car company.

I big one.

sadface

Klaus Schmoll > Fuck small cars 07/29/2014 at 08:27

0

To be fair, Acuras three-letter acronyms make it kinda hard to memorize which is which. But still...

ly2v8-Brian > PS9 07/29/2014 at 09:05

1

Quite right they are part of the SX series.

miadaman? yes please > Rock Bottom 07/29/2014 at 09:24

0

I thought both in their current form just play with valve timing to reduce pumping loss, granted miller cycle use supercharger to maintain intake pressure while Atkinson doesn't.

Unless you mean the original Atkinson uses one rotation for all strokes? Please educate me Oppo.

Racescort666 > Rock Bottom 07/29/2014 at 09:29

0

How about this gem?

Rock Bottom > miadaman? yes please 07/29/2014 at 10:07

1

This conversation was in reference to the modern application of the Atkinson Cycle where you just hold the intake valve open for a while before starting the compression stroke. You're right that the Miller Cycle compresses against the supercharger while an Atkinson Cycle compresses against... intake momentum I guess? The atmosphere? Baby panda tears?

They are different from each other, were invented by different people, and are meant to do different things. Different missions, if you will. The Atkinson Cycle is meant to have better thermal efficiency at the cost of power density and the Miller Cycle is sort of the opposite. It might seem trivial, but in an engineering environment it's important to keep these details straight. Especially in the kind of conversation these guys were having where some marketing moron was about to put these words into a plan of some sort and force it on the company because he heard it was "moar betterness".

Google some GIFs of these. Engine GIFs always help me!

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Rock Bottom 07/29/2014 at 10:42

1

In their defense both the Atkinson and Miller cycles are implemented pretty similarly in modern engines. In both cases the intake valve is kept open for part of the compression stroke so that the expansion stroke is longer than the compression stroke which is the key feature of both cycles.

Rock Bottom > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 07/29/2014 at 11:45

0

Agreed, but the simple truth is that there is a difference and engineering needs to keep that difference in mind. Especially when requirements are being set. If the mistake is made at the wrong time, The Company will end up with some requirements document for a new car that states "Performance Upgrade: Atkinson Cycle engine, 400 hp, same core engine as base 300 hp Otto Cycle model".

I've seen dumber things...