The Merc NA V8 with cylinder deactivation....
The Merc NA V8 with cylinder deactivation....
Author
Discussion

pilchardthecat

Original Poster:

7,483 posts

210 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
....that's fitted to the newish SLK55 AMG.... 421bhp, 33mpg combined

Have they put it in anything with seats in the back yet? Because i need it.

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

277 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
Cylinder deactivation is a red herring in UK. All it does is enable manufacturers to post artificially high mpg figures on the extra-urban test cycle. If you want fuel economy you need to get a lighter car which almost certainly means a smaller engine.

Makes much more sense in USA for V8s running mega freeway miles.

Buff Mchugelarge

3,316 posts

181 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
It's a shame really, its a good idea.

How often can most 4 cylinders pootle about on 2 cylinders without any detrimental affect?
a steady cruise, in traffic etc?


I'm surpirsed this hasn't been a bandwagon?

braddo

12,379 posts

219 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
Or if you commute on a motorway in the UK....

anonymous-user

85 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
It may well remove the pumping losses associated with the de-activated cylinders, but it doesn't remove the ring / piston / bearing friction as well, so the real world economy benefits are marginal. If you want to potter around, just using about 20bhp, it's better to simply buy a car that only makes 20bhp, rather than one that makes another 300 you don't ever use.........

Buff Mchugelarge

3,316 posts

181 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
It may well remove the pumping losses associated with the de-activated cylinders, but it doesn't remove the ring / piston / bearing friction as well, so the real world economy benefits are marginal. If you want to potter around, just using about 20bhp, it's better to simply buy a car that only makes 20bhp, rather than one that makes another 300 you don't ever use.........
I've got an Mx5 with around 130bhp. I don't use all 130bhp all the time?. But, it's there should I feel the need.


Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

277 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
It may well remove the pumping losses associated with the de-activated cylinders, but it doesn't remove the ring / piston / bearing friction as well, so the real world economy benefits are marginal. If you want to potter around, just using about 20bhp, it's better to simply buy a car that only makes 20bhp, rather than one that makes another 300 you don't ever use.........
....which is why turbocharging is generally a much better answer than cylinder deactivation. In Europe.

GroundEffect

13,864 posts

187 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
Cylinder deactivation is a red herring in UK. All it does is enable manufacturers to post artificially high mpg figures on the extra-urban test cycle. If you want fuel economy you need to get a lighter car which almost certainly means a smaller engine.

Makes much more sense in USA for V8s running mega freeway miles.
Well it's 50% urban, 50% extra urban.

Sounds like a reasonable test to me.

If you do more urban running, look at the urban-only results.

Lastinclass

511 posts

211 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
I'm failing to see why geography plays a part in this. Surely if the ECU recognises the parameters required for activation of the cylinder cut off it doesn't matter where you are?
My understanding is that it bleeds off oil pressure from the valve lifters,so the valves don't open and cuts off the injector and coil for the relevant cyinder? At least that's what happened on the 5.7 Hemi in my Grand Cherokee here in the UK. I guess Mercedes shared the technology when it was all DaimlerChrysler??

deltashad

6,731 posts

228 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
I think it's a pretty good idea, if it makes a saving, then why not? It's never going to massively reduce the mpg but as long as the engine isn't under load for a 'manoeuvre' half the cylinders remaining closed will make a difference on a cruise.
But as has been said, smaller engines and turbocharging, also stop start technology added to the equation will make the most significant difference. The days of the V8's may be numbered... eek

Jimbo.

4,235 posts

220 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
Buff Mchugelarge said:
It's a shame really, its a good idea.

How often can most 4 cylinders pootle about on 2 cylinders without any detrimental affect?
a steady cruise, in traffic etc?


I'm surpirsed this hasn't been a bandwagon?
VW are using that very tech on a new Polo (Golf?), the name of which escapes me (GT? Blue?). It had a "Driven" article here on PH a few months back. 1.4TSI engine IIRC.

jp7152

161 posts

254 months

Tuesday 12th March 2013
quotequote all
A different engine I know but I think the cylinder deactivation does work and is useful to save fuel. I have it on a 2001 Mercedes CL600.

I haven't actually calculated it but going by the obc on a gentle run the car does around 30mpg. It depends what speed you are doing though as anything over about 80mph and the fuel use increases dramatically. Still 30mpg~ from a 5.8 V12 is pretty good! I think the official figure is a bit lower though, so maybe the OBC is telling lies.

pilchardthecat

Original Poster:

7,483 posts

210 months

Wednesday 13th March 2013
quotequote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
Cylinder deactivation is a red herring in UK. All it does is enable manufacturers to post artificially high mpg figures on the extra-urban test cycle. If you want fuel economy you need to get a lighter car which almost certainly means a smaller engine.

Makes much more sense in USA for V8s running mega freeway miles.
I would be surprised if the cylinder deactivation was any more of a red-herring than all this forced induction, which is great on the mpg test cycles but so far from reality on the road it's laughable.

Dr Interceptor

8,183 posts

227 months

Wednesday 13th March 2013
quotequote all
I've driven the SLK55 with the new engine - dropped a friend off at Gatwick and bought his car back home to look after it for a week.

It does work... and at busy M25 motorway speeds, it drops off four cylinders, improving your economy and range. For the most part, yes it still runs on all eight cylinders. I guess it just makes a V8 a more viable proposition as a commuter car - before any decent sized V8 would only ever return 22-27mpg when driven like a saint. The 55 engine means your V8 can return a figure starting with 3.


Matt UK

18,084 posts

231 months

Wednesday 13th March 2013
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
It may well remove the pumping losses associated with the de-activated cylinders, but it doesn't remove the ring / piston / bearing friction as well, so the real world economy benefits are marginal. If you want to potter around, just using about 20bhp, it's better to simply buy a car that only makes 20bhp, rather than one that makes another 300 you don't ever use.........
Totally disagree. I want a clever engine that delivers on two fronts:

Firstly, excellent mpg when I am cruising / commuting and using no more than about 50bhp to keep up with the flow of traffic
Secondly, excellent power when I want it.

I appreciate that you can't have both together, but an engine that tries to give you either/or is a fine thing indeed.

liner33

10,861 posts

233 months

Wednesday 13th March 2013
quotequote all
Matt UK said:
Firstly, excellent mpg when I am cruising / commuting and using no more than about 50bhp to keep up with the flow of traffic
Secondly, excellent power when I want it.
You have described a petrol turbo engine there, keep them off boost and decent economy can be had

kambites

71,660 posts

252 months

Wednesday 13th March 2013
quotequote all
liner33 said:
Matt UK said:
Firstly, excellent mpg when I am cruising / commuting and using no more than about 50bhp to keep up with the flow of traffic
Secondly, excellent power when I want it.
You have described a petrol turbo engine there, keep them off boost and decent economy can be had
Same principle, really - you're reducing the effective capacity of the engine (by lowering the boost instead of deactivating cylinders). But with a turbocharged engine instead of a V8 you have to put up with driving a turbocharged engine instead of a V8. wink

snotrag

15,732 posts

242 months

Wednesday 13th March 2013
quotequote all
Matt UK said:
I appreciate that you can't have both together, but an engine that tries to give you either/or is a fine thing indeed.
Yes you can, its easy. You put the engine in a lightweight car.

Economy, AND high power to weight, Plus all the other benefits thatgo with it.

All well and good chasing lasts %ages of efficiency out the engines, but is the fundamentals of the big heavy cars themselves that are the problem.

Matt UK

18,084 posts

231 months

Wednesday 13th March 2013
quotequote all
kambites said:
liner33 said:
Matt UK said:
Firstly, excellent mpg when I am cruising / commuting and using no more than about 50bhp to keep up with the flow of traffic
Secondly, excellent power when I want it.
You have described a petrol turbo engine there, keep them off boost and decent economy can be had
Same principle, really - you're reducing the effective capacity of the engine (by lowering the boost instead of deactivating cylinders). But with a turbocharged engine instead of a V8 you have to put up with driving a turbocharged engine instead of a V8. wink
Exactly

tinoproductions

142 posts

183 months

Wednesday 13th March 2013
quotequote all
It will give a small improvement, but that is all we are going to see these days from new tech.
But 2% here and 3% there quickly adds up!