3-Cylinder Turbocharged Gasoline Direct Injection:
Published
A High Value Solution for Low CO2 and NOx
Emissions
John E. Kirwan, Mark Shost, Gregory Roth and James Zizelman
Delphi Powertrain Systems
ABSTRACT
Today turbo-Diesel powertrains offering low fuel
consumption and good low-end torque comprise a significant
fraction of the light-duty vehicle market in Europe. Global
CO2 regulation and customer fuel prices are expected to
continue providing pressure for powertrain fuel efficiency.
However, regulated emissions for NOx and particulate matter
have the potential to further expand the incremental cost of
diesel powertrain applications. Vehicle segments with the
most cost sensitivity like compacts under 1400 kg weight
look for alternatives to meet the CO2 challenge but maintain
an attractive customer offering. In this paper the concepts of
downsizing and downspeeding gasoline engines are explored
while meeting performance needs through increased BMEP
to maintain good driveability and vehicle launch dynamics. A
critical enabler for the solution is adoption of gasoline direct
injection (GDi) fuel systems. GDi provides the ability to
utilize increased scavenging without sacrificing hydrocarbon
emissions because fueling and air controls can be separated.
In-cylinder injection with GDi also provides charge cooling
benefit yielding the knock reduction necessary for
turbocharged applications. Several options within GDi are
explored including multi-hole and single pintle spray
generators, as well as side-mount versus central-mount
applications. Both 3-cylinder and 4-cylinder base engine
configurations are explored for turbocharged engines
downsized to 1.2 L. Improvements in hydrocarbon emissions,
heat losses and scavenging favor fewer cylinders. This is re-
enforced by packaging and cost considerations. The next
system aspect considered is emissions aftertreatment.
Stoichiometric turbocharged GDi provides the lowest cost
using the established 3-way catalyst. Stratified GDi is
expected to require a lean NOx trap (LNT) and Diesel Euro 6
systems require addition of a diesel particulate filter (DPF)
2010-01-0590
04/12/2010
Copyright © 2010 SAE International
and possibly NOx aftertreatment. Although the aftertreatment
system to meet Euro 6 NOx requirement is not known today,
addition of a DPF, DPF with LNT, or DPF with urea
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) represent significant cost
and packaging challenges. The analysis concludes by
comparing the 3-cylinder turbocharged GDi to other offerings
in the context of value tradeoff of CO2 reduction to system
on-cost. Stratified 3-cylinder turbocharged GDi systems offer
up to 22% CO2 reduction compared to a baseline port fuel
injected 4-cylinder engine. CO2 reduction of 18% is possible
for a stoichiometric GDi mechanization that employs variable
valve actuation (VVA) and a conventional 3-way catalytic
converter. At Euro 6 emission levels, stoichiometric 3-
cylinder turbocharged GDi powertrains offer excellent value.
The 3-cylinder turbo-Diesel offers similar value if it is
capable of meeting the NOx emissions standard without lean
aftertreatment. Powertrains with higher engine-out NOx
levels that require lean aftertreatment are significantly
disadvantaged. Based on the price sensitivity of the compact
car segment, the value analysis predicts the 3-cylinder
turbocharged GDi engine as the powertrain of choice.
INTRODUCTION
Dramatic fuel consumption / CO2 reductions are necessary,
both near-term and long-term, while tailpipe emission
standards are becoming increasingly stringent. Figure 1
indicates the rollout of US and European light-duty emission
standards and fuel consumption targets over the next several
years. Particularly interesting is the sharp reduction in NOx
emissions and the trend toward elimination of relief in the
Euro NOx emissions standard for vehicles with Diesel
engines. The European overall light duty vehicle mix is
roughly 50% powered by turbo-Diesels for vehicles meeting
the Euro 4 emissions standards. This is one reason that fleet-
averaged CO2 emissions are lower in Europe compared to the
US, because turbo-Diesels at the same rated power emit less
CO2 compared to baseline naturally aspirated (NA) gasoline
vehicles with multi-port fuel injection (MPFI).
However, the cost of Euro 4 turbo-Diesels is significantly
greater than a baseline Euro 4 gasoline engine due largely to
the common rail high pressure (1500 - 2000 bar) fuel system,
the turbocharger, and differences in the powertrain structure
to accommodate Diesel combustion that produces higher
maximum cylinder pressures. As a result, the European
Diesel market share is markedly lower than 50% for smaller
vehicles driven by vehicle purchase price sensitivity. A recent
DRI survey [1] indicates that the Diesel market share is
approximately 30% for subcompact and compact vehicles
lighter than approximately1400 kg. Euro 5 and Euro 6
emission standards will increase the incremental Diesel costs
even more due to more stringent NOx and particulate
standards. Lower cost alternatives for reduced CO2 emissions
are thus especially attractive for smaller vehicles.
Recent development efforts have been published
documenting the benefits and challenges of 3-cylinder
turbocharged gasoline direct injection (GDi) engines (see, for
example [2,3,4,5,6]). The present paper represents an
evaluation of this technology as a high value solution
providing low CO2 and NOx emissions for smaller vehicles.
The discussion is divided into two sections. First is a
technology analysis of downsizing and turbocharging, GDi
fueling and its synergies with turbocharging, and an analysis
of downsized 3-cylinder versus 4-cylinder engines. The
second major section is a value analysis comparing CO2
benefits for 3-cylinder and 4- cylinder gasoline and Diesel
powertrains. Vehicle electrification is outside the scope of the
analysis. It is expected that hybrid vehicle growth continues
as well as widespread implementation of stop-start
technology in Europe. These technologies complement Diesel
and gasoline powertrains, and their implementation does not
change the stand-alone analysis or conclusions provided.
<figure 1 here>
TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS
TURBOCHARGED GASOLINE DIRECT
INJECTION OVERVIEW
Figure 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating the concepts of
downsizing, shown in the top half of the figure, and
downspeeding, depicted in the bottom half of the figure. Both
are effective methods to meet vehicle power needs with
reduced fuel consumption. Downsizing refers to reducing
total engine displacement. Downsizing the engine shifts
operation from the solid line to the dashed line as shown in
the top-right graph of Figure 2. For a given vehicle power
requirement at constant speed, a downsized engine operates
at increased BMEP (specific load), which results in greater
overall efficiency and thus reduced fuel consumption.
Downspeeding refers to reducing engine speed through
changes to the transmission and/or final drive ratio.
Maintaining a given vehicle power requirement at reduced
engine speed also requires that the engine operate at higher
specific loads which again results in greater overall efficiency
and reduced fuel consumption. Viewed schematically on an
engine speed-load map (see Figure 3), downsizing results in
purely vertical displacement to higher brake mean effective
pressures (BMEPs) at constant speed and downspeeding
results in a simultaneous upward and leftward movement to
higher load and lower engine speed.
Combining downsizing with downspeeding is particularly
effective for reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
However, sufficient torque is required across the engine
speed range, and particularly at lower speeds, to maintain
vehicle gradeability and launch performance. Turbocharging
is a well-known technology that uses exhaust energy to drive
a compressor to increase charge air pressure. With
intercooling, turbocharging significantly increases the
maximum mass of air delivered to each engine cylinder to
increase the maximum specific torque and specific power.
Engine knock is a limiting factor for high load operation with
turbocharging. Higher charge temperatures at increased loads
increase the chemical reaction rates for auto-ignition. At
lower engine speeds, with increased cycle times, increased
reaction rates can lead to substantial knock and potential
engine damage.
GDi is an excellent complementary technology for
turbocharged engines. Figure 4 shows a schematic for a
turbocharged stoichiometric GDi engine. Major differences
compared to a baseline NA engine with multi-port fuel
injection (MPFI) are a higher pressure fuel system with 120 -
200 bar typical maximum fuel pressure, and turbocharger
with intercooler. (We note here that the GDi fuel pump is
drawn to the side of the engine in Figure 4 for visual clarity.
The pump is actually located near the top of the engine and is
driven by lobes on the camshaft.) Exhaust aftertreatment is
accomplished with a conventional 3-way catalytic converter
for stoichiometric engines. Due to the higher power densities
provided, turbocharged gasoline engines are being developed
and implemented in production vehicles with increased
frequency [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14].

Figure 2. Effect of engine downsizing and
downspeeding.
Figure 3. Schematic representation of engine downsizing
and downspeeding on an engine map.
<figure 4 here>
GDi offers a number of fundamental advantages that enable
improved engine performance compared to traditional port
fuel injection. In-cylinder injection offers advantages during
engine warm-up. GDi improves fuel control compared to PFI
in a cold engine when fuel vaporization characteristics are
compromised in the intake port. GDi also enables a split
injection strategy during engine warm-up. Split injection can
provide a locally rich mixture near the spark plug. This
improves combustion robustness to enable greater spark
retard for catalyst heating while the globally leaner mixture
provides reduced HC emissions compared to PFI [4, 5, 7, 9].
Additionally, GDi has key features that improve maximum
torque. First, injecting directly into the cylinder improves fuel
control and mixture motion to improve combustion
efficiency. Direct injection also allows substantially better
scavenging in turbocharged engines at lower speeds and high
load. Under these conditions, intake pressure is higher than
exhaust pressure, so appropriate valve overlap via cam
phasing allows intake air to blow through the cylinder with an
open exhaust valve to force additional residual gas into the
exhaust. This process results in some of the intake charge to
also be exhausted. With MPFI, the intake charge comprises a
fuel-air mixture so that scavenging would lead to substantial
amount of unburned fuel blown through to the exhaust.
However with GDi, the fuel can be injected into the cylinder
after the exhaust valve has closed. The intake charge flowing
into the exhaust does not contain fresh fuel, and thus
scavenging can be much more aggressive. In-cylinder
injection also results in charge cooling because the heat of
fuel vaporization is absorbed from the in-cylinder air mass.
Scavenging and charge cooling provide increased volumetric
efficiency and lower charge temperatures to reduce knock for
improved combustion phasing, efficiency and maximum
torque. This propensity to reduce knock can be augmented by
use of fuels containing increased alcohol content (such as
E85) because these fuels have higher heat of vaporization and
increased octane number compared to gasoline [15,16,17].
GASOLINE DIRECT INJECTION FUEL
SYSTEMS
GDi imposes substantially greater requirements on fuel
delivery compared to MPFI. In an MPFI engine the fuel is
traditionally injected onto the back of a closed intake valve.
During standard, warmed-up MPFI engine operation, heat
from the intake valve rapidly vaporizes the fuel in the port
before the fuel and air are simultaneously inducted into the
cylinder during the intake stroke. By contrast, fuel
vaporization and mixing for GDi engines must occur rapidly
in the cylinder. This process is largely influenced by fuel
spray characteristics such as droplet size and spray
penetration. These characteristics are achieved through
careful injection system design with injectors operating at
moderate fuel pressures currently up to 200 bar.
Homogeneous GDi Fuel Systems
GDi operates in both homogeneous and lean stratified engine
configurations. Figure 5 shows the major components for
Delphi homogeneous GDi fuel systems comprising Multec 12
inwardly-opening, multi-hole GDi injectors, a fuel rail and an
engine-driven high pressure fuel pump. Key injector
requirements for homogeneous GDi injection are the
capability to operate at fuel pressures up to 200 bar, good
linearity over a wide flow range to ensure precise delivery
over the full engine map, and spray generation that provides
good vaporization and mixing without wetting in-cylinder
surfaces. Injection is typically during the intake stroke to
improve vaporization and mixing. Stoichiometric operation
with homogeneous GDi allows the use of conventional 3-way
exhaust catalysts and thus worldwide application without
concerns for lean NOx production and aftertreatment.
Two different injector lengths are shown in the figure.
Depending on the engine application, the injectors may be in
either side-mount (as shown in Figure 6) or central-mount
configurations. The longer injector shown in the figure is
required for some engines with central-mount injection. Side-
mount injectors are frequently easier to package in an engine,
but the off-axis mounting location makes uniform mixture
preparation more challenging and increases concerns for
impingement of the spray on the cylinder wall or piston top
that causes increased smoke emissions. Central-mount
injectors provide a more symmetric location that improves
mixing and generally reduces the potential for fuel droplet
impingement. However in-cylinder access through the head
often is prohibited due to packaging conflicts with the
valvetrain components and spark plug. Regardless of the
mounting location, multi-hole injectors produce distinct spray
streams from each hole as shown in Figure 7. Characteristics
of these streams are specific to a given engine to conform to
spray targeting needs, and can differ substantially between
applications (see Figure 8). Designing the injector utilizes
Figure 6. Side-mounted homogenous GDi.
both experimental and modeling tools to simultaneously
optimize the parameters required for spray formation
appropriate to the specific engine [18]. <figures 7, 8 here>

Stratified GDi Fuel Systems

For stratified GDi fuel systems, the characteristic fuel
pressure is 200 bar, and the rail and pump characteristics are
substantially similar between homogeneous and stratified
configurations. However the injector required for stratified
operation is significantly different than the homogeneous
multi-hole injectors described above. Modern stratified
systems rely principally on spray characteristics for
stratification. Because the fuel mixture burns with only a
portion of the air mass in the cylinder, the fuel spray must be
carefully controlled in both space and time so that a well
prepared, combustible charge is provided at the spark plug
when it fires.

Figure 9 shows the Delphi Multec 20 stratified fuel injector.

Side- and end-views of the spray are included in Figure 9 to
help illustrate injector spray characteristics. Further details
are available in [19]. As shown in Figure 10, the fuel injector
is centrally-mounted in close proximity to the spark plug, and
fuel is injected during the compression stroke in a brief
window around the timing of spark ignition. The injector
Figure 5. Delphi homogeneous GDi fuel system opens outwardly to produce a hollow cone, thin fuel sheet.
components. When injected into elevated pressures characteristic of in-
cylinder conditions during compression, the fuel sheet forms
a recirculation zone to help place a combustible mixture at
the spark plug location. The circular white marker in Figure 9
depicts the location of this spray recirculation zone. Modeling
and simulation are used extensively in developing the injector
to ensure the spray characteristics are appropriately tailored
to the engine geometry [19, 20]. Multiple injection pulses are
typically used to reduce fuel penetration. Figure 9 shows that
the fuel spray is better stratified in the area of the spark plug
by increasing the number of spray pulses from a single pulse
to multiple, closely spaced fuel pulses. Thus, the injector
delivers multiple, closely spaced injection pulses with high
precision over a very short time window.
Stratified spray development can also have a significant
impact on ignition requirements. The fuel spray from the
closely-spaced injector imparts significant momentum and
turbulence in the area of the spark gap around the time of
ignition. This, combined with the substantial variations in
fuel air mixture associated with a stratified fuel charge, can
create significant variability at the spark plug gap. A high
energy multi-charge ignition system can improve ignition
consistency to reduce cycle-by-cycle combustion variability
(see, for example [21, 22], for further discussion).
Figure 9. Delphi Multec 20 injector and spray
characteristics.
Figure 10. Centrally-mounted stratified GDi.
3-CYLINDER VS 4-CYLINDER
DOWNSIZED ENGINE EVALUATION
Engine downsizing can be accomplished via reduction in the
number of cylinders, and/or a reduction in the displaced
volume of each cylinder. The value analysis in the next
section begins with a 1.6L naturally-aspirated baseline
vehicle and evaluates the benefit of 25% (modest)
downsizing to 1.2L turbocharged engines with
downspeeding. Compared here are 4-cylinder naturally-
aspirated configurations versus downsized turbocharged 3-
cylinder applications.
Fuel consumption / CO2 and regulated emissions favor
reduction in cylinder number. Weinowski et al [6] evaluated
the brake specific HC emissions of 134 engines. While there
was a fairly wide scatter band, HC emissions plotted against
cylinder displacement showed a significant decrease in HC
emissions with increasing cylinder volume (and thus fewer
cylinders at constant engine displacement). Removing a
cylinder results in smaller quench layers and crevice volume.
This improves combustion efficiency for lower hydrocarbon
emissions and reduced fuel consumption. Removing a
cylinder also reduces heat transfer surface area for a given
displacement volume. Lower heat loss to the head and
cylinder walls improves thermal efficiency for reduced fuel
consumption. Finally, fewer cylinders reduce friction for an
additional fuel consumption reduction. The overall effect of
reducing the number of cylinders on fuel consumption can be
substantial. Heil et al [23] evaluated downsized 2.2 L
turbocharged GDi engines configured either with 6-cylinders
or 4-cylinders. Compared to a 6-cylinder 3.0 L naturally-
aspirated baseline engine at a steady 10 KW operating point,
downsizing to 2.2 L with 6-cylinders produced a 4%
reduction in fuel consumption while downsizing to 2.2 L with
4-cylinders reduced fuel consumption by 9% compared to the
baseline.
High load performance also favors a 3-cylinder engine
because it offers better high load scavenging [2]. Scavenging
efficiency in turbocharged engines is affected by the
differential pressure between the intake and exhaust during
the gas exchange process. With 4-cylinder engines, the firing
frequency is 180 deg. Consequently, while one exhaust valve
is open near TDC during the gas exchange process, the
exhaust valve for the next cylinder has already opened near
bottom-dead-center to begin the exhaust stroke. Initiation of
the exhaust stroke creates a pressure wave that raises exhaust
pressure and reduces scavenging for the cylinder undergoing
gas exchange. The firing frequency for 3-cylinder engines is
240 deg so that an additional exhaust valve is not open near
top-dead-center during gas exchange. Thus the three cylinder
engine experiences a more favorable pressure differential and
improved scavenging to increase full load torque.
Finally, cost and packaging favor a 3-cylinder engine.
Reducing cylinder count reduces the number of required
components leading to a direct reduction in cost.
Additionally, the need for fewer components and the greater
cylinder size offers packaging relief that can further reduce
cost and allow better optimization of the fuel injector
location.
One clear disadvantage to a 3-cylinder engine is degraded
NVH. A 3-cylinder engine is inherently balanced for rotation.
However, there are unbalanced 1st and 2nd order moments
along the length of the engine. These unbalanced moments
induce a front-back rocking motion, such that compensation
should be provided for a turbocharged 3-cylinder engine. The
required measures include a counterbalancing shaft, and
perhaps a modified engine mounting configuration.
Counterbalancing results in sufficient compensation for
cylinder displacements up to approximately 0.5 L, but results
in increased cost, size and friction. Coltman et al [2]
implemented roller bearings to the balance shaft in order to
minimize friction effects.
Overall, for a downsized and turbocharged GDi engine a 3-
cylinder configuration is favored for reduced fuel
consumption and regulated emissions. A 3-cylinder engine
also offers cost and packaging advantages and provides
acceptable NVH with counterbalancing. We will therefore
carry forward a 3-cylinder mechanization as the 1.2 L
turbocharged engine considered in the value analysis below.
VALUE ANALYSIS
In this section we evaluate CO2 emissions reduction potential
and OEM on-cost for 3-cylinder and 4-cylinder gasoline and
Diesel powertrains in smaller vehicles (under 1400 kg). We
limit our scope only to powertrains and resulting
aftertreatment needs. Additional cost measures related to
noise reduction, etc. are not included. For this analysis, we
define the baseline to be an 1160 kg European gasoline
vehicle with a 1.6L NA MPFI engine meeting Euro 4
emissions standards. (Diesel powertrains are heavier, so CO2
comparisons are made with 40 kg higher mass for Diesel
vehicles.) Let us first consider attributes of this baseline
engine compared to turbocharged Diesel engines in 2008
Model Year. Figure 11 shows that the baseline gasoline
engine and the turbocharged Diesel have comparable specific
power. The turbo-Diesels generate substantially greater
specific torque. This enables a 25% longer gear ratio for the
Diesel powertrains so that they generally operate at higher
loads. Diesel vehicles from 2008 show approximately 24%
lower CO2 emissions compared to baseline gasoline vehicle
To evaluate CO2 emissions reduction potential against this
baseline, we look to the expected performance of future
turbocharged engines meeting substantially tighter emissions
standards (i.e. Euro 6). Figure 12 offers a look at the
performance attributes assumed in our analysis for these
future engines compared to series production vehicles of
today. A survey of current production powertrains shows that
current turbocharged vehicles deliver typical specific torque
values of 150 N-m/L for both common rail Diesel and GDi
vehicles. The EU agreement defines first implementation of
Euro 6 standards in 2014. We expect moderate increases in
specific torque and power for turbocharged engines by that
time. Thus for our analysis we have assumed a 20% increase
in specific torque for turbocharged vehicles to provide a
maximum value of 180 N-m/L. Specific power for GDi
vehicles is assumed to be 80 kW/L and common rail Diesels
are assumed to deliver 65 kW/L. Clearly these values do not
represent the “best in class” for future powertrains. In fact,
engines exist today that exceed our assumed engine
performance for 2014, and we expect performance and fuel
efficiency advancements to continue for GDi turbocharged
engines by using cooled EGR [24 - 25] and other innovations.
However, we have chosen performance estimates that we
expect to represent average vehicles 5 years from now using
single-stage turbocharging, no cooled EGR, and
transmissions designed to accommodate average torque
levels. These numbers are more appropriate for our analysis
to better assess the value of the technologies for widespread
reduction of vehicle CO2 / fuel consumption and are
appropriate for the smaller, lighter-weight, value-segment of
the market.
Table 1 indicates the technologies considered in the analysis.
The left-hand side of the table describes the engine
technology. The columns in the center of the table offer a
relative assessment of the major contributors to system cost.
The right-hand section of the table estimates CO2 emissions
(also depicted graphically in Figure 14). The first two rows in
the table comprise the 2008 gasoline and Diesel engines we
have discussed above meeting Euro 4 emissions. The
remaining rows consider turbocharged GDi and Diesel
common rail technologies we project for smaller vehicles
meeting Euro 6 emissions standards in 2014.
<figure 11 here>
<figure 12 here>
<table 1 here>
The major factors leading to cost differences between the
powertrain technologies fall into four categories: base engine,
fuel system, air delivery system, and aftertreatment system.
GDi fuel systems operate at maximum fuel pressures of
roughly 200 bar, resulting in a moderate cost increase
compared to MPFI. Fuel systems for the Diesel technologies
operate at significantly elevated pressures (1500 - 2000 bar).
This leads to a substantial increase in system cost for all
Diesel technologies compared to the baseline. All
turbocharged systems include a single stage turbocharger
with a cost premium compared to the baseline. The gasoline
systems also add a second cam phaser, and one homogeneous
gasoline system includes 2-step variable valve actuation
(VVA). Two-step is one VVA system that provides a cost-
effective means to reduce pumping losses in both MPFI and
GDi vehicles [26].
Considerable variability exists among aftertreatment
configurations for the technologies considered (see Figure
13). The details of our aftertreatment analysis are proprietary.
However, it should be noted that our efforts did include
catalyst volume and loadings needs for each configuration, as
well as the number and type of aftertreatment devices
required. The baseline gasoline and stoichiometric GDi
systems rely on 3-way catalytic converters for aftertreatment.
For the stratified lean gasoline system, a lean NOx trap
(LNT) is added. Since turbo-Diesels normally operate under
lean conditions, we considered a number of aftertreatment
system configurations to address NOx emissions. The Euro 4
Diesel engine has only an oxidation catalyst. No NOx or
particulate aftertreatment devices are required to meet these
Diesel emissions standards. For Euro 6 Diesel engines, we
considered three different aftertreatment combinations. All
three combinations have kept the oxidation catalyst and
added a DPF. The simplest configuration includes no NOx
aftertreatment device; a second has an added LNT, while a
third configuration includes an SCR system.
<figure 13 here>
Diesel engine management systems are using increased fuel
injection pressures and injection strategies, higher EGR levels
and advancements in combustion control, so that engine-out
NOx emissions continue to drop substantially (see, for
example, Schoeppe, et al [27]). Consequently, there is a good
chance that a number of smaller engines in compact vehicles
will be able to meet the upcoming Euro 6 emissions standards
without NOx aftertreatment. However, US Tier 2 standards
have a more stringent NOx requirement with a much greater
likelihood of needing NOx aftertreatment for all Diesel
engines. And future NOx standards everywhere can be
expected to become continually more stringent. Especially for
downsized engines operating at higher loads that produce
greater NOx emissions, meeting these tighter emissions
standards without aftertreatment will be substantially more
difficult. Considering aftertreatment configurations with and
without NOx aftertreatment in our study offers a value
assessment for a broader range of engines, and indicates
sensitivity of the technologies to increasingly stringent
emission standards.
Figure 14 shows the estimated effect of the various engine
technologies on CO2 emissions over the NEDC drive cycle
for a compact (1160 kg baseline) vehicle. At the same engine
displacement, downspeeding the turbocharged engine enables
a 9% reduction in CO2 compared to the baseline. The
remaining gasoline systems have been downsized to 3-
cylinders. Stoichiometric 3-cylinder mechanizations offer up
to 18% reduced CO2 with 2-step VVA. A turbocharged 3-
cylinder stratified system offers up to 22% reduced CO2.
For the Diesel engines, we recall that a Euro 4 common rail
turbo-Diesel offers 24% reduction in CO2 compared to the
gasoline baseline. Engine management system upgrades for
Euro 6 (described previously) at the same engine
displacement will offer some additional reduction in CO2
emissions compared to a Euro 4 Diesel engine. Some
variation in CO2 occurs depending on NOx aftertreatment
choice. Adding aftertreatment allows for more aggressive
pursuit of CO2 reduction possible at higher engine-out NOx
levels. The SCR system offers the greatest overall reduction
in CO2 because an LNT requires additional fuel to provide
periodic rich exhaust conditions to reduce NOx stored on the
LNT. Downsizing the engine to 3 cylinders reduces CO2
roughly 5% further for all NOx aftertreatment configurations.
An interesting result of across-the-board turbocharging and
downsizing is to reduce the CO2 emissions difference
between gasoline and diesel powertrains. The 4-cylinder
Euro-4 turbo-Diesel in our analysis emits 39 g/km less CO2
than the baseline Euro-4 MPFI gasoline vehicle. After
downsizing both powertrains, and employing turbocharged
GDi for gasoline, our analysis indicates the Diesel powertrain
CO2 difference is roughly 25 g/km compared to
homogeneous GDi with 2-step VVA, and approximately 18
g/km compared to stratified GDi.
<figure 14 here>
Figure 15 offers the final measure of value for the
technologies. Plotted is CO2 reduction against vehicle
manufacturer (OEM) on-cost. By definition, the 4-cyl MPFI
gasoline baseline point lies at the origin of this figure.
Straight lines drawn through the origin represent lines of
constant cost per unit CO2 reduction compared to the
baseline. Increasing slope indicates better value (greater CO2
reduction per unit on-cost). The top graph considers only
Euro 4 technologies - the gasoline MPFI baseline and a
typical 4-cylinder Euro 4 turbo-Diesel. At the Euro 4
emissions, level, a turbo-Diesel vehicle provides 24% CO2
reduction at an on-cost rate of roughly 22 euros / percent. The
bottom graph shows a variety of Euro 6 mechanizations.
Included are both gasoline and diesel powertrains with 3-
cylinder and 4-cylinder engines. Overall, the Euro 6
mechanizations that provide the greatest value for CO2
reduction are the two stoichiometric 3-cylinder turbocharged
gasoline engines and the 3-cylinder turbo-Diesel application
requiring no NOx aftertreatment. These most favorable
solutions reduce CO2 at an on cost rate of 24 - 25 euros /
percent. Downsized 3-cylinder engines offer improved value
compared to 4-cylinder engines both through cost reduction
and lower CO2 emissions. Whether gasoline or Diesel,
systems implementing lean aftertreatment appear unfavorable
because of the substantial added cost.
<figure 15 here>
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Turbocharged GDi engines are a key enabler for downsizing
that can substantially reduce CO2 emissions from gasoline
engines. Good low end torque is critical to maintain good
driveability with downsizing and downspeeding in
turbocharged engines. Low end torque increases with GDi
because it allows improved scavenging efficiency and cools
the intake charge to reduce knock. GDi also improves fuel
control and mixture motion to improve combustion
efficiency.
For downsized engines, reducing the number of cylinders
offers advantages over simply reducing cylinder displacement
volume. In smaller vehicles, for a given engine displacement,
3-cylinder engines provide less heat transfer surface area and
a reduction in the quench layer and crevices for improved
combustion efficiency and lower engine-out emissions
compared to 4-cylinders. Lower firing frequency per engine
cycle with 3-cylinders reduces exhaust pressure pulsations
during the gas exchange process providing better scavenging
at high loads. Reduction in number of cylinders also results in
reduced friction and lower cost, but introduces unbalanced
torque pulsations inducing a front-back rocking action of the
engine. For higher specific outputs in turbocharged engines,
counterbalancing compensations can provide acceptable
NVH for cylinder displacements up to approximately 0.5
liters. Consequently, 3-cylinder turbocharged engines are
attractive for engines up to 1.5 L displacement.
Our value analysis estimates of OEM on-cost and CO2
reduction considered 3-cylinder and 4-cylinder turbo-Diesel
and turbocharged GDi mechanizations. For a compact vehicle
meeting Euro 4 standards, a 4-cylinder turbo-Diesel reduces
CO2 emissions at an on cost rate of 22 euros / percent CO2
reduction. Our analysis of compact turbocharged vehicles
configured to meet Euro 6 emissions in 2014 shows two
gasoline configurations and one Diesel powertrain
mechanization to have the best value. They reduce CO2 at an
on cost rate of 24-25 euros / percent. The turbo-Diesel
configuration is a downsized 3-cylinder engine with engine-
out NOx that must be capable of meeting the Euro 6 NOx
standard without lean aftertreatment. Both preferred
turbocharged GDi applications are 3-cylinder stoichiometric
engines with conventional three-way catalytic converters.
The turbocharged 3-cylinder stoichiometric GDi powertrains
we considered noticeably reduce the CO2 emissions
difference between gasoline and Diesel powertrains. And the
stoichiometric GDi solutions have substantially lower cost, a
factor that can be particularly important for lower-priced
vehicles. The turbocharged 3-cylinder stoichiometric GDi
solutions also employ a traditional 3-way catalytic converter
to meet the most stringent NOx emissions regulations such as
the US Tier 2 standards and future standards being postulated
for Euro 6+. Thus turbocharged 3-cylinder stoichiometric
GDi powertrains offer a robust method to reduce CO2 with
low NOx for worldwide application in the compact vehicle
segment.
REFERENCES
1. DRI Survey July 2009.
2. Coltman, D., Turner, J.W.G., Curtis, R., Blake, D. et al.,
“Project Sabre: A Close-Spaced Direct Injection 3-Cylinder
Engine with Synergistic Technologies to Achieve Low CO2
Output,” SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-0138, 2008.
3. Korte, V., Blaxill, H., Lumsdenm G., and Hancock, D.,
“Downsizing - Realized with a 1.2 l 3-Cylinder Engine,”
presented at the 17th Aachener Kolloquium Fahrzeug- und
Motorenrechnik, Germany, 2008
4. Fraser, N., Blaxill, H., Lumsden, G., and Bassett, M.,
“Challenges for Increased Efficiency through Gasoline
Engine Downsizing,” SAE Int. J. Engines 2(1):991-1008,
2009.
5. Lumsden, G., OudeNijeweme, D., Fraser, N., and Blaxill,
H., “Development of a Turbocharged Direct Injection
Downsizing Demonstrator Engine,” SAE Int. J. Engines 2(1):
1420-1432, 2009.
6. Weinowski, R. Sehr, A., Wedowski, S., Heuer, S., Hamm,
T., and Tiemann, C., “Future Downsizing of S.I. Engines -
Potentials and Limits of 2- and 3-Cylinder Concepts,”
presented at 30th Vienna Motor Symposium, Austria, 2009.
7. Lutterman, C. and Mährle, W., “BMW High Precision
Fuel Injection in Conjunction with Twin-Turbo Technology:
a Combination for Maximum Dynamic and High Fuel
Efficiency,” SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-1560, 2007.
8. Königstein, A., Larsson, P.-I., Grebe, U. D., and Wu, K.-
J., “Differentiated Analysis of Downsizing Concepts,”
presented at 29th Vienna Motor Symposium, Austria, 2008.
9. Yi, J., Wooldridge, S., Coulson, G., Hilditch, J. et al.,
“Development and Optimization of the Ford 3.5L V6
EcoBoost Combustion System,” SAE Technical Paper
2009-01-1494, 2009.
10. Klauer, N., Klüting, M., Steinparzer, F., and Unger, H.,
“Turbocharging and Variable Valve Trains - Fuel Reducing
Technologies for Worldwide Use,” presented at 30th Vienna 24. Cairns, A., Fraser, N., and Blaxill, H., “Pre Versus Post
Motor Symposium, Austria, 2009. Compressor Supply of Cooled EGR for Full Load Fuel
11. Lee, H. S., “Hyundai-Kia's Powertrain Strategy for Green Economy in Turbocharged Gasoline Engines,” SAE
and Sustainable Mobility,” presented at 30th Vienna Motor Technical Paper 2008-01-0425, 2008.
Symposium, Austria, 2009. 25. Turner, J.W.G., Pearson, R.J., Curtis, R., and Holland,
12. Böhme, J., Müller, H., Ganz, M., and Marques, M., “The B., “Improving Fuel Economy in a Turbocharged DISI
New Five Cylinder 2.5l TFSI Engine for the Audi TT RS,” Engine Already Employing Integrated Exhaust Manifold
presented at 30th Vienna Motor Symposium, Austria, 2009. Technology and Variable Valve Timing,” SAE Technical
Paper 2008-01-2449, 2008.
13. Lückert, P. Kreitmann, F., Merdes, N., Weller, R.,
Rehberger, A., Bruchner, K., Schwedler, K., Ottenbacher, H., 26. Hendriksma N., Kunz, T., and Greene, C., “Design and
and Keller, T., “The New 1.8-Litre 4-Cylinder Petrol Engine Development of a 2-Step Rocker Arm,” SAE Technical Paper
with Direct Injection and Turbocharging for All Passenger 2007-01-1285, 2007.
Cars with Standard Drivetrains from Mercedes-Benz,”
27. Schöppe, D., Zülch, S., Geurts, D., Gris, C., and Jorach,
presented at 30th Vienna Motor Symposium, Austria, 2009.
R. W., “Delphi's New Direct Acting Common Rail Injection
14. Hadler, J., Szengel, R., Middendorf, H., Kuphal, A., System,” presented at 30th Vienna Motor Symposium,
Siebert, W., and Hentschel, L., “Minimum Consumption - Austria, 2009.
Maximum Force: TSI Technology in the New 1.2l Engine
from Volkswagen,” presented at 30th Vienna Motor
Symposium, Austria, 2009.
CONTACT INFORMATION
15. Lang, O., Habermann, K., Krebber-Hortmann, K., Sehr, John E. Kirwan
A. et al., “Potential of the Spray-guided Combustion System Chief Scientist
in Combination with Turbocharging,” SAE Technical Paper Gas EMS and Powertrain Products
2008-01-0139, 2008. Delphi Powertrain
john.e.kirwan@delphi.com
16. Marriott, C.D., Wiles, M.A., Gwidt, J.M., and Parrish, +1 248.836.1879
S.E., “Development of a Naturally Aspirated Spark Ignition
Direct-Injection Flex-Fuel Engine,” SAE Technical Paper
2008-01-0319, 2008. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
17. Kapus, P.E., Fuerhapter, A., Fuchs, H., and Fraidl, G.K., The authors thank our following colleagues from Delphi for
“Ethanol Direct Injection on Turbocharged SI Engines - valuable discussions and information: Walter Piock, Keith
Potential and Challenges,” SAE Technical Paper Confer, Dominique Mormont, Joseph Bonadies, and Galen
2007-01-1408, 2007. Fisher. We are also grateful to Timothy Johnson (Corning)
18. Das, S., Chang, S.-I., and Kirwan, J., “Spray Pattern and Ken Price (Umicore) for their feedback on aftertreatment
Recognition for Multi-Hole Gasoline Direct Injectors using systems:
CFD Modeling,” SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-1488, 2009.
19. Husted, H.L., Piock, W., and Ramsay, G., “Fuel NOMENCLATURE
Efficiency Improvements from Lean, Stratified Combustion
with a Solenoid Injector,” SAE Technical Paper BMEP
2009-01-1485, 2009. Brake mean effective pressure
20. Befrui, B., Corbinelli, G., Hoffmann, G., Andrews, R.J.
et al., “Cavitation and Hydraulic Flip in the Outward- CC
Opening GDi Injector Valve-Group,” SAE Technical Paper Close-coupled
2009-01-1483, 2009.
21. Piock, W., Weyand, P., Heise, V., and Wolf, E., “The DOXC
Ignition Challenge for Stratified Combustion Systems,” Diesel oxidation catalyst
presented at Der Arbietsprozess Des Verbrennungmotors,
Graz, Austria, 2009.
DPF
22. Weyand, P., Weiten, C., Piock, W. F., Schilling, S.,
Diesel particulate filter
“Adaptive Multi Charge Ignition for Critical Combustion
Conditions”, MTZ 2007.
23. Heil, B., Weining, H.K., Karl, G., Panten, D., and EGR
Wunderlich, K.: “Verbrauch und Emissionen - Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Reduzierungskonzepte beim Ottomotor,” MTZ 2001.
GDi
Gasoline direct injection

L
Liter

LNT
Lean NOx trap

MPFI
Multi-port fuel injection

NA
Naturally aspirated

NVH
Noise, vibration and harshness

SCR
Selective catalytic reduction

TDC
Top dead center

TWC
Three-way catalyst

VVA
Variable valve actuation
Figure 1. Rollout of light duty regulated emissions and fuel consumption / CO2 targets.

Figure 4. Turbocharged stoichiometric GDi engine schematic.

Figure 7. Schematic of spray streams for homogeneous GDi injectors.

 Figure 8. Plan view of three different injector targeting patterns.

Figure 11. Performance attributes for 4 cylinder naturally aspirated gasoline MPFI and turbo diesel vehicles meeting Euro 4
emission standards.
Figure 12. Specific load and specific power attributes for average engines assumed in the value analysis.
Figure 13. Aftertreatment system configurations.
Figure 14. CO2 reduction potential for turbocharged GDi and turbo-Diesel technologies.
Figure 15. CO2 reduction potential vs. OEM On-cost for turbocharged GDi and turbo-Diesel technologies.
 Table 1. Technology effects on cost and CO2 emissions.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. SAE Customer Service:
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Fax: 724-776-0790
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191 SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA
doi:10.4271/2010-01-0590