According to the commercial, it runs on 4 when in normal use, but will run all 8 when you get on it. Does it run on the same 4 most of the time, or does it switch around and somehow alternate the wear on the different cylinders?

6/11/2006 6:27:42 PM

thats a good question the non srt hemis do this too.

6/11/2006 6:32:55 PM

it switches around

6/11/2006 6:58:40 PM

that shit doesnt work, it has been around since the 60s.

6/11/2006 8:29:46 PM

Actually, it does work.
My company is doing the work for the V-6 version coming soon. Very cool technology, but I wouldn't buy the 1st generation...

6/11/2006 8:32:30 PM

no sir, you are a idiot.

6/11/2006 10:46:24 PM

Holy shit. What a lot of angst.

Sure the Cadillac 8-6-4 engine wasn't the best in the world, but there have been plenty of refinements since then, including the methods of cylinder deactivation.

I think it's a pretty good idea, at least for the interim. There are still some pumping losses and of course, the obvious frictional losses.

6/11/2006 11:12:52 PM

the way i drive, id be using all 8 all the time anyways

6/11/2006 11:20:38 PM

Quote :

"no sir, you are a idiot."

look in a fucking mirror already

6/11/2006 11:43:01 PM

ok which was the worst of these 3:

Cadillac 8-6-4
Cadillac Diesel
1980 Pontiac Firebird Trans AM Turbo 4.9 (17 second quarter mile)

6/12/2006 12:15:54 AM

^It was an Olds diesel. And it wasn't really a bad engine. The main issues were that it really needed cylinder head studs instead of bolts, and perhaps a little beefier rods and pistons. I can't remember if they had piston cooling jets or not, but they should (and I think they did, now that I remember).

The 4.9 wasn't a BAD engine. But the Buick 3.8 T-Type turbo was much better.

The early '80's in general were just a shitty time for American automobiles.

6/12/2006 12:26:24 AM

Quote :

"Sure the Cadillac 8-6-4 engine wasn't the best in the world, but there have been plenty of refinements since then, including the methods of cylinder deactivation. I think it's a pretty good idea, at least for the interim. There are still some pumping losses and of course, the obvious frictional losses."

I have to respectfully disagree. Cylinder de-activation is not a very noble idea. The cars utilizing it have never achieved outstanding fuel economy. The leading manufacturers have stuck with optimizing the air/fuel ratios, and ignition timing to maximize efficiency in low load situations instead. An excellent example of this is the engine in the European market Accords, they can run up to a 40:1 air fuel ratio, sustained under light loads.

The problem is, if a cylinder is pulling in air, compressing it, and pushing it back out (and the valves need to be opened/closed against inertial loads, and valve springs, as well as other frictional losses), they could be making power. Anytime you have this process, you're virtually using all of the energy required to make power, without doing it. I'm sure there maybe exceptions, but history is on my side.
Ahmet

6/12/2006 1:37:11 AM

^Here's a Catch-22 to the AF optimization approach, at least for our market. I don't know how the European regulations concerning oxides of nitrogen are written, or which approaches they take to curb NOx output.

At such AF ratios, does the excess air serve to buffer combustion temperatures and in turn help reduce NOx emissions?

I know that most manufacturers here rely on cycling the AF ratio between rich and lean conditions to promote optimum oxidation catalysis to lower hydrocarbon/particulate emissions as well as promote optimum reduction catalysis to lower NOx emissions.

The whole running on 4 cylinders allows such operation, albeit with inefficiencies such as pumping losses and additional friction losses. Is it really worth the extra expenditure?

I agree with you to a certain degree, Ahmet...I only see this as a stopgap approach at best. I'm not totally satisfied that it truly produces good results, at least not with the EPA figures that have been published. And I haven't spent/wasted much time reading up on the gains in efficiency versus the pitfalls.

6/12/2006 2:07:04 AM

zxappeal, have you ever thought about starting your own motor company or website?

6/12/2006 2:28:08 AM

No. Too much time, and I really don't have the expertise required.

It takes more than I currently have, and I don't want to devote that kind of time to it.

6/12/2006 2:32:53 AM

I think you have a bright future in a developing country...heck I'd export you to my India and make millions off your knowledge...with the amount of ancilliary manufacturing happening there for global giants, I am sure you could mint some moolah.

6/12/2006 2:33:55 AM

I have a good friend who says I need to learn Spanish and go to Venezuela and work for the petroleum companies for that very reason. He works for Colonial Pipeline.

6/12/2006 2:35:16 AM

well, if you wanna work for others you could do that in the US

I am talking about starting your own gig.

6/12/2006 2:35:47 AM

hey slut, u still talking shit? maybe i will see you soon so i can call u a fag to your face.

6/12/2006 10:54:33 AM

The same four cylinders are deactivated. The system disengages the lifters on four cylinders. It will cycle the static cylinders as cylinder temperatures require.
This is the same technology as came in my Charger 5.7. GM and Chrysler paid for the rights to use it.

It does work. Chrysler/dodge calls it MDS. I get 21-22 mph on the highway when I keep it out of MDS mode and 25-26 mph when I let it function as intended.

It does not make an econo box out of a v-8 but it saves about $6 per tank full.
That's like reducing the price of gas by $0.31 with today’s prices.

6/12/2006 4:35:14 PM

^ beat me to it about the same four cylinders being deactivated

6/12/2006 5:24:56 PM

Wonder how it would work on ye olde diesel.

6/12/2006 5:26:02 PM