MultiAir / UniAir vs PatAir / PattAir - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
Reply
 
Thread Tools
(Post Link) post #1 of 151 Old 24-05-10 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greece
County: Attica
Posts: 40

Member car:

Toyota

MultiAir / UniAir vs PatAir / PattAir

At http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonHydro.htm “clones” of the MultiAir (Fiat) / UniAir (Schaeffler-INA) are presented.



Officially, at urban cycle the Fiat Punto MultiAir (1368cc, 105bhp at 6500rpm, naturally aspirating) consumes 7.5 lt/100Km while the similar size, weight and power Toyota Yaris (1329cc, 101bhp at 6000rpm, naturally aspirating, conventional technology engine) consumes only 6.2 lt/100Km.

20% worse consumption for the state-of-the-art engine ?

Yet, the guess is that the MultiAir engine will be voted at “The International Engine of the year Awards 2010” as the best engine of the year 2010 (at engine-expo 22, 23, 24 June, Stuttgart, Germany).

It seems, either the MultiAir/UniAir principle is wrong, or Fiat and Schaeffler-INA keep missing a basic something.



It is not only about better mileage and lower emissions.

Quote from the web:
"Meanwhile Ferrari has reportedly dismissed the possibility of using the Fiat Group’s new MultiAir variable valve system, finding that it wouldn’t work at the kinds of revs and horsepower outputs at which Ferrari engines operate. "

The "oil push rod" interposed between the cam and the valve of the MultiAir ( and of the PatAir ) softens-deforms-flexes the actual intake-valve-opening-profile (because of the hydraulic system elasticity and lash, not existing in the pure mechanical valve trains); not to mention the increase of the inertia of the valve assembly (oil, oil plungers, additional springs etc) during the opening of the valve. For normal engines this is a reasonable compromise; but not for supercars, for racing/sport cars, for motorcycles etc. For top-power-density the opening ramp wildness is the must.

The PattAir opens the valves true-mechanically / conventionally (there is no "oil push rod" interposed between the cam and the valve). The opening ramp is as wild (crispy) as in the conventional high-revving top-power-density engines. Only during the valve closing the hydraulic system of PattAir gets into play to controllably delay the valve closing ( Outgoing Air Control cycle ).

Manousos
Attached Images
File Type: gif PumpingLoss.gif (45.3 KB, 14 views)
manousos is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 322
You have the wrong figures, on a MITO 1.4 multiair the combined is 5.8 l/100.

This is better than the Yaris even though the Alfa weighs more than the Yaris.
simz105 is offline  
(Post Link) post #3 of 151 Old 24-05-10 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greece
County: Attica
Posts: 40

Member car:

Toyota

Quote:
Originally Posted by simz105 View Post
You have the wrong figures, on a MITO 1.4 multiair the combined is 5.8 l/100.
This is better than the Yaris even though the Alfa weighs more than the Yaris.
No,
I have the correct figures because, as I write, I talk about the urban cycle.

The combined cycle for the Toyota Yaris is 5.1 lt/100 Km (this results from 6.1 lt/100Km urban and 4.4 lt/100Km extra urban) as you can see at

VCAcarfueldata.org.uk - Search Results - Further Information

which is still 14% less than the Alfa Romeo Mito, as shown at

VCAcarfueldata.org.uk - Search Results - Further Information

In case the comparison is restricted to the urban cycle, it is 6.1 for the Yaris versus 7.4 for the Mito, which is 21% more.

The small difference of weight cannot justify such a big difference in the official mileage.

Besides, the MultiAir is the state-of-the-Art. Isn't it?


What I say is that there is room for improving the MultiAir at partial loads. This is what the PatAir and the PattAir do.

Manousos
manousos is offline  
led zeppelin
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I've driven (a new) Toyota Yaris 1.3 and it is a ****ty car. What toyota does is to minimize consumption numbers against performance, i havent driven punto so to make a comparison but what you have there (yaris) is a very weak car with minimum active safety.
 
Status: frenzied burrowing
AO Platinum Member
 
Fraser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United Kingdom
County: South Lanarkshire
Posts: 19,680
What about power output/delivery. It's not all about fuel consumption.

And what is the point of this thread anyway? It's a very strange way to introduce yourself to AO.
Fraser is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Finland
County: Lansi-Suomen Laani
Posts: 198

Member car:

Alfa Romeo Mito

Beware of Greeks bearing GIFs!
Verderer is offline  
(Post Link) post #7 of 151 Old 24-05-10 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greece
County: Attica
Posts: 40

Member car:

Toyota

Quote:
Originally Posted by led zeppelin View Post
I've driven (a new) Toyota Yaris 1.3 and it is a ****ty car. What toyota does is to minimize consumption numbers against performance, i havent driven punto so to make a comparison but what you have there (yaris) is a very weak car with minimum active safety.
Yet, Toyota Yaris is a faster car than Fiat Punto MultiAir natuarally aspirating.
For instance (data from a multicar-test in AutoBild magazine):
Yaris makes 0-100 Km/h at 11.4 sec while Punto needs 12.3 sec.
Yaris needs 19.2 sec for 0-130 Km/h, while Punto needs 21.9 sec.
I.e. Yaris's active safety is not worse.

But this is not the point.
The point is that the MultiAir, a theoretically superior technology, proves not so good in practice.
And the challenge is to milk from the MultiAir engines (of Fiat / Alfa Romeo cars) what they really can achieve in fuel consumption and emissions.

The Pressure - Volume GIF animation explains where the problem is.

Manousos
manousos is offline  
Status: frenzied burrowing
AO Platinum Member
 
Fraser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United Kingdom
County: South Lanarkshire
Posts: 19,680
Still don't understand the point of this thread. This site is AlfaOWNER, not AlfaMAKER.
Fraser is offline  
led zeppelin
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
What does toyota have that can challenge 1.4 multiair 170?
 
(Post Link) post #10 of 151 Old 24-05-10 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greece
County: Attica
Posts: 40

Member car:

Toyota

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
What about power output/delivery. It's not all about fuel consumption.
And what is the point of this thread anyway? It's a very strange way to introduce yourself to AO.
The point is that you have the state-of-the-Art system that can, by a little modification (different intake cam-lobes, reprogramming of the Digital Control Unit) be way better in terms of mileage / emissions, keeping or increasing the power output. It also improves the cranking and the start-stop reliability. This is the PatAir.

If you need more, there is the PattAir that fits even to Ferraris. Think why.

Manousos
manousos is offline  
(Post Link) post #11 of 151 Old 24-05-10 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greece
County: Attica
Posts: 40

Member car:

Toyota

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
Still don't understand the point of this thread. This site is AlfaOWNER, not AlfaMAKER.
I used to think that it is the owner who pays the fuel.

Manousos
manousos is offline  
(Post Link) post #12 of 151 Old 24-05-10 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greece
County: Attica
Posts: 40

Member car:

Toyota

Quote:
Originally Posted by led zeppelin View Post
What does toyota have that can challenge 1.4 multiair 170?
Nothing.
On the other hand, think of the same 1.4 MultiAir 170 having 25% less emission and consumption at urban cycle. For such a little modification (correction?).

Manousos
manousos is offline  
Status: Winning small victories
AO Platinum Member
 
73GTVJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater Manchester
Posts: 24,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by manousos View Post
Officially, at urban cycle the Fiat Punto MultiAir (1368cc, 105bhp at 6500rpm, naturally aspirating) consumes 7.5 lt/100Km while the similar size, weight and power Toyota Yaris (1329cc, 101bhp at 6000rpm, naturally aspirating, conventional technology engine) consumes only 6.2 lt/100Km.

20% worse consumption for the state-of-the-art engine ?
Your later link to VCA data seems to be for the 135bhp MultiAir engine. So it appears to be approximately 35% more powerful than your Yaris yet uses only 21% more fuel in the cycle you quote.

References to 0-60 times are completely specious since weight, gearing, aerodynamics and other factors come into play.
73GTVJim is offline  
(Post Link) post #14 of 151 Old 24-05-10 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greece
County: Attica
Posts: 40

Member car:

Toyota

Quote:
Originally Posted by 73GTVJim View Post
Your later link to VCA data seems to be for the 135bhp MultiAir engine. So it appears to be approximately 35% more powerful than your Yaris yet uses only 21% more fuel in the cycle you quote.
References to 0-60 times are completely specious since weight, gearing, aerodynamics and other factors come into play.
Here is the link for the 105 bhp Punto MultiAir

VCAcarfueldata.org.uk - Search Results - Further Information

As you see, the high-tech MultiAir cannot compare to the old technology conventional Yaris.

Manousos
manousos is offline  
Status: Winning small victories
AO Platinum Member
 
73GTVJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater Manchester
Posts: 24,500
And BTW, isn't the Yaris a 3 cylinder? Not new tech, of course, but not quite on a like-for-like basis?
73GTVJim is offline  
(Post Link) post #16 of 151 Old 24-05-10 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greece
County: Attica
Posts: 40

Member car:

Toyota

Quote:
Originally Posted by 73GTVJim View Post
And BTW, isn't the Yaris a 3 cylinder? Not new tech, of course, but not quite on a like-for-like basis?
No.
It is the Yaris with the 1329cc four cylinder engine.

Manousos
manousos is offline  
Status: Winning small victories
AO Platinum Member
 
73GTVJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater Manchester
Posts: 24,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by manousos View Post
No.
It is the Yaris with the 1329cc four cylinder engine.

Manousos
I had a 3 cylinder in my head for some reason but I've just checked and you are correct.

The Yaris engine would appear to be better using the parameters you have chosen. The Yaris car is broadly slated for being too expensive and having poor levels of refinement (partly an engine issue??), poor quality ride and a terrible driving position. Ignoring, of course, the overarching fact that it is a Toyota and by definition must be boring!

I'm sure they'll have sorted their widespread quality and brake problems by now if you are considering one, so good luck with it.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Jan 2019 New Giulia Veloce Misano Blue
2008-15 New 159Ti experience: overwhelmingly positive. Reliable and fun over nearly 100k.
2015-18 147 1.6TS runaround
6/9/12 - 15 New Mito 135MA Distinctive - 100% reliable 37k
73GTVJim is offline  
led zeppelin
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by manousos View Post
Nothing.
On the other hand, think of the same 1.4 MultiAir 170 having 25% less emission and consumption at urban cycle. For such a little modification (correction?).

Manousos
Maybe you should mail FPT to get the answers you are looking for
 
Status: Not Driving my alfa
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Oxfordshire
Posts: 2,136
Interesting thread. I think you would need to put both engines to the same test (not with the whole car, just the engine) and see how they perform to compare them. As far as I see it the emissions aren't just down to the engine, but also the whole cycle of air intake and output i.e. exhaust, whereas the fuel economy depends heavily on the resistance to motion of the car.
There must be a reason why the multiair engine is performing less well, but I'm guessing it's how it's designed to work with the car all round..
MrMongoose is offline  
(Post Link) post #20 of 151 Old 24-05-10 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greece
County: Attica
Posts: 40

Member car:

Toyota

Quote:
Originally Posted by led zeppelin View Post
Maybe you should mail FPT to get the answers you are looking for
Try by yourself (for pure curiosity) to get such an answer, either from FPT (Fiat Power-Train) or from Schaeffler-INA (that actually makes the cylinder heads of Fiat MultiAir engines).

I don't know why, but I bet you will take no answer, whatsoever.
I did it, and I know.

Manousos
manousos is offline  
Status: bye bye Giulietta and thank you
AO Silver Member
 
MatthewB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Midlands
Posts: 2,653

Member car:

Jag XF S

Quote:
Originally Posted by manousos View Post

If you need more, there is the PattAir that fits even to Ferraris. Think why.

Manousos
Think why it hasn't been introduced on any production car to date.....

The data I have for a Mito with a 135Bhp multiair engine is 7.4l/100km, which is 0.1l better than the Punto illustrated with 30 Bhp more power. Why is this then?

A Punto 105 Multiair kerb weight - 1075kg Yaris - 1010Kg. The Yaris is 6% lighter than the Punto so not exactly a fair comparison.

The reason why the Multiair engine is up for so many awards isn't for the single NA derivative but for the performance/efficiency capabilities of the two turbo charged variants. Find another engine with that kind of power at that capacity with those economy/emissions figures.

Is it just a coincindence the the Pattakon site and yourself are based in Greece?
MatthewB is offline  
Status: Just when you thought it was safe mwahaha ;)
AO Gold Member
 
Alfa-Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Lancashire
Posts: 6,811
i spotted the performance figures further up and yours for the punto are wrong.

the 0-60 for the punto evo 105ma is 10.8 not 12.3 so id expect a faster, bigger engined car to be less economical wouldnt you?
Alfa-Red is offline  
(Post Link) post #23 of 151 Old 25-05-10 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greece
County: Attica
Posts: 40

Member car:

Toyota

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewB View Post
Think why it hasn't been introduced on any production car to date.....

The data I have for a Mito with a 135Bhp multiair engine is 7.4l/100km, which is 0.1l better than the Punto illustrated with 30 Bhp more power. Why is this then?

A Punto 105 Multiair kerb weight - 1075kg Yaris - 1010Kg. The Yaris is 6% lighter than the Punto so not exactly a fair comparison.

The reason why the Multiair engine is up for so many awards isn't for the single NA derivative but for the performance/efficiency capabilities of the two turbo charged variants. Find another engine with that kind of power at that capacity with those economy/emissions figures.

Is it just a coincindence the the Pattakon site and yourself are based in Greece?
In the comparative tests (the same journalist drives one by one all cars and tries his best) the Punto is slower than the Yaris. Punto prevails only in the maximum speed.

In the specifications given by the manufacturer, the figures are as you write: Punto is 1 second faster than Yaris at 0-62 mph.

The weight difference (Punto / Yaris) is small to justify the extreme difference in urban cycle consumption (6.2 vs 7.5 lt / 100 Km, i.e 20% worse).

In case you still think the weight causes the difference,
the same weight (1088 Kp) and power (105 bhp) VW Polo TSi (0-100 Km/h at 9.7 sec, 124 gr CO2 / Km at combined cycle, 6.8 lt/100 Km urban cycle) shows, just like the Yaris, that the MultiAir is not doing well at partial loads / low revs.

Both, Yaris and Polo, are more or less conventional engines while Punto is the high tech.

The MultiAir turbo versions (Giulietta 170 bhp, Mito MultiAir 170 bhp and 135 bhp, Punto 135 bhp) more or less keep the emissions / fuel-consumption figures of the 105 bhp naturally aspirating MultiAir Punto, increasing by far the power output and the torque.
Today no other carmaker offers such a combination of power output, mileage and emissions (170 bhp peak power, 5.8 lt / 100 Km combined consumption, 134 gr CO2/Km combined cycle for the 1355 Kp heavy Giulietta).

Yet, the good can be better.

And it is not a coincidence that both, me and pattakon, are from Greece.

Manousos Pattakos
manousos is offline  
Mattgusto
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Maybe its the multiair punto evo had less than 1k mileage so it had reduced performace, or generally wasnt run in properly.

Or its that the multiair is geared more towards performace than the yaris engine? (e.g torque higher up the rev range).

Its common knowledge that the advantages of the multiair 1.4 105 engine isnt as impressive as its turbo counterparts.
 
Status: Not Driving my alfa
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Oxfordshire
Posts: 2,136
Stop using 0-60 times as a comparison of engine performance, unless you also look at the drag coefficients and several other parameters involved in a 0-60 time...
MrMongoose is offline  
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Supported Alfa Romeo Models > Technical & Vehicle Assistance > Engines (TS, JTS, JTD & V6)

Tags
multiair , patair , pattair , uniair

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome