I just thought it was a strange concept, just wanted to see what ya'll thought. And your right, they should've sold the idea to someone like Volvo.

doesn't surprise me... Mazda brought us that wonderful creation.... The Rotary !!

this seems close to that

And who'* capital props up Mazda. Hmmmmmmm, Ford. heheheh.

It doesn't really make sense till you can understand it mapped out on a P-v diagram with the area being work. Same with the diesel cycle.

The key here is pumping loss. It takes energy to compress the air. This alleviates some of this energy input and results in a boost in efficiency. Remember that efficiency doesn't equal power when it comes to mpgs.. at the cost of power, you get mpgs basically.

The compression ratio in a miller cycle engine is not the same as a typical engine. The 2.3l mazda engine is constructed as a 3.0 That .7l loss is a result of the swept volume that isn't compressed. (from intake valve open longer) A high static CR is limited to the intake valve opening timing and IMO much boost is better since you're loosing a third of your dynamic compression ratio to start with. Boost and direct injection is the way to go.

The concept is very sound, works, and used more often than you think. Hybrids use a similar cycle to boost mpgs. They just don't use forced induction.

Thats it. Very hard to think inside that box. I guess is you are an engineer satisfying a Government demand or be King of MPG stats it'* a plus. for the other 99% of us

Same 'box' as diesels.. Reduce pumping loss at the expense of power..

I don't think 99% of us fall into the group association you're making.

Do NOT link other Forums here.

I've definitely seen this not enforced even with myself before. Had I not, I wouldn't have linked.

For the OP and anyone interested, the link was to a non GM forum that talked about a newer 1.3l Mazda engine that used the Atkinson cycle with CVT to make up for the low end torque loss. It also had great info on the Miller and Atkinson cycles.

When I saw a new thread called "Miller Cycle" in the Lounge, I was expecting a beer joke.

But let'* see: 60% the displacement of a 3800, 40% better fuel economy (SSEi: 20 mpg, according to Edmunds), with only a 12% loss of horsepower. It'* not designed for performance, but by the numbers, that'* some efficient engineering.

Of course, the Miller engine falls flat on its face when the dealer explains to Joe Sixpack that the fuel-efficient car that will use less gas only runs on expensive gas.

Like a supercharged (Otto) engine, the Miller engine may catch on, but I don't see it becoming anything more than a niche.

Wait... what?

And that'* ok, uniqueness is good, usually.