Miller Cycle

[ptimmerm at mashtun.JPL.NASA.GOV]

I appreciate the knowledgable and friendly discussion
of this rather arcane topic.  I was confident this 
would be THE place to discuss it.

My post started this thread, and it has moved to a 
discussion of high compression pistons, after
the historical use was discussed.

In my case, I am only interested in supercharging,
thus there is no internal modifications, save the
camshaft, which seems easy compared to pistons.
You see I was interested in superchargering 2.0 -2.5
liter motors with standard compression ration. 
My dicovery of the Miller cycle at the LA atuo show 
this past monday, just adds a new wrinkle to this idea.

I am not sure how the following paragraph applies:

>The economy benefits of the Miller Cycle are certainly attractive in an
>automobile, but a special cam is a big step that can be avoided.  Rather
> than  modifying the cam and valvetrain, a servo system can control the 
>throttle advance so that the MAP is limited to safe value.  The whole 
>system can be designed, built, debugged and tested prior to tearing the 
>engine down to install the high compression pistons. The risk and cost 
>of >an incomplete project is quite low.

>MAP would provide the feedback and knock detection would determine the 
>maximum MAP.  This should be a quick and flexible home 

Perhaps it is the use of the term "throttle advance" that is throwing me.
Perhaps you mean to say that you can attenuate the efi flow electronically?
Thanks again for the useful discussions.

paul timmerman