Miller Cycle

[Steve Ravet]

At 08:44 AM 1/10/97 -0800, you wrote:
>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 

The cam is the whole point.  You aren't trying to change the MAP, you are
trying to make the power stroke longer than the compression stroke.  The
reduction in compression also benefits the addition of a supercharger, and
in turn the addition of a supercharger eliminates the refersion pulses so
that a MAF can be used.  It all works well together, but the difference in
compression vs power is what makes it a miller cycle.

>
>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
>