EP Manufacturing Bhd (EPMB) will be supplying a new Intake Air-Fuel Module to Proton for use with it’s Campro range of engines, together with it’s technology partner Bosch.
Currently, Proton’s Campro engine uses an aluminum manifold with a single airflow path. This will be replaced with a reinforced plastic molded manifold with variable airflow activated by flaps controlled by electronics from Bosch, and manufactured by EPMB.
The automotive-grade high-thermal plastic material used to make the new manifold is lighter, resulting in overall weight reduction, which will improve fuel consumption slightly. The new intake manifold will substantially improve the efficiency of air intake into the combustion chamber, and better combustion means better response, and increased torque output and smoother power delivery.
Lower end power will also be better, since airflow can be optimized for both low and high end engine speeds. Basically, this is a variable intake geometry system, also known as variable length intake manifold. Nothing cutting edge or new in the market, and has been in practice for years – like Porsche’s VarioRam, Mitsubishi’s Cyclone and Mazda’s VICS. But anything that can improve the performance of the Campro engine is welcomed, don’t you think? Another added effect is the ability to create a swirl effect in the intake air for a better air-fuel mix, if the manifold is designed to do so.
Development for the new variable intake system commenced as long as 12 months ago, and is currently in final advanced tooling stages. It’s expected that the system will be ready for production in the second half of 2007.
Cool! Now that is a step in the right direction. Keep it up, Proton! :)
Paul, is this new tech, or something similar to VVTi?
it is nothing to do with variable cam, but it is similar with TVIS (Toyota Variable Intake System). Correct me if i'm wrong….
poor man's subsitute for variable cam. It used to be advanced tech, but the world has moved on. The new frontier now is direct injection.
Paul, where's the source from?
Does it improve the campro's refinement & lousy revvy characteristics? How about the torque curve? Any significant improvements (ie. flatter torque curve, 80% of max torque at 2500rpm)?
Hope it can make the engine more refine and torquey at low rpms.
It's a good move but the QC better be good.
Is this like that new VTEC engine like in the new Civic 1.8 models?
This tech is long overdue
"mystvearn said,
Is this like that new VTEC engine like in the new Civic 1.8 models?"
_
No where near. Its from two different world.
"bolo said,
poor man’s subsitute for variable cam. It used to be advanced tech, but the world has moved on. The new frontier now is direct injection."
_
It never was and never will be seriously considered as a subsitute for variable cam. Its from two diffrent world.
normal_user said,
Paul, where’s the source from?
Does it improve the campro’s refinement & lousy revvy characteristics? How about the torque curve? Any significant improvements (ie. flatter torque curve, 80% of max torque at 2500rpm)?
Hope it can make the engine more refine and torquey at low rpms."
_
Im sure there will be no significant improvements.
agree with u bolo,
variable intake airflow was introduced even before Proton exist…
source from bosch,at last see proton did something lah,but still not new tehn.anyway still hope its long lasting and durable,plastic manifold although heat resistant but know malaysia equatorial climates,hot and humid,still doubt it will be durable!!!just look at some popular continental makes,after few years,their 100% recycle plastic worn out easily!!!
variable length intake manifolds (actually its just 2 types only, the long path and the short path) is suppose to smoothen out the torque curve. the long path tends to give a good bottom end torque while the shorter path tends to provide top end stuff.
again, check out http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/R18A/index.html for technical read.
at least its progress…
Proton is a Car Manufacture which don't hv QC department.
I hv hard to believe on their technology
its more like progress compared to third world countries…..
mumbo jumbo again from proton.
From what I read in the article posted by happymeal, this technology is used in the latest Honda Civic's engine. So whether it's old tech or not, as long as it improves the Campro engine performance, it will be a welcome mod. Well, the 4-stroke engine is very old tech also…
Anyway, give Proton the opportunity to try to improve…so long as they ensure their QC, it's a good move.
Extra noise from intake manifold used to be assosiated with the use of plastic material instead of metal (e.g: aluminum)
Can this be incorporated to current Campro based models? Any improvements would be welcome for current Campro engined Proton owners.
BTW, when can Rakyat Malaysia get the Campro version of the Campro engine? ……Confused? ……Ask Proton. ;)
I am not trying to defend anyone here, but each time Paul Tan posts something about Proton, the comment section will certainly be full of unconstructive criticisms. A lot of Malaysians know how to criticise, but how many of us have suggested solutions?
Hehe….MyBoy…some would be confused by your post. It's true, the Campro has been long overdue. Too long actually. I wonder what took them so long. Me too, still waiting for the actual "cam profiling" that they made a hype so much. Huhuhu…any Proton boys reading?
"aksMs said,
Hehe….MyBoy…some would be confused by your post. It’s true, the Campro has been long overdue. Too long actually. I wonder what took them so long. Me too, still waiting for the actual “cam profiling†that they made a hype so much. Huhuhu…any Proton boys reading?"
_
Now Proton only offer us their "new" variable intake system. What about Campro? Are they going to release the Campro when everyone else already using Camless engine? Bear in mind; BMW, Merc and Renault version of Camless engine will make their debut in not too distant future. ;)
"Akazamabamaboo said,
I am not trying to defend anyone here, but each time Paul Tan posts something about Proton, the comment section will certainly be full of unconstructive criticisms. A lot of Malaysians know how to criticise, but how many of us have suggested solutions?"
_
Its not a matter of we cant give you our suggestion. Its a matter of "Can you execute any of our suggestion?"
"Akazamabamaboo said,
the comment section will certainly be full of unconstructive criticisms."
_
Had they launch the Gen 2 CamPro with the real Campro (ask proton if you are confused) in the 1st place, i bet everyone (including me) will praise them eventhough they CamPro system is not as advanced as others.
Akazamabamaboo, how many suggestions and criticisms from the people do you think Proton has take action on? When they keep on doing the same mistakes again and again, mind you, anybody would get annoyed and irritated and stop suggesting. What's the point of giving constructive criticism when all suggestions fell on deaf ears? They are lucky some people still take their time to follow their movement and criticise them day in and day out. But what if soon, they hear nothing at all?
MyBoy said,
"Had they launch the Gen 2 CamPro with the real Campro (ask proton if you are confused) in the 1st place, i bet everyone (including me) will praise them eventhough they CamPro system is not as advanced as others."
—–
Not everyone la. Some people will praise them. But to me, Campro is an old technology. Proton just re-popularising the term. The cost to R&D and to produce a new technology is a lot. Proton is still at an infant level to really produce a totally new technology. They should've strengthen the brand image first before boasting about technology of so called their own.
"aksMs said,
Not everyone la. Some people will praise them. But to me, Campro is an old technology. Proton just re-popularising the term. The cost to R&D and to produce a new technology is a lot. Proton is still at an infant level to really produce a totally new technology. They should’ve strengthen the brand image first before boasting about technology of so called their own."
_
Since they do boasting about their tech, they better deliver.
MyBoy said,
"Since they do boasting about their tech, they better deliver."
——
Indeed.
hey at least there's some improvement. at least this stuff can reduce the campro's FC and improve its performance.
can it be purchased separetly or only incorporated in the new engines??
sounds interesting…
aksMs said,
October 10, 2006 @ 1:00 am
Hehe….MyBoy…some would be confused by your post. It’s true, the Campro has been long overdue. Too long actually. I wonder what took them so long. Me too, still waiting for the actual “cam profiling†that they made a hype so much. Huhuhu…any Proton boys reading?
————————————————————
MyBoy said,
October 10, 2006 @ 1:48 am
Had they launch the Gen 2 CamPro with the real Campro (ask proton if you are confused) in the 1st place, i bet everyone (including me) will praise them eventhough they CamPro system is not as advanced as others.
————————————————————–
When you guys say 'cam profiling', or the 'real Campro' what do you guys actually mean? Are you confused with cam profile switching instead of cam profiling? From the name Campro, it's not suggesting anything special with the cam profiles. If it has the words variable cam profiling, or cam profile switching, then that is a different matter. I think you better get your facts right.
And another thing, when Paul reported on Honda's new 1.8L engine earlier this year and mentioned about the engine uses variable intake geometry, no one said anything about it being outdated technology etc.
http://paultan.org/archives/2006/03/13/2006-honda…
But when Proton plans to introduce it in Campro, then suddenly many negative comments come out. Go figure.
I found another article about Variable Intake Manifold.
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/t…
The implementation of Variable Intake Manifold is still cheaper and easy to implement compare to VVT or real campro.
Just wanted to point out some misconceptions. Honda's R18 uses variable geometry intake IN ADDITION to its VTEC mechanism for better fuel economy and power. It does use ONLY variable geometry intake like this new Campro engine.
"Zongtwi a.k.a Speed Junkie said,
When you guys say ‘cam profiling’, or the ‘real Campro’ what do you guys actually mean? Are you confused with cam profile switching instead of cam profiling? From the name Campro, it’s not suggesting anything special with the cam profiles. If it has the words variable cam profiling, or cam profile switching, then that is a different matter. I think you better get your facts right."
___
Proton named their engine after the system, thats how we get CamPro on the first place. However when its became clear that they cant/unable to integrate the system at the debut of the engine (along with Gen 2), they decided to down play their previous boasting about the system (where the engine get its name from).
Why the hell they retained the name CamPro despite the absence of the system? It is because they cant simply recind their more then a year long promotion of the CamPro name. Thats the price you have to pay when you keep boasting about your engine (more than a year before the actual launch date), but in the end cant integrate the system at the engine debut.
I think you better get your facts right. ;)
"Zongtwi a.k.a Speed Junkie said,
October 10, 2006 @ 5:27 am
And another thing, when Paul reported on Honda’s new 1.8L engine earlier this year and mentioned about the engine uses variable intake geometry, no one said anything about it being outdated technology etc.
http://paultan.org/archives/2006/03/13/2006-honda…
But when Proton plans to introduce it in Campro, then suddenly many negative comments come out. Go figure."
__________
It is because in that case, the variable intake geometry was playing a merely supplementary role.
hey everybody, this is my first posting after about one year reading & watching only..
according to the article from the website (http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/R18A/index.html – posted by happymeal), there are two different length of the air intake to suit two different engine condition (high & low RPM). do you guys think it is possible to have more than just two different length? what I'm trying to say is, as the RPM varies the length of the intake also varies accordingly. I know some constraints do apply when we're talking about engine (including the cost, space and etc.) but I think this is really interesting..
(I'm not a mechanical engineer, just my 2 cent)
i don't know is that call improvement because the engine itself is worth zero. so when zero devided to any figure is still come out the amount of zero.
want a constructive point? nah….
1. Accept the fact and admit that campro is a failure and throw it away.
2. Put the R&D cost in some new technology.
whatsoever said,
October 10, 2006 @ 8:24 am
want a constructive point? nah….
1. Accept the fact and admit that campro is a failure and throw it away.
2. Put the R&D cost in some new technology.
________________
Totally agree but b4 that, they need to have QC 1st la instead of 'tai chi' the QC to buyers
//high-thermal plastic material used to make the new manifold is lighter, resulting in overall weight reduction//
Based on my understanding, the Plastic Manifold is not a NEW technology nor Proton's Technology, it's already common used by other OEM. The only advantage of it is WEIGHT REDUCTION. Lighter engine make Overall Vehicle weight reduction = Better fuel consumption and better performance…..BUt…but..but….it is very very……very small impact. Please don't expect performance will up by10% or even higher.
ChipS said,
Even if it’s something old from somewhere but I’m sure everything is something old if we’re not the first one to use it.
__________________________________________________
Nice thought, I do agree with you.
Actually no body would mind if they are not the first one to use the tech. The thing that we mind is that they boasting about the tech when they practically the last one to use it.
Not the first one is okay, but the "last one + boasting" is not what we all looking for.
MyBoy said,
Not the first one is okay, but the “last one + boasting†is not what we all looking for.
~_____________~ ~_____________~ ~_____________~ ~_____________~
Yup, yup… The boasting bit sure is good if the tech is as good as it claims. So, we pay for what was boasted and the fact that we accepted it. However, the boasting should not deceive us by letting us think that it is an 'original' but I guess it’s everyone’s piece of pie and no one wants the smallest piece for sure.
Having said that, the last person to have a say on buying a car is ourself and we have the rights to choose something 'new' or something we can afford. Rdgs…
just worried bout the quality-level of this little thingy…
the whole world knows where p1 stands in terms of interior quality… that reminds me of my old wira. g/box cannot close completely, always senget…
Quote: Lighter engine make Overall Vehicle weight reduction = Better fuel consumption and better performance…..BUt…but..but….it is very very……very small impact. Please don’t expect performance will up by10% or even higher.
Ya, I remove the extra pillow in my boot and FC was much better :)
campro with some intake system?
what?original campro engine useless for farks?
bah even if proton had vvti or whatever it still is and it will always be some stupid lousy nasty car.
Announcement made to raise stock value?
I see lot's of senseless bashings here.
It was clearly stated in the Paul's original article that it's a kind of Variable Intake Manifold system. This VIM would improve on the Campro's low to mid-end power. When the low-end power is improved, there would be no need to rev higher to get the car moving. This should translate to fuel savings in real world condition as the Campro is notoriously under-powered on the low-end side.
This system is similar to that of the 1.8 litre i-VTEC found in the Honda Civic. The 1.8 litre Civic has 2.0 litre performance that's the i-VTEC part. Honda also claims that the 1.8 litre Civic has 1.5 litre consumption (if not driven aggresively); that's the VIM at work. However, the VIM found on the 1.8 litre i-VTEC should be much more advanced than Campro's version (assuming that the VIM is on a conventional Campro without any variable valve system). This is because Honda taps the synergy of VIM integrated into an i-VTEC engine. They complements each each other.
On the camless question, Lotus has already been meddling with this technology since a few years back.
give Proton a chance lor… at least now, Proton have improve a bit in term of quality and also a lot less arrogant compared to the previous mgmt.
let them walk first before they run. At least this time, Proton dun gv it a ridiculous name and go around boasting abt ground breaking technology and delivery stone age product.
i aint no staunch supporter of proton neither am i a basher. If they do take step to improve, we should d least gv some encouragement (no matter how small the improvement).
No more arrogant attitude and we are more forgiving. Proton hv to live with the sin of a certain past individual now.
The aluminium manifold will be replaced with a reinforced plastic molded manifold with variable airflow activated by flaps controlled by electronics from Bosch?
Imagine the long distance journeys. I wonder if it could withstand the test of time and torture. Hope the results are good but highly doubt overall effectiveness.
Have we actually suggested anything TO Proton? And by that I mean in ways other than posting comments online and rambling about amongst friends/colleagues. :)
performance got improve rite ?
Yeah, my suggestion to Proton is to bundle those improvements and release it under a upgrade car launch or what you call it a facelift. That way we will see more improvements in one launch….hmmm…. Proton 98 to Proton xP….hey, where tat one came from… better still new model la. More features, more impressive and of course more $$.
szw, as paul has said "Lower end power will also be better". anyways, we can only see it 2nd half 2007 :(
"amad_a said,
do you guys think it is possible to have more than just two different length?"
_______________________________________________________________________
It is possible and if im mistaken, its already in the market (3 stage). Perhaps the continiouos version (stepless) will be on the future engine.
"Isamu said,
On the camless question, Lotus has already been meddling with this technology since a few years back."
____________________________________________________________________
Almost all engine manufacturer/designer has already been meddling with this technology one way or another. However that doesnt mean their version of camless engine are going to be mass produced.
BMW, Merc and Renault however are going to introduce their version of camless engine in not too distant future. ;)
"ChipS said,
szw, as paul has said “Lower end power will also be betterâ€. anyways, we can only see it 2nd half 2007"
________________________________________________________________
the word "better" is very subjective, Hope Proton will release the figure to their supporter and basher.
P/S: We want to se their torque/power graph.
Akazamabamaboo said,
October 10, 2006 @ 12:50 am
I am not trying to defend anyone here, but each time Paul Tan posts something about Proton, the comment section will certainly be full of unconstructive criticisms. A lot of Malaysians know how to criticise, but how many of us have suggested solutions?
—————————-
agreed… ;)
Its my first go reading this topic and from top to bottom everything has gone off topic~~ sigh
The variable intake length idea is long long time ago technology. It has nothing to do with VTEC and variable valve timing. No doubt it works. It is cheap, but really depends how much homework p1 has made.
Campro engines from what I've heard and read lacks tremendously at high RPMs so I reckon the variable intake length system is used to improve the high rev section of the engine; my best guess that about 5ps of gain and slight torque gains through variable intake geometry (it sounds so tacky for a intake with just two different intake lengths lol).
Mileage performance? should be about the same. Heck we might end up with a louder engine.
Man, you gotta LOVE this place. I think it's utterly fascinating (not to mention completely unbelievable) that so many non-readers visit a blog.
Even though just about everyone has NOT bothered to read source material (linked on this page), it's on for young and old with a litany of white noise about Proton AND other users with no basis in fact. For instance, comments on driveability and performance of the Proton engine with the variable intake track system from people who haven't even seen the gizmo, let alone driven a car with it.
And, of course, mindless Proton bashing aplenty. When you clowns aren't bashing each other, that is.
Did anyone notice that the Bernama source was based on a release from EPMB, NOT from Proton? Of course not, because nobody bothered to read it. Proton is mentioned, it MUST be Proton speaking, right? I just can't figure if Paul's Place is salted with a limited number of people who know (and care) about cars or a considerably greater number of mouth-breathing morons who are the digital version of a schoolyard bully, pushing others around because they can't get along with anybody. The parallels are there: posting without reading, making proclamations utterly without information and assuming one's own experience is shared by all others. To an outsider this place probably looks more like the Taiwanese house of reps than an automotive blog.
But the scariest part is that there are a LOT of people posting here who make George W appear intelligent. Now that's horrifying.
I was going to share what I know about the project and how similar variable-track intact systems have worked where used in other cars with CamPro-like torque shortfalls at critical engine speed ranges, but from what I've read here, none of this would be in keeping with the theme of this hijacked thread.
Oh, and Joe, don't bother. I know what you're going to type before you type it so I don't need to read what you've already written a squillion times already. Besides, I wouldn't be too surprised if I'm not the only one with similar precognitive abilities. I'd say "give it a rest", but you couldn't on a bet.
Last but not least, I'd like to thank Paul: it was a damn good try, but methinks this thread needs to be euthanised and a "let's bash Proton" thread be established for the benefit of users so inclined so those of us who actually want to share information (as opposed to opinion) can.
When Proton launched the Campro engine in the Gen2, it left out the extra capabilities of the original engine that it designed for. Most of you would have heard of Campro with CPS (Cam Profile Switching) but Variable Intake Geometry is new. But I am quite certain some time back, I have mentioned VIM (Variable Intake Management) which is most likely the term to be used by Proton to identify Variable Intake Geometry later. Hopefully, Proton would be launching the new engine with both the CPS and VIM to enhance its torque and power band characteristic as well as improving the fuel economy. Lets wait and see. Just half system don't provide substantial improvement but better than none I guess.
The engine lacks torque and live when below 3k rpm, rendering it a car that thirst for fuel.
To counter this, maybe P1 opt to have a soft turbo added in to bridge the gap?
Using plastic manifold not only reduces weight (which is cruicial for fuel economy {FC} ), but it also ensure that the air/fuel flow into the combustion chambers are smooth and swirled appropriately.
Casted manifolds in mass production is usually pledged with production related roughness, that at places cannot be reworked. Thus, creating an interupted air flow, equals poorly burnt fuel , equals no power & high FC.
I think, not only P1 is in an infant stage. The whole automotive industry is, with some fat retarded ones hodging the lanes.
Imagine, a technology that have since being used almost half a decade ago, and we still need 1 1/2 years to copy and produces it.
Have you heard of China? They can clone a whole engine block within a month at max !
Pride aside, to survive we need to be smart, and not to re-create an old item and claimed credits for it later on.
Alright, just forget abt bashing P1 for a moment. On the other hand, hoping this version of Campro would do us proud. Maaf zahir batin.
Akazamabamaboo..
We can make 1001 suggestions.. but who want to listen?.. the gov only listen, if one of them or their relatives can make money of it.. agree?.. pls read the newspapers today, about the recent AP scandal!! that is an example la… make me sick!!
variable intake geometry system or what, the fact is p1 is not relevan anymore in auto ind., for instance, theres one proton edar just closed shop after operating so many years, near my office.. so u know what it means la.. more sure gonna close oso….
but p1 still relevan with our overpriced car in bolehland.. but we can close one eye and assume it as patriotic contribution.. bcoz it is still worth to buy expensive japs or conti cars compare to p1.. or at least look for 2nd hand cars… & use it for the rest of ur life..u won't regret…
11/10/06
Hello. Thank you for wasting half an hour of my time weeding through all the comments and deleting the irrelevant comments as well as the personal attacks on each other.
CPS? What? must be kidding me. Honda has been singing VTEC for over 20 years.
CPS would mean whole Campro head redesign and R&D cost. With that the vehicle cost will not be cheap.
Cheap no good; good no cheap
If the variable intake manifold not just boosts top end power and reduces harmfull emissions but improves fuel economy then it is the correct step. Why pay for more for a slight improvement in power if the engine cannot deliver better fuel economy? At times like these fuel efficient cars are highly sought after so let us see what happens next.
Having light intake manifolds will improve fuel economy? yes but only a small small fraction; dun expect a miracle. You want better FC?
-maintain stock rims or smaller,
-change with recommended lubs and filters at recommended service intervals,
-maintain correct tyre pressure,
-select better time to travel with less traffic,
-feather throttling,
-drive within 90km/h – anything higher than that FC will worsen as the more engine power is used to overcome wind resistance.
-if you want to drive with window open, drive within 60km/h. anything higher than that will be additional wind resistance to your car.
contradictory to popular belief, this myth of driving with windows up or down has been proven by the mythbusters over at discovery.
-check/change at recommended intervals for sparkplugs, air filters
-dun put tons of tons of ICE in the car. Similar results can be done with proper planning and selection but with minimal weight penalty.
-dun set the aircon at "north pole" mode but set to moderate instead. the compressor takes up 1-2hp worth of useful kinetic energy.
-etc etc etc
Proper maintenance and usage is the key. There is nothing more truthful than that.
What about performance enchancing items like tablets and additives? well its up to you. If the cost of the product if translated to litres of petrol, with that set amount if the additives itself can have better mileage than the petrol equivalent, then its a good buy. other than that dun bother.
penny wise pound foolish.
Lets hope the revised engine will deliver
thx Driven2020.. i always like to read ur comments.. so technical & useful…
Ohh.. let me add…
do not make any stupid modification on ur car (especially engine) & put so much accessories.. the car maker have done so many tests to get the best CD.. not need to waste ur money for make up..
ps:thats why i choose vios 1.5E.. 14" rims serve me just fine.. don't care so much about accessories….
"to an outsider this place probably looks more like the Taiwanese house of reps than an automotive blog."
Matthew, Spot on mate.
Ok ok
No matter how much Proton's getting the bashing, the reality is that we can see the numbers keep on growing on the roads. Every here and there we would see savvs, gens, wirs and the 'boxies'. Lack of choice or being faithful on the product is not the question, the fact is the numbers are BIG. I do sincerely hope the management walk the talk and make the brand not far away than the Koreans, by least.
To Paul for costing you time to delete my posts, and Khairy for the 'emo', thousand apologies. I didnt mean it though. Peace.
Matthew Seleigh said,
"Oh, and Joe, don’t bother. I know what you’re going to type before you type it so I don’t need to read what you’ve already written a squillion times already. Besides, I wouldn’t be too surprised if I’m not the only one with similar precognitive abilities. I’d say “give it a restâ€, but you couldn’t on a bet."
——————–
So you treat this blog and make it not look like Taiwanese House of Reps but "WWE ring" for you to rambling ….. put up "Royal Rumble" but no titile fight with no spectators!
So, use some one as "punching bag" to show you are saint because of "speaking the truth" and other at "fault/ugly" because get "bruised and blue black eye" by your punching!
In political science perspective, this approached is notoriuosly employed by dirty politician to advance their power based and dubious/selfish ideology! It is term as "accuse and deny", "blame-shifting tactic" and of course try to carry out character assasination design to inflict irreparable damage to other! Stop here 1st,……………………
—————
Back to topic, the "negligible" improvement by P1 in its CamPro engine definitely won't reverse its falling fortune. Or it will not boost its car sales simply because, 1st it is not new and 2nd there are so many new tech/features in other car manufacturer new model. This improvement is "too-slow-too-little"!
Im confuse abt this engine…Why proton news will become honda news, when I seeing honda new engine, also saw what you guy campair it with proton..=.=
This 2 is big different~
Honda sure the best than proton, is nothing or fight abt it.
Proton at least got some improvement, just see how proton do for the future, the people who like proton then go suuport proton, the people who dont like proton just let it be. Give some support, at least proton was malaysia product.
Thank you Joe for proving my point. I genuinely appreciate it.
Matthew, Thank you as well for admiting that I prove your point. But it is the case of your point is applicable to you. A lot of time we talk on "different frequency and perspective" or "different side of the coin" on the same topic. Hope you understand that. No offence and enmity toward each other ………
None whatsoever.
Matthew S, GooooooooooooooooD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
to anyone who have been to the kl international motor show 2006, and particularly proton booth, a "cut" campro engine model was there along with a monitor which explains the campro technology..if i'm not mistaken, they were showing something that can move at one of the moving engine part (i think piston la…) which will optimise the air and fuel mixture and it's not like variable valve timing (which is said to be more expensive and complicated)…and tat was suppose to be cps…correct me if i'm wrong..
plastic intake manifold??????strange??
every one always comment something that they dont realy know about and tell that not good, that wrong. but do you realy know about the tech. that had being develop by proton? i dont think so.. and if all of you want beter tech. by proton, do you realy think that you can afford to buy it. i say think again..
Very few engines (actually none that I can recall right now) have variable intake manifold length systems alone. Variable intake manifold systems are merely ‘supporting’ systems in addition to the main system, which is usually variable cam timing and/or variable valve lift and duration.
Whether the singular application of a variable intake manifold length system can actually ‘dramatically’ or even significantly improve the CAMPRO engine’s performance… I don’t think so. It’s just too small a variable.
The ancillary ‘benefits’ touted by Proton ie. (i) weight reduction – please don’t make me laugh. A couple of kilos won’t make a huge difference. (ii) smoother airflow and better air/fuel mix… Unless Proton has re-designed the manifold with better air/fuel results in mind, simply changing the material used to plastic will have no benefits at all.