Car Talk - Non S2000 General Motoring and Non S2000 Car Talk

What would you like to know about engines?

Thread Tools
 
Old Aug 28, 2013 | 11:37 AM
  #21  
Nick Graves's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,181
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
Default

Originally Posted by Ultra_Nexus
Originally Posted by Nick Graves' timestamp='1377709643' post='22749461
Well, it was mostly Subaru, once Toyota allowed them the IPR for D4S, so it's the only one you would be safe on. But best not go there with specific examples. Especially not Sports Hybrid 4WD Yarises, perhaps...

Honda's DI is side-ported & fires upwards, BTW.

The 500cc per pot is an interesting one; it's about the largest one can go to and rev, because of reciprocating masses. But it does lead onto the 'Ricardo Theory' (which I've found referenced nowhere), which suggested there were optimal pot sizes based on surface/area volume at stochiometric; 330cc was one, which the Daihatsu Charade used.
I've always read about the 500cc thing. Porsche & Ferrari have no problem in disproving this, especially the Porsche which has 30% more cylinder volume.
They cheat, by using multi-cylinder engines. However, bore wear is a major problem in some of their flat sixes. 100mm + slugs and a boxer engine cause a lot of strain. One version of the Boxster engine is notorious for re-sleeving. Likewise, the straight fours weren't that durable either. But they used Silumin for years, when Nikasil would have been better, IIRC.

Ferrari engines too are frequently knackered at mileages that would make an F20c look durable.

Caddy had a 500 CI V8 (8.2 litres) but it didn't really rev.
Reply
Old Aug 28, 2013 | 12:29 PM
  #22  
Welshman's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,794
Likes: 1
From: La Massana, Principat D'Andorra
Default

Different crank designs (flat plane - cross plane)/firing orders?
Reply
Old Aug 28, 2013 | 12:37 PM
  #23  
pip's Avatar
pip
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,468
Likes: 0
From: South of Heaven
Default

Reply
Old Aug 29, 2013 | 03:33 AM
  #24  
fluffyninja's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 14,273
Likes: 2
From: Chester
Default

I did notice a little bit of argie bargie in a thread about this recently
Reply
Old Aug 29, 2013 | 03:42 AM
  #25  
fluffyninja's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 14,273
Likes: 2
From: Chester
Default

Bench Dynos vs chassis dynos is one to definately mention since a) I've spent the last 13 years involved with Bench dynos and b) when you start talking about power/torque its useful to have a rough understanding how it is being measured.

I reckon some of the coatings stuff and specific materials I wouldn't go into as a discrete chapter. Instead I reckon I'm going to do a components guide or similar and cover that way (i.e. "a K series uses plastic dowels because somebody is a muppet!" - anyone going to bite on that one )
Reply
Old Aug 29, 2013 | 09:24 AM
  #26  
Nick Graves's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,181
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
Default

Waiting for the Elise brigade...
Reply
Old Aug 31, 2013 | 10:03 AM
  #27  
CHIPPO's Avatar
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Liked
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 88
From: Soham Cambridgeshire
Default

I seem to remember years ago there was an engine design that sort of used a piston crown suported on a flat, non-pivoted con-rod and the crank shaft journal sort of rotated in an ovoid shape at the bottom of the conrod device

What happened to that

I can see that the accerating masses would be quite big, but the piston movement would be linear, and i seem to recal there were fewer moving parts and bearings!
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2013 | 05:00 AM
  #28  
Ultra_Nexus's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 12,330
Likes: 0
From: Frustration
Default

Originally Posted by CHIPPO
I seem to remember years ago there was an engine design that sort of used a piston crown suported on a flat, non-pivoted con-rod and the crank shaft journal sort of rotated in an ovoid shape at the bottom of the conrod device

What happened to that

I can see that the accerating masses would be quite big, but the piston movement would be linear, and i seem to recal there were fewer moving parts and bearings!
How would you adapt that to a conventional drivetrain though?
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2013 | 06:36 AM
  #29  
Nick Graves's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,181
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
Default

It's conventional rotational, but without the offset conrods required to reduce bore ovality wear from the massive side loadings. And it reduces the massive over-engineering required to stop cancer engines from destroying themselves.

Cathedral engines sometimes use similar.
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2013 | 07:46 AM
  #30  
fluffyninja's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 14,273
Likes: 2
From: Chester
Default

I'm struggling to envision this engine layout from what you describe. Any pictures or videos or anything? It kind of sounds like a free piston engine. If it is I know there's some interest in using them as a hybrid generator. Basically dispose of the crankshaft and use it as an electrical generator
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:58 AM.