If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Open ForumsThe Open forum was created for people to discuss anything else Non-Moto related. Just about anything goes! Please remember this is a loosely moderated area. If you do not have thick skin. We suggest you stay out of here.
From what I'm reading, the engine reaches maximum mechanical advantage 10 degrees after top dead center, making better use of cylinder pressures, versus traditional piston engines, which supposedly reach maximum mechanical advantage 60 degrees after top dead center.
From what I'm reading, the engine reaches maximum mechanical advantage 10 degrees after top dead center, making better use of cylinder pressures, versus traditional piston engines, which supposedly reach maximum mechanical advantage 60 degrees after top dead center.
that's the number i wanted to hear, thanks.
__________________
...Until we see each other once more on the path along the way
Just like everything else, there is just to much money in the conventional engine buisness right now so I see it being put in a back burner and in another ten years it may be considered.
It looks like 6 cylinders would be the optimal arrangement for vibration and balance, I wonder why they went with 4? With 4 cylinders, it looks like it would vibrate up and down quite a bit, with 6 the 2 side cylinders would be moving down while the center vertical cylinder would move up and vise versa. Perhaps there was packaging reasons why this wasn't done. They have the 4 cylinders angled at 60 degrees from each other, with 6 cylinders this would yield a perfectly balanced motor.
It looks like 6 cylinders would be the optimal arrangement for vibration and balance, I wonder why they went with 4? With 4 cylinders, it looks like it would vibrate up and down quite a bit, with 6 the 2 side cylinders would be moving down while the center vertical cylinder would move up and vise versa. Perhaps there was packaging reasons why this wasn't done. They have the 4 cylinders angled at 60 degrees from each other, with 6 cylinders this would yield a perfectly balanced motor.
I don't know what the cam shape would have to be if it was a six cylinder, but I'm pretty sure it would be a far cry from the triangle shape that is going right now.
No, the cylinder banks are already 60 degrees apart for 2 of them to be at TDC simultaneously, so adding another set of cylinders vertically in the space between them would cancel out the vertical vibrations and would yield a perfectly balanced motor in every dimension. The only downside to this is that there would be an unequal number of power pulses per rotation, I'm not sure what kind of vibrations or power surges this would cause if any.
yeah but that thing can't pull my F950 around all while spinning the 30" mud tires to get my groceries. I need a V10 for that...
(sarcasm)
I'm surprised a yaris isn't getting better fuel economy than that.
the honda CRX got those numbers back in 1989.
my GMC sonoma 4.3L V6 gets 25-27 average depending on brand of gas and how hard I drive it. that's with a truck rear end and truck gearing in the transmission. and a truck with a curb weight of 3500lbs.
I just can't see why a yaris is only seeing 40 then. and that is only an epa ESTIMATE. meaning in the most perfect conditions, off throttle down hill, no wind etc
Last edited by serpentracer : 07-04-2008 at 03:44 PM.
This type of engine is nothing new. The same design has been around since the 40's... AND
I HIGHLY doubt this engine will get into normal cars. For it is WAY more expensive to make than normal engines...
To quote first line of story:
Quote:
Revetec, a little known company from the Gold Coast region of Australia, may be on to something huge: they’ve created an engine that is 50% smaller, 50% lighter, has 50% lower emissions and is cheaper to manufacture than a conventional internal combustion engine of the same horsepower. Oh yeah, did I mention that it doubles the fuel economy too.
The cost would more likely be fitting them into a traditional frame setup for a traditional engine. A company like Toyota should pick the ball up on this and make a new car to replace the Yaris, or better yet the Prius, and profit. I mean, it costs a decent amount to produce hybrid vehicles because of all the hardware, electronics, and of course materials, and the reason why they cost as little as they do is because of government tax breaks and general support. If they could cut all that out and still charge similar prices (while making a better MPG car) they would make a killing for the eco-conscious buyer.
-Official Member of the G-Town Squid Squad-
FZ6 moderator 
Linear Mode
