A work of pure genius! - Brilliant "Revetec" Engine

[Matra et Alpine]

http://www.revetec.com/?q=taxonomy/term/20

read this and you see what I mean. They say they good more torque but it's a lie since it produce actually less torque per work cycle. The fuel should be the same since it's using engine comparison at same displacement and same cylinder pressure. It show better fuel efficiency at low rpm but this is due to bether flow in the valves since the engine has higher piston speed at same rpm than a convensional engine. so a convensional engine would have the same fuel efficensy at the same torque. Tehy only read out the data that make the engine look good.

Smaller lighter faster engines are generally MORE efficient as their are less losses. You conjecture has validity if the Revetec ends up with the linear mass movement of the "normal" engines, but it replaces some of that and most importantly increases the energy extracted from the piston movement by operating with no side force vectors from cranks. IF they can run the engine at optimum revs for efficiency BECAUSE it produces higher torque then it wins. That is their stated position and THEY DO claim BETTER fuel efficiency. I've not seen anything that backs up to the contrary. As I said I think you speculation uses "normal" limits and tries to apply them to REvetec. I dont agree they're comparable.

The bearings I'm refering to is the ones transfering the power from the pistons to the big dishes I would call a crankshaft.

yep, and HOW is that different to a gudgeon pin in a "normal" engine ?
I'd also forgotten that they have alignment shafts that retain piston alignment so would suggest removal of "slap" allowing a much smaller skirt and possibly lower mass piston.

Those shafts with those big cams and the mecanism to handle the contrarotating operation must be more heav than anny conrods.

How do you reach that conclusion ?
They are NOT subject to the needs of thinness of a conrod to be able move the piston. So they dont' need to be as substantially built. They are much shorter in throw too. The engine wins because it does NOT use a crankshaft -- which has counter weighted lobes -- and is more efficient in power extraction per combustion because there is no angular vector from a conrod.

Boxers get oval more easy because the gravety pull the pistons down against he ground.

??? Who told you that ?
The effect of gravity is MINISCULE relative to the combustion forces in the engine

Why is it only two brands in the worls using boxers? It has good balance and low center of gravety so why is it not more that use them?

PACKAGING. You get a WIDE engine hard to fit in.
Boxers are WIDELY used in light planes because then the packaging can actually be an advantage !! You dont' get many places where reliability and performance are any more important than a light aircraft
Boxers are a BIG win when you go air=cooled. But by the time you add a water jacket then a 4 isn't as efficient packaging as a straight.

a inline will be lighter because it require less material since making only one bank conectet to the crankcase. A smal V will make the Banks share some material and big V vill make the engine more heavy because the banks no longer share anny material so it has to be conectd to the crankcase bye it's own. A boxer is practical a 180 degre V engine.

Boxer and V180 are different as boxer is opposed piston and naturally balanced in all configurations whereas a V180 isn't. But the packaging is similar. There is a small difference in weight in the block but it' s arguable that the bottem end is stronger in a boxer wieight-for-weight as you dont' need to build extra ribs to stop the crank twisting out the bottom of a "normal" block.

Renult had a 110decre f1 engine but give it up because it become to heavy.
They went back to a more moderate angle.

NO, they coudln't control the VIBRATIONS that the unusual angle introduced.

Know what I mean?

Some of what you say is valid but there is a counter argument for each of them that the Revetec design seems to have used. I have commented where I think you take the poor points that a crank based engine has and then assumed it applies to the Revetec esp with regard to the cylinders. With NO sideways forces during the cycle then theoretically the block requires less stiffening, less thickness less weight !!
THE big benefit the Revetec design goes for is the removal of the angular forces a crankshaft imparts. SO removing all the necessary design to cope with those stresses and wear.