UCP Supercar II: Engine Department.

[hightower99]

WARNING: This is a thread for the engine design team only, If you have comments and you are not part of the engine design team please contact a member of the team by PM or post the comment in another of the open threads concerning UCP Supercar II.

Members: Hightower99, Jediali, P4g4nite.

Right to start the ball rolling.

So far it looks like we have to design an engine for a GT or a 4 door sports car.

This gives us some very general guidelines already.

-The engine will have to be driveable over a large operating range (good for cruising and for blasting)
-The car will be in the higher price range which allows us a certain amount of freedom (we can design a big engine )
-Obviously in the real world we will have to consider fuel economy. Having 600+ HP is great but not if it only gets 4mpg. Also emissions should be considered important.
-Because the car will no doubt be relatively heavy and because it will need to be a good performer the engine needs to produce enough power to get at least 500hp/1000kg. This will give the car excellent acceleration power.

As other variables of the car's design are decided (drivetrain, body style, ect.) Then we can get more and more specific and deal with integrating our engine into the vehicle.

My thoughts on the engine base.

-6L V12 or W12 but up to 7L if we go with NA
-possible FI with relatively simple twin turbo system.
-Throttleless (no butterfly valves, the intake valves act as the throttle)
-Lean burn with direct injection
-possible variable compression system (still thinking about that one)
-I would really like to run it as a detonation engine as it gets rid of the entire ignition system and should (with variable compression) be perfectly self timing.
-Valve control system that controls Timing, lift, and duration through a large range.

So Jediali, P4g4nite what are your own thoughts?
Any ideas?

[jediali]

sounds good:
I am confident about us designing a suitable combustion chamber and am excited about the direct injection. If we go for FI we dont really need a variable intake manifold do we. I have a fair idea how to make the engines crankshaft, conrods and pistons. If we have turbocharging we really need to watch the CR (even with DI) and avoid an oversquare bore:stroke ratio. With light enough components (froged al pistons, ti conrods) a square (or slightly under square ratio) will work fine (and help optimise torque).

I know a lot less abot engine electronics and ancilaries (oil passageways,pumps, radiators, ignition etc)

however great start!

[hightower99]

Actually just having FI doesn't mean that you don't need variable intake systems. Yes the turbo (or supercharger) will pressurize the manifold but as the cylinders open and start breathing air in you will have some strong pulses. If we run two large manifolds (one for each side) then there are 6 cylinders (each at least 500cc) so it should be possible to make a manifold that can take some advantage from that.

I thought about a variable exhaust but with turboes it would be useless and with SC then it is just getting the exhaust to seal with extra moving joints which is still hard.

Also if we can design a variable compression system I think that a range spanning from 16:1 to 9:1 would be good. 16:1 when idling to get the tiny amount of fuel concentrated enough and hot enough to detonate. 9:1 when running WOT with good boost shouldn't damage it (I am thinking max pressure shouldn't exceed 12psi)

[McReis]

Boring threads these...

[McReis]

Cry-baby!!!

[Matra et Alpine]

Cry-baby!!!

yeah ht, get a grip.
The idea the last time aroudn was to have a wee bit of fun.
Creating an "empire" and limiting inputs is plain crazy.
In teh real engineering world, often ideas and valid objections come from outside those focussed on the matter in hand.

[hightower99]

yeah ht, get a grip.
The idea the last time aroudn was to have a wee bit of fun.
Creating an "empire" and limiting inputs is plain crazy.
In teh real engineering world, often ideas and valid objections come from outside those focussed on the matter in hand.

What? You have got to be kidding right?

First of all I wanted this thread to be the place where the engine department can consider ideas and think out loud as it where without having to account for the ridiculous posts, odd-ball irrelevant ideas, and useless comments that accompany almost every thread on this website.

I am simply trying to have a relatively clean place where the engine department won't get lost...

I am not in any way limiting inputs I stated clearly that everyone can say whatever they want please just do that through another channel (like the PM system on in the other threads)

In the real engineering world the engineers assigned to a project will be able to work together in relative peace, without some random guy walking in off the street and saying "Hey why don't you do that?" this is what I am trying to cut down on, just in this thread at least. There isn't even a full page of posts and there are already 6+ completely useless ones that are wasting space.

Please everyone, try and respect this little wish. I want a place where those envolved with the engine department can discuss things. I don't want to see useless comments and completely different ideas that have little relevence to the task at hand.

Just a little list of stuff that is here:

Boring threads these...

Cry-baby!!!

both of those shouldn't exist. Pointless comments.

The ultimate drivetrain setup for the Ultimate Carpage's ultimage car, imo, should be a twin-engined boxer setup. Two 4-pot boxer engines at each end. Primarily, the engines power their own axle, yet they are connected to the other with a bespoke universal axle connecting the transmission ends of the powerplants. The compact dimensions of a boxer should make this possible. Also, as boxers are mounted low, the COG would be lowered compared to an engine of another configuration.

For the super-ultimate setup a twin-six setup using Porsche's boxer would be awesome. However, a Subaru sourced 4 cylinder would save weight, be more space efficient, cheaper to top it off. Either way, Boxer is the way to go.

Blantantly disregards the fact that we will most likely be designing an engine for a front mounted position in a car that may or may not have AWD. This is an idea that should have been posted through the PM system or posted in another of the threads.

Are you considering the legal emissiosn and efficiencies in the target markets ?
What about the transition to bio-fuels, alternative fuels and impact on cost-of-ownership.
And servicing needs - special tools, training, time and the impact on distrbutors ?

And you jump on me because I was cutting down on the fun and being too serious??? This isn't useless and is a valid question but it shouldn't be posted here. It should be posted in one of the other main threads about UCPSCII, or PMed. However to answer your questions:
-Emissions maybe, otherwise no
-we are planning on sticking with petrol so no
-no mostly because this is supposed to be abit of fun and we are not in anyway thinking of distribution.

Not to forget the regulations that 95% of the engine/car has to be recyclable In three years IIRC it should be 99%

Again a good point but I believe might be abit too serious (maybe not) but preferrably it should have been made in another thread or PMed

Turbo V8 like jay leno's tornado!

no value whatsoever. Just an opinion that should have been stated in another thread.

Does everyone see my point now?

I want this thread to be about the engine design for the UCPSCII project, nothing else. The engine department needs a place to discuss things freely. All comments, ideas, objections, whatever can be PMed or posted in other threads. Not to be ignored but to keep this thread clean.

Now onto matters:

Just a quick thought from an outsider..

Would 500bhp/ton be a slight amount of overkill, name me some cars that have that ratio

or some GT cars that have anywhere near it...

just a thought remember

Yes indeed it is overkill I would believe something around 300bhp/1000kg would suffice. I am glad it was brought up. putting me on the spot and telling me to name cars with that ratio (McLaren F1, All Koenigseggs, Caterham R500, Ultimas) or some GTs with anything near it (the closest I got off the top of my head is Marcos Mantis GT with about 430) was abit much. Still thank you for pointing that out. This is something that I don't mind at all.

[twinspark]

...please just do that through another channel (like the PM system on in the other threads)...

...This is an idea that should have been posted through the PM system or posted in another of the threads...

...It should be posted in one of the other main threads about UCPSCII, or PMed...

...preferrably it should have been made in another thread or PMed...

...All comments, ideas, objections, whatever can be PMed or posted in other threads.

I don't see the whole idea of PM's here, I think that there's more to gain than to lose if people in different tasks know of the ideas of others.

A good example might be the Mazda RX8, where the Wankel theme is visible also in the interior.

I also think that things like emissions, weight, size and costs of the engine (etc) and the whole doability should be considered. Not just plain max power.

One question; are you thinking of using an existing engine (which more or less eliminates the issues with recyclability for one) or designing one from scratch, as I understood in one of the other threads?

[jediali]

I don't see the whole idea of PM's here, I think that there's more to gain than to lose if people in different tasks know of the ideas of others.

A good example might be the Mazda RX8, where the Wankel theme is visible also in the interior.

I also think that things like emissions, weight, size and costs of the engine (etc) and the whole doability should be considered. Not just plain max power.

One question; are you thinking of using an existing engine (which more or less eliminates the issues with recyclability for one) or designing one from scratch, as I understood in one of the other threads?

you have some good points, IMHO :
- emisions/weight/size etc will be considered thoroughly as they will be part of the design process. They arent an afterthought and are realistic targets.
- Recyclability? for the engine will depend on material choice, which shouldnt be a problem, at least in a conceptual sense. People demand "oh it has to be recyclable" we would prefer "how about you use X material to make it recyclable" for a positive contribution. That would make a mature team
- Ideas will be shared openly, everyone can make there point known quite freely. I know ht99 seems to be controling this but it isnt going to get to the point where your shut out at all.
- use an existing engine? that would be sort of boring. I am confident that betweeen us we can through enough together to make at least a conceptual proposition with more than enough technical foundation and accuracy to meet requirements.

thanks all for the contributions and hope you can keep adding to the think pot.

EDIT: what do you study Twinspark..out of interest?

[Matra et Alpine]

What? You have got to be kidding right?

erm, no.
When I'm kidding you will see a smiley.
Just as there is NOT one here !!!

In the real engineering world

What engineering world is this you live int ?
The succesful projects seek input and collaboration and issues from ALL and the VERY best seek it from the end user continuously.
The open communications ensure that everyeon IN a team is aware of issues.
Having it held by a gate-keeper means assumptions are made and often made wrongly.

Just trying to do MY role in the project which is consultant and facilitator.

the engineers assigned to a project will be able to work together in relative peace, without some random guy walking in off the street and saying "Hey why don't you do that?"

Well it's not quite "random" and you need to look at every rapid development lifecycle in existence as it does it's utmost to do EXACTLY what you don't want happening DSDM is a perfect example. Likewise QFD.

Engineers and designers who think they know better than "random guy" often screw up and fail to deliver products meeting the real customers needs.

A point not raised at an early stage will typically cost 10 times that to fix in the next one and then another 10 times in the next etc etc.

It woudl be beneficial to use best-practices in engineering if folsk want a little experience of what it's liek to design and deliver in the real world.

That's my 5 minute consultancy fee used up

[jediali]

A point not raised at an early stage will typically cost 10 times that to fix in the next one and then another 10 times in the next etc etc.

<knocks on the boss's door>
your not wrong my good friend however: many parts of the design can have quantites added later and much of the added quantities will be within excel or Matlab perhaps meaning simple alterations. It would be a bugger to redseign cad models as you say however. Not trying to prove you wrong, just speaking from an indefinate equational point of view.

[derekthetree]

First of all I wanted this thread to be the place where the engine department can consider ideas and think out loud as it where without having to account for the ridiculous posts, odd-ball irrelevant ideas, and useless comments that accompany almost every thread on this website.

I've just had a flash of brilliance. If you want all of these things why not reverse the situation.

Use PM's to discuss point between you three, and leave this open for comments from other members (and yes this may include some rubbish, buts that's par for the course around here... )

you can always write down what you've discussed or even set up dummy email accounts and email each other...

[hightower99]

Well I guess then that this thread is open to all!

I am hoping to be able to get an MSN conference going with me jediali and P4g4nite (although I need P4g4nite's msn account if that is going to happen)

Also so far nothing has been decided but the general direction is to make a GT. Probably a 4 door. I just don't see it having a Mid-engine layout. I know that more people voted for Mid-engine RWD but I will bet you that none of them where thinking (hmm lets get that into a GT). I think it will end up being a front mounted engine with either RWD or AWD. Either way GTs are supposed to be fast when you want and able to cruise as well. This requires a relatively large engine because the total car will be heavy. The majority of GTs around today have large (>5L) engines and many are 6L or larger V12s. I am still pulling for the much more compact W12 design as this will concentrate weight and enable the engine to be placed in a better position.

Alot of time and thought will be put into refining and designing relatively new technologies to be included in the design. Weight, size, power curve, construction, fuel economy, emissions, endurance, ect. will be major points for the design.

Jediali: I am still working on some ideas for a variable compression system. I will have some sketches to you soon. I like your valve system, I think we should run with that. I have been trying to find info about running on detonation but mostly as HCCI. But I think that direct injection is better as it will allow us to run lean and get better efficiency by using the "dry" air as insulation from the cylinder wall.

[jediali]

i feel everyone should chip in if its relevant.

[derekthetree]

-Because the car will no doubt be relatively heavy and because it will need to be a good performer the engine needs to produce enough power to get at least 500hp/1000kg. This will give the car excellent acceleration power.

Just a quick thought from an outsider..

Would 500bhp/ton be a slight amount of overkill, name me some cars that have that ratio

or some GT cars that have anywhere near it...

just a thought remember