Originally Posted by
henk4
why are our ideas qualified as "little"? What are you trying to imply? That you are the master engine designer of UCP for whom all people should fall on their knees immediately and stumble in full admiration "Give us your thoughts oh Lord and Master"?
I think Coventry also referred to your arrogance, but it seemed to be completely lost on you.
Actually I didn't mean anything other than the ideas posted so far have been little as in not very detailed and obviously not much thought has been put into them (ie. use a TT V8 like Leno, put marine diesels in it ect)
There was at some point the begining of a NAvsFI discussion and some points about the VvsW discussion but any discussion has seemed to gotten lost. 
Originally Posted by
Coventrysucks
Would I really?
I'm glad you cleared that up for me, because I have not been sure of what I would say until now.
When I was there, staring down the smoking exhausts of an R10 as they warmed up the engine, I was standing there, transfixed by the horrific realisation that I didn't know what I would say, should anyone ask me for an opinion.
according to what you posted earlier yes something along those lines... 
Originally Posted by
Coventrysucks
No; I don't think I saw that post.
Who suggested marine diesels?
They must be pretty stupid!
To look outside the automotive industry for inspiration.
Who would do something silly like that.
To look at new ideas.
Marine diesels are optimised for... You guessed it! Marine use. Yes certain technologies could be changed to work in an automotive sector but not the whole engine.
Originally Posted by
Coventrysucks
What is wrong with you, the supposed engine expert, telling me why a rotary is not as good as a reciprocating engine?
Is that too much to ask?
Apparently; yes.
Rotary motion is better than reciprocating motion. But it isn't that simple as that it is highly dependant on the actual engine and since the only tested rotary engine is the Wankel then I have to say that for the purpose of powering a GT that isn't made by Mazda that it would be problematic at best to try that. Happy?
Originally Posted by
Coventrysucks
Where, then, do you pull your ideas from?
Rather left yourself open to that one.
I tend to be a follower of the "See a need, Fill a need" concept. I find a problem, figure out the absolute optimum solution then try to achieve that with something that can exist in the real world.
Simple concept really.
Originally Posted by
Coventrysucks
Why are they the "most prudent?"
Do you have an explanation, aside from that you want use some technology you think is "cool"?
OK fine an engine has to be either NA or FI so obviously the choice is one or the other. Next to configuration the engine needs to be compact enough not to impinge on luggage and passenger space. The configurations that come to mind are Flat, Inline, VR, V, W. There are others but these are the most used for many good reasons. Now since we are looking at a relatively large engine (has to be able to cruise and bruise in a heavy car) and since it has to have good responce over a wide operating range then we need to have more rather than less cylinders. For a flat configuration we could build up to about 5L into a flat 6, but even then you would really want to go to flat 8. The main problem with flat engines is packaging they take up too much space on the floor area. On to the Inline. For balance reasons you want to have 6 cylinders and packaging is a real problem with 8 (not to mention crankshaft strain) with 6 cylinders you could again get almost 5L out of it but even then the pistons are too big. Inline engine is just too long. VR is next with that you want either 6 for blance or you could take 8 as it isn't too long. displacement is again limited to about 5L. VR engines tend to be tall because to achieve good stroke length they need relatively long con-rods. Long con-rods tend to hurt low rpm breathing. a VR engine would require a more complicated version of my system for VC. VR is a possible but is pushed out by two formats. The V and W configurations. Both are compact with the W being more so than the V. However with the W you have to contend with a taller engine, thinner con-rods and cooling difficulty. V configuration would seem to be best as it is compact with the ability to have displacements up to 7L. V configuration allows me to design a simpler VC system.
I voted FI because it allows greater efficiency and allows a smaller physical engine.
I voted W because it would be alittle different and more challenging than a V.
Is that good enough for you?
Originally Posted by
Coventrysucks
Boxer/ 180° V arrangements offer better centre of gravity that your presupposed V/W arrangement.
Therefore, the engine should be a boxer/ 180° V.
Discuss...
Actually in practice the difference isn't enough to off set the compactness of the V and W engines.
in a boxer engine of 5L with only 6 cylinders it would be pretty tall (we want to maintain roughly square bore:stroke) it would be something like 103mm bore, 100mm stroke that means the flat 6 is roughly 150-180mm tall on it's own. A 6L V12 has the majority of its weight (crankshaft, crankcase) slightly lower than the flat engine and the cylinders don't reach that much higher. The V12 is better balanced as well as having an extra 1L of displacement.
Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it
Engine torque is an illusion.
Reply With Quote
