mtcookson

I understand the design. I still see the "flat" part being a very problematic area. The "flat" part still has to be sealed where there is a seam above the adjacent rotor. It will be slightly curved to go over the rotor naturally but wouldn't have any easy way to seal and would probably see the same centrifugal issues the round piston would. With the D shape it would probably be like the Wankel, but worse due to the centrifugal force. The Wankel essentially has the "flat" part on the outside and we all know how those have sealing issues. I should probably word it better... I think the major sealing issue would be the corners. That actual curved section would be relatively easy to seal but the corners wouldn't be fun at all. But like mentioned above, the seals on the D would also have the centrifugal forces on them causing the same sealing issue you're speaking of. The centrifugal forces on the rings are definitely an interesting thought though. I definitely can see that being an issue depending on the ring design. I don't believe anyone has mentioned that on the forums. I'll search around and if not, I'll bring that up to them and see what they say.

The sealing problem wouldn't be the round part, it would be the flat part. If I'm understanding your design idea correctly, the round part of the chamber would be cut in half to look like a D. The piston would also look like a D. The "flat" part of the piston would be connected to the rotor. If that's the case, half of the flat part of one piston would be connected to one rotor and the same for the other. Right?

The best supercharger would be a Lysholm or Whipple screw s/c (Whipple being the better of the two). The Whipples are very efficient and give nearly instant boost. The only downside to them is they can be very expensive. The Lysholm is the same type of s/c but isn't nearly as efficient as the Whipple. Their 1.2 liter units have an adiabatic efficiency difference of 17%. My next supercharger pick would be an Eaton roots supercharger. An M90 would probably fit best with the 3.3. They are very inexpensive but at the same time are the most inefficient of the superchargers. You can also use a centrifugal supercharger like a Vortech, Paxton, etc. They can be very efficient like a turbo however boost is linear so you don't reach peak boost till redline, which to me is a major downfall of the centrifugal supercharger. So... basically if you can find one I would use a screws supercharger. If not, an Eaton M90 roots. The overall most efficient setup would of course be a turbo due to having a high adiabatic efficiency and not having the parasitic losses an s/c has, but if you absolutely want to go with a supercharger I'd go by the above.

Actually.. I bet the cams in the Villager/Quest VG30E changed. From what I can find the bore, stroke, and compression ratio are all the same however... it is non-interference. From what I hear, Ford basically told Nissan to make it non-interference for the van. This explains why the overall specs of the engine are the same except for power output: 151 hp @ 4,800 rpm 174 tq @ 4,400 rpm

I don't know... I just have a natural hate towards automatics. I can't stand not being in control. Maybe if it were a manual valve body or something to that effect... but if I did that I might as well just use a manual. They're just so much more flexible.

I understand what you're saying now. The only problem I would see in that design would likely be sealing issues similar to the Wankel's. Having the round cylinders makes it a lot easier to seal. I wonder if they could do something along the lines of having half of the pistons connected instead of 1/4. With a 3" piston you would have roughly a little over 4.5 inches of material connected to the rotor, which would probably rival the D shape setup of similar displacement, and sealing shouldn't be a problem with that setup. Here's another one a lot like the MYT. Its in Spanish though. http://www.terra.es/personal/sanchezv/mrcpc1.html

I would think an auto would be the last thing you'd want in a truck/suv, especially if you go offroad at all. I've done a little bit of off roading and I have to say I would take a manual over an auto anyday when doing that. Having the ability to put it in a higher gear to reduce torque output when offroad is definitely nice to have.

He sent a message out to everyone today and I saw your email address in it. Might check to see if a spam filter caught it or something along those lines. I can forward it to you if you'd like.

I see what you're talking about a "D" chamber now. How would it get rid of the problems you're speaking of. I don't see how they could fit all of the pistons in there that they do with the current design like that though. Plus, you would lose half of your displacement... I could see that decrease helping the load you're speaking of but then you start to lose some of the size benefits and such. How much force would there be with only 26.5 ci of displacement per "cylinder"?

On their forum. Should be the next to last post http://www.angellabsllc.com/forum/posts/list/30/6.page

Going by your link, all of the US W-block engines had the same cams. The truck and Maxima cams have the same specs as the later Z31. That's how I always thought it was.

Yeah, on the website he didn't want it to be considered a rotary in terms of the Wankel. They've actually already changed the design of the pistons and such and are supposed to be setting it up for fuel pretty soon from what I understand. Hopefully more will come out very soon.

Rotary simply means rotating which is a spinning motion... exactly how the MYT works, even though it starts and stops. Reciprocation is moving in one direction then another. Going by each definition, there's no possible way the MYT is a reciprocating engine but can definitely be defined as a rotary engine.

The MYT is not a reciprocating engine. The pistons never reverse direction, they move in the same direction. Even though they do stop and go, it would still be considered a rotary engine. I believe the patent on the MYT is mostly on the timing components. The toroidal cylinder design was developed in the 1950's or 1960's I believe. The big thing with the MYT is the timing components.

I didn't necessarily mean you were being pessimistic but a lot of people on some other forums are. The reason for the circle design would be to make it a rotary design an not reciprocating. A rotary engine will simply be able to make power better and more efficiently than a reciprocating engine. Here's another interesting engine. A lot like the MYT in that it has a round chamber and the same piston design but the outside spins and the pistons essentially reciprocate, they move back and forth. http://www.rotoblock.com/howitworks.shtml This one has been tested on fuel and they have a video of it here: http://www.rotoblock.com/concept_validated.shtml

Kind of... it would have to be modified and reversed to where the input/drive pulley is the larger one and the output/driven is the smaller one. In most CVT setups the smaller one (starts small, goes big) acts as a clutch by being open enough to lets the belt ride between the sides when at idle then when the rpm increases the sides come together. I haven't been able to mess with one yet but I'm pretty sure if you put a spacer in to take away its clutching ability, you can reverse the input and output so that you can keep the supercharger at max RPM throughout the rev range. You have the right idea though... those pocket bikes use the CVT setting I'm thinking... just needs reversed and modified. If you could make it all work the benefits would make a world of difference.

I suppose so... but from what I've seen other people are simply blind from being so pessimistic.

They'll swap but to my knowledge they are all the same, even the turbo ones. Over seas they had different options like the "Euro" cams, which were supposed to add roughly 10 hp on turbocharged VG's. I'm pretty sure the ones in the US never really got any sort of cam change. I've never seen anyone post specs though so I'm not 100% sure.

I wouldn't go any larger than a 2.5 inch inlet and outlet unless you're running some extreme power. 3 inches is starting to get on the overkill side and even to the point where you wouldn't make the power you would with 2.5". If you'd like to lose some power and increase lag do this.

Screws superchargers have around a 70-80% adiabatic efficiency (heat efficiency) as do centrifgual superchargers and turbochargers. Turbochargers do not add a huge amount of heat compared to superchargers. If they did, adiabatic effiency would be much, much lower. Like for instance... a roots supercharger. They are around 40-50% if I remember correctly. That's how inefficient a roots is. That is why I recommend screws superchargers over all of the other superchargers. The reason a turbocharger is then more efficient than a screws is due to parasitic losses. Back to the exhaust... even with the heat of the exhaust, a turbocharger still has an adiabatic efficiency upwards of 80%. The heat of a turbocharger system is highly overrated. Yes... heat radiated from the exhaust can cause power loss if not setup properly. Proper steps need to be taken to keep the keep where it needs to be... in the exhaust. When done right, a turbo can be way more efficient than the supercharging methods. titaniumbmx... if you do the centrifugal setup you should try doing a sort of variable pulley setup. I've had the idea for a while but have no way of trying it. Basically... if you've ever seen the way a snowmobile or a Honda Odyssey/Pilot works (off road vehicles, not the van and suv) that would be a cool setup to go with. If you could figure out a way to time the pulleys to where at... say 1,500 rpm or so they spun the supercharger to its peak then kept it at its constant peak to your engine's redline... I bet the power output would rival a screws supercharger very easily. That could easily be the ultimate supercharger setup if it can all be timed right. Maybe sometime down the road I'll be able to try it out myself and see what I can come up with. Just have to find the pulleys and figure out the spring setup (or better yet do something electronic).

I still believe its going to work... I have to. Our engines have been around too long and we definitely need an upgrade. I believe this one is definitely it... we'll see though I guess.

Luckily the family has a driveway, large "garage" across the street, and a field behind the house.... I still need to get rid of a few though.

When it was mentioned a supercharger being put on a Z31. Nothing against doing it really... just that a better setup is readily available since the Z31 had a turbo version stock. Basically what I'm getting at is that the time' date=' money, and work you'd have to put into getting the supercharger in would be much greater than doing a turbo setup that would end up being superior. No one ever said anything about an aftercooler getting the intake temps below ambient since that's impossible without, as you said, some sort of spray or an air to water aftercooler. I believe he was talking about spraying onto an aftercooler core. It wouldn't be O2 but more likely CO2 or Nitrous. I've never heard of anyone spraying oxygen... not that it couldn't be done as it would still be quite cold. I'm not sure. Oddly enough, centrifugal superchargers actually still have lag like a turbo. You don't get instant response like a roots or screws but some lag then low boost that has a linear increase to redline where it peaks boost.