Guest Anonymous Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 http://www.bourke-engine.com/index1.htm This sounds like it would be a cool engine to make a hybrid out of. I wish I had the skills to build one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 Looks like a gussied up 2 stroke engine to me..... 1 power stroke per crank revolution for each cyclinder, ports uncovered by the piston instead of moving valves.... Weed eater technology at its finest! Unless there's something I'm missing here, which I don't think there is.... ------------------ Morgan morgan@z31.com http://carfiche.com http://z31.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drax240z Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 Wow, what a simple design. It always amazes me that the piston/camshaft/valve etc. engine is the one thats popular when I see something like this that is so simple. ------------------ Drax240z 1973 240z - L28TURBO transplant on the way! http://members.xoom.com/r_lewis/datsun.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 Look at it logically. If it was so revolutionary and since it's no longer patented, every auto maker would use them or at least be looking at them. The fact that they aren't should tell you something. ------------------ Morgan morgan@z31.com http://carfiche.com http://z31.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Locutus Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Well just cause it isn't patented doesn't mean the big automakers will take to it. Any change like that requires lots of money to convert over thier assembly lines, not to mention its an untested design, they don't want to have 1000s of recalls if it doesn't work out, not to mention they have always resisted change that didn't come from thier own guys, more money that way. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 If the patent has expired, then that means the technology is very old. If it was turly such a great design everyone would be using it!!!!!!! I mean, cumon, practically 0 emissions? Please. I don't think so. Some car company would be investigating it if it were so revolutionary, esp. since the technology is free since the patent is expired. ------------------ Morgan morgan@z31.com http://carfiche.com http://z31.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeromio Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 I'm not trying to be an ass, but have you ever worked for or dealt with a large company? I have, for a great many years. And it never ceases to surprise me how much stupidity a large company can amasse. I'm not saying that this engine is or isn't superior. Just that the fact that the big automakers ignored it is not very meaningful. BMW is the only carmaker that I can admire - and look at the idiocy that their deal with Rover exposed. These guys really need to just back up their claims though. Wouldn't be too hard. Mount the thing in some kind of car and drive it around. Post the weight of the car, the mileage, the MPG, the 1/4 mile times, etc. Take it to a JiffyLube and have them hook up their emissions tester to it and post the results. Put a coupla 100k on it. Until someone does that, there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 That's a trivial task for any auto maker to do though. If they thought there was any merit to this glorified 2 stroke engine they would do it. I'm a mechanical engineer and I work for a medium sized global corporation, believe me, I've seen my share of stupidity, and claims like these are too good to ignore. ------------------ Morgan morgan@z31.com http://carfiche.com http://z31.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drax240z Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 I just don't see big automakers jumping on every idea (be it good or bad) that comes up. Proven designs still often don't make it to the show, because of the costs involved to change over, and even manufacture the new product. (thats why the inline 6 is becoming extinct, the V6 is cheaper to make) There have been plenty of alternative engine designs that have been proven, and didn't catch on. (miller cycle, wankel, etc) Face it, companies are going to keep using what works for them, what they are set up for, and what they know... often regardless of how much better it could be! (I've worked for 2 big mining companies, and a big forestry company) Most times these places would rather spend $100,000 each of 5 years, than spend $200,000 once to get it done right. I'm not saying that this idea is good or bad, to me it looks feasable. I can see a couple of questionable points though. Just because its different doesn't make it bad! ------------------ Drax240z 1973 240z - L28TURBO transplant on the way! http://members.xoom.com/r_lewis/datsun.html [This message has been edited by Drax240z (edited August 29, 2000).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 You don't see them jumping on every idea because it's not newsworthy. They hear of some wonderfull new engine design, they look into it, if it's feasible and cost effective then they will use it. V6s are used primarily for packaging nowadays anyhow, a straight 6 doesn't fit under any 'cab-forward' hoodline anyhow! Wankel didn't catch on because it's unreliable in high-power applications and is still unproven. It also requires much more expensive production processes that nobody other than mazda is even set up to do. This fancy 2-stroke is a reciprocating piston engine! Everyone is set up to make those. Fact is, any car company would give billions of dollars to get even tiny improvements in emissions or fuel mileage. The money is there, if you can figure out how to do it, you will get more money than you could ever spend. Seriously, increase fuel mileage 5 or 10% without seriously increasing the cost of the car and you'll be a billionare. This engine has no valvetrain, so it's much easier and cheaper to produce once tooling is made. If it was really that superior then it would be in use now. Look at snake oils. Car companies don't put slick 50 in new engines do they? If slick 50 decreased engine wear and gave better gas mileage like they say every car make would put a $5 bottle in every new car! ------------------ Morgan morgan@z31.com http://carfiche.com http://z31.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Locutus Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Slick 50 does actually reduce engine wear, BUT it also clogs up oil passages and decreases the ability of the oil to cling to parts that it helps cool. That is beside the point though the big automakers, will not and have not been condusive to revoluntionary ideas. Especially ideas that did not come from thier brain banks. They have set ideas and goals. The best technology does not always become the most popular. Look at Beta versus VHS, Beta was far superior, but because VHS had the backing and the support it became so wide spread that Beta became obsolete simply because it was not popular enough. That does not mean VHS was better, just more popular. Its all about money, 50 years ago the Big 3 controlled everything, if your ideas were to revoluntionary and your weren't one of thier engineers then what you made wasn't worth the paper the manual was printed on. Get real here. Don't be deluded to think that automakers jump on every new idea and try it out. I would venture to say that they probably throw away so many great ideas and new technology that it should be a crime. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLKMGK Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 Umm a couple of points to toss out... Slick 50 - used it and religiously changed my oil in that motor. When it came time for a rebuild the crank was "grooved". I mentioned the Slick 50 and th eengine builder looked at me and asked "Why would you want to put an oil shedder (teflon) into something that required oil for lube?". Oops, okay no more Slick 50 - I stick to synthetics. Note too that Dupont, makers of Teflon, advise against putting it into engines etc. - "not made for that". Beta vs VHS. This is a little easier. Sony owned the Beta format and refused to license it to anyone else to manufacture - VHS did. As a result VHS players popped up everywhere from multiple manufacturers at cheaper prices. In the end I believe Beta was licensed but it was too late. Sony's greed killed them - they wanted to own the market lock stock and barrel. /topic on As for the big car manufactuers and new ideas. The Govt. is squeezing them with lower and lower emissions regulations and higher and higher expected average MPGs for CAFE. They have no choice but to look into more radical ideas - we now have at least one vehicle on the market that uses both gas and electric motors to get stellar MPG and decent acceleration. Expect to see more of this - especially if gas prices continue to climb. SUVs - IMO - aren't helping matters. I love Ford but who the hell thought of the Expedition and Excursion?! If this sucker is that small, makes that much power, and has emissions that low someone will pick it up. If not the big American companies than some forward thinker at Honda or another company will see it and put it into something where gas costs $6 a gallon. If it's as good as it says it'll sell like hotcakes! Time will tell but I'm not holding my breathe. We still haven't seen any of the fabled ceramic motors or motors made with plastic impregnated with lubricants have we? P.S. Side note on wear protectors. Had a chat online with a guy who participated in one of those "tests" you read about. They drove these Mustangs around in circles forever - one with goop, one without. In the end after a zillion miles and regular oil changes the results were inconclusive! Wear appeared to be about the same across the board which is to say it wasn't worn much at all. Regular oil changes are a good thing I guess. They did learn that when driving a stock car on a banked oval that you should switch directions every now and again - if you don't the axle bearing on the "high side" fails after awhile (snicker). [This message has been edited by BLKMGK (edited August 31, 2000).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Drewz Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 I would like to add but BLKMGK said it all. Nothing beats a good synthetic and a tight maint. schedule. Game, set, and match!! ------------------ Drewz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.