They've got to hurry the fuck up with the development of this engine for commercial applications. I would LOVE to buy one of these in 5 or so years. So just let the army testing work out the kinks. I also bet that it will take a long time before we can buy any of these because all of these "large investors" will fight over the speculated profits before anything is put into production.
@kspr2635 It will never happen - old idea revamped (Doxford) to may moving parts and no real efficiency advantage. They can be very high torque engines but not fuel efficient
of course the best thing we can think to do with a high efficiency engine is put it in a combat vehicle and sell it to the army. oh well, let me know when i they make a kit to swap a vw1600 boxer for one of these.
@IronEagle19d And where do you think most things like this comes from? Look up the technology from DARPA funding and see how many things you use that were originally developed from a defense budget.
@a674101 no doubt our desire to kill one another, which is just an extension of social jockeying overall, inspires most of our advancement. i'm not going to concede that its good enough though. while it may be the reality of human existence and, due to our human flaws, the best we can hope for, that current reality doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to rise above this pettiness and advance as a planet and not just as a population confined by imaginary lines on the ground.
WTF they have worked on this engine for over 8 years, the aluminum pistons melted, so now steel pistons, it never seems to bear fruit, and where will spark plugs go? on the sides is a bad place it would seem. The development of this engine seems to go on forever.
The clutch between the two engine modules will "dramatically" increase fuel efficiency in a car. The second module (an engine) is total disconnected, giving no drag, when not in use in low vehicle loads.
"The engines mentioned above were slowly put out of service, just like the Detroit Diesel's two-stroke series because of emissions and poor fuel economy."
Not so. Rootes TS3 gave TWICE the mpg. Chrysler bought British Rootes and dropped the engine to promote existing lines - thanks Yanks. TS3 was made for 18 yrs. Type in Youtube "Rootes TS4". The TS4 prototype, ordered destroyed by Chrysler - hidden by the English engineers - is reconned and running and to be put in a truck.
"No heat loss in the Cylinder Head, because their is NO Cylinder Head !!. I can see this being 50% more efficient !"
The cylinder surface exposed to heat is small. This means a cooler running engine and smaller cooling system - smaller water pump meaning less HP taken off the crank, smaller water jacket meaning a lighter, smaller engine. No camshaft means smooth and higher rev running if needed. The TS3 had oil cooled pistons.
@jackpontiac52 imposable it is the same a two separate cylinders - what your are saying is that your engine as one piston/unit the most efficient in the universe sorry not possible - look up doxford engines as used in ships.
The losses are actually higher due to the difficult path of the gasses in and out of the engine and the additional gearing required to transmit the power from two cranks into one.
they used to run 2 stroke back in the 70's and prior to that... epa in the u.s. will never let this hit us highways cuz of the immisions they will have... bad immissions is usually the good motors and we kill their potential with cats and urethia or the egr's.. but will be cool everywhere else.. lol
@mov0001000 Not all two-strokes require oil-fuel mixes. That is only required for crankcase-fed intakes. These engines will usually be found in applications where the engine is needed at multiple angles. The reason being is to lubricate the crankshaft while fueling the engine.
Imagine a car without head gasket failures, without valve timing belt changes, without spark plugs. Combine that with a solid axle rear wheel drive, and you have no powered joints. Put a single wheel way forward of the car, you could have the simple steering of a motorcycle with no failing A-arm ball joints, and you cut out the rolling losses of one wheel, and the effects of front toe-in. Not just fuel efficient, but near indestructible car of economy.
The second item is just joining two of these in a balanced opposed configuration to balance the forces thus removing the need for heavy counterbalances. (BMW motorcycle)> I’m certain it has a use if light weight/hp is the only item required but is not efficient and is still a two stroke with lots of wastage in economy. The real reason for the design was to suck money out of the kiddies now running the military.
It is not producing 4 time the power the exhaust piston can not produce half the power for each cylinder and only produces about 20%. If it is on a crank (Look up Doxford) and if on a concentric it is a loss of power (Harland & Wolf) as effective power cannot be driven though a concentric. The benefits are that you can control the exhaust & intake port timing to increase efficiency thus it is a very low weight to power ratio.
Lets be very clear on this, it is a combination of a very old ideas with modern materials and were stopped being used in ships 40years ago due to the expansive cost and it is easer to make the same power with better economy using other diesel engines.
Look up Deltic, baby Deltic, Commer and a pile of other two stroke opposed piston engines. Nothing new here that I can see.
The engines mentioned above were slowly put out of service, just like the Detroit Diesel's two-stroke series because of emissions and poor fuel economy. Hopefully, these guys can figure it all out.
This is awesome. Since you have no need valves you would have no camshafts. This will actually be a more simplistic engine when parts come into factor making it lighter. It's amazing how we go back to go forward. 2 stroke to four stroke back to 2 stroke.
So there is no radiator, no water-cooling system? This really reminds me of my old VW engines. I imagine that this design poses many similar challenges, probably greatly exaggerated.
I DID check the Fairbanks engine out - very little resemblance! OP engines are indeed around and plentiful, but not that elegant as the OPOC one. This design is way more efficient, simpler (one crankshaft!) and not limited to Diesel either. The power/weight ratio is marvelous.
Bllly Gates knew why he dumped 23MBucks into EcoMotors instead of the old Fairbanks design.
"This design is way more efficient, simpler (one crankshaft!) and not limited to Diesel either."
The Rootes TS3 OP diesel had only one crankshaft. Used a simple rocker & two small conrods per piston. A brilliant and simple design. I like this OPOC design. What makes it shine is the external ancillaries: electric turbo & clutch rather than the core design. The TS3 with all the new electric/electronic around it would also shine. TS3 @ 3500cc the same HP as 8 liters, far more today
what kind of oil would this take i have over filled my motor and got it to burn it from being slopped up on the piston rings if the pistons and crank is sideways......???
nice, but theory is theory and real working shit is real working shit and I would love to se that. Can you imagine power vs weight ratio on this baby?! just sweet :)
"nice, but theory is theory and real working shit is real working shit and I would love to se that. Can you imagine power vs weight ratio on this baby?! just sweet :)"
The Rootes TS3 OPOC was made for 18 years - the best diesel engine ever made.
I want to see it in a car and the mpg, etc, measured.
I think it will be in commercial vehicles. Much smaller versions as range extenders in hybrids - it only needs to turn a genny not turn the wheels, running it at a constant speed ideal "sweet spot".
looks like the reporter guy is almost pissing himself laughing..........does he know something that we don't ?
baldbollocks 1 month ago
They've got to hurry the fuck up with the development of this engine for commercial applications. I would LOVE to buy one of these in 5 or so years. So just let the army testing work out the kinks. I also bet that it will take a long time before we can buy any of these because all of these "large investors" will fight over the speculated profits before anything is put into production.
kspr2635 2 months ago
@kspr2635 It will never happen - old idea revamped (Doxford) to may moving parts and no real efficiency advantage. They can be very high torque engines but not fuel efficient
gottobesaid 1 month ago
why they don't start to produce it?
ricibiribicci 2 months ago
@ricibiribicci it not advantage and high production cost - pipe dream -
gottobesaid 1 month ago
Thumbs up if PopSci brought you here!
TheMrshizkabab 2 months ago 3
@TheMrshizkabab thumbs up here lol :D !!!!
x0druid0x 1 month ago
of course the best thing we can think to do with a high efficiency engine is put it in a combat vehicle and sell it to the army. oh well, let me know when i they make a kit to swap a vw1600 boxer for one of these.
IronEagle19d 3 months ago
@IronEagle19d And where do you think most things like this comes from? Look up the technology from DARPA funding and see how many things you use that were originally developed from a defense budget.
However, also can't wait to drop this into a car
a674101 3 months ago
@a674101 no doubt our desire to kill one another, which is just an extension of social jockeying overall, inspires most of our advancement. i'm not going to concede that its good enough though. while it may be the reality of human existence and, due to our human flaws, the best we can hope for, that current reality doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to rise above this pettiness and advance as a planet and not just as a population confined by imaginary lines on the ground.
IronEagle19d 3 months ago
an aircraft version????
garyshouse305 4 months ago
@garyshouse305 far to heavy and to many losses due to the high inertia forces
gottobesaid 1 month ago
Yep, Gobron Brillie from 1905 ... check Bob Cerullo's article in Motor Magazine online from November 2010.
CoAxeEngine 6 months ago
WTF they have worked on this engine for over 8 years, the aluminum pistons melted, so now steel pistons, it never seems to bear fruit, and where will spark plugs go? on the sides is a bad place it would seem. The development of this engine seems to go on forever.
springhill1958 6 months ago
@springhill1958
Assuming that it runs on diesel fuels, there would be no need for spark plugs
cybhunter007 3 months ago
@springhill1958 shams or dumb ideas always do
gottobesaid 1 month ago
It looks like a Gobron-Brillie engine from 1905.
CoAxeEngine 7 months ago
The clutch between the two engine modules will "dramatically" increase fuel efficiency in a car. The second module (an engine) is total disconnected, giving no drag, when not in use in low vehicle loads.
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago
@stunnedasmearse
"The engines mentioned above were slowly put out of service, just like the Detroit Diesel's two-stroke series because of emissions and poor fuel economy."
Not so. Rootes TS3 gave TWICE the mpg. Chrysler bought British Rootes and dropped the engine to promote existing lines - thanks Yanks. TS3 was made for 18 yrs. Type in Youtube "Rootes TS4". The TS4 prototype, ordered destroyed by Chrysler - hidden by the English engineers - is reconned and running and to be put in a truck.
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago
I first read of this engine in Trucknews.
Navistar, Bill Gates and many more have put some of their pennies into this project.
thewildestman 8 months ago
As of June 8, 2011 , prototypes are up and running. I don't think emissions will be a problem. They will use a DPF filter like VW.
No heat loss in the Cylinder Head, because their is NO Cylinder Head !!. I can see this being 50% more efficient !
jackpontiac52 9 months ago
@jackpontiac52
"No heat loss in the Cylinder Head, because their is NO Cylinder Head !!. I can see this being 50% more efficient !"
The cylinder surface exposed to heat is small. This means a cooler running engine and smaller cooling system - smaller water pump meaning less HP taken off the crank, smaller water jacket meaning a lighter, smaller engine. No camshaft means smooth and higher rev running if needed. The TS3 had oil cooled pistons.
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago
@jackpontiac52 imposable it is the same a two separate cylinders - what your are saying is that your engine as one piston/unit the most efficient in the universe sorry not possible - look up doxford engines as used in ships.
The losses are actually higher due to the difficult path of the gasses in and out of the engine and the additional gearing required to transmit the power from two cranks into one.
gottobesaid 1 month ago
they used to run 2 stroke back in the 70's and prior to that... epa in the u.s. will never let this hit us highways cuz of the immisions they will have... bad immissions is usually the good motors and we kill their potential with cats and urethia or the egr's.. but will be cool everywhere else.. lol
onecylanderracer 9 months ago
@onecylanderracer
"epa in the u.s. will never let this hit us highways cuz of the immisions they will have... bad immissions"
2-strokes are running right now meeting all emissions. Learn more about 2-stroke designs.
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago
Is this a two-stroke that doesn't burn oil along with fuel?
mov0001000 9 months ago
@mov0001000 Not all two-strokes require oil-fuel mixes. That is only required for crankcase-fed intakes. These engines will usually be found in applications where the engine is needed at multiple angles. The reason being is to lubricate the crankshaft while fueling the engine.
midnightclubII 9 months ago
Imagine a car without head gasket failures, without valve timing belt changes, without spark plugs. Combine that with a solid axle rear wheel drive, and you have no powered joints. Put a single wheel way forward of the car, you could have the simple steering of a motorcycle with no failing A-arm ball joints, and you cut out the rolling losses of one wheel, and the effects of front toe-in. Not just fuel efficient, but near indestructible car of economy.
PahaLukki 10 months ago
whitout heads ??? omfg this is the ultimate pistoned engine ,,, can you run it on turbo yet ??
Tarla79 10 months ago
Is like a Junker Jumo engine's update, whit actual materials and electronics may be a very good engine.
bmovie67 10 months ago
The second item is just joining two of these in a balanced opposed configuration to balance the forces thus removing the need for heavy counterbalances. (BMW motorcycle)> I’m certain it has a use if light weight/hp is the only item required but is not efficient and is still a two stroke with lots of wastage in economy. The real reason for the design was to suck money out of the kiddies now running the military.
gottobesaid 11 months ago
It is not producing 4 time the power the exhaust piston can not produce half the power for each cylinder and only produces about 20%. If it is on a crank (Look up Doxford) and if on a concentric it is a loss of power (Harland & Wolf) as effective power cannot be driven though a concentric. The benefits are that you can control the exhaust & intake port timing to increase efficiency thus it is a very low weight to power ratio.
gottobesaid 11 months ago
@gottobesaid
The high torque and more linear delivery, can mean no gearbox if the car and engines are carefully matched.
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago
Lets be very clear on this, it is a combination of a very old ideas with modern materials and were stopped being used in ships 40years ago due to the expansive cost and it is easer to make the same power with better economy using other diesel engines.
I
gottobesaid 11 months ago
ill stick with my rotary
usaf2a333 1 year ago
@usaf2a333 LAWL!
11darkdays 9 months ago
Look up Deltic, baby Deltic, Commer and a pile of other two stroke opposed piston engines. Nothing new here that I can see.
The engines mentioned above were slowly put out of service, just like the Detroit Diesel's two-stroke series because of emissions and poor fuel economy. Hopefully, these guys can figure it all out.
stunnedasmearse 1 year ago
Comment removed
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago
This is awesome. Since you have no need valves you would have no camshafts. This will actually be a more simplistic engine when parts come into factor making it lighter. It's amazing how we go back to go forward. 2 stroke to four stroke back to 2 stroke.
flatblackstrat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
are you related to borat?
almcken 1 year ago
So there is no radiator, no water-cooling system? This really reminds me of my old VW engines. I imagine that this design poses many similar challenges, probably greatly exaggerated.
FrankiePintado 1 year ago
I can't wait to see these in action and on the roads. Great job!
juno4000 1 year ago
Go check out a Fairbanks Morse opposed piston diesel. Been around forever. Love how these guys talk like its new...
ibanez991 1 year ago
@ibanez991
I DID check the Fairbanks engine out - very little resemblance! OP engines are indeed around and plentiful, but not that elegant as the OPOC one. This design is way more efficient, simpler (one crankshaft!) and not limited to Diesel either. The power/weight ratio is marvelous.
Bllly Gates knew why he dumped 23MBucks into EcoMotors instead of the old Fairbanks design.
Dr Hofbauer has my vote!
88BlueKeys4U 1 year ago
@88BlueKeys4U
"This design is way more efficient, simpler (one crankshaft!) and not limited to Diesel either."
The Rootes TS3 OP diesel had only one crankshaft. Used a simple rocker & two small conrods per piston. A brilliant and simple design. I like this OPOC design. What makes it shine is the external ancillaries: electric turbo & clutch rather than the core design. The TS3 with all the new electric/electronic around it would also shine. TS3 @ 3500cc the same HP as 8 liters, far more today
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago
tenho uma sujestao ainda da para por outra camara de esplosao nesse boxer se quizer eu explico e tenho outros motores inventados..
rafa6694 1 year ago
i wanna put one in my vl
elapxidi 1 year ago
what kind of oil would this take i have over filled my motor and got it to burn it from being slopped up on the piston rings if the pistons and crank is sideways......???
72fordmaverick 1 year ago
The Australians already have patented a much better advancement on this concept.
yachtstyler 1 year ago
@yachtstyler which patent is that?
timothy51886 1 year ago
@yachtstyler yea?... F*ck the australians,
johnymatic 1 year ago
nice, but theory is theory and real working shit is real working shit and I would love to se that. Can you imagine power vs weight ratio on this baby?! just sweet :)
KillaBee23z 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@KillaBee23z
"nice, but theory is theory and real working shit is real working shit and I would love to se that. Can you imagine power vs weight ratio on this baby?! just sweet :)"
The Rootes TS3 OPOC was made for 18 years - the best diesel engine ever made.
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago
@KillaBee23z Check out "Ecomotors Opposed Piston Opposed Cylinder Engine".
It IS running and under extensive testing. Many large investors have invested in this engine.
jgmagoo1 2 months ago
Let's see the prototype, and hear its sound too.
marcheseDS 1 year ago
I'm looking foward to see this engine running.
xeonic2 1 year ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@xeonic2
"I'm looking foward to see this engine running."
I want to see it in a car and the mpg, etc, measured.
I think it will be in commercial vehicles. Much smaller versions as range extenders in hybrids - it only needs to turn a genny not turn the wheels, running it at a constant speed ideal "sweet spot".
NearAbbeyRoad 7 months ago