Car Engines.

[DivideBYZero]

That K-Cycle engine is really interesting.

Looks compact, N E 1 got more info on this engine type?

Was it ever used in any vehicle type?

 

[Tominator]

The most interesting design I've ever seen is the Honda Grand Prix motorcycle 4 cylinder developed in the late seventies.

Picture an oval piston in a cylinder shaped like a fat figure eight! No wrist pin and the piston canted in the bore as it followed the stroke. Amazing piece of work!

 

[Fandu]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
That K-Cycle engine is really interesting.

Looks compact, N E 1 got more info on this engine type?

Was it ever used in any vehicle type?

No, sadly the K-Cycle never made it past the development stages. AFAIK the main reasons that R&D stopped was a lack of cash, and they were having trouble bringing the fuel consumption down. The second prototype was using about 15% more fuel than it's V8 counterpart, and the automakers were looking to substantially reduce fuel consumption at the time. Even still, a 16 piston engine only burning 15% more fuel than it's V8 counterpart is quite amazing, and it was producing around 300Hp if memory serves me correct. It's also physically smaller than a V8... I don't think I scanned that picture though.

You have to give it credit though, it's a very interesting design, just too bad they didn't have the cash to continue development. Mr. Kristensen died several years ago, so I'm not sure who holds the patents anymore, but I do know a few of the original engineers that worked on the project.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Fandu

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
That K-Cycle engine is really interesting.

Looks compact, N E 1 got more info on this engine type?

Was it ever used in any vehicle type?

No, sadly the K-Cycle never made it past the development stages. AFAIK the main reasons that R&D stopped was a lack of cash, and they were having trouble bringing the fuel consumption down. The second prototype was using about 15% more fuel than it's V8 counterpart, and the automakers were looking to substantially reduce fuel consumption at the time. Even still, a 16 piston engine only burning 15% more fuel than it's V8 counterpart is quite amazing, and it was producing around 300Hp if memory serves me correct. It's also physically smaller than a V8... I don't think I scanned that picture though.

You have to give it credit though, it's a very interesting design, just too bad they didn't have the cash to continue development. Mr. Kristensen died several years ago, so I'm not sure who holds the patents anymore, but I do know a few of the original engineers that worked on the project.

Damn. That sucks. It looks awesome. What if you took the design, and had it run on an environmentally friendly fuel, like alcohol or natural gas? I think that would be the best.

I think it will be very interesting to see what our next power source will be. You know the Internal Combustion Engine isn't going to be around forever.

 

[saftey]

wow intresting engines its shame about them not being around though,thanks for enlighting me on this engines guys

 

[etech]

No one mentioned the steamers..

The US used a radial engine in one of their early WWII tanks. Radials were good for power vs. weight but poor on fuel consumption. I believe they used the radial because they were availiable at the time. Not because they were the perferred choice.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Eli
Wow, that K-Cycle engine is very interesting.

It's definately a very good idea, but it's probably just not worth it.. It's making a simple machine much too complicated for the gains, or something.

hmm dunno if its a good idea but from the pics it looks like a lot of moving masses - not good - probaly the reason they quit - maybe it was just to inefficient and/or not comfortable due to the big amount of moving masses

 

[Fandu]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Eli
Wow, that K-Cycle engine is very interesting.

It's definately a very good idea, but it's probably just not worth it.. It's making a simple machine much too complicated for the gains, or something.

hmm dunno if its a good idea but from the pics it looks like a lot of moving masses - not good - probaly the reason they quit - maybe it was just to inefficient and/or not comfortable due to the big amount of moving masses

That is a good point that I never thought about. I don't know how the rorational mass would compare with a similar V8. Because the pistons are rotating as well as recripicating.... However, they were building the engine for the huge vehicles of the late '70's, not a little rice box, so I don't know how much effect it would actually have on performance....

 

[Jerboy]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: Stallion
Here is one with 28..Pratt & Whitney

4,300 Cubic inches! OMG!

a slant 6?any pics or info on thoose?

Sure! Try Slant Six.com

OMG! 71.45 liter displacement :Q

That gives 36.5kW/liter, not bad for USAF bombers day, but Honda S2000 engine beats it merciless.

Power-to-Weight: 1.69kW/kg . How does this figure compare to the average modern auto engines?