
New engine shakes up auto industry - pjy04
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42460541/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/
======
cubicle67
Colour my cynical. There's been alternative engine development for almost as
long as there's been the combustion engine, and nothing yet has made an
impact.

Ralph Sarich invented the orbital engine [0] almost 40 years ago, formed a
company and spent millions on the idea but it went nowhere. Interestingly,
they knew when to change direction and ended up making a number of
breakthroughs in the field of two stroke engines. The company is still in
business today [1]

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_engine>

[1] <http://www.orbeng.com.au/>

~~~
ugh
The situation today is different. This engine is supposed to optimize hybrid
cars (it is supposed to generate electricity to drive an electric motor) and
hybrids are something new, they haven't existed for more than a century, which
means that there is likely more untapped potential for optimization. This
engine wouldn't be practical in a standard gasoline car and it's not designed
to be used in one.

It obviously can still fail but I don't think it's possible to draw historical
parallels.

~~~
aidenn0
Well if we're talking about that, then reciprocating engines can do pretty
well (the prius engine is over 33% efficient when running in the ideal range,
and it actually exists today; diesels do even better)

------
Zak
_Michigan State's team of engineers hope to have a car-sized 25-kilowatt
version of the prototype ready by the end of the year._

It should be noted than 25kW is 33HP. Though it's possible to make a useful
car with that little power, 33HP is generally considered an appropriate power
level for a beginner's motorcycle, not a car. Even if it's much lighter than a
piston engine and has such a wide powerband that it doesn't need a gearbox,
it's likely they'd need a lot more power for consumer acceptance even in small
cars.

Edit: I googled this and found that the intent is to use this engine to run
generators to charge batteries in hybrid cars, not for direct propulsion. In
that case, the cars probably won't be much, if any lighter than standard cars
since all the weight savings will be replaced with batteries. Power output
could, of course be lower than a standard car engine and still provide good
performance since the electric motors could have peak outputs far exceeding
the sustained output of the generator.

~~~
sliverstorm
That's modern power creep speaking. You don't need the massive power of modern
automobiles. That 7 second 0-60 on your mid-sized sedan? Faster than nearly
all sports cars 30 years ago. Absolutely blistering compared to any car 50
years ago.

40hp is about what you use on the freeway, or at least it used to be before
the average car came to weight 2 tons. You don't need a whole lot more than
that. Hell, the MG Midget was offered with a 30HP engine once, IIRC.

I'm quite sure in a decade or two we're going to have people saying things
like, "It's true you CAN make a car with only 200hp, but it's generally
accepted you need at least 800hp for any car"...

~~~
kragen
I had an air-cooled Vanagon for a while. It was 2½ tons, due to aftermarket
camper modifications, and could manage a bit over 60mph on its 70-horsepower
2-liter air-cooled engine, despite having the aerodynamics of a brick.
Something with half the frontal surface area or half the drag coefficient,
such as basically any modern vehicle, could manage quite well with half that
horsepower.

I think the average US car weighed a lot more in the 1960s than in the 1970s,
1980s, or 1990s. Maybe widespread SUV use is pushing that average back up.

Did the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deux_Chevaux> really have only two
horsepower?

~~~
Zak
Reading the content of the article you linked, the first version had 9hp and
was "notoriously underpowered". Most 2CVs actually came with engines around 30
HP. This car also weighed only 560kg, which is lighter than even a Smart
Fortwo. Modern crash safety standards mean it's effectively impossible[0] to
produce street legal cars that weigh less.

The fact that a car was once successfully sold in Europe with such a low power
to weight ratio doesn't mean it would succeed in today's market. Consumer
expectations have changed. They could change again, but there would have to be
a good reason.

[0] Lighter cars could be made from more exotic materials, but those would
drive the price out of reach of the average buyer.

------
ajays
"Michigan State's team of engineers hope to have a car-sized 25-kilowatt
version of the prototype ready by the end of the year."

I'll pay attention once this happens. As they say, there's many a slip between
the cup and the lip. Lab projections invariably end up being over-optimistic.

~~~
hugh3
Yeah. Would it have killed 'em to at least build a working prototype before
sending out the press release?

Even if the claims they're making do turn out to be true, it could still suck
in any number of other ways. How durable is this engine? Is it still gonna be
running after a hundred thousand miles?

~~~
quanticle
Even more importantly, how easy is it to maintain this engine? The reason
rotary engines haven't become more mainstream is that the first attempt (the
Mazda RX-7) was notoriously difficult to repair. The RX-8 is better (I hear),
but the damage has been done - of all the major carmakers out there, only
Mazda offers a rotary engine.

~~~
mpakes
Untrue.

The RX-7's rotary engine (the 13B series) is actually phenomenally reliable,
and there are many examples with well over 300k road miles. The RX-8 uses a
newer variant of the same engine - the 13B-MSP RENESIS. Additionally, Mazda
used the rotary in competition (in the infamous Mazda 787B) at the 24 hours of
LeMans, which is a notoriously difficult test of engine reliability.

The myth of poor rotary reliability primarily stems from the 3rd-generation
RX-7. The notoriously-complex mechanically-controlled sequential twin-turbo
system (affectionately known as "the rat nest") was prone to hose disconnects
and failures, which often led to over-boost situations. Additionally, owners
that modify their cars often exacerbated the problem, installing free-flowing
intakes and exhausts, as well as boost controllers, and did not properly
modify air-fuel ratios to compensate. These situations led to increased engine
heat and premature failure, which gave the rotary an unfair bad reputation.
Many owners now convert to a simpler single-turbo setup with electronic boost
control and careful air-fuel tuning, which is far more reliable.

The actual (and admittedly significant) drawbacks of rotary engines are poor
fuel efficiency and high exhaust emissions, both due to incomplete combustion.
This has kept them out of mainstream applications and thus they tend to be
used primarily in performance applications.

~~~
Zak
The states complaint was difficulty of repair, not unreliability.

This is also untrue; the rotary is much simpler than a piston engine and has
far fewer moving parts. Replacing major mechanical components on a rotary is
easier than a reciprocating engine. As long as the associated systems are also
simple, the rotary is one of the easiest engines there is to repair.

Most work that has to be done on car engines has nothing to do with the engine
itself, but control, ignition and fuel delivery systems. Older rotaries had
carburetors, which required regular adjustments to keep in tune. As mentioned
above, the third-generation RX-7 had a complicated twin-turbo system that
created some reliability problems of its own. Non-turbocharged fuel-injected
second-generation RX-7s on the other hand are some of the most reliable and
low-maintenance sports cars ever produced.

~~~
quanticle
After looking into it more, it seems that a lot of the initial complaints
about difficulty of repair were due to the lack of spare parts. It seems that
Mazda had some manufacturing difficulties with the early versions of the RX7
engines and couldn't manage to meet demand for both whole engines and spare
parts.

------
jvdh
There is nothing in this story and video to back up any of the claims they are
making. He just waves around a rotating disc.

He could be talking about cold fusion in just the same way ;)

[edit] looking at the duplicate link, they refer to their own article from
2006. Cold fusion would either have been laughed away or taken over the world.
Same thing here I would assume. [/edit]

------
evo_9
They should seriously open source this design before the oil industry spooks
show up and make it go away.

~~~
ams6110
Oil industry should be happy about this... it's still burning petrol, after
all. Many other ideas on the drawing board are trying to take petrol out of
the equation.

------
aidenn0
Dup: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337237>

------
Jach
<http://www.aptera.com> Prototype by the end of the year? I swear Aptera has
been saying that for the last few... (Okay, they have prototypes but they're
not on the market yet.)

------
CountHackulus
This sounds a lot like a rotary engine with multiple combustion chambers. The
idea of sliding seals should be enough to have any rotary afficionado denounce
this new engine.

------
VladRussian
there is a lot of ingenious engines. The question is which one can be made
into practically usable product.

There is even productized version of rotary-vane engine coming supposedly next
year in a Russian car:

[http://www.fastcompany.com/1709400/russian-billionaire-
unlea...](http://www.fastcompany.com/1709400/russian-billionaire-unleashes-
countrys-first-hybrid-vehicle)

I'd be though very surprised if they pull it off as beside Mazda rotary i
don't know other mass-produced cars with non-traditional engines.

------
modeless
Why is this better than a gas turbine?

~~~
rayiner
IIRC it uses the same principle (Brayton cycle). It's just a lot easier to put
in a car.

