
Koenigsegg’s 2.0-liter no-camshaft engine makes 600 horsepower - zdw
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a31451281/koenigsegg-gemera-engine-specs-analysis/
======
andrepd
>"We don't make pure electric cars because for the time being, we think
they're too heavy, and they don't make a cool sound. And as long as we can be
CO2 neutral and frugal and clean comparatively, we will push the combustion
engine."

Impressive tech, but I'd by lying if I said this doesn't rub me the wrong way.
How do you mean combustion being CO2 neutral? And cool sound, this is one of
my pet peeves. Why does a rich guy's wish for a "cool sound" in his sports car
justify being a nuisance to other people? Motorbikes are the worst offender
here. Sound limitations should be a lot stricter than they are.

~~~
adamredwoods
> Why does a rich guy's wish for a "cool sound" in his sports car justify
> being a nuisance to other people? Motorbikes are the worst offender here.
> Sound limitations should be a lot stricter than they are.

My neighbor owns a couple of Porches with modified mufflers and a very loud
motorcycle. I've argued with him at length about how his choice of noise
intrudes on our peace, especially late at night. The bass vibrations travel
further and will seem louder in different parts of the house, loud enough that
two people conversing need to speak up. It's very bothersome.

~~~
zanderz
My German friend with a harley tells me that loud motorcycles are very
strictly controlled in his part of Europe, especially Austria, which is
popular to transit through on long tours to the Alps. He says Austrian police
will confiscate a motorcycle on the spot if it is deemed too loud and/or
illegally modified. I wish they did that in my neighborhood, where some
motorcycles are loud enough to set off car alarms right outside my window.

~~~
ska
Europe has fairly strict sound limits on motorcycles (and they are getting
stricter) in euro4/euro5. This constrains the manufacturers, but aftermarket
enforcement really varies by location.

These days a lot of manufacturers homologate to meet multiple standards, so we
get euro4ish stuff in north america too, stock at least.

~~~
noir_lord
All I can say as a motorcyclist myself is good.

After market exhausts that aren’t engineered to be deliberately louder are
stupid and annoying to other people.

~~~
ska
I suspect you meant engineered to be quieter?

Excluding intentionally loud exhausts, the intake on a lot of bikes generates
more sound than the pipes, at least at speed.

------
agoodthrowaway
I race motorcycless and so have some experience with high horsepower small
engines. My first thought is I wonder how high the compression is to get this
HP with only 3 cylinders? With high compression, everything wears much faster
and components like pistons, connecting rods, and bearings need to be replaced
at regular intervals for the engine to remain reliable. Additionally frequent
oil changes become necessary as the oil breaks down more quickly under these
conditions and metal shavings from wear build up in the oil. Things like
connecting rods become stressed and need to be replaced at regular intervals
for the engine to remain reliable.

I’d imagine that the Konigsegg buyer probably doesn’t care about maintenance
costs but they might be irritated at the service intervals.

I wonder how much maintenance that will be?

~~~
kenOfYugen
Mean Piston Speed [1] is a good indicator of engine longevity.

~16 m/s for automobile engines

~25 m/s for Formula one engines

~26.5 m/s for Koenigsegg’s 2.0-Liter

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_piston_speed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_piston_speed)

~~~
MegaButts
And Formula 1 engines are only meant to last hours (yes really, most engines
don't even last one season), albeit at ridiculously high stress levels.

If we extrapolate from this, where high performance drag cars typically last
minutes (20 years ago they only lasted seconds), that would mean this engine
might only be good for a couple of hours of driving around the track. Assuming
this is true (I am not saying it is), this engine would be pretty worthless
for anything other than being a collector's item or being used for 1 or 2
races before it had to be retired.

~~~
techslave
and F1 tires only last a few _laps_. it’s all designed in. the F1 engines
don’t expire in a few races because they can’t build them more robust, they
expire in a few races because the rules require them to last _that long_. they
could last all season (yes, with same performance) if they were required to do
so.

~~~
magicalhippo
Indeed. Back in the days they used to weld the cylinder heads to the engine
block before qualifying, so they could run it that bit harder to get that
extra bit of performance. Obviously not something that increases the lifespan
of the engine...

Similarly in current F1, they know quite well how much life they have of the
engine, and how much life a quali lap takes from the engine compared to a calm
outlap.

If the regulations mandated a single engine per season they could do it,
though they'd mostly just turn everything down.

------
irjustin
EngineeringExpalined has a great video[0] on the overall mechanics of the
system.

Sadly, I don't expect to see this in regular Ford or Toyotas any time soon.
The cost benefit combined design upgrade and tooling change is just not
practical.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJXgKY2O4po](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJXgKY2O4po)

~~~
csours
I wonder if this engine is only 3 cylinders because of the cost of the valves?
Fewer cylinders, fewer valves...

~~~
xgbi
Just like for motorcycles, 3 cyl is the ideal for both torque and revs. Bi is
all torque, 4 is all revs, and the 3 is just in between.

~~~
biosed
I find 3 cyl motorcycles slow and lack top end.

~~~
wcarron
I don't know how you'd come to that conclusion.

~~~
anacrolix
maybe he rides motorcycles and tried them

~~~
wcarron
Well, yes. But I've never ridden a triple that wasn't quick. A triumph street
triple has plenty of power and a good top end, a triump __speed__ triple, or
MV Agusta Brutale has ludicrous power and a good top end. A triumph rocket 3
is, well, its' a cruiser, so it's never built for a top end. A Yammy MT-09 is
lower on top end, sure. But it's the cheapest of the bunch and has lots of
torque.

They only lack top end power compared to the 1000cc inline-4 engines which sit
in track-focused supersports.

Which is like saying, "I found the Ford Focus RS lacking in power compared to
a Porsche 911 Turbo S".

------
JanSolo
It's interesting that in naturally aspirated mode, the engine creates around
280hp. That's right around what SUVs and Crossovers are currently producing.
This engine has a real potential to be a game-changer; if the freevalve tech
can be made cheap enough and reliable enough for mass production, it could
really improve average efficiency and emissions for a large number of cars.
Great Tech!

~~~
DagAgren
Internal combustion is over. There's no future to be improved in it, it's
going away. We simply can't afford to use it any more, and it is being phased
out.

~~~
vardump
You're right, but for wrong reasons. Internal combustion engines will go away,
because electric vehicles' cost curve will destroy them.

IIRC, batteries get 13% cheaper per year, and that means price halves every 5
years or so. Right now 1 kWh of batteries (including BMS) costs about $100. So
in 2025 one kWh of batteries will probably cost only $50.

Electric vehicles purchase price will simply be cheaper unless ICE vehicles
get subsidies. At that point, for economical consideration you'll need to have
pretty compelling reasons to buy an ICE vehicle.

Ultimately even gas station network will be decimated and gradually fade away.

~~~
busterarm
There are still areas where ICE will dominate simply because batteries aren't
practical or economical, despite being a cheaper fuel.

Extreme environments, heavy machinery, etc.

ICE are never going away.

~~~
sojournerc
Agreed. ICE will also gain a vintage appeal. I can imagine my grandchildren
reacting in wonder to my "classic" jeep cherokee dinosaur juice guzzler.

There will always be collectors and niche uses for ICE vehicles (e.g.
backcountry 4x4) even if they get largely displaced by EV

~~~
DagAgren
I'm going to bet that they are going to react more in disgust than in "wonder"
at you still owning one of the machines that is ruining their future.

------
gh123man
It's even more impressive that this is only a three-cylinder engine. It is
super exciting to see Freevalve in a production car (even though it is
generally unobtainable for the vast majority of people). I have high hopes
that this tech will be licensed out and used in more affordable ICE cars.

~~~
yummypaint
Yeah it seems like the tech could be used to target efficiency instead of
performance and perhaps improve the small engines in hybrid cars.

------
Wistar
Jalopnik does a deep dive into the engineering of the entire Gemera drivetrain
but plenty about the 3-cyl engine.

[https://jalopnik.com/a-detailed-look-at-the-koenigsegg-
gemer...](https://jalopnik.com/a-detailed-look-at-the-koenigsegg-gemeras-mind-
blowing-1842073757)

------
trhway
>AI engine management software for Freevalve engines like the TFG. "The system
will learn over time the best ways to operate the valves, what's most frugal,
what's cleanest… It will eventually start doing things we’ve never thought
of," Koenigsegg says. "It'll float in and out of different ways of combusting
by itself, eventually in ways not completely understandable to us."

sounds like the blue-collar jobs of the future like car engine mechanic would
need a Stanford AI degree.

Camshafts definitely got to go. Like carburetors it has been a solution from
pre-electronic age. The variable timing has been a workaround for the last 3
decades, it is kind of a complication on top of the camshaft approach. These
days though i don't understand while mainstream car manufacturers wouldn't
just go for the fully independent valve approach like that "Freevalve", i.e.
each valve is driven by its own solenoid/pneumo/hydro actuator controlled by
the computer - such approach looks simpler and cheaper to me (may be because
i'm in software :)

~~~
analognoise
This is just dumb marketing speak for a simple hill climber with a handful of
dimensions and a few heuristics. Ecu's have been doing this for like 25 years.

Basically, AI=bullshit in any marketing copy at this point.

------
ufmace
This is really cool tech, amazing that somebody's managed to get dynamic valve
action working reliably. What I'm wondering, though, it what the benefit is of
using it on a hybrid car.

It sounds like they did connect the engine mechanically to the drivetrain,
with the electric motors mostly assisting. But why not have it just directly
drive a generator, with some decent sized batteries? An engine that only runs
at full power at a single RPM to charge batteries doesn't benefit much from
elaborate valve technology.

------
forkexec
Freevalve is awesome.

[https://www.freevalve.com](https://www.freevalve.com)

~~~
jotm
Looks amazing, I guess it simply wasn't possible (or extremely difficult and
expensive) to create something like this before the advent of
miniature+powerful computing. I wonder how else can ICE's be improved with
more onboard processing power

~~~
calvinmorrison
Probably totally possible with late 80s tech in ECUs. They already had dynamic
spark retardation and fuel maps that changed based on rpm/speed/other factors.
Freevalve to me is another natural step after that. We already see dynamic
valve timing with VVT and the like. Now it's just infinitly variable. Another
benefit is that you are able to tune at all RPMs and produce more horse with
less power. I love it

------
fock
So, this is all fascinating and nice advertisement for this racing company
which might want to compete in Formula 1... But: what problem is actually
solved by this thing?

------
olivermarks
These engines remind me of the wankel rotary era.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine)
Great idea that really worked but let down by reliability issues. I hope the
Koenigsegg gets into some sort of mass production so we can see how reliable
and durable it is though!

~~~
detaro
Koenigsegg makes <100 cars a year afaik, and I doubt that'll change.

~~~
sorenjan
Koenigsegg will work together with NEVS to make cheaper cars. Still close to
$1 million, but their aim is to make more.

And I think Christian said they were making 1 car per week at the moment.

[https://www.autoblog.com/2019/03/04/koenigsegg-affordable-
su...](https://www.autoblog.com/2019/03/04/koenigsegg-affordable-supercar-
nevs/)

------
eyegor
This is really cool, but estimating 280HP at 2L when naturally aspirated has
already been beaten. The party trick here is definitely the pneumatic valve
control being able to switch combustion cycles on the fly. If you just want
max power per liter, Nissan's 3 cyl from 2014 claims 400HP at 1.5L [0]. I'm
guessing this high-output small engine tech will never come down to the
consumer level since they all rev at 7-8k rpm. If there was a way to build a
3cyl SUV, I'm sure someone would have done it by now.

[0] [https://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-
ra...](https://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-race-engine/)

~~~
ska
That Nissan is also turbocharged, so 280 isn't the right comparsion. you
should compare 400hp/1.5L to 600hp/2l. Or perhaps 500hp/2l on regular gas -
either way they are similar.

~~~
rasz
20 year old Honda K20A does ~260-270whp after tune

~~~
ska
ah, that's a better comparison.

------
rcv
I really love the idea of a camless engine. Is there some fundamental reason
it hasn't been more widely adopted other than tooling change costs? I can't
imagine the solenoids are that much more expensive than a ground camshaft and
all of the supporting hardware at volume.

This very much feels like the transition from brushed to brushless motors to
me - super cheap compute power and sensors unlocking a much more efficient way
to drive electric motors. As far as I know there's no _real_ advantage to
brushed motors except in dirt cheap applications where a potentiometer is the
most expensive speed controller you can afford.

------
dreamcompiler
Software-controlled valves have been a holy grail for ICE for a long time, and
now they're here. This is an amazing accomplishment. Unfortunately ICE are
rapidly becoming obsolete.

------
m_a_g
Currently, there is a 160% sales tax for vehicles that has an engine larger
than 2.0 liters in where I live.

This engine could be a game-changer in countries that have the same taxation.
I wish this engine can become mainstream.

~~~
sgt
Or maybe buy a Tesla.

~~~
Summershard
You may be living in a US bubble. Tesla in many countries is still expensive,
not that popular, and electric cars infrastructure is just bad.

------
GatorD42
Koenigsegg claims that because of modern catalytic converters and improved
cold starting process for their engine, there are virtually no particulate
emissions: [https://www.koenigsegg.com/gemera/tiny-friendly-giant-
engine...](https://www.koenigsegg.com/gemera/tiny-friendly-giant-engine/)

I wonder how well these claims will hold up. Seems like a very big deal if
true.

------
tibbon
I just got a Boxster, and while the engine in it is amazing, this would be a
hell of a swap (not at all easy, perhaps next to impossible, but the idea of a
600hp engine that actually fits in the Boxster... whoa).

Edit: I knew their cars were expensive, but it seems Koenigsegg cars start
around 2mm and up to to 10mm? I'm gonna guess that there's zero chance of just
buying an engine for $10k and throwing it in another car like an LS swap

~~~
darksaints
You could always do something like this, which definitely could fit in a
boxster.

[https://emrax.com/e-motors/emrax-348/](https://emrax.com/e-motors/emrax-348/)

~~~
jacquesm
Pancake axial flux is a really compact and powerful combination. If they ever
get them weighing so little that they could be unsprung weight there will be a
revolution in drive trains.

------
zw123456
I love these way out of the box thinking approached for super cars because
that type of innovation can lead to break throughs "down the road" pun
intended. Having said that, a configuration I have thought about is the idea
of a hybrid that uses a turbine with magnetic bearings turning a high
efficiency generator. Probably been thought of but I have not seen it. HN will
point me to something I bet :)

------
Theodores
How come it has taken many decades for Freevalve to come along? Genuinely
curious as it doesn't seem impossible that someone else had thought of it.

~~~
noughtme
Pneumatic valves are expensive. They have been used in F1. Similarly, despite
overhead 𝚟̶𝚊̶𝚕̶𝚟̶𝚎̶𝚜̶ cams being invented in 1902, they weren’t popularized
until the 1983 Toyota Corolla, and you can still find pushrods in the 2020
Corvette.

~~~
rootusrootus
Seems you misspoke. We've been using overhead _valves_ far longer than 1983.
Overhead cam is probably what you meant. Though depending on how mainstream it
needs to be in order to be considered 'popular', the first dual overhead cam
engine was in production in the 20s, IIRC.

~~~
noughtme
Whoops, yeah, meant cams. Popularized in the sense of being in a mass market
car.

~~~
ska
Right. I'm pretty sure they were mass market in Europe well before that camry
though.

------
peter_d_sherman
How many watts of electricity could this make, if it were removed from the
car, and made to power an electric generator?

Would there be any efficiencies compared to say, an ordinary gasoline piston
engine with a camshaft, driving that generator?

I'm guessing yes... which leads to the next question:

Would a diesel motor (again, to drive a generator) be more effective than this
one which uses gasoline?

Why or why not?

------
dukoid
Does anybody have a pointer to a schema / animation how this works? Is this a
radial motor?

~~~
brink
There's a video in the article. Did you look?

~~~
dukoid
Yes. There are 4 photos and an unrelated "rube goldberg" video at the end?

~~~
brink
I'm not sure why you're not seeing it. This is the video in the middle of the
article. [https://vimeo.com/395222190](https://vimeo.com/395222190)

~~~
dukoid
Thanks for the direct link! I can't find any vimeo reference in the page
source, perhaps it depends on country or adblocker or whatever.

I guess part of my confusion stemmed from mixing up the camshaft and the
crankshaft (the former seems relatively straightforward to replace in a
conventional motor, the latter not so much...) O:)

------
csours
OT, but kind of related: Would it be possible build an air-cooled engine that
runs on alcohol, and uses water/methanol spray in the intake air such that the
temperature of the engine is controlled by the amount of water/meth?

------
lgleason
I wonder if this is an interference or non interference design. If it is the
former, one glitch in the valve timing and the engine would need a rebuild.
Hopefully it is the later.

------
hinkley
I take it the complexity of the system favors fewer cylinders and a larger
bore.

This could be interesting when it comes down market a bit. Especially given
the flex fuel ability.

------
batsy71
The video says 1000 km of hybrid range. Is that then only 4 refuels from NYC
to LA?

------
mleonhard
This is a marketing piece.

------
rasz
TLDR: turbo charged

Build turbocharged Honda K20A (20 year old engine) does 500whp.

>Koenigsegg says, in theory, a naturally aspirated TFG could make 280
horsepower.)

again just like build K20A NA :)

------
msla
So a gigantic engine can make horsepower. Is 600 horsepower a lot?

------
Animats
Computer controlled valves are an old idea. It's been a "can be done, but not
worth the trouble and added complexity" thing for years. This is more like the
last gasp of fuel-powered supercars, as the IC engine people try to stay
relevant.

~~~
wcarron
Hur dur, gas baaaaad. If you don't understand car culture, and why this is
cool, why are you commenting on this thread?

There are other forums to jerk off about pathetic road-legal electric go-
karts.

------
speedgoose
> "We don't make pure electric cars because for the time being, we think
> they're too heavy, and they don't make a cool sound. And as long as we can
> be CO2 neutral and frugal and clean comparatively, we will push the
> combustion engine."

I read that as "we don't give a fuck about emissions because we like vroom
vroom and we plant a few trees to not feel bad about it".

I agree about the weight problem of large lithium batteries, and light
hydrogen fuel cells may not deliver enough pick power, so I don't have a good
solution for hyper cars. I just think that ICE engines shouldn't be in cars
ASAP.

~~~
WanderPanda
Why all this focus on weight? Regenerative breaking makes weight 80% more
irrelevant, or did I miss something?

~~~
dragontamer
Road wear is IIRC to the 4th power of weight.

That is to say, a 4500 lb Tesla Model S has 5x the road-wear of a 3000lb
Toyota Camry.

If all Tesla Model S drivers were willing to pay 500% the road-taxes to make
up for their 5x damages that their cars do to our roads, I think I'll be cool
with them using their road-destroying heavy batteries.

And the F150 drivers too, while we're at it.

~~~
zaroth
You are generally correct that a 4,500lb car will do 5x the road wear per mile
than a 3,000lb vehicle. (Although some studies find damage increases closer to
a power of 3 not 4). However it’s extremely important to ask... 5 times what
number?

The cost per mile in terms of road damage is mainly a function of axle weight
and designed load and volume of the road surface. The damage per mile per ESAL
(Equivalent Single Axle Load) can vary from $0.03/ESAL-mile to $5.90/ESAL-mile
when you exceed the design load of the road. Low volume roads will have a
higher ESAL because of natural wear exceeding use-based wear.

Since passenger cars will never exceed the design load of a road, this is not
a factor in our analysis (but it’s a very big deal for heavy trucks,
particularly on rural roads). Since low volume road wear is predominantly due
to natural causes and not road-use we should probably exclude those as well.

Just to put this in perspective, the cost per mile per ESAL of $0.09 (a
relatively high volume road that operates within vehicle weight design spec),
gives us road damage for a light passenger car (3,000 pounds) or 0.0002 ESAL
which equates to $1.80 per 100,000 miles.

Increasing to an ESAL of 0.001 results in a wear cost of $9.00 per 100,000
miles.

Basically all road wear comes from heavy trucks with an ESAL > 1\. This is
compounded when those trucks exceed the design load of the road, which can add
another up to 500x multiplier on the damage per mile driven.

The damage/road wear cost for passenger vehicles is a barely even a rounding
error by comparison.

Based on this simple analysis, I do not believe it is at all justified to
claim that Teslas (or EVs in general) have “road-destroying heavy batteries.”

[1] - [https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-
desk/design/design...](https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-
desk/design/design-parameters/equivalent-single-axle-load/)

[2] -
[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/TSWwp3.pdf](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/TSWwp3.pdf)

~~~
ska
This is true. The real problem is trucking, and the way roads are paid for it
amounts to a massive public subsidy to that industry, with lots of market
distortion around that (see also, state of US rail systems).

~~~
zaroth
In the sense that passenger cars aren’t causing really any wear and tear to
our major roadways, this is absolutely true.

However, the value of having those major highways is still extremely high to
passenger cars and trucks alike.

I benefit greatly from well maintained roads, even if my use of those roads is
not damaging the road basically at all.

So you need a weighted analysis of use and value as well as wear & tear to
come up with a “fair” allocation of costs.

Even people who don’t own a car benefit greatly from those roads, due to their
logistical necessity for everyday life, not to mention mail and package
delivery to their homes. To the extent that passenger car drivers overpay for
their commensurate road wear & tear, car owners are subsidizing non-car-owners
because the goods they buy are cheaper than they would be if they had to pay
for the true fully loaded logistics cost.

You could charge the trucking companies more. Then prices of transported goods
would just increase to compensate and we’d all be roughly back in the same
place maybe? Non-car owners would be worse off.

To the extent that roads are being subsidized more than _rail_ then this would
distort the market and limit freight volumes. I have a feeling that the
markets are not tremendously out of balance, and that it’s not like we’re
sitting on massive unused rail freight capacity that just can’t operate
profitably because roads aren’t expensive enough? But that’s a whole different
topic.

~~~
ska
Righ, the system as a whole is useful. But if truck traffic wasn't as
heavy/damaging, you would pay less to enjoy the same benefits, give or take.

I think the argument made by some transport people is that if we made
(particularly) the trucking industry pay more directly, as you say we would be
roughly back in the same place except variant freight methods (e.g. rail for
long distances) might become competitive enough to bring overall costs down.

I don't know the truth of this, but we've been subsidizing trucking long
enough that I don't think current rail capacity is a good indicator one way or
another. It seem plausible - it's clear there is a market distortion but not
clear exactly what it is.

One nit-pick, it's not clear the non-car owners would be worse off so long as
whatever payment mechanism we used didn't create a free-rider class of
passenger vehicles.

~~~
zaroth
To the extent that car owners are subsidizing the trucking industry, and to
the extent that trucking industry subsidies flow through to the cost of goods
delivered by trucks (the same thing as saying that increased trucking costs
flow through to goods delivered by truck), then shifting the balance
necessarily means car owners paying less and non-car owners paying more.

I will admit I stumbled upon this conclusion and felt it was ironically juicy
and a bit provocative, but it seems like pretty solid macroeconomics to me!

~~~
ska
Agreed, I worded that badly - what I meant is that non-car owners could still
save more by not driving than the delta on the goods, potentially, as they are
paying only the fractional cost that they are actually consuming, if
everything else was "correctly" redistributed.

This is all complicated though by the way we actually pay for all of this, so
it's not as simple as car owners subsidizing. It's not like the gas tax covers
this.

