Any way to objectively choose engine?

[Series One]

On the subject of objectively choosing an engine, how much consideration should be given to engine availability specifically to satisfy the production targets as presented in the Business Presentation?

My question is prompted by the realisation that it is relatively easy to source a wide variety of suitable current and obsolete engines in ones and twos from salvage yards but when it comes to buying brand new complete 'crate' engines, the field narrows drastically. Is it reasonable to base a business model on second hand engines, either factory fitted or customer sourced?

If not, and the model should be based on the assumption of a reliable source of new engines, does that source have to exist in the 'real world' or can it be make believe, like the business model itself?

[Warpspeed]

I suppose you could argue the case that this is a very limited production, built to order "race vehicle" not a volume produced World Car.

So your business plan might be for a quite limited production volume, and if there is a readily available supply (secondhand) of a particular engine in your particular country, why not ?

This is not really a fake reason either. Developing or super tuning a cheap and plentiful mass produced production engine for many classes of motor racing has been going on for a very long time.

Colin Chapman originally used whatever engines he could get his hands on cheap to put into his Lotus race cars. He won a lot of races, and his business model was good enough to keep going for a very long time.

[Series One]

Ta. I assumed that to be the case... but it wouldn't be the first time an assumption has come back and bitten me in the arse.

[AxelRipper]

Well it wouldn't be the first time someone used an "obsolete" engine for racing either. Look at Formula Ford and Formula Vee. While FF is updating a bit, the Kent motor people still use hasn't been sold in the US in probably 30+ years, and FVee or its relative Formula First isn't updating really at all and still using VW Type 1 parts.

[mech5496]

Another back from the dead thread, but I did a readthrough again and I came across an old post of mine...

So, what makes the best package?
1)High enough torque
2)CVT
3)Low yaw inertia/components near the CG
4)Low CG
5)4WD?

The correct answer?! IMO build a 4WD electric car, with inboard motors and halfshafts both front and rear (keep unsprung masses low that is, maybe moving the brakes inboard as well). Having 4 motors and power limitation at 85kW, those can be lightweight (10-12kg per motor) and based on their inherit high torque output they can directly drive a halfshaft each, so no need for gearboxes an CVT's. Plus you can have 4w torque vectoring based on accelerometers, yaw rate sensors, speed and steering angle...Plus due to really good packaging possibilities of the batteries you can have a low-yaw-inertia car with a low CG. Plus you will have much better efficiency than a combustion car... Weight for the complete powertrain could be at 80-85kg, some 20kg heavier than a 4pot combustion powertrain, but not having in mind components like intake, exhaust, fuel tank, differential, differential mounts, chain etc. The only downside I see on that is the cost, as batteries, motors etc should be really expensive. Boring race cars?!

http://www.youtube.com/user/DU...#p/a/u/0/x8-dj4eDCAM

Do not think so...

Now add an aero-pack on that and lots of testing and go smoke everybody in the competition! I must admit it sounds easy...:P

Well done KIT-e for building my dream FSAE car! :P

[Z]

One of my sons has recently been bitten by the "VW-Bug" bug. While looking around at aftermarket stuff I came across the following "Scat" pages.

VW-engine rebuild kits: http://www.scatvw.com/master/engine_kits/

Scat Split-Port heads: http://www.scatvw.com/master/cyl_heads/split_port.shtml

The Split-Port heads immediately suggested themselves as a good starting point for a really neat little FSAE single-cylinder engine (or see PS below).

For those of you who do NOT believe that the "optimal" FSAE engine must have ~16 cylinders, or at the very least have 4 or 5 valves per cylinder, and be water-cooled, and come from a racing motorcycle, and have a built-in 6-speed sequential gearbox +++, please read on.

The above web-pages suggest you can buy, off-the-shelf, many of the key parts for 4 single-cylinder engines for about $2k total. So ~$500 gets you about half the parts for a single-cylinder engine.

The other parts needed are;
* A single-throw crank (I suggest about 80 mm stroke).
* A small crankcase (in two halves, with the split perpendicular to cylinder bore, like the VW).
* A short camshaft (mounted in the block near cylinder mounting face, for short pushrods).
* Small oil pump(s) (maybe 2x, giving dry-sump + pressure lube, with dry-sump tank being part of crankcase).
* Possible balance-shaft(s) (2x, counter-rotating to crank, for primary balance only).
* Starter-motor and air-cooling-fan (taken off small single-cylinder "industrial" engine, as used on water-pumps, generators, etc.).
* Alternator (optional, but smallest belt-driven type would do).
* Intake and exhaust plumbing, and EFI, and cooling shrouds, etc. (similar to work done on most typical FSAE engines).

I would do it "laid-down" style, so it looks like the right-rear cylinder of the standard VW flat-four. It would fit in the car as a lateral-crank, reverse-rotating single. The heavier crankshaft end would tuck under the driver's back for minimum yaw-inertia. The cylinder would point backwards with spark-plug and valves under the diff for easy access.

Driveline to the diff would be a clutch and two-stage chain+gear reduction, to get the engine RPM down to wheel RPM, and rotation in the right direction. At most, a two-speed + neutral gearbox could be incorporated into the gear reduction, probably in-unit with the diff. Jawa make a compact two-speed clutch-gearbox that could be suitably modified. Alternately, a belt-CVT going from the crank back to a gear reduction at the diff. Or else a really neat IVT that I have in mind!
~o0o~

The key advantage of this engine layout is that it gives an extremely compact package by FSAE standards. The driver can sit entirely within the wheelbase (ie. feet behind front-axle line) giving minimum yaw-inertia. The laid-down engine gives minimum CG height. The very simple engine helps give minimum total mass. The slim-line package, with NO RADIATOR sticking out in the wind, helps with minimum aero-drag, and minimum interruption of aero flows to low set rear wings (where they should be).

"Yeah but, ..." say all the testosterone overdosed young boys, "... WHAT ABOUT HORSEPOWER!!!"

Well, yes, the design is based on a 70+ year old, as-cheap-as-possible, peasant's car...

"Ughhh, it's an air-cooled, push-rodded, 2-parallel-valved, wedge-head! Aaarrrghhh... YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!"

Nope.

IMO, choosing the right bore and stroke for about 600cc (see Scat pages, or others, for all the available bores) would give a quite easy, naturally-aspirated, 60 crank hp. This is half the maximum ~120 hp available through the 20 mm restrictor (or 19 mm for the preferable E85), and has proven to be more than enough to win major recent FSAE comps (check the history!).

Furthermore, I am aware of quite a few racing turbocharged VW-flat-fours of under 2.4 litres in Oz that make well into the 300s, and often 400+ horsepower, depending on who you believe. These cars race in series that require considerably more engine longevity than the ~1 hour of tootling around an FSAE track. I have no doubts that 100+ hp would be possible from the above type of turboed, ~500+ cc "VW-Scat-Single". With sufficient development, and maybe a new V-valved, shallow hemi-head, the full ~120 hp should be possible. If you really wanted it.

Best of all, should a Team get this design sorted out, and if they then ramp up production of the cranks and crankcases (possibly having them made in China?), then I could see a tidy profit from assembling and selling these singles.

How much would your Team pay for a very compact, lightweight, no-radiator, "perfect fit for FSAE", engine that makes a reliable 60 hp N/A, or ~100 hp turboed? And especially one that has all the "might-need-replacing" parts readily available off-the-shelf?

Z

(PS. Instead of using the Scat Split-Port heads, a common practice is to simply hack-saw a standard VW cylinder-head in half. There are many You-tube videos showing all sorts of aeroplane engines, such as flat-twins and multi-cylinder-radials, built in this way...)

[mech5496]

Baaack from the dead, because Koeniggsegg... Hydraulic IVT?

http://jalopnik.com/koenigsegg-will-...n-f-1689101650