Fantasy engine

[mech5496]

Markus, I'm not a transmission guy, so forgive my ignorance... Regarding Owens' idea of a boxer engine, there was a thread a while ago about a 2cyl boxer w. a transaxle based on a Suzuki SV650, which seems pretty feasible. Much was also discussed in the "optimum powertrain" (or something like this) a few months back. As we probably seek for the most badass engine, WWU's V8 and Auckland's V2 are by far the most impressive,followed by UAS Graz/Karlsruhe/AMG 2cyl

[Markus]

Isn't Auckland using a longitudinally installed single cylinder with a transaxle? Anyway that's quite a neat package.

I'd recognize WWU's V8 as the most impressive custom powertrain, followed by Mahle's 3 cylinder transaxle, Auckland single and the Wattard engine. For all these the performance is unknown to me but I'd guess it was around what custom engines usually tend to have (especially for the first two), which is not that good. Wattard engine might have been best power-wise and Auckland's engine most likely takes home the overall performance award.

Honestly AMG 2cyl was a bit of a disappointment for me, it was (really) heavy and underperforming. But I must admit that I expected both and given it was their first take I'm interessed to see the progress for next year. Medium-weight and less underperforming, hopefully.

I'm also eager to see if there's a team to utilize the SZEngine and how it will perform - they're not trying to do anything fancy but a purpose built FSAE single cylinder engine.

[mech5496]

Markus, the Aucland team uses a single, but they have also built an impressive V2 using WR250 parts. If you haven't, checked it yet, please do. The Mahle engine was definitely not impressive, seemed unnecessarily complicated and a bit heavy. Do you have any performance/weight figures for the AMG engine? Judging from their initial presentation it seemed nice. Performancewise I would vote Auckland too...

[Markus]

Do you have a link or something for the Auckland V2, couldn't find it from their website?

I don't have any figures from the AMG engine but we lifted it at FSG this year and after seeing UAS Graz at FSG and FSH I'd estimate:

Around 60kg dry (including turbo and aftercooler) and around 45kW at FSH (they had problems in FSG).

[Jan_Dressler]

Originally posted by mech5496:
Jan, wow mate!

Thank you!
I chose a 3 cylinder instead of a single because the turbo (-compound). No CVT (efficiency, weight). Roller-bearing camshaft? Oh yeah, and -crankshaft!

Originally posted by Jan_Dressler:
300cc W-3 (30°+90°, gearbox in the 90°-angle), main bearings on the webs, Bishop-type rotary valves, supercharged, turbocompound for fuel efficiency, 3-speed epicyclic gearbox (a la Wilson preselector), one clutch for each wheel both for starting and torque vectoring (no diff).

So, this is mine! (After 20h of quick'n'dirty Pro/E-ing, no, the valves dont't have the correct shape (although the timing should be quite ok), the gears have no teeth, and so on... Just a beginning.)


And a little "family shot", the W-3 in front of an advanced 600 cc-4 cylinder-concept (based on a PC37 Honda engine) in front of a "conventional" dry sumped PC37 package (our 2010 one, in fact):


Happy new year!

[mech5496]

Markus,
you can find it on Aucklands' facebook page. 60kg is dissapointing at least. Similar weight with a 4cyl and less power. Graz in fact had a more powerful and less heavy engine with their forced induction Rotax.

Jan,
WOW mate! I like how it came along, and it looks really compact (impessed by the size comparison between the engine and the tripod housings). However, your arrangement puts the engine almost at the rear axle (bad for weight distribjtion) and leaves a huge space between the drivers' back amd the enhine (bad for MoI). Any weight/size estimations?

BTW I would love to hear Z's view on the subject (although I am almost sure about it). So Z, if you had infinite budget, what would you build?

[Jan_Dressler]

Originally posted by mech5496:
Jan,
WOW mate! I like how it came along, and it looks really compact (impessed by the size comparison between the engine and the tripod housings). However, your arrangement puts the engine almost at the rear axle (bad for weight distribjtion) and leaves a huge space between the drivers' back amd the enhine (bad for MoI). Any weight/size estimations?

Yeah, I know, weight distribution... But at least the engine would be very light. Allows for a bit lower position for the driver (although this is limited by template rules). You can shift weight more forward (radiators, battery, etc.), but I agree with your MoI-argument. Should not be so bad if the car is at minimum wheelbase, though (and, as already said, the engine should be fairly light).

Weight/size estimations: Sorry, I just have what you see in the pictures So, the only thing I can tell you is that the engine is 296,88cc (60 mm bore * 35 mm stroke). With proper supercharging (the rotary valves should help there, better VE, less prone to knocking, dual cross-tumble flow with that bore/stroke-ratio) one can get all the power you want (or all the power that is possible due to the restrictor) out of a 300 cc engine.
Dragsters, and F1 in the 80ies, got/get 1000 hp/liter (albeit only for short runs, but F1 today achieves 300+ hp/liter / the equivalent BMEP. With turbo-/supercharging we can have all the efficiency...). Combine that with turbocompounding (get the lost power back to the crankshaft, the rules practically demand this?! Why is nobody doing this??).

And yeah, I would really like to hear Z's opinion on these matters too

[AxelRipper]

For me, I'd go with a 440cc, 180 degree V-Twin. Tilt the longitudinal output shaft at about 30 degrees above horizontal to give some room for the exhaust packaging underneath the motor, and allow room to keep the drivetrain low. Integrate the gearbox off the output shaft with either a 3 speed or e-CVT with an active differential.

I'm gonna take a guess on what Z will say: Jawa motor, CVT, either spool or active diff.

[TurboTom]

I agree with Jan_dressler, 300cc turbo sounds good. Husky have the te310 which is 2 3kg dry, with a cr of 13.1:1.
Bang a turbo on it, e85 to reduce knock and small intake/ exhaust assembly to minimize loss and increase throttle response, you've probably got something that will put out as much as a 450 single.
Garretts gt06 weighs in at just over 4kg, and including intake and exhaust assembly, you have an engine package that weighs in at under 30kg. Given the wr450 weighs in at 33kg dry ( our muffler weighs about 5kg) you can save yourself 10kg+.
That and the engine efficiency will be through the roof would see you win fuel everytime and what should be a 145kg 450 single 10" wheel concept goes to 135kg with similar power, go 8" rims you're down to 130kg and all of a sudden the 300cc turbo single doesn't seem so underpowered.

[mech5496]

TurboTom, I like your thinking...

Jan, IMO energy recovery from a turbocompound would be minimal, and most probably dependent on the load/RPM, as it is a mechanical system. What about using it in combination with an alternator? That way you could use exhaust gas energy to produce electricity. Get rid of (mechanical) water and oil pumps and replace them with electric ones should free some power. I know, conversion of mechanical to electric energy would lower the efficiency a bit, but IMO you would have greater control over recovered energy. Alternatively, you can do the above powered by recovered energy from braking (small front hub motors) plus turbocompound.

What about an electric turbo? You could run it entirely on recovered energy, no backpressure, complete control over boost, zero lag etc..Thoughts?

P.S. Happy new year everyone!