Anybody ever seen the engine that admitted fuel vapor through orifices in the intake valve seat? The throttle was modulated by opening the intake valve more or less via a linkage that changed the effective length of the rocker arm. The more you opened the valve the more fuel would be admitted. Also the fuel was heated to vaporizaton by it's passing through the head. I remember reading about it several years ago. Supposed to be very efficient and powerful.
Wonder if it's still being devoloped.

__________________
1983 M-B 240D-Gone too.
1976 M-B 300D-Departed.

"Good" is the worst enemy of "Great".

One word for why it does not work, detonation. A hot AF mixture is thin and can pre-ignite in compression. Thats why turbo cars have an intercooler.

FI, have you seen that article on that engine from several years back? It intrigued me at the time as it was very different from other alternative engine approaches. I wish I could remember what the guy called the engine.
The preignition issue makes sense but could be addressed I would think.
One thing is certain: We need better technology in engine design.

__________________
1983 M-B 240D-Gone too.
1976 M-B 300D-Departed.

"Good" is the worst enemy of "Great".

Have you not seen the engine development in the last 15 years? We have gone from carburetted g@ssers and non-turbo IDI diesels to rolling computers with direct g@s injection and 25,000psi Diesel injection.

There was no such thing as a 100/200mpg carb and there never will be. Its simple middle/high school physics, there is only X amount of energy in fuel. If you want better economy you have to use less fuel. Less fuel = less HP and people won't buy it no matter how much they might save on fuel. Look at any extreme mpg vehicle that has a proven 100+MPG rating and you will see that 95% of the time it has a sub 1-liter engine and single or low two digit horsepower output. Look at any vehicle that gets better than 50mpg and you'll not see one with a g@sser over 1.5L or Diesel over 2.2L.

The only way we are going to get a huge jump in economy while producing significant power is to get rid of reciprocating piston engines entirely. They fundamentally just aren't efficient at turning fuel and heat into physical work.

Would I (or you or anyone) REALLY drive something like that 1959 Opel T-1? Hell no! Not only would it never make it up the slightest hill but you'd be killed if something as small as a bicycle collided with it. People already complain about the 240D's slow 0-60 time, what would they say about a vehicle that can't even do 60mph?

[quote=ForcedInduction;1797076]
The only way we are going to get a huge jump in economy while producing significant power is to get rid of reciprocating piston engines entirely. They fundamentally just aren't efficient at turning fuel and heat into physical work.

That's what I was getting at. I feel we have gotten near the practical limit of recip engines on the power vs. efficiency curve. There is only so much energy in a gallon of fuel and we do like our fast cars. Can't have both (power and economy) in any respectable quantity.

__________________
1983 M-B 240D-Gone too.
1976 M-B 300D-Departed.

"Good" is the worst enemy of "Great".

With that mindset, It is a wonder that turbo diesels or fuel injected gas engines were ever developed

__________________
81 Mercedes 300SD 289k.......SOLD
82 Mercedes 300CD 252k......slow ride

82 mercedes 300 SD...mi Unknown
83 Mercedes 300D ????ksniff..gone too
84 Mercedes 300D 148k........SOLD
85 Mercedes 300TD 386k and holding some one elses project

Its that mindset that perpetuates the 200mpg carb myth and fuel saver scam market.

and over coming the " can't" myth has created some of the greatest discoveries.

just ask R.Diesel

__________________
81 Mercedes 300SD 289k.......SOLD
82 Mercedes 300CD 252k......slow ride

82 mercedes 300 SD...mi Unknown
83 Mercedes 300D ????ksniff..gone too
84 Mercedes 300D 148k........SOLD
85 Mercedes 300TD 386k and holding some one elses project

It's not "can't" its "doesn't".

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm



all they need to do is figure out how to properly seal it all up when under all the compression.

__________________
-1983 VW Rabbit LS Diesel (5speed, VNT/Giles build)

ahhh physics. gets ya every time.

sad to say the next step should be electric cars. they have some highly efficient power plants. its easier to get high efficacy out of a stationary power plant. the trick then is a way to transport that energy. sadly what is holding back electric cars is batteries. once someone makes an efficient battery the whole world will change.

you'd be amazed at the efficacy of a gas turbine power plant. when i was in 6th grade my dad took me to a state of the art gas turbine power plant in Texas City, Texas. he works for Calpine. then later i took a chemistry class in high school. even my teacher didn't know how a gas turbine power plant worked. got a C in that class

anyway. the plant has a huge gas turbine the size of a 2 story building. works just like a jet engine. that spins a huge generator. then the exhaust gas is used to boil water that is used to spin a steam turbine. all running on natural gas.

my teacher told me that all gas power plants were horrible for the environment because they were inefficient he told the whole class that you used gas to boil water to spin a turbine. and i objected. O well. high school sucked.

the secret is co-generation. milking the last bit of energy out of the combustion process. or what ever process is used for creating the heat in the first place. at the navel academy they are 100% nuclear powered. and they heat EVERYTHING even the sidewalks with the steam left over after spinning the turbine. they do this in Russia and France to building around the power plants.

In Yuba City here in CA Calpine built a power plant with SunMade (the raisin people) its a gas plant and after they spin the steam turbine they sell the steam to SunMade and they use it to dehydrate apricots.

the problem with the US is we just don't have the mindset to squeeze the energy out. we'd rather put the power plants so far from the city so they don't look ugly and then run a cooling tower. its just waist.

we are wasteful people. Welcome to America!

__________________

Yep, I remember reading about it in a HOT ROD magazine.. the fella who was playing with the idea was a retired airplane mechanic and I believe the engine would run on a buch of different fuels.. he had converted a 4.3 V6 and a 454 to this style as R&D engines.. but the big three were uninterested due to it's "not our baby" mentality.. or so the article suggested. If I remember correctly the main benefit was lower emissions... it seems kinda like a direct injected gasoline engine built by an enquiring mind, and talented machinist..

__________________
46 WDX Power Wagon

84 300TDT daily driver

Yeah, so we went from the ability to get 376mpg back to our average 20mpg for 20 more years... yeah. Sure. Makes plenty of sense. You're telling me we couldn't do better than that and still achieve a reasonable amount of power?

__________________
1984 300TD Wagon

Yes. Look at the thing, its a sheet metal death trap with no form of safety or comfort. Building it up to modern safety standards would add 500+lbs to it. As I said before, it wouldn't have the power to make it up any kind of hill let alone accelerate as fast as Americans want their cars to go.

A few things, most of the power in gasoline is lost in heat. Think exhaust and cooling. I think its less than 20% is actually used to propel the car. Another ting is aerodynamics. Look at most of the present high milage cars and motor cycle contest. Some type of aerodynamic devices are used. Usually wheel pants or fairings and belly pans. Also, look at the Borque engine. And I disagree with that we are getting the most effieceintcy out of our fuel. There is still some work being done on fuel atomization.
Tom