undefined | Better HN

0 pointsiaw11y ago0 comments

I do agree with you but a turbo diesel isn't a valid comparison because it is:

1) turbo charged 2) diesel fueled

An inter-cooled turbocharger setup on this engine would likely net an additional 100 HP without much issue (presuming the sealing issues aren't horrific). Generally 100 HP per litre of displacement is the gold standard for naturally aspirated engines (see Ferrari).

0 comments

noir_lord11y ago

I used diesel as historically cc for cc they have lagged behind petrol engines (though that has largely ended).

The turbo is irrelevant though, the IC has a turbo, they work and are reliable the rotating engine doesn't but that doesn't rule out a basis for comparison.

It comes down to fuel efficiency, emissions, maintenance and cost and I can't see this engine winning (for cars).

iawOP11y ago

The turbo is not irrelevant because it has a direct impact on the ratio of power delivery / fuel consumption due to the recaptured energy from exhaust gasses. The volumetric efficiency (ratio of cylinder pressure pre-compression to atmospheric pressure) of engines with turbo-chargers is almost always >1 while the volumetric efficiency of naturally aspirated engines is always (excluding rare high-performance vehicles in specific ranges of operation) <1.

I don't have time to do more thorough research right now, but the Ford Duratec 30 series of engines [1] is roughly comparable in both displacement and cylinder count and produces between 200 and 240 HP depending on configuration which puts this engine slightly ahead of normal engines from a performance perspective (smaller form factor and lighter).

Is there any apples to apples comparison that you can find that actually makes this development look substantially inferior? I get that you used a diesel because historically that gave the ICE an advantage but with modern diesel technology and forced induction they aren't the same animal.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratec_V6_engine#3.0_L

Edit: changed 'pre-combustion' to 'pre-compression' for clarity on volumetric efficiency definition.

noir_lord11y ago

In this context it is irrelevant since my comparison was purely one of power output against displacement.

The Turbo allows a given displacement to output more power for a given displacement, indeed volvo have 2 litre putting out 450hp (uses staged turbo's one of which is electrically driven), I wasnt comparing the nearest ICE equivalent to the rotary.

BrandonMarc11y ago

Curious: what's the alternative to naturally aspirated engines? Space-bound rockets?

Gracana11y ago

The other side of the coin is forced induction, using a turbocharger or a supercharger or even both. "Natural aspiration" just refers to engine with intake air at atmospheric pressure.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

noir_lord11y ago

I used diesel as historically cc for cc they have lagged behind petrol engines (though that has largely ended).

The turbo is irrelevant though, the IC has a turbo, they work and are reliable the rotating engine doesn't but that doesn't rule out a basis for comparison.

It comes down to fuel efficiency, emissions, maintenance and cost and I can't see this engine winning (for cars).

iawOP11y ago

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratec_V6_engine#3.0_L

Edit: changed 'pre-combustion' to 'pre-compression' for clarity on volumetric efficiency definition.

noir_lord11y ago

In this context it is irrelevant since my comparison was purely one of power output against displacement.

BrandonMarc11y ago

Curious: what's the alternative to naturally aspirated engines? Space-bound rockets?

Gracana11y ago

The other side of the coin is forced induction, using a turbocharger or a supercharger or even both. "Natural aspiration" just refers to engine with intake air at atmospheric pressure.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse