Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 8:14 PM
Sun Dec 6
14 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler |
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin |
Associate Editor - Houston:
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Editor-at-Large:
Contributors:
John Krewson |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/08/09
09/08/09
Yes, maybe someone (like Lotus themselves?) could show up Tesla by putting this Lotus engine and half as many batteries as the Roadster in the Elise chassis, saving about 175 kg and thus potentially giving better acceleration. The mystery with every range-extender is what it's like to drive with a powerful depleted battery and a weak generator. Stay away from long inclines.
Tesla toyed with a hybrid/range-extended version of the Model S, but they've stayed battery-only with three range options (batteries, moah batteries and DAMN that's a lot of batteries). Nor is Fisker a customer/competitor for this tiny engine, 35 kW is nothing compared to the 194 kW 2.0L turbo GM engine that will supposedly be in the Fisker Karma. Even the range-extender 1.4 L in the Chevy Volt is 53 kW, a lot more than 35 kW.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
Sort of. GM has said the Volt's extended-range engine does NOT recharge the batteries, it just powers the electric motor. It's cheaper to recharge the batteries from the wall. But if GM runs the engine at the most efficient RPM and load then any excess can go into the battery until the engine can shut off. So maybe the engine pulses on at fixed high RPM and off regardless of car speed. Nobody has ever been in the Volt when its battery is depleted, so the details of how it works remain a complete mystery.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
1- which car would you put a hybrid crate engine into?
2- with the advances in casting and machining, why aren't there more monoblock engines?
09/08/09
1. Hummer H1, just for the sake of irony.
2. Either it's a huge conspiracy of all the auto manufacturers, or it just makes it really hard to work on things like the valves or valve seats.
09/08/09
2. Yeah. I understand the maintenance concern but how many engines these days ever get to the point where the valves or valve seats need work? I think it is fairly small compared to the problems caused by head and manifold gaskets. I can't help but wonder about the compression ratio possibilities too.
09/08/09
It's been done by Offenhauser before:
One of the keys to the Offenhauser engine's success was power. A 251.92 cubic inch (4,128.29 cm³) twin-cam four-cylinder racing Offy with a 15:1 compression ratio and a 4.28125 x 4.375-inch (111.1 mm) bore and stroke, could produce 420 horsepower (313 kW) at 6,600 rpm; 1.77 horsepower (1.32 kW) per cubic inch (81 kW/L). Other variants of the engine produced up to 3 horsepower (2.2 kW) per cubic inch (137 kW/L). The Oldsmobile quad-four engine bears an uncanny resemblance to the Offenhauser unit, once the plastic covers are removed and it's bolted up to a rear wheel drive transmission. Another reason for the engine's success was reliability; unit construction (no separate cylinder head) meant the engine was not vulnerable to head gasket or cylinder stud problems and allowed for higher cylinder pressures.
[en.wikipedia.org]
09/08/09
Designing a new bottom end to address reliability issues means scrapping a whole lot of inventory. If you had separate block and head, you could redesign the block and crank, and keep all your heads, exhaust manifolds, and gaskets.
That's my theory, anyway.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09