Why do we use Otto cycle engines???

[ironizer]

Everyone knows that the traditional four stroke Otto cycle gasoline engine used today has an efficiency of no more than 30%. Given that the engine is so inefficient, why do we still use this old design? It's not that the engine reached its theoretical efficiency, because it comes short of that. So why haven't we adopted one of the many inventions that use gasoline to produce work but in a simpler and more efficient way?

 

Countless engines, like the Bourke engine and many others that I can't name off the top of my head, can so the same operations of an Otto cycle but with fewer parts, smaller size/weight, and improved efficiency. Why are manufacturers still going for the Otto engine?

[iNow]

I dunno. Why don't we use an engine with over 80% efficiciency, and which is fueled by a renewable resource?

 

 

Try Bud dry.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Nobody's ever thoroughly tested a Bourke engine to see how well it works. When someone does, manufacturers might go for it.

[ironizer]

I'm not talking only about the Bourke engine; there are countless other engines, here are only a few:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britalus_Rotary_Engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crower_six_stroke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trochilic_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuderi_Split_Cycle_Engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing-piston_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twingle_engine

 

I agree that some of these suck, but others are far better than a four-stroke Otto cycle. Why hasn't anybody invested research into something like this? The potential for monetary gain is huge.

 

 

P.S. And these are all engines that can use gasoline/diesel fuel, which means that the current infrastructure (which has taken almost a century to build) can be still be used.

[Phi for All]

It would take a great deal of capital for the major automakers to retool. You'd need a large supply of replacement parts. And most importantly you'd need to sell the idea really well to get dealers and parts store owners to agree to stock your product. Oh, and the public would need to give a thumbs up as well (but they can more easily be persuaded).

 

We will be seeing new designs become cost effective as oil continues to climb. We've been in the "if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it" mode for too long.

 

I'd still rather have total electric like the EV-1.

[insane_alien]

I'd still rather have total electric like the EV-1

 

you should go back to the 1900's cars were predominantly electric then. pity that they never stuck around so our battery technology could have improved a whole bunch by now.

[ironizer]

It would take a great deal of capital for the major automakers to retool. You'd need a large supply of replacement parts. And most importantly you'd need to sell the idea really well to get dealers and parts store owners to agree to stock your product. Oh, and the public would need to give a thumbs up as well (but they can more easily be persuaded).

 

We will be seeing new designs become cost effective as oil continues to climb. We've been in the "if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it" mode for too long.

 

I'd still rather have total electric like the EV-1.

 

But if you can build a prototype to that functions well, it would prove any engine worthy of investment. It won't take that much investment to build just one engine, and if it proves itself then the automaker can pretty much achieve a monopoly over companies that use conventional engines.

[Phi for All]

But if you can build a prototype to that functions well, it would prove any engine worthy of investment. It won't take that much investment to build just one engine, and if it proves itself then the automaker can pretty much achieve a monopoly over companies that use conventional engines.

Better design doesn't guarantee supremacy. It doesn't even guarantee you stay in the market at all. Look at Beta video tapes. They were half the size and started out with four heads but VHS-format marketers flooded us with big old cheap tapes and the public chose the worst design. Was AOL the best designed web-browser? Are Microsoft products better designed than Apple and Linux products?

 

Unfortunately advertising replaces education for the majority of people. They learn about a product from it's manufacturer and that's a biased source at best. But if a better design was coupled with a better marketing campaign we'd stand a decent chance of getting automotive technology that made sense *and* profit instead of just profit.

[ironizer]

But the public does not decide what and how each company builds their engines. All they have to do is make whatever they want and tell the public "here's a car that gets 2x better mileage and costs less".

 

The problem with other consumer products is that 1. the customer isn't used to the alternative product or 2. the people don't want to invest in a new player (in case of the new tapes). Same with HD-DVD and Blueray... you have to buy a player for each.

But with the cars its different. A new engine will drive the same way as the engines today, it will all be the same. The average Joe doesn't know and doesn't care what's under the hood.

 

I can seem to understand why the companies don't drop the old design which is so complex to build and prone to failure. :doh: :doh:

[Dak]

a more fuel efficient enjine would definitely be marketable in the UK, where petrol is about £1/litre.

[waitforufo]

What makes you think other engine types haven't been tried? Several electric models have been tried. There were steam engine powered cars. Chrysler tried gas turbine engines. We now have hybrid internal combustion/electric. The internal combustion engines we use today are actually quite remarkable. They are reliable, long lasting, and provide a wide range of horse power on demand.

 

The beauty of capitalism is that good solutions will be tried and once tried markets will most often be found. If a market is not found for a superior product, it is generally the consumers fault. My favorite example of this is packaging for salt and oat meal. Consumers, at least in the United States, are used to purchasing salt and oat meal in cylindrical boxes. Cylindrical boxes take up more space on the shelf and during transportation. This produces production, transportation, and retailing inefficiencies. Manufacturers have tried to sell salt and oat meal in cubic boxes but people won’t purchase it.

[JohnB]

One of the reasons the new designs don't get used is the "Catch 22".

 

I actually met the designer and builder of a toroidal style engine. 5 pistons and 26 moving parts. He had the test specs with him at the time (long story) and the engine was 27% more powerful with a fuel saving of over 30%.

 

He was caught by the Catch 22. The car companies loved the engine but wouldn't order until he could guarantee supply (as they would need to redesign the engine bays) but he couldn't get finance for the factory until he could guarantee a customer (ie. actually had a firm order.)

 

Inventors are not generally trained in business or marketing and are often of the simple idea that to get their product in production all they need to do is go to someone and say "Lookee what I got!" Business doesn't work that way, unfortunately.

[Cerran]

I agree that some of these suck, but others are far better than a four-stroke Otto cycle. Why hasn't anybody invested research into something like this? The potential for monetary gain is huge.

 

Likely because like most "superior" designs, when you get down to the brass tacks there is some catch. The Otto cycle for SI engines is one of the more efficient designs out there and is proven technology. For a design to be superior it has to be as powerful, as efficient and at the very least cost the same or less.

 

My guess without knowing which designs you are comparing is that they didn't meet these criteria.

 

You also much realize such a design must also scale down well, provide good torque and have good brake specific fuel consumption.