OLD tech for more HP/better MPG
#1
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 10,037
Received 393 Likes
on
336 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
OLD tech for more HP/better MPG
I have a crazy idea. For the past 10 yrs or so OEMs have been developing hybrids that only really give benifit in city driving. I recently saw a BMW system in a magazine that recovered waste heat to drive a steam engine. The engine benifits in all forms of driving in both power and mileage, but the system is expensive and complicated.
We need simple, effective, and cheap.
My thought is to use a power recovery turbine, similar to the late 40s and early 50s aircraft engines. On the Curtiss Wright R3350 engineers were able to go from 2,700 HP to 3,500 HP or an increase in almost 30% over the baseline. The engine gained 590 lbs from 2850 to 3440, or a 20% increase and this is with 1940s technology. Put that into perspective, a GM LS2 would go from 400 FWHP to 520 FWHP at 30% gain with a REDUCTION in fuel consumption. The LS7 would go from 500 HP to 650 HP! The principle is to put a turbine in the exhaust stream and gear it down to drive the crankshaft. With modern turbo technology(variable nozzles, new turbine technology, computer modeling, computer controls, etc) I have a feeling that the engineers could get even more than 30% out of the engine. The best part is that it would use NO more fuel than a NA engine. The PRT on airplanes so equipped offered tremendous performance gains and much improved fuel mileage. Seems like the OEMs could create one that gave better fuel mileage than a hybrid on the interstate, gave more HP/TQ, and no disadvantages of the hybrid (battery replacements etc). It seems that a simple mechanical setup such as this could be far simpler and much cheaper than a full blown hybrid. With the added power it would be easy to have a V6 perform like a V8 or a 4 perform like a 6. The base engine in a compact car could easily be a 3 cylinder with a PRT and still make 150 HP.
Let me know what you think on this.
We need simple, effective, and cheap.
My thought is to use a power recovery turbine, similar to the late 40s and early 50s aircraft engines. On the Curtiss Wright R3350 engineers were able to go from 2,700 HP to 3,500 HP or an increase in almost 30% over the baseline. The engine gained 590 lbs from 2850 to 3440, or a 20% increase and this is with 1940s technology. Put that into perspective, a GM LS2 would go from 400 FWHP to 520 FWHP at 30% gain with a REDUCTION in fuel consumption. The LS7 would go from 500 HP to 650 HP! The principle is to put a turbine in the exhaust stream and gear it down to drive the crankshaft. With modern turbo technology(variable nozzles, new turbine technology, computer modeling, computer controls, etc) I have a feeling that the engineers could get even more than 30% out of the engine. The best part is that it would use NO more fuel than a NA engine. The PRT on airplanes so equipped offered tremendous performance gains and much improved fuel mileage. Seems like the OEMs could create one that gave better fuel mileage than a hybrid on the interstate, gave more HP/TQ, and no disadvantages of the hybrid (battery replacements etc). It seems that a simple mechanical setup such as this could be far simpler and much cheaper than a full blown hybrid. With the added power it would be easy to have a V6 perform like a V8 or a 4 perform like a 6. The base engine in a compact car could easily be a 3 cylinder with a PRT and still make 150 HP.
Let me know what you think on this.
Last edited by Fast355; 04-28-2006 at 04:10 PM.
#2
Supreme Member
I read about the Merc steam engine system. Seemed complicated, but no more so than a hybrid/battery system.
It would certainly seem reasonable to try to extract usable energy from the exhaust system somehow. Or possibly a way to recover heat energy from the cooling system. After all, about 1/3 of the energy of combustion goes right out the exhaust, 1/3 into the cooling system and the last third is what spins the wheels.
It would certainly seem reasonable to try to extract usable energy from the exhaust system somehow. Or possibly a way to recover heat energy from the cooling system. After all, about 1/3 of the energy of combustion goes right out the exhaust, 1/3 into the cooling system and the last third is what spins the wheels.
#3
The main reason turbo compound engines disappeared from aviation was the development of the mechanically simpler and more reliable jet engines,afaik.
But jet engines are not very practical in road going vehicles.
But jet engines are not very practical in road going vehicles.
#5
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 85' TA
Engine: 355 Carbed
Transmission: Built 700r4
were still looking all wrong, for the past 10 years we've been saying more fuel effiecient, no we need a differnet fuel source.
coal can easily be modifed to be use as gas. Octane levels are even very close to that of gasoline, and the coal industry could use the surge in business. coal is very plentiful in the world. As any coal miner family.
One advantage fdor environmentalists, is during the refining system, the coal is 100% purified, so there are zero hydrocarbons produced into the atmosphere, coal is hydrocarbon nuetral!
Only reason this hasn't gotton a big hit is becuase none of the large political figures own much in coal mining.
Corn and wood, for ether, are well, owned mostly by the political figures.
----------
however on topic, i see use of a turbine, turbo's make cars more effiecent for hp/cc. that exhaust air, energy, is used to feed more air.
very few systems in nature, or man made, produce more energy then put into them.
this is the secret behind cold fusion my friends, sold this, and well, your the next albert einstein.
coal can easily be modifed to be use as gas. Octane levels are even very close to that of gasoline, and the coal industry could use the surge in business. coal is very plentiful in the world. As any coal miner family.
One advantage fdor environmentalists, is during the refining system, the coal is 100% purified, so there are zero hydrocarbons produced into the atmosphere, coal is hydrocarbon nuetral!
Only reason this hasn't gotton a big hit is becuase none of the large political figures own much in coal mining.
Corn and wood, for ether, are well, owned mostly by the political figures.
----------
however on topic, i see use of a turbine, turbo's make cars more effiecent for hp/cc. that exhaust air, energy, is used to feed more air.
very few systems in nature, or man made, produce more energy then put into them.
this is the secret behind cold fusion my friends, sold this, and well, your the next albert einstein.
Last edited by 12SecondTA; 04-29-2006 at 01:00 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
#6
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Back in the states...
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: Silver 1980 Corvette (L82 w/TPI)
Engine: L82
Transmission: TH350
Originally Posted by 12SecondTA
were still looking all wrong, for the past 10 years we've been saying more fuel effiecient, no we need a differnet fuel source....
#7
Another great advatage enjoyed by airborne turbo-superchargers was the much colder air encountered at even 10,000'. Intercoolers were totally unnecessary, and a little carb heat was still added at cruise altitudes even though the Wright and Pratt radials were being jammed with the big GE and Sundstrand turbines.
That's what these were all about:
They also used water/alcohol injection to control detonation. Seems like everything old is new again.
That's what these were all about:
They also used water/alcohol injection to control detonation. Seems like everything old is new again.
Trending Topics
#9
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TX
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 firebird
Engine: 350
Transmission: t-56
Last edited by 91RedFirebird; 04-29-2006 at 06:49 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pac J
Tech / General Engine
3
05-17-2020 10:44 AM