A Boxer Engine In A Class C??? Yes/No?

bagman wrote:
DrewE, So your saying a 2.7L Boxer style engine is bigger than a FORD 6.8 V-10?

I'm. saying that a 2.7L Boxer engine (in the traditional/standard use of the word, i.e. two horizontally opposed cylinders or banks of cylinders) is very likely to be wider than a 6.8L V10, yes. Not necessarily bigger in overall volume--which it would not be--but almost certainly wider.

A 2.7L would presumably be a four cylinder engine, in which case the cylinder displacement is practically the same as for the V10. Having pairs of cylinders opposed horizontally, each 90 degrees off from vertical, will be wider than having them angled at 30 or 45 degrees; that's simple geometry. With four cylinders it would almost certainly be shorter in overall length.

If, as Matt Colie wrote, this isn't what is generally termed a boxer engine, then of course things could be different and the quick analysis might not apply. In that case, it's also rather misleading to call it a boxer engine.

I won't hold my breath until they take those hand-built prototypes and figure out how to have the robots in an engine plant crank them out by the hundreds per day.

It's impressive, but most hand built engines are. Hand built engines come and go.

DrewE, So your saying a 2.7L Boxer style engine is bigger than a FORD 6.8 V-10?

Thank-you RCMAN46. When I was in High School, only VW Beetles got over 30 MPG, back in the 60's and my 55 Buick got 11 - 14 MPG. But, my last two Chevy Equinoxs with the 4 cycl engine, both got as high as 34 MPG on a long trip. And sometimes older technology can be modified to be very efficient! Thank-you for you imput! Bags.

I love the armchair experts that will not even take the time to watch a short video. But yet they are the experts.

First the title of this post is misleading. The engine under discussion is not the traditional Boxer engine such as Subaru and VW has used.

In fact The almighty Cummins engine maker has a contract to build an Achates Power Opposed-Piston Engine for the military.


The engine will be a four-cylinder, 14.3-liter, opposed-piston diesel producing 1,000 horsepower and 2,400 pound-feet torque, Achates spokesman Andrew Schreck told Trucks.com.

The Achates can be configured in many sizes from small passenger cars to large vehicles like the military wants.

Here is a very short video that will demonstrate how the Achates works. There are many more videos on Youtube with much more detail.

Cummins Achates engine

Boxer engines are not new. If you could just slap one in a pickup and suddenly get 37/42MPG and have the power to pull big trailers, they would have done so long ago.

Yes, you can pump a lot of power out of a small engine but if you do, you burn as much fuel and you better have a bullet proof design or it won't last long.

I spent (wasted) a lot of my life either working on other peoples engines or in engine testing laboratories in south east Michigan.

First, a clarification: It is NOT a Boxer. The current use of that description is pistons on the same crank in separate cylinders that are 180° opposed.

This is a piston valved uniflow two stroke. It is a true opposed piston engine. The design heritage is ancient. It is usually a successful engine. It is the same design that was used in WWII submarines because of the reliability and compactness.

The website display is not Turbocharged and supercharged. The truck version shown elsewhere is. The PD blower is essential because the power cylinders have no pumping function. The turbocharger is an interesting add. I also think that it is interesting that the displayed truck engine is inclined about 30° to lower the hood line. (Remember the Dodge Slant engines and the BMW inlines??)

Time will tell. I am actually surprised that I don't know any of the published names, but I have been out of that world for a while.

Will it pull a Motorhome? I can bet that it will. The 7.5l V-8 in my coach does just fine with less rated HP.

Matt

bagman wrote:
It does fit under the hood of the 2017 FORD F-150 and matches up to the OEM transmission. Furthermore, it cranks out 270 HP and 480 ft. pounds of torque. Yeah, I think that 2.7L engine can power a pick-up truck. But what I find totally amazing is that several members here made a reply without watching the tfltruck video at the North American Auto Show! I'm glad that at least Henry Ford had a little imagination, or we would still be running around by horse & buggy!

Fitting under the hood of an F-150 and fitting in the E series chassis are quite different things, On the F series, the engine is in front of the passenger compartment and dashboard, actually under the hood, so it can be the full width of the vehicle. On the E series, it's squished between the driver and the passenger, basically in the dash, and the hood pretty much just gives access to the battery and fluid fills and dipsticks. A boxer engine of any reasonable size would be hard pressed to fit in there; it's inherently wider (and less tall) than a V or inline engine, and we're pretty constrained in width.

The benefits of this engine with regards to fuel economy and power and so forth--or, for that matter, of the German aircraft and its engine--come not so much from the arrangement of the cylinders around the crankshaft as from other engineering considerations and technology. There may be some small advantages in regards to inherent balance etc; I haven't looked up those specifics.

It's not like boxer engines are at all new; just ask anyone with a BMW cruising motorcycle, or a Citron 2CV, or a Piper, Cessna, etc. small plane, or a Subaru car, or.... It's certainly quite possible to construct a van chassis that uses a boxer engine (and VW rather famously has done so). It's not practical to put one in an E series van chassis.

It has suitable power for a small B or so chassis. But, I question the reliability to be under so much load all the time. When Ford came out with the V-6 ecoboost (gas) in the F150 they included very high towing numbers (like 11,200 lbs ish if memory serves) and a lot of those trucks burned pistons trying to drag enclosed trailers around for extended periods of time. You need cubic inches to maintain reasonable torque without overworking / heating the Turbo AND Supercharger in this example. The obvious major difference is being Diesel, with it's slower / cooler burn. Very interesting indeed, can't wait to see how it works out.

It does fit under the hood of the 2017 FORD F-150 and matches up to the OEM transmission. Furthermore, it cranks out 270 HP and 480 ft. pounds of torque. Yeah, I think that 2.7L engine can power a pick-up truck. But what I find totally amazing is that several members here made a reply without watching the tfltruck video at the North American Auto Show! I'm glad that at least Henry Ford had a little imagination, or we would still be running around by horse & buggy!