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

DrewE wrote:
If there's an appropriate chassis with one, it might happen. I don't think there's anything inherent in a boxer engine vs. a V or inline engine that would make it especially suitable or unsuitable for motor home duty. Small aircraft have used boxer engines for eons, and that's hardly light duty operation (cruising for hours on end at 75% power).

Yes but small general aviation air cooled aircraft engines are generally detuned to limit the power output to about a half horsepower per cubic inch. Any more than that is generally severely time limited and must run substantially rich under load. Not all aircraft engines are that way but most are.

Chum lee

The issue is this is a pipe dream.

That's my take, also.

For decades there have been urban legends about this kind of thing. The "miracle device" that enables you to get 100 MPG but "the oil companies" or some other sinister actor has "bought the patent" and is not allowing everyone to use it.

I'm not saying that there are no technological advancements. Of course they happen all the time.

But you'll note this company in the video is not a manufacturer - they are a research company interested in selling intellectual property.

The proof of the pudding will be if it shows up in real products for sale. Until then, I'm skeptical.

Steve

bagman wrote:
I find it absolutely amazing that no one here took the time to watch the video! In the video it describes how WWII German bombers airplanes could fly non stop from Germany to South America on one tank of fuel with these amazing engines. The Allied didn't have any bombers that could fly that far without refueling! If you did take 3-4 minutes to watch the video, then perhaps you would have found it as interesting as I did!

Didn't happen, they flew from germany down the coast of Africa, refueled, and then across with lightened loads to assure they could make it.

Chum lee wrote:

We're not talking about a Ford F150 with an small displacement Eco boost engine here. My take to the OP was to consider using a 2.7 liter boxer type engine in a much larger, heavier vehicle like a Ford E/F 450/53/550 hauling a Class A/C motor home at or close to maximum gross weight. An F150 is a half ton light duty pickup truck. Not the same thing at all. My compliments to Ford on getting a small displacement engine to work in the F150. I'm not holding my breath waiting to see when the engineers at Ford are going to drop one (eco boost) into a much heavier duty platform. That's a project for RCG's (recent college graduates) with stars in their eyes and no engineering experience.

Chum lee

The point is that manufacturers are willing to take risks if there are advantages. The eco-boost provides far less advantage than the OP is suggesting for this engine but Ford took that risk. They spend a lot of money and a lot of staff time on it.

If the OP's comments are correct, this engine would blow the ecoboost away in terms of both power and fuel efficency and be the logical replacement for everything from the compact pickups thru the 550 range (might have to be derated in the smaller trucks to keep it from being overpowered). That only strengthens the argument that it would allow the manufacturer who develops it to dominate the light to medium duty truck markets for years. Assuming they could make slightly larger version, they could take over the heavy duty truck market as well and a smaller version could take over the passenger car market.

The issue is not manufacturer's being scared of developing new technology. The issue is this is a pipe dream.

PS: My understanding is you won't see the ecoboost 3.5 in 3/4 ton or larger trucks. The issue is most 1/2 ton trucks spend 95% of their miles running around empty, so other than a few seconds here and there of hard acceleration, most of the time, it functions as a naturally aspirated engine and a V6 is plenty for that. When you do tow, the MPG goes down hard but as long as it's a small percentage of the miles, most are happy with the compromise and it doesn't affect longevity much.

In larger trucks with regular heavy loads and towing, the truck will be running boost a large percentage of the time. High boost comes with high fuel consumption, negating the MPG benefits and also high wear, so longevity becomes a problem.

I have heard rumblings about a V8 ecoboost that might work but not sure if that's reality or wishful thinking.

valhalla360 wrote:

Chum lee wrote:
Overcoming established corporate engineering group think can be difficult.

It goes something like this.

What market advantages will we gain by spending billions of dollars reconfiguring our currently highly successful existing platform with older technology? Does anyone have any extra budget dollars, personnel, or spare time they would like to spend on this? Keep in mind, your head will be on the chopping block, as well as your professional career/future if it doesn't show any promise and turns out to be a loser. Any takers? . . . . . No? Well then, get back to work and just keep doing what you're doing. (pretend this never happened)

Chum lee

What advantage? Seriously, an engine that doubles the MPG and puts out big HP would be a game changer. The manufacturer who came out with that would own the 1/2 ton pickup market for the life of the patents.

We do have an example of a company doing just this type of investment. Ford took that big risk with the eco-boost line of engines and it was for much smaller MPG improvements.

Of course, no one realistically things this engine will double the MPG while putting out big HP.

We're not talking about a Ford F150 with an small displacement Eco boost engine here. My take to the OP was to consider using a 2.7 liter boxer type engine in a much larger, heavier vehicle like a Ford E/F 450/53/550 hauling a Class A/C motor home at or close to maximum gross weight. An F150 is a half ton light duty pickup truck. Not the same thing at all. My compliments to Ford on getting a small displacement engine to work in the F150. I'm not holding my breath waiting to see when the engineers at Ford are going to drop one (eco boost) into a much heavier duty platform. That's a project for RCG's (recent college graduates) with stars in their eyes and no engineering experience.

Chum lee

Chum lee wrote:
Overcoming established corporate engineering group think can be difficult.

It goes something like this.

What market advantages will we gain by spending billions of dollars reconfiguring our currently highly successful existing platform with older technology? Does anyone have any extra budget dollars, personnel, or spare time they would like to spend on this? Keep in mind, your head will be on the chopping block, as well as your professional career/future if it doesn't show any promise and turns out to be a loser. Any takers? . . . . . No? Well then, get back to work and just keep doing what you're doing. (pretend this never happened)

Chum lee

What advantage? Seriously, an engine that doubles the MPG and puts out big HP would be a game changer. The manufacturer who came out with that would own the 1/2 ton pickup market for the life of the patents.

We do have an example of a company doing just this type of investment. Ford took that big risk with the eco-boost line of engines and it was for much smaller MPG improvements.

Of course, no one realistically things this engine will double the MPG while putting out big HP.

RCMAN46 wrote:

ctilsie242 wrote:


When series hybrid vehicles become mainstream (basically electric cars with the IC engine acting as a generator), gas/diesel engines will definitely be taking a different tack for evolution, because they will need to run at a single RPM at all times, as opposed to worrying about power bands and torque/HP curves.

Nothing new here. The railroad industry has been doing this for close to 60 years.

Old news, the Prius uses just such an engine because the batteries address the heavy acceleration, so the engine design can focus on efficiency not acceleration.

Diesel-Electric trains are addressing a totally different issue. Trying to build a mechanical transmission to coordinate five 10,000hp engines pulling 100 cars is totally impractical. The electric motors are actually less efficient but solve the transmission problem in a reasonably sized package. A mechanical transmission in a passenger vehicle/light truck is already a proven and reliable technology, so there is no need to lose efficiency.

ctilsie242 wrote:


When series hybrid vehicles become mainstream (basically electric cars with the IC engine acting as a generator), gas/diesel engines will definitely be taking a different tack for evolution, because they will need to run at a single RPM at all times, as opposed to worrying about power bands and torque/HP curves.

Nothing new here. The railroad industry has been doing this for close to 60 years.

There are a lot of interesting engine improvements just waiting to be used, be it the one in the video, "six stroke" engines that use water turning to steam as a way to use the heat in the block for more efficiency, variable compression technology, and many more.

What competes with this will be electric motors, where the engine winds up running at optimal RPM, charging up a battery bank, and the electric motors do the heavy lifting.

When series hybrid vehicles become mainstream (basically electric cars with the IC engine acting as a generator), gas/diesel engines will definitely be taking a different tack for evolution, because they will need to run at a single RPM at all times, as opposed to worrying about power bands and torque/HP curves.

bagman wrote:
During WWII, German bombers would go 6,000 miles to Brazil with these motors and at that time, no other airplane could achieve that!

The young man in the video was pretty believable and he mentioned this more than once. But it turns out he's wrong, unless all the Wikipedia articles I read are wrong. Only one German bomber used that Junkers Jumo opposed piston diesel, and it had a range of less than 1000 miles. German bombers that could fly 6000 miles didn't exist in WW2, and that's a good thing since my grandparents would have likely seen them in the skies over the east coast. There was a Junkers prototype heavy bomber with a 6000 mile range, but only 2 were ever built and it used radial engines like most heavy aircraft of the day.

My point to this is if the ancedotal references this guy is making are incorrect, in my mind it makes everything else in the video suspect. I find the technology fascinating, but time will tell.