Jump to content

Some tutorials on the new software have been pinned here.

Sign in to follow this  
CGIron

F-150 with a new engine making 44 mpg

Recommended Posts

Is it Ford that´s behind this lines about " OEM is tooling up" or is it just a coincidence that Achates picked a F-150 to install their new engine in?

https://www.wardsauto.com/engines/achates-opposed-piston-engine-makers-tooling

and

https://www.motortrend.com/news/at-least-one-automaker-plans-to-produce-an-opposed-piston-engine/

First drive. Listen to the SOUND

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usmauFigpzk

Massive roar without sound of strokes   😲
270 hp, 479 lb/ft , 44 mpg with diesel and 37 mpg on petrol, cheaper to produce, lighter. less parts. So what are we waiting for?

Edited by CGIron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, especially the small hole in the cylinder for intake air.  Like all 2 stroke engines, performance varies greatly on intake and exhaust port shape and placement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2018 at 7:05 PM, CGIron said:

Is it Ford that´s behind this lines about " OEM is tooling up" or is it just a coincidence that Achates picked a F-150 to install their new engine in?

https://www.wardsauto.com/engines/achates-opposed-piston-engine-makers-tooling

and

https://www.motortrend.com/news/at-least-one-automaker-plans-to-produce-an-opposed-piston-engine/

First drive. Listen to the SOUND

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usmauFigpzk

Massive roar without sound of strokes   😲
270 hp, 479 lb/ft , 44 mpg with diesel and 37 mpg on petrol, cheaper to produce, lighter. less parts. So what are we waiting for?

Emissions and oil control are still two big stumbling block with this engine type,

the OEMs have known about this engine type for over 70 years and if it was as

near to production as claimed, they would be all over it.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe the video made it sound louder than it is in person, but it seemed very loud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Emissions and oil control are still two big stumbling block with this engine type,

the OEMs have known about this engine type for over 70 years and if it was as

near to production as claimed, they would be all over it.

You are like the old countrywoman that on her first visit at Zoo watching a giraffe and said " such animals doesn´t exist"  

Watch the video and understand that modern tech like the Eaton  TVS air pump  and the Sintercast CGI in the block didn´t exist 70 years ago.  90% reduction in NOx and a 15–20% fuel efficiency improvement. doesn´t sound like MORE emissions right?

There´s a new sheriff in town. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 2:20 PM, rmc523 said:

maybe the video made it sound louder than it is in person, but it seemed very loud.

I don't know if it's really loud, but it sounded very strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CGIron said:

You are like the old countrywoman that on her first visit at Zoo watching a giraffe and said " such animals doesn´t exist"  

Watch the video and understand that modern tech like the Eaton  TVS air pump  and the Sintercast CGI in the block didn´t exist 70 years ago.  90% reduction in NOx and a 15–20% fuel efficiency improvement. doesn´t sound like MORE emissions right?

There´s a new sheriff in town. 

We'll see if it comes to market. Building prototypes and putting it into production are two very different things. Personally, I hope it really is all it's cracked up to be, but the jury is still out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2018 at 6:24 PM, CGIron said:

You are like the old countrywoman that on her first visit at Zoo watching a giraffe and said " such animals doesn´t exist"  

Watch the video and understand that modern tech like the Eaton  TVS air pump  and the Sintercast CGI in the block didn´t exist 70 years ago.  90% reduction in NOx and a 15–20% fuel efficiency improvement. doesn´t sound like MORE emissions right?

There´s a new sheriff in town. 

Look at the date on the story, January 23 2017...yep, that's right folks nearly two years ago,

Some day, you may understand why OEMs aren't jumping all over this tech...

 

Or should I quote Archats 2014 article where they clamed to be on the verge of production?

 

Quote

 

Achates Closer To Production Of Radically Efficient Two-Stroke Truck Diesel

Oct 15, 2014

Suppose you could take an old engine concept discarded in the 1970s, add modern fuel metering and injection control hardware and software, and offer a compact powerplant that cuts the fuel consumption of today's diesel truck engines by a third..

That's the promise of Achates Power, which has been working for a decade on its horizontally opposed two-stroke diesel truck engine.

Now, it says, the company expects to announce its first pilot program with a global engine or vehicle maker within 18 months--almost surely outside the U.S.

 

Still waiting......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Wards Auto link:

Achates promises combined city/highway CAFE of 37 mpg (6.4 L/100 km) and EPA fuel-economy ratings of 25/32 mpg (9.4-7.3 L/100 km) with demo 3-cyl. engine.

I saw a video and they mentioned “cafe” several times.   Apparently, the mpg numbers aren’t as impressive as initially thought.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this may or may not pan out but it's hard to get excited about it when someone posts articles that are nearly two years old, wouldn't you think that we would have seen more articles and more developments with partnerships since then?....Just sayin'

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t think of a successful application of an opposed piston engine in a commercial application. I know the Soviets/Russians had one in the T-64 and they had a shit ton of teething problems with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

I can’t think of a successful application of an opposed piston engine in a commercial application. I know the Soviets/Russians had one in the T-64 and they had a shit ton of teething problems with them. 

Also, the Junkers bomber that could fly non-stop form the edge of Europe to South America.

Another example is the Napier Deltic  an opposed cylinder engine used in WW2  British subs and post war diesel locomotives.

They could never lick the oil control problem on part worn engines..

I have a theory that motor companies will not switch to this engine type unless absolutely forced to, they would prefer to soldier on with conventional ICE four stroke multi-valve engines because: 1) it's not needed yet, 2) long amortization of existing engines and 3) the cost of changing now.

This engine type has issues one of them is as OPOC  engine "age", oil control becomes a problem and they tend to "oil up".

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the British Commer Knocker Truck

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 8:10 AM, CurtisH said:

From the Wards Auto link:

Achates promises combined city/highway CAFE of 37 mpg (6.4 L/100 km) and EPA fuel-economy ratings of 25/32 mpg (9.4-7.3 L/100 km) with demo 3-cyl. engine.

I saw a video and they mentioned “cafe” several times.   Apparently, the mpg numbers aren’t as impressive as initially thought.

 

Yeah, I don't get that at all.  How can the CAFE numbers be so drastically higher?

 

We're already getting close to those supposed EPA numbers with what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

Yeah, I don't get that at all.  How can the CAFE numbers be so drastically higher?

 

We're already getting close to those supposed EPA numbers with what we have now.

Yeah, they’ve adjusted the EPA numbers downward several times over the years.  I believe the EPA average number is around 80% of the CAFE number.  Someone (maybe Richard Jensen) posted the percentage difference a year or two back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is RJ, by the way?  Feel like I haven't seen him in a while.

I guess Pioneer never returned either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer hasn’t logged in at all since his vacation.   That hasn’t stopped him from attacking me over on the F150 forum and getting called out by the moderator (and others).  He can’t help himself.

RJ hasn’t logged in since he posted on June 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, akirby said:

Pioneer hasn’t logged in at all since his vacation.   That hasn’t stopped him from attacking me over on the F150 forum and getting called out by the moderator (and others).  He can’t help himself.

RJ hasn’t logged in since he posted on June 11.

Weird how he just flipped a switch like he did.

 

I wonder why RJ hasn't been around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

I wonder why RJ hasn't been around.

He said it's because he hates what is happening with the company and has nothing positive to say about it. A been there, done that kind of thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

He said it's because he hates what is happening with the company and has nothing positive to say about it. A been there, done that kind of thing. 

It’s a shame.  I enjoyed reading his posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

He said it's because he hates what is happening with the company and has nothing positive to say about it. A been there, done that kind of thing. 

Sometimes you just need to let it go...if its that bad-find another fucking job.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CurtisH said:

Yeah, they’ve adjusted the EPA numbers downward several times over the years.  I believe the EPA average number is around 80% of the CAFE number.  Someone (maybe Richard Jensen) posted the percentage difference a year or two back. 

From the way I understand it...the fleet CAFE ratings are based on standards from the late 1970s and haven't been adjusted, thus the 42 MPG requirement is actually 25 or so MPG based on the "real" world MPG that the current EPA testing uses. 

Edited by silvrsvt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×