1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Fate of the 2 stroke engine
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: March 22, 2002 07:01PM
<HTML>The steam engine was in competition with the IC engine in the field of propulsion for many years with arguements for the good and bad, of both choices. As we know, or I would not be writing this, steam lost out. Not because of the ultimate superority of the explosion engine, or due to major flaws in the steam design. Mostly the timing was bad and in many instances refinements to steam autos were slow in coming and lack of exposure thru advertising did not help. There are numerous other reasons that may have contributed to the demise of steam and the rise of the IC auto, including development money.
Today we can watch as the same events are being played out in the recreational market with the two stroke cycle engine working its way to oblivion. The 2 stroke offers the highest power to weight ratio of any commerically available IC engine, in theroy and practice. Manufacturers of recreational vehicles have been asked to stop production on 2 cycle engines by the US government by the year 2008. The companies are now expanding production into the 4 stroke cycle engined vehicles and dropping development on the 2 cycle. The 4 cycles claim to fame is reduced pollution and longivity. The 2 cycle engine can be, and is as clean burning as any other engine when current direct fuel injection systems are used and with proper injection oils. With modern materials the high performance 2 cycle is more dependable than the machines demand for long life. 10,000 plus miles is common on modern 2 cycle, 140+ HP 2 cylinder engines with no failures and little wear. A 4 cycle may last longer but the 2 cycle engine can be rebuilt many times for the cost of one 4 cycle rebuild. The companies producing 4 cycle snowmobiles should be ashamed at the negative, misleading advertising propoganda they are using to lead customers from the ill fated 2 cycle to the latest and greatest 4 cycle designs. These same companies are familliar with the future capabilities of the 2 cycle, as it led them to their present state of success, and now they are closing their eyes to follow the government sugestions. Fortunately europe and asia have implemented the use of direct fuel injection on many 2 cycle designs from 50cc scooters to full size motorcycle engines and can realize the benifits. The most successful fuel injection system in terms of power and reduced emissions is the Orbital low pressure injection of Australia which, incidentally, was developed on and for the 2 cycle Orbital engine. The system is in use on many 4 cycle applications and is superior there also. All new Saabs will be produced with Orbital injection.
The 2 cycle is proven to be a better engine as far initial cost, power to weight ratio, simplicity of operation and cold start dependability as well as other vital areas. The development of the 4 cycle to try to match the superior features of the 2 cycle is an exercise in money wasting and playing catch up, when the previously refined 2 cycle can be used with current injection systems to produce less pollution than the average auto on the highway. Some say noise is a concern but the machines all must meet the same 78 dB noise levels reguardless of engine design.
I may be wrong, but we are developing an inferior technology for government and industry satisfaction and using the power of advertising to shamelessly promote it. The 2 cycle will die in 6 short years, after sharing the spot light since the inception of internal combustion engines. I guess I should not be offended or suprised, after all why should we develop the most appropiate technology, it may look bad politically.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Today we can watch as the same events are being played out in the recreational market with the two stroke cycle engine working its way to oblivion. The 2 stroke offers the highest power to weight ratio of any commerically available IC engine, in theroy and practice. Manufacturers of recreational vehicles have been asked to stop production on 2 cycle engines by the US government by the year 2008. The companies are now expanding production into the 4 stroke cycle engined vehicles and dropping development on the 2 cycle. The 4 cycles claim to fame is reduced pollution and longivity. The 2 cycle engine can be, and is as clean burning as any other engine when current direct fuel injection systems are used and with proper injection oils. With modern materials the high performance 2 cycle is more dependable than the machines demand for long life. 10,000 plus miles is common on modern 2 cycle, 140+ HP 2 cylinder engines with no failures and little wear. A 4 cycle may last longer but the 2 cycle engine can be rebuilt many times for the cost of one 4 cycle rebuild. The companies producing 4 cycle snowmobiles should be ashamed at the negative, misleading advertising propoganda they are using to lead customers from the ill fated 2 cycle to the latest and greatest 4 cycle designs. These same companies are familliar with the future capabilities of the 2 cycle, as it led them to their present state of success, and now they are closing their eyes to follow the government sugestions. Fortunately europe and asia have implemented the use of direct fuel injection on many 2 cycle designs from 50cc scooters to full size motorcycle engines and can realize the benifits. The most successful fuel injection system in terms of power and reduced emissions is the Orbital low pressure injection of Australia which, incidentally, was developed on and for the 2 cycle Orbital engine. The system is in use on many 4 cycle applications and is superior there also. All new Saabs will be produced with Orbital injection.
The 2 cycle is proven to be a better engine as far initial cost, power to weight ratio, simplicity of operation and cold start dependability as well as other vital areas. The development of the 4 cycle to try to match the superior features of the 2 cycle is an exercise in money wasting and playing catch up, when the previously refined 2 cycle can be used with current injection systems to produce less pollution than the average auto on the highway. Some say noise is a concern but the machines all must meet the same 78 dB noise levels reguardless of engine design.
I may be wrong, but we are developing an inferior technology for government and industry satisfaction and using the power of advertising to shamelessly promote it. The 2 cycle will die in 6 short years, after sharing the spot light since the inception of internal combustion engines. I guess I should not be offended or suprised, after all why should we develop the most appropiate technology, it may look bad politically.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Fate of the 2 stroke engine
Posted by: Garry Hunsaker (IP Logged)
Date: March 22, 2002 07:29PM
<HTML>This is a sad matter. I remember when they started putting pollution regulations on motor cycles, Suzuki announced their work showed it would be possible to clean up their emsions to levels well beyond what a four stroker could ever reach. The problem then was Suzuki was a relatively small company and could not afford the basic R&D to reach this goal.
Now, by government mandate further development on these engines will cease. Just what we need more of, mediocracy and conformity by mandate.
Garry</HTML>
Now, by government mandate further development on these engines will cease. Just what we need more of, mediocracy and conformity by mandate.
Garry</HTML>
Re: Fate of the 2 stroke engine
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 23, 2002 03:02AM
<HTML>Peter and Garry,
You are quite right about the two stroke being a really good engine, especially with direct fuel injection and much better control of the oil in the crankcase. Use a blower and forget about crankcase compression.
I recall being told by one engineering professor that for the most frantic output ever, use an opposed piston supercharged two stroke. Fiat did just that back in the mid 1920' and got some 180 HP out of a 1-1/2 liter engine, the formula then for Grand Prix racing. More than anybody. Problem was the exhaust piston couldn't stand the heat, not a problem today.
Now you know why I get so furious about government intrusion into areas they know nothing about.
I often wonder why Detroit and the rest doen't just say NO, to these mandates? Just close the plants for a month and shut off all parts and service and see how many bureaucrats start using bullet proof limos. The EPA and CARB are responsible for this. Like the telephone company, Detroit et al can bring the country to a halt in hours if sufficiently ticked off.
Jim</HTML>
You are quite right about the two stroke being a really good engine, especially with direct fuel injection and much better control of the oil in the crankcase. Use a blower and forget about crankcase compression.
I recall being told by one engineering professor that for the most frantic output ever, use an opposed piston supercharged two stroke. Fiat did just that back in the mid 1920' and got some 180 HP out of a 1-1/2 liter engine, the formula then for Grand Prix racing. More than anybody. Problem was the exhaust piston couldn't stand the heat, not a problem today.
Now you know why I get so furious about government intrusion into areas they know nothing about.
I often wonder why Detroit and the rest doen't just say NO, to these mandates? Just close the plants for a month and shut off all parts and service and see how many bureaucrats start using bullet proof limos. The EPA and CARB are responsible for this. Like the telephone company, Detroit et al can bring the country to a halt in hours if sufficiently ticked off.
Jim</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.