Is there a 50cc diesel engine out there?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been talking to AlaskaVan about his Wankel engine off a snow blower. Rotary engines are my favorite! So I have been looking for a small one to play with. I was doing a little research and they are starting to make diesel rotary engines. http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/60160/Rotaryengineburnsdiesel.aspx
Others have a variable type rotor that allows it to reach much higher compression ratios than normal rotary engines.
 
Car under 1,000 pounds? Toyota 1/x. What about the Locust? There are locost cars now being built with bike engines under 1,000 pounds that give amazing performance. They run like an ape on fire.

Most sand buggies are under 1,000 pounds. They have brakes, headlights, turn signals, full suspension. My car that I'm putting together weighs 2,200 pounds with driver. That is with a 1969 American V8 push rod cast iron engine. With a Subaru 4 cyc turbo & a transaxle I could shave 400 to 500 pounds off of the weight of my car and still have about the same amount of 'hp'. I don't have a lot of comforts in my car but do you really need them?


I've never put any stock in HP numbers. It is the tq numbers that matter. Case in point, American push rod v8 engines make great tq but not always a lot of hp. A mid 70s Ford 351w engine made about 140 horsepower but made over 300 foot pounds of tq. If you looked at the hp figures you'd call that engine weak but it was far from weak. Hp was a term pushed by the auto magazines to make a car sexier.

VW recently made a car with less than 100 hp but it made over 100 in the tq department. It was a diesel so it also made all that tq low on the rev range. Drivers were often surprised when it came time to pass another car about how strong the engine was.

With today's internet bad news travels fast. If Ford or GM were to cut corners (and they have) we find out about it quickly. People can go elsewhere rather than buy something that is cheap. America found that out in the 80s when Honda came over here in the 80s and put our cars to shame. I think the British found that out when the Lucas wiring system was not up to par.

Money is what drives recalls and nothing else.

Lets say that GM put a faulty part on a car that was already on the market.
GM has two options:

Option 1
recall the car and fix the problem

Option 2
don't recall the car and don't fix the problem

Which option will GM take? The one that will cost the least.

Option 1 will cost a certain amount of money. Option 2 could cost a tremendous amount of money if GM gets sued by lawyers for say a faulty seat belt.

No one has ever sued over a faulty cup holder and hence no recalls over a faulty cup holder.

People have sued over important functions that a car should have and therefore lawyers do drive a company to recall their cars.

If A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. Just not directly.
 
The ford escort in Europe was a fantastic little car that didn't cost a lot.

The same ford escort in America could not get out of it's own way.


You would think that Ford could have saved money by putting the same high perfromance engine in American escorts but they were unable to. Americans constantly have to deal with underpowered cars due to our own govt regs.
 
The ford escort in Europe was a fantastic little car that didn't cost a lot.

The same ford escort in America could not get out of it's own way.


You would think that Ford could have saved money by putting the same high perfromance engine in American escorts but they were unable to. Americans constantly have to deal with underpowered cars due to our own govt regs.

You have never had to drive one ... smoked like the battleship potemkin under full steam and actually flexed when it went round a corner... that was the only car in the family that I was happy to see written off - go mom lol

They fitted a 'lean burn' engine to it - shame they never got the mixture right so they tended to cook themselves - you can hear the things coming a mile off - just listen to the sound of wittering tappets and the valves doing a waltz with the pistons and you'll know its a late model escort/orion... for someone like me who has an ear for things mechanical it sounds like the designer committed mechanical GBH with intent and thats when they are running smoothly. Apparently about the only way to get that motor to run well is rip out all the EFI gubbins and slap 4 motorbike carbs on it - then they fly apparently and oddly dont self destruct half as easily.

In my opinion the worst heaps ever to grace the nations roads... yes even worse than the all-aggro from austin, at least that is naff enough to have character - the Escort is just naff...

Jemma xx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wankel engines have rather poor fuel economy and are hard to clean up, the varying shape of the combustion chamber has a lot to do with that,therefore the Wankel craze has pretty much died,Suzuki built a motorcycle with one,it did not catch on.
As for your your desire to get rid of govt regs. and apparently impose your own,cars have to pass smog/safety requirements,do you want to get rid of those?.I am not at all sure that switching to the complex, expensive European OHC designs was such a great idea,if your cam belt goes,so often goes your engine.The American pushrod V 8/ V6 is a durable costeffective design,with lots of low-end torque,so what if it runs out of breath at 5000 rpm and is a bit on the heavy side.Who needs a vehicle that can do well over a 100mph in this country anyway?Requiring manufacturers to produce all types of vehicles by govt. edict is just silly. Ramp up the gas tax by a couple of $$ and the market is sure respond with a variety of lighter more efficient offerings that people will be happy to buy,be it electric,hybrid,plug-in hybrid,diesel,fuel cell,steam, whatever,but keep safety&environmental regulations.
 
Jemma,

My humble apologies. The Escort was at the bottom of the food chain over here too. It was cheap transportation and that was about it. Slow, heavy for its size, a suspension that would make a 1800s cowboy cry. Behind the Ford Pinto and Chevy Chevette it was the poorest design. However your version was still better than ours. Any TR3, TR6, TR7, Mini, or MG was better than either Escort. Ford sold a bunch though because they were cheap. The best thing about the Escort was that it made a good donor for go-carts and locost cars by Ron Chapman (I think I got that name right).


JJ,

I'm not sold on the poor design part. The engine does like to spin and in a light weight car it could save weight and would be more appropriate. Pound for pound and in stock form it is powerhouse.

If you want safety then it should be optional. Why mandate that everyone should have to pay for it. Safety adds somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,500 to the price of a car. I'm on my 6th car right now. That's a lot of money considering I've only been in two fender benders.

Yes, I would get rid of a BUNCH of govt regulations just to keep it simple and have five simple easy to live with rules.

Environmental stuff on a car........are you kidding me? Do you actually think a lot of smog stuff on a car actually works?
Carbon canister- Found on late model American cars. When the car was brand spanking new the canister would absorb some CO. After 1 day of driving do you think it would absorb any more? Of course not. So why did they put it on the car? They put it on the car because they took their silly little readings when the car was brand new. In the meantime it added weight (weight means more emissions) to the car for the lifetime of the car.
Thermator (sp?)- Found on Ford trucks. It is nothing more than an air pump. It would pump clean air into the exhaust. Think about the utter fool who invented that one. Why would you want to pump clean air into the exhaust? Emissions are tested in parts per billion or million. The air pump just diluted the exhaust. The car put out the same exhaust it just seemed cleaner. A lot of guys over here will put an air pump on their exhaust. They then take their car to the inspection and their 600 hp and 600 foot pounds of torque engine seems to put out the same exhaust as a 500cc Honda motorcycle.

Silly is having a VW rabbit that was fine for European roads being stopped at the USA boarder because the bumper had to be raised an inch.

Silly is thinking that increasing the gas tax will help. The price has tripled as of late if you have not noticed.



Something of a joke in my opinion is the air bag now being installed on motorcycles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You refuse to understand plain English,I did not say the Wankel engine was a bad design per se, but stated that it had inherent pollution problems due to the nature of the combustion process in this type of engine.I owned an RX 7 once,it was a enjoyable car to drive,turbine-like smooth,but it had mediocre fuel economy, a nimble pocket rocket with a small Wankel would be a blast,but the realities of mass production precludes that,regrettably.
As far as safety features are concerned,it's important to realize that you have only limited controll of the situation despite defensive driving, any reckless fool or drunk behind the wheel is a menace to others esp. cyclists.The circumstance, that nothing bad has happened to you yet, means little,after driving (with only minor scrapes) for 50 years,I was broadsided by someone running a light, but thanks to side airbags (optional by the way) and a door beam (required), I am still around to refute your fallacies.
Nobody but a fool would believe that car engines are not much cleaner than 40 years ago,I have driven around LA on a regular basis over the years,the smog is much better now despite a large increase in traffic.By the way, the carbon canister has nothing whatever to do with CO reduction,it stores hydrocarbon fumes from the gas tank and releases them later to be burnt by the engine.It works quite well, but needs to be replaced every five years or so.The thermactor was an obsolete relic of the past.It was a early bandaid in reducing tailpipe emissions before catalytic convertors came along.Has it occurred you that providing extra air could serve to burn the unburnt hydro carbons,instead of merely diluting the exhaust,as you claim.It was moderately effective esp. during engine warm up.If unethical people go about diluting their exhaust by injecting extra air to pass smog tests does that mean we should stop testing ?,no, you throw the book at the malefactors.Bumper height requirements make sense,I would not care to be crunched be a Hummer,too bad trucks were exempted
(the big three lobby pulled that off).VW rabbits were ubiquitous in this country despite those dreadful bumper impediments,they must have adapted,just raise the bumper an inch,no big deal.I am quite aware that gas prices have gone up a lot and surprise!,sales of gas hogs have declined substantially,the "tipping" point may have been reached,when people change their behaviour permanently.One final thing the Escort was not a bad little car it had a durable engine,that did not self destruct when the timing belt went,some lasted over 200k miles.Forget the TR 7,the Pinto was an incendiary device,the Mini was fun and the Ford Fiesta not bad either,it never caught on in the US,just too small, I guess.
Do attempt to get your facts straight before you sound off ,JJ
 
A quote from you

"Wankel engines have rather poor fuel economy and are hard to clean up, the varying shape of the combustion chamber has a lot to do with that,therefore the Wankel craze has pretty much died,Suzuki built a motorcycle with one,it did not catch on."

Now you are saying (wait for your quote)

"it had inherent pollution problems due to the nature of the combustion process in this type of engine"

I would say that you have implied that it is a bad design.

Sound off as you say? You were the one to use "silly" I'm just using your words. Just stating facts.

I have not known one person in my lifetime that replaced the canister. Face it, it was just extra ****.

Another quote from you
"Has it occurred you that providing extra air could serve to burn the unburnt hydro carbons,instead of merely diluting the exhaust"

So you are saying that shoving more air (fresh air at that) into either the headers or tailpipe will serve to burn hydrocarbons?? I always thought that any burn process happened inside the engine?

First you are saying that it serves to burn the unburnt hydros and then you turn around and call it a bandaid........You defend it and then you seem to put down the practice.

The biggest improvement to clean air was removing lead from gas. Not the engine itself. You also equate smog to cars only. Have there not been improvements to the cities themselves?

Sounds like you'd love to live in a country where everything is decided for you. I suppose you could just lock yourself up. It also sounds like you need to use your mind.


I'm glad you came out of your wreck. A lot of people paid extra money to reduce the cost of your airbags so get out there and do some good for the world.
 
Requiring manufacturers to produce all types of vehicles by govt. edict is just silly. Ramp up the gas tax by a couple of $$ and the market is sure respond with a variety of lighter more efficient offerings that people will be happy to buy,be it electric,hybrid,plug-in hybrid,diesel,fuel cell,steam, whatever,but keep safety&environmental regulations.
That is NOT silly. That's prolly one of the best things we can do for the security of this country. People prolly won't realize we're in deep doo doo until gas is $5 or $6 a gallon, and then it's prolly too late to invest in realistic alternative energies; we need to start saving the oil we have and move on to future solutions. I'm all for heavy excise tax on gas, tobacco, & alcohol... and getting the freak outta Iraq!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top