BXProject

[Philhod]

Found this from my younger days. A very technically advanced piece of machinery in it's day. but a noisy bastard (and smelly) http://www.sa.hillman.org.au/TS3_files/go_ts3.gif

Basically it's a 3 cylinder 6 piston, 2 stroke diesel. It runs a blower and operates the crank via rocker beams and con rods. One advantage of this set up is, it has no cylinder head.
I always thought these would be developed but they just sort of petered out.
I think this was mainly due to Chrysler getting involved.

http://www.sa.hillman.org.au/TS3_files/cutaway.gif

[mickey taker]

fuck me , is there an echo in here

[mat_the_cat]

Fuck me , is there an echo in here?

Apparently so...

Always struck me as an incredibly neat bit of engineering, and a rather nice sound too. I did see an animation of the pistons in action once, simple but effective.

[Vanny]

if there is an echo, close your legs!

[Philhod]

Now I always fancied developing 2 of these one over the other operating a central crank.
Leyland motors made a 1500cc prototype in the 50's, producing 120bhp.
Now 2 of those together would result in 3 liters producing well over 200 BHP @around 1500 revs. with a top rev limit of 3250 and a blow of about 1 bar. (modern turbo's?)
A decent 6 speed box to go with it and it would be a flyer as it was very compact unit and fairly lightweight.

[Scarecrow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't 2 stroke engines really inefficient and dirty? Not meaning to put a downer on it, but it might explain why it never took off.

[mat_the_cat]

Generally dirty yes, but that's mainly down to burning the oil that's mixed in with the fuel. This design uses a conventional lubricated crankcase, but did away with a cylinder head/valves/camshaft etc. I'm not sure how efficient it was, but I recall it needed the supercharger to make it work acceptably.

[Philhod]

It will work without a blower but it's power oputput is way down and torque even more.
The other bit that Mat only mentioned was that they were conventional diesels, that's why they don't use any additional oil.
It was an efficient engine even with only a low blow of about 1/2 a bar. By increasing the charge. perhaps a change from piston porting, or at least a more modern port design. The higher pressure would speed the exhaust exit but still scavenge any retained exhaust gas.
A twin set up and faster exhaust would suggest a twin turbo set up for more efficiency.
The only drawback is the noise. They were noisy bastards, but modern insulation (floor) should improve that no end.

[mat_the_cat]

Would you be able to effectively turbo a 2 stroke though? I know on bike engines for example, the exhaust is a huge part of the tuning and a turbo would mess that up. Whether this would be the same with a diesel I'm not sure though.

[Philhod]

Well in theory yes, if you increased the charge pressure and improved the porting shape you would speed the gas flow (bigger bang) However the cylinder depression (as the gas exits) would increase therefore the turbo should slow it down slightly (if moved further from the immediate exit) The lead of the piston over the other should still scavenge any uncleared gas during compression......sort of thing

[Way2go]

It presumably failed in the same way as the Wankel engine in that the theory promised more than the practice delivered.

If the engine was economical to both run and produce, then so long as it's parts were accessible and practical to repair there seems no reason why it should not have been adopted at least for top end cars.

The popular uptake of the diesel didn't really start until the Ford Sierra though (noisy thing) and then the Cavalier (need an appointment to overtake), mid '80s but these seemed to then generate an awareness/desire of the extra mpg (and then cheaper pump price) of diesels to those who didn't mind a sluggish car.

[Philhod]

These engines, successfully powered various vehicles from the Rootes Group stable, mainly Commer, in blower form. As I said at the start they were taken over by Chrysler and it was them that pulled the plug, mainly because diesel was and remains anathema to the yanks, although I think all Greyhound buses are similarly powered. Doc may know a lot more about that than me though.

[smiffy]

I have to say, I think the most impressive engine design I've ever seen, has to be the Napier Deltic.

For those who don't know, it's a 2 stroke diesel, tri-angle 18 cylinder, 3 crankshafts, 36 pistons 2 in each cylinder, making about 1650bhp.
For rail use, 2 engines per locomotive giving 3,300bhp per vehicle.
Very highly strung, and ultimately un-reliable.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBTF5Ps4Scs

[Father Ted]

Yeah, but they sound lovely though - better than the Vallencia HST donkey.

[smiffy]

Yeah, but they sound lovely though - better than the Vallencia HST donkey.

Philistine!

Technically it's a more interesting engine, but sound? No, the Paxman Valenta wins every time. Mind you, the MASSIVE turbo it uses, is made by the same Napier company...

[Philhod]

But they wern't used as a means of propulsion though were they?
I thought they just drove a big Jenny
The Deltic is the same design as the one I started this thread with but sort of err...3 off.

[smiffy]

But they wern't used as a means of propulsion though were they?
I thought they just drove a big Jenny

That's how nearly all Diesel powered Locomotives work. I say "nearly" as there were one or two Diesel Hydraulic examples back in the late 50's, early 60's, but they never really caught on.
These are the only Hydraulics I can think of...


Hymek



Western



Warship

[Father Ted]

Lovely.

[Scarecrow]

I like the choo-choo-puff in venetian red and yellow. What a handsome beast.

[Philhod]

Yes it is rather smart. I don't know much about tractive power that's not steam.

How do the drybollocks work then? some sort of g/box??