Ilmor announces 700cc five-stroke petrol turbo engine making 130bhp

Add a Comment

Comments (14)

 James2911 James2911
Innovation is always good, and this in particular looks to be one big step.
August 12, 2009 12:51 pm
 Bristol411S3 Bristol411S3
Ooh, one of these in an IGM T25 please!
August 12, 2009 1:14 pm
 sideskraper sideskraper
Hello next smart!
August 12, 2009 1:27 pm
 mathewalanfisher mathewalanfisher
That is one wacky engine. Does anyone know whats going on with that valve arrangement? I understand 4 stroke, whats the 5 strokes in this engine?
August 12, 2009 1:58 pm
 EDavis EDavis
From what I've read, and if I'm interpreting the info properly, two of the engines' cylinders operate in the usual 4-stroke fashion. The exhaust from these 2 cylinders are used to pressurize the 3rd cylinder, the "5th" stroke. I'm pretty certain that no actual combustion takes place within the 3rd cylinder. Also: Since the 3rd cylinder is being "powered" twice as often as the other 2, its camshaft needs to spin twice as fast, hence the smaller pulley. http://www.ilmor.co.uk/news_7.php Let us pray that they stick this thing in a true modern day Mini, not the overweight bloated version that BMW provides for us.
August 12, 2009 3:00 pm
 mathewalanfisher mathewalanfisher
Thanks for the explanation and link. I wonder if the 3rd cylinder counts towards the engine capacity? If it does then those two cylinders are tiny! Just spotted the turbo is running at 3 bar!!
August 13, 2009 7:20 am
 Swifty Swifty
5 strokes??? did they mabe think 2-stroke?
August 12, 2009 2:34 pm
 scratchy996 scratchy996
it's 4 strokes from 2 cylinders +1 stroke from the 3rd cylinder, powered by the exhaust of the other 2.
August 12, 2009 3:14 pm
 HEMI426 HEMI426
Hasn't it 5 valves per cylinder?, so 15 in total? I wunder how long these engines work, old muscle cars with low hp/liter almost can't go wrong, but this has 185hp/litre, the new ferrari 458 italia has 127hp/litre....
August 12, 2009 5:53 pm
 sideskraper sideskraper
......and technology hasn't progressed between the "old muscle cars" and today...
August 12, 2009 6:03 pm
 MutantSushi MutantSushi
looks like potential. is there any impediment to a diesel implementation of this? though i imagine combining this with the ignition-less petrol combustion GM is developing would yield quite the power:displacement/fuel consumption.
August 13, 2009 12:38 am
 EDavis EDavis
Diesel fuel contains more energy than gasoline, so engines running on Diesel must be very sturdily built, i.e. heavy. To add weight would be contrary to what the engineers appear to be striving for with this particular engine...compactness, light weight (I'm guessing), and efficiency.
August 13, 2009 12:57 am
 MutantSushi MutantSushi
of course, the increase in weight should be proportionally on par with current diesels as compared to current gasoline engines... and by the same token should give the same proportionate advantage in fuel consumption (~25%) as heavier diesel engines do in comparison to lighter petrol burners. likewise, power/torque:volume should proportionally match, which doesn't seem to be an issue for diesel engines in cars like Smart with tiny size engine volumes. lighter engine weight for it's own sake hardly seems to be a prime objective (25% better efficiency also means the fuel tank can be sized that much smaller) ...anyhow, it'll be great to see the different forms it turns up in.
August 14, 2009 4:32 am
 hunt5eek hunt5eek
In theory then, this technology cuold be used to create a 1.6L V6 that produces around 300bhp and more than 240 lb-ft of torque - or a 3.2L W12 with 600 bhp and around 480 lb-ft of torque. Nice.
August 14, 2009 11:31 am