PDA

View Full Version : Amazing engine: no more SBC's in Studebakers?



Scott
04-10-2006, 04:04 PM
I just read about this engine in a NASA publication, but the engine is made by a private company. The specifications are amazing. An 850 cubic inch engine 14" long and weighing 150 lbs! The horsepower rating I'm not sure I understand: either 850 or 3,000. Anyway, here is a link with pictures and more information. If I ever put a different engine in a car for the future, or a futuristic Studebaker hot rod - THIS would be it!

Link: http://www.plug2work.com/angellabsllc/d/mytsp.html

JDP
04-10-2006, 04:46 PM
848 cc's, not cu.in. Still pretty impressive.

Studebaker On The Net http://stude.com
64 R2 4 speed Challenger
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk
63 Daytona Convert.

studegary
04-10-2006, 04:59 PM
[quote]Originally posted by JDP

848 cc's, not cu.in. Still pretty impressive.

[quote]

The site says 848 cubic inches (not cc's) with 850 HP.

Gary L.
1954 Commander Starliner (restomod)
1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)

Scott
04-10-2006, 05:03 PM
No, it says "cu in." or 13.8 liters. It would have been incredible if that much power could be had from 850 CC's!

This is equivalent to a 32 cylinder engine, in terms of number of firings per revolution.

The Nasa article says the a 2.4 liter version would be 4.5 inches long and weigh 35 pounds. I think the HP would be similar or greater than a conventional 2.4 liter engine. I hope this doesn't get buried and ignored by the industry.

Take a look at the other parts of that site. There are comparisons to regular engines, and at least one video.

55pres
04-10-2006, 05:04 PM
quote:Originally posted by studegary

[quote]Originally posted by JDP

848 cc's, not cu.in. Still pretty impressive.

[quote]

The site says 848 cubic inches (not cc's) with 850 HP.

Gary L.
1954 Commander Starliner (restomod)
1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)


yup 13.8 Liters....wow thats large!

1955 President

Location: Central PA
Job: Student @ Penn State
Love of Studebakers?: High

garyash
04-10-2006, 05:30 PM
I watched the video where they fed it 150 psi compressed air to make it run. It can certainly make a good air motor. They don't seem to have demonstrated the ability of the thing to run as an internal combustion engine. Of course, I don't think that I want to stand next to it on a first test run as it winds up.

It's not clear how the thing actually gets lubricated. In that sense, it may be a bit like the old radial aircraft engines, but maybe not. The old radials used lots of oil. It may be able to run with fuel and spark, but will it last 3,000-5,000 hours like a good standard engine or turbine? As their PowerPoint presentation showed, GM spent 10 years and $1 billion to make some gasoline engines just a little bit better. I can see how it might take that long and a good chunk of change to prove enough reliability to sell a few.

At least it's an interesting new approach. I wish them good luck.

Gary Ash
Dartmouth, MA
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
www.studegarage.com

JDP
04-10-2006, 05:39 PM
OK, fair enough, but how do you get 850 cu.ins of displacement in a package smaller that small, or am I missing something ?

Studebaker On The Net http://stude.com
64 R2 4 speed Challenger
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk
63 Daytona Convert.

JDP
04-10-2006, 05:54 PM
A careful reads seems to show that so far they've just built a "air tool", not a running engine. They pumped 150 PSI air into the the thing and measured the output. It's a long way from a running engine, might just be fishing for investors at this point.

Studebaker On The Net http://stude.com
64 R2 4 speed Challenger
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk
63 Daytona Convert.

N8N
04-10-2006, 06:02 PM
Based on the web site (a few misspellings, sketchy info) I would say that you're right, that this thing is still under development. Is it the next rotary? Or just a good idea that won't work out? who knows... but I certainly wouldn't mind having an engine like that to play with. looks like fun.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Scott
04-11-2006, 02:34 PM
According to the Nasa Tech Briefs article, the MYT engine HAS been tested with fuel as well as air on a dynamometer. By the way, this engine has no need for valves, because the position of the pistons allows wide open ports.

This engine has fewer than 25 parts. It kind of justifies what I've felt about internal combustion engines since I was about 7 years old - that if there was ever a choice Rube Goldberg mechanical affair, the typical automobile engine is it.

Scott
04-11-2006, 04:12 PM
This is to answer JDP's question about displacement:

17. Is the Engine at 14" dia by 14" long, really 850 cubic inches of displacement

Yes. A displacement is pi*bore*bore*stroke*firings/4. The Engine's bore=3 inches, stroke = 3.75 inches, and 32 firings in two complete revolutions. The calculations results in 848 cubic inches of displacement.

DEEPNHOCK
04-11-2006, 09:34 PM
You'd have more luck putting it in an Aerocar 2000....
http://www.aerocar.com/



quote:Originally posted by Scott

I just read about this engine in a NASA publication, but the engine is made by a private company. The specifications are amazing. An 850 cubic inch engine 14" long and weighing 150 lbs! The horsepower rating I'm not sure I understand: either 850 or 3,000. Anyway, here is a link with pictures and more information. If I ever put a different engine in a car for the future, or a futuristic Studebaker hot rod - THIS would be it!

Link: http://www.plug2work.com/angellabsllc/d/mytsp.html

Scott
04-12-2006, 09:28 AM
Yes, Deepnhock, it could be put in airplanes, too. I know this isn't strictly Studebaker stuff, but I love to see really new thinking about engines. I'll always love my Studebakers, but I hope we can embrace future technology (especially if it isn't coming from the "big" 3).

Now what would Detroit do if the new Avantis came with an engine like this? I bet they'd mess up their pants.

mbstude
04-12-2006, 05:49 PM
Man oh man, that's one BIG engine! Our 71 Cadillac has the 8.2 liter, which is equivalent to 500 c.i. If ou put it in a Stude, it would have to be in a station wagon, in the back of one that is...
BTW, speaking of station wagons, my uncle, who is starting a 70 Super Bee, just got a 64 Daytona wagon, and is dropping a 440 Chrysler engine into it. It's gonna ba a sight to see once he finishes.

Matthew Burnette, the 16 year old Stude nut. South Georgia Chapter
http://www.stude.com/phpgallery/albums/userpics/0001matthew%7E0.jpghttp://www.stude.com/phpgallery/albums/userpics/avatat.jpghttp://www.stude.com/phpgallery/albums/userpics/basketcase2.jpg
63 Daytona HT (project)
51 Stude dump truck (yes, I won the raffle)
52 Commander Starliner (basket case)

MANY more Studes in the family and a few parts cars
http://community.webshots.com/user/mbstude101
And here: http://community.webshots.com/user/mbstudepagetwo

Scott
04-12-2006, 09:33 PM
I did read somewhere on the site that the inventor decided on 850 Cu. inches because it would produce the horsepower and torque needed for big rigs. His motivation was to ease the suffering of truckers at the hands of inflated oil prices. I'm sure a smaller version would used in regular cars, if it gets that far.