Land Rover's straight six ingenium engine, clean diesel now a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonesfam

I'm going to ask a dumb question which probably should be somewhere else.
Why don't they use electricly driven Turbos/superchargers?
Jonesfam

---

We looked at developing a motor/generator cartridge for a turbo similar to what F1 are doing but when the client came back and revised his target price to $2500 with a qty of 10 we quietly told him to go jump. The main issue was building an affordable stator with sufficient magnetism that didn’t self destruct on overrun and would withstand the conditions found in an engine bay while strapped to an exhaust turbine.

You need a *lot* of power to compress the volumes of air needed for an ICE and while its not in complicated In theory, it kinda is in practice.

I dont see any new technology there...

If you research all the "latest greatest tech" you will find it's been around a lot longer than being used in a Land Rover engine.

BUT I do like a good straight six cylinder engine! bring back the straight six is what I say!

I'm thinking VW had an electric supercharger on it's last version of the 1.4 in it's Golf wagon.

It certainly had both turbocharger and supercharger.

Toyota made an electric supercharger.
The difference between a turbocharger and supercharger is the former utilises energy that would be otherwise wasted. Superchargers are power by the engine (belt, electrically), ero they create parasitic loss. Swings and roundabouts.
Relatively recently, Volvo trucks had a turbocharger dedicated to providing extra power to the flywheel. It was discontinued, being highly complex for marginal gain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonesfam

I'm going to ask a dumb question which probably should be somewhere else.
Why don't they use electricly driven Turbos/superchargers?
Jonesfam

---

No engine guru but hot gases exiting the exhaust is wasted energy that the engine has been unable to make use of. That energy can be further utilised by letting the hot gases expand and cool through a turbine to drive something else, a compressor typically.

So maybe there will always be exhaust driven turbos on modern ICE for efficiency reasons. What they drive in the future is another thing, perhaps could be a generator rather than a compressor with the compressor driven electrically, who knows.

Exhaust turbines driving the propeller shaft were a 'thing' as large aeroplane piston engines fought a last, failing, battle against turbines. The Napier Nomad, perhaps the most ambitious one, featured a 12 cylinder two stroke diesel from memory, with 70% of the power coming from the exhaust turbines. It is also considered by some to be the most complex aeroplane engine ever built (although competitors in this space were the four row radials from the other side of the Atlantic). There were, however, several versions built, with quite different design. None reached the design 6,000hp, and by the time any were ready for testing, it was clear that the future was turbines.

The major theoretical advantage of the layout was that it was effectively a turboprop engine with the combustion chamber replaced by the diesel engine, allowing both a higher combustion temperature (higher thermal efficiency) and a lower turbine inlet temperature (less demanding on blade metallurgy). But at the expense of complexity, size, and mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Exhaust turbines driving the propeller shaft were a 'thing' as large aeroplane piston engines fought a last, failing, battle against turbines. The Napier Nomad, perhaps the most ambitious one, featured a 12 cylinder two stroke diesel from memory, with 70% of the power coming from the exhaust turbines. It is also considered by some to be the most complex aeroplane engine ever built (although competitors in this space were the four row radials from the other side of the Atlantic). There were, however, several versions built, with quite different design. None reached the design 6,000hp, and by the time any were ready for testing, it was clear that the future was turbines.

The major theoretical advantage of the layout was that it was effectively a turboprop engine with the combustion chamber replaced by the diesel engine, allowing both a higher combustion temperature (higher thermal efficiency) and a lower turbine inlet temperature (less demanding on blade metallurgy). But at the expense of complexity, size, and mass.

---

Was that the same company that produced the Napier Deltic, which was used in our Ton class minesweepers?

EDIT. The Deltic (after the Greek letter Delta) diesel was a supercharged, two-stroke, opposed-piston engine with no valves. The engine block was arranged in a triangle of cylinder banks forming the sides. Each apex of the three connected cylinder banks was connected by a crankshaft. The crankshafts were linked by phasing gears, so they could send power to a single output shaft. Built in this three-sided configuration, the Deltic diesel featured six banks of pistons working the three crankshafts.

Significant Engines In History: How The Napier Deltic Diesel Works

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Exhaust turbines driving the propeller shaft were a 'thing' as large aeroplane piston engines fought a last, failing, battle against turbines. The Napier Nomad, perhaps the most ambitious one, featured a 12 cylinder two stroke diesel from memory, with 70% of the power coming from the exhaust turbines. It is also considered by some to be the most complex aeroplane engine ever built (although competitors in this space were the four row radials from the other side of the Atlantic). There were, however, several versions built, with quite different design. None reached the design 6,000hp, and by the time any were ready for testing, it was clear that the future was turbines.

The major theoretical advantage of the layout was that it was effectively a turboprop engine with the combustion chamber replaced by the diesel engine, allowing both a higher combustion temperature (higher thermal efficiency) and a lower turbine inlet temperature (less demanding on blade metallurgy). But at the expense of complexity, size, and mass.

---

The turbo-compound Wrights were another complex horror. The turbochargers drove the crankshaft via shafts and gears and fluid couplings. They must have taken lessons on oil leaks from, Rolls Royce and Land Rover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazzaTD5

I dont see any new technology there...

If you research all the "latest greatest tech" you will find it's been around a lot longer than being used in a Land Rover engine.

BUT I do like a good straight six cylinder engine! bring back the straight six is what I say!

---

Many seem to go on about LR being innovators,but in many cases,its not true.

Dont yell too hard about straight six engines,we might end up with a nice and simple 186 ....[tonguewink]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob10

Was that the same company that produced the Napier Deltic, which was used in our Ton class minesweepers?
....

---

Yes. The Deltics seem to have been quite successful as locomotive engines - I don't know how they went in minesweepers.