The Elio Engine

[Gas-Powered Awesome]

I doubt Mr. Elio approached Nissan as the Elio's 3-cylinder engine has exact opposite goals from Nissan's.

If you were to detune it by making it a 1 liter, 100 horsepower engine, you would have effectively designed a completely new engine. Economy is largely dependent on things attached to the engine, and the laws of physics are not suggestions, so I expect economy would be the same as you get now from any other 1 liter, 100 horsepower engine.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

I happened to come across Nissan's astonishing 1.5 liter 3 cyl. engine, called DIG-T R that promises 400 hp from a block that weighs only 40 kg, and that was also covered in this thread. Did Paul Elio in fact approach them? I wonder what a tuned down version (say back to 1 liter and 100 hp) might mean for economy...

Just because something is detuned, doesn't necessarily make it more efficient. The Elio engine is purpose built for efficiency.

 

[voyager]

Okay, thanx.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

Just because something is detuned, doesn't necessarily make it more efficient. The Elio engine is purpose built for efficiency.

Let me clarify a little more. A deturned engine will most likely be more fuel efficient than its tuned version, but not to the extent of the Elio's engine.

 

[electroken]

I'm not a big fan of the term "detuned" as it implies the engine is diminished in some way.

I have a 2003 Kawasaki Concours, a motorcycle considered a sport-touring bike. The engine is a "detuned" variation of the Ninja 1000 engine of the late 1980s. It makes less peak horsepower than the Ninja, but has a far more useful torque curve. Not diminished, but instead optimized for the intended purpose.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

I'm not a big fan of the term "detuned" as it implies the engine is diminished in some way.

I have a 2003 Kawasaki Concours, a motorcycle considered a sport-touring bike. The engine is a "detuned" variation of the Ninja 1000 engine of the late 1980s. It makes less peak horsepower than the Ninja, but has a far more useful torque curve. Not diminished, but instead optimized for the intended purpose.

A few others examples of tuned engines as well:

LS1 (used in the Corvette, Camaro, CTS-v), guess which one makes the most power and the other 2 are detuned.

The 2.3L I-4 for the Mustang and Focus RS. The Focus RS makes 350hp and 350 lbs ft of torque, the Mustang one, 300 HP. Though, technically speaking, the Mustang had it first and the Focus was tuned further.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

I think the term "detuned" is abused.
It's really a way to say "the same engine block with inexpensive components including heads, crankshaft, camshaft, pistons, etc etc etc"

 

[pistonboy]

Okay, thanx.

It was a nice idea anyway.

 

[BilgeRat]

There's a lot to be said for building an engine to higher horsepower specifications, and then running it at a lower power output. I brought a new, 8000 hp boat out of the builders yard in 1999. Company "philosophy" was to run these two engines at 100%. Reality was that they ran at considerably more than this when the rudder angle passed 25-30 degrees. These engines had catastrophic failures on a regular basis (first major failure at 8,000 hours, and I had to take a cutting torch to the destroyed liner to remove it), had a "mid-overhaul" at 14,000 hours (cylinder heads, piston thrust washers, cams, valve gear) and a major overhaul at 28,000 hours (main and rod bearings, power assemblies, gear trains, turbo, water and oil pumps, etc.). Since 2009, I've been running a boat that operates on the upper end of the Illinois River. We typically run at something less than 75% of full load (most of the time) on 35 year old versions of the same engines. No mid-overhaul, and a time between overhauls of 55,000 hours, and a much less stressful life for the engineer (me!). There's real benefits to be had with even a 15-20% reduction in output as far as engine life goes.

 

[Ty]

There's a lot to be said for building an engine to higher horsepower specifications, and then running it at a lower power output. I brought a new, 8000 hp boat out of the builders yard in 1999. Company "philosophy" was to run these two engines at 100%. Reality was that they ran at considerably more than this when the rudder angle passed 25-30 degrees. These engines had catastrophic failures on a regular basis (first major failure at 8,000 hours, and I had to take a cutting torch to the destroyed liner to remove it), had a "mid-overhaul" at 14,000 hours (cylinder heads, piston thrust washers, cams, valve gear) and a major overhaul at 28,000 hours (main and rod bearings, power assemblies, gear trains, turbo, water and oil pumps, etc.). Since 2009, I've been running a boat that operates on the upper end of the Illinois River. We typically run at something less than 75% of full load (most of the time) on 35 year old versions of the same engines. No mid-overhaul, and a time between overhauls of 55,000 hours, and a much less stressful life for the engineer (me!). There's real benefits to be had with even a 15-20% reduction in output as far as engine life goes.

Cool view on things.

Power, efficiency, longevity. Pick any two. (Yeah, I kind of bastardized the original)