Suggested New Engine: D.A.R.T.

[KLH]

Since a few threads have been made on improving the ICE by adding a turbo and using diesel fuel, I thought that I'd keep suggesting core ICE improvements. How about moving to a Diesel Atkinson Rotary Technology (D.A.R.T.) ICE engine? After reading 10 minutes on this concept, I'm now an expert. We can achieve these benefits by using DART in our ICE:

 

• High power and torque
• Minimal vibration
• High RPM
• High fuel efficiency
• Low Emissions
• Reduced number of components
• High thermodynamic efficiency
• Multiple Fuel capability
• Very flexible internal geometry
• Noise Reduction

The part that got my attention:

 

 

 

For the same induction capacity, the D.A.R.T. engine would be only half the size/weight of a conventional engine, yet still produce 27% more power together with a 12% increase in efficiency.

 

Sure, we need more efficient batteries, but why not marry those to a more efficient ICE?

Edited October 21, 2013 by KLH

[Eddie Sessum]

How efficent are they once you add a high restrictive DPF?

[KLH]

According to the DART article, the Atkinson rotary engine is so much more efficient that there is significantly reduced diesel particulate. There may not be a need for a filter (DPF) at all.

 

The design is at the proof-of-concept phase, but seems promising as a longer term.

[Eddie Sessum]

The EPA here requires it on all highway diesel vehicles. Just like a catalitic converter. Doesnt matter if the vehicle passes emissions without it. You gotta have it..

[KLH]

I must admit that I'm out of my depth with respect to the issues related to power trains and emissions. Still, I assume that making more efficient engines benefits everyone.

 

The DART engine might be something that propels hybrids to a new level of MPG range. I might be wrong though...

[acdii]

This will be an interesting concept considering the Wankel, which Mazda was the only car to produce a consumer Rotary, and what a badass gas guzzler it was. First thing I saw, not based on the Wankel design, which uses a two chamber combustion stroke, with twin spark plugs. Every revolution is equivalent to a 12 cylinder piston engine, each rotor fired 3 times per rev, and since they had 2 rotors that 6 power strokes per revolution, instead of one for every two in a four stroke.

 

However the thing that killed the Rotary in the RX car was emissions for the first run up to the RX7. They had problems trying to get the tail pipe emissions to meet EPA. They finally figured it out and came out with the RX8, but the poor fuel economy for the power output made it short lived.

 

I used to race RX4 in my younger days, and you have not seen anything until you have a 13B spinning at 20K RPM and have a cup of soda sitting on it and not see a ripple in the surface. The MSD ignition made that possible, along with a gram scale and a very smart machinist who knew exactly how much and where to take off material on a rotor and eccentric to perfectly balance them. It was great, out first gear was higher than most others because we could rev up 3 times as high as they could, and most times we would only be in second gear at the end.

 

We never played with NoX, but we did straight pipe it once, ONCE! It had to have a muffler on it, not so much for back pressure, but to check the big ass tail of fire that came out that straight pipe! I loved working on those engines. I could tear one down on a milk crate in 30 minutes and have it back together in 2 hours, ready to run. The Apex and side seals were a pain, and easy to displace during assembly, and you wont know it until you fire up the engine and have clouds of smoke pour out the exhaust as it sucks up oil or coolant from a misplaced seal. The hardest part is torquing the eccentric nut on the flywheel side, it had to be 300 FtLb, and we didnt have a torque multiplier back then. I have one now, 300 FtLb is nothing to get to now as long as I have leverage. The Pinion nut on the F350 rear differential was 500 FtLb. That was a chore doing it under the truck on my back with 2 feet of swing room.

 

Very interested in this new engine and see its design.

[acdii]

The EPA here requires it on all highway diesel vehicles. Just like a catalitic converter. Doesnt matter if the vehicle passes emissions without it. You gotta have it..

There can always be exemptions to rules provided that certified proof of concept shows that DEF or particulate filters are not needed. After all, PF and DEF are all designed after the engine has been designed and actual emissions have been captured so that they can be engineered to the engine. They aren't one size fits all like some catalytic converters are.

 

BTW, you should see what a CC on a Powerstroke looks like after a high power pull on a tuned 7.3. They glow cherry red and power falls off quickly. Lets just say, that cat didnt stay put.