Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy
Revetec, a little known company from the Gold Coast region of Australia, may be on to something huge: they’ve created an engine that is 50% smaller, 50% lighter, has 50% lower emissions and is cheaper to manufacture than a conventional internal combustion engine of the same horsepower. Oh yeah, did I mention that it doubles the fuel economy too.
What that means is a car like the 2007 Toyota Yaris, which is rated at 40 mpg on the highway, would get 80 mpg with a Revetec engine.
This isn’t some hoax… They have a prototype which has been attached to an actual vehicle and independently tested to substantiate their claims.
In personal communication with Mr. Brad Howell-Smith, the Chairman, Inventor and CAD Designer for Revetec, he says “road tests have estimated that [the engine] uses around 50% less fuel than a conventional engine” and if it were converted to run on diesel, that performance gain could be much higher.
Also, because the engine delivers higher torque, and can perform and operate well at much lower rpm’s than a conventional one, the noise levels are lower.
To illustrate how serious he is, Mr. Howell-Smith said that since 2001 his company has been in touch with the US Military Head of R&D for the Southern Hemisphere on a “regular basis” for the purpose of developing one of their engines for light aircraft.
The current prototype engine, the X4v2, is what Revetec calls a “controlled combustion engine.” The meat of the engine comprises two counter rotating multilobate cams, which are acted upon by two pairs of diametrically opposed pistons which are rigidly interlinked by connecting rods.
If that sounds like complete gibberish to you, you’re not alone. Which is why I included an animation of the process to the left. A more simplified animation of the general motion of an engine of this sort is also included below.
Mr. Howell-Smith said that “if [the engine] uses 50% less fuel given that it has the same top end as a conventional engine, emissions would be reduced by 50% if the bottom end was utilized.”
What does all that stuff about “bottom end” and “top end” mean? The X4v2 has a huge amount of torque over a much larger range of rpm’s than a conventional internal combustion engine.
If a person were to drive a vehicle fitted with this engine in a non-aggressive fashion and keep the rpm’s at the “bottom end” (meaning no “jack-rabbit” starts) they could expect to see a 50% reduction in emissions.
Alternatively, according to Mr. Howell-Smith, a person could see a 30% reduction in fuel use and a 30% reduction in emissions if they used the full acceleration power of the X4v2 all the time. This would provide a 20% increase in acceleration capabilities.
We could debate about whether or not the internal combustion engine has a place in the future of transportation or whether it’s going to be all-electric or fuel cell or whatever… but in the meantime, Revetec has a product that could revolutionize the the transportation industry now, and provide a much needed large reduction in fuel consumption and emissions.
Just imagine a bunch of 80 mpg Toyota Yarises (Yarisi??) running around all over the place. A little scary, I know, but… an 80 mpg conventional automobile? I must be dreaming, wake me up before I get too excited.
Posts Related to Engines and Fuel Economy:
- Turbine Engine: No Pistons, No Lube, 30% Better Fuel Economy
- Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)
- Formula 1 Racing to Go Hybrid from 2009-2013
- Scania’s Ethanol Diesel-Engine, Runs On Biodiesel Too
- How Biodiesel Fuel-Cells Could Power The Future (And Your Car)
- Need a New Car? Nope, Just a New Engine!
- U.S. Fuel Economy Standards Boosted to 31.6 MPG by 2015
Image Credits: Revetec
I was wondering where I’ve heard about this before, then it hit me: http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1500/article.html
This AutoSpeed article shed light on this technology six years ago. Too bad nobody has taken them up on it.
*crank*shaft goober, and there is only 1 *actually*, and then 4 multilobe cams attached to said shaft.
Justin - hydrogen idea doesnt work.
It takes electricity to create hydrogen.
With the amount of electricity to create X amount of hydrogen you get the equivilent of 20-30 MPG at best.
And that electricity comes from powerplants that use fossil fuels.
It would be more efficient to use PHEVs in the future to use that electricity to get about 100-150MPG.
@goober
you’re confusing the pop sci comment with the article, nice one.
****
interesting post, I hope their data and testing holds up and this results in something.
Go buy a Lupo, you will get that 80 mpg today.
ROTARY ENGINES HAVE A HISTORY
The Wankel Rotary Engine, developed in the 1960’s was marketed by Mazda. It never caught on because gas prices got cheap again. All Rotary engines produce greater power and use less fuel than “standard” combustion engines. It is obviously possible to “tweak” a rotary engine to get better mileage.
This particular engine is not “exactly” a rotary, but very similar to it. It’s not a matter of technology folks, it’s a matter of stupid auto-makers….
I have ZERO respect for Detroit. The Detroit manufacturers are over-paid and under-brained idiots. I was raised in Detroit and witnessed Japan taking over the auto industry, resulting in huge unemployment and terrible bust economies. Our family were victims of those economies.
Those miserably stupid imbeciles who ran the auto companies just “retired” on their golden parachutes, leaving Detroit in shambles.
Hear it loud and clear: “DON’T EXPECT ANYTHING FROM DETROIT!”
I have a Prius and a standard Camry, both of which get better mileage than almost any American car, with the exception of a very, very few. I would NEVER purchase an American car…ever.
I hope Detroit rots on the vine. And the last time I was there, it actually had.
sanjosemike
[...] interesting engine 27 06 2008 And fuel efficient. Take a look at it - 50% more efficient. Pretty slick, [...]
I get the concept but I see alot of twisting stress on the connecting rods between the pistons due to the counterrotating crank/cam shafts. It needs some measures to keep the pistons from turning and putting the stress on the connecting rod.
Goober, no one said that the engine in the picture DOESN’T have a camshaft… the engine with no camshaft comment was talking about an engine designed in the 1920s.
[...] emissions would be reduced by 50% if the bottom end was utilized.