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.
- » See also: EcoBoost: Ford’s Near-term Answer to Lowering Emissions Without Forfeiting Performance
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
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
“Forget about electric cars because it requires us to plug on electric outlets as long as electricity is running.”
You can produce you own electricity Via windmills, solar panels.
@velton:
“Let them eat cake” - Marie Antoinette
that thing looks almost like a cross between a rotary/wankel engine and a aircooled volkswagen engine. it definitely looks real to me, but I don’t see how it could be more fuel efficient than a conventional 4 cylinder engine. it has the same amount of valve train. the only real difference is the cylinder layout, use of a central “rod” for each pair of pistons, and 2 huge triangle crank counterweight cam lobe type things. it definitely looks cool. It would be called an X4 instead of an I4 or inline 4, right? I have no idea how that would fit inside a toyota prius though. I think it would fit inside my ‘68 vw bug
.
@nick
Claims published on manufacturers != claims published elsewhere.
Nevertheless, it sounds like an interesting concept. Wenkel pitched his rotary engine to numerous car manufacturers before Mazda actually moved on it. I think this engine shows promise, though I’m also suspicious of the mileage claims.
Well the claimed efficiency only comes from the reduced engine weight and assuming no car body or something. More on it on the offical site. Smaller/lighter engine == good, but not really a miracle. I personally like to see how stable it is, it would appear to cause far less vibrations than a normal engine would.
Wow, that is pretty radical. Reminds me of the Mazda Rotary engine.
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
The engine looks very badly designed to my engineering-trained eye. Their design appears to have way too much reciprocating weight, requiring incredibly heavy connecting rods, which would really make it very hard for the engine to rev freely.
It looks like it is designed to look complicated and impressive to unknowlegeable investors. There is absolutely no advantage to having so many heavy parts move instead of just using conventional pistons that move inside the engine.
It doesn’t matter that it has been “independently” investigated, which is a common ploy of fly-by-nigth or even fraudulent companies.
Why the language? What is so wrong with somebody trying to get a new idea out there that will revolutionize the automobile industry?
I would love to see this engine actually used in the industry and hopefully be able to put into older cars.
I wonder what you would get if you combine this engine with the Elsbett multifuel engine, primarily with the Elsbett piston heads, what kind of fuel efficiency you would get then?
Ah, the inevitable conspiracy theories….
If the technology was even marginally viable like, say, the Miller-cycle engine or rotary, investors would be over it like flies. In the information age you cannot simply supress information like you could 50 years ago. Perhaps the flaws will be overcome. I certainly hope so. But instead of posting silly conspiracy theories or dismissing the design out of hand, let the engineers and investors play their parts. We’ll see if it’s fluff or substance in the long run.