You are here: Home / Conventional Cars / Engines / Scuderi Engine Runs Quiet, Improves MPG By 35%

Scuderi Engine Runs Quiet, Improves MPG By 35%

December 7, 2011 by 293 Comments
Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email Reddit Tumblr

Even with the many advancements evident on today’s internal combustion engines…the basic premise is pretty much the same. A four-stroke setup delivers air and fuel , getting one “power” stroke out of every four. It’s not exactly efficient, though there are many ideas on how to improve the process. Scuderi Engines has developed a design utilizing compressed air and a unique four-stroke setup.

Different Strokes

Normally, a four-stroke engine goes through 2 up and 2 down cycles; intake, compression, power, exhaust. Of these four strokes just one, the power stroke, puts any energy to the wheels, and each cylinder is responsible for its own four-stroke cycle.

The Scuderi engine breaks the four stroke cycle up between two cylinders. The cylinders are paired together, with one cylinder handling intake and compression and the second cylinder handling power and exhaust. The Scuderi engine also fires just after top dead center on the power stroke, giving the piston more leverage over the crankshaft.

That isn’t the only fuel-saving feature on this engine though. A compressed air tank can recapture air during braking procedures, and use that air to help propel the vehicle forward much more efficiently. Add on a turbocharger, and Scuderi reports a 35% improvement in fuel consumptiuon, boosting MPG’s by over 50% in tests.

What’s more, this little engine is quiet. Just watch the video below if you don’t believe me.

So just how serious is this engine? Currently 11 automakers 19 automakers have signed non-disclosure agreements while looking ways to implement this technology into their own vehicles. Scuderi has done a computer simulation using as a test vehicle a Nissan Sentra using the EPA MPG measuring system, conducted by an independent lab. There is no working, road-going example of this engine…yet.

But Scuderi conducted another computer simulation measuring its performance compared to Europe’s top fuel economy performers. The simulation estimated that the Scuderi engine could return an average of 65 mpg, compared to 52 mpg that many fuel-frugal Euro cars get (which we assume is on the U.S. testing cycle.)

Some say we’ve reached the peak of ICE engine efficiency, but I would beg to differ. Creative ideas like the Scuderi engine could usher in an age of ultra-efficient engines at a time when gas prices seem destined to climb ever higher.

Source: Scuderi Engines

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Filed Under: Engines, New Technology Tagged With: , , , , , ,
About Christopher DeMorro

Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs. You can follow his slow descent into madness and non-nonsensical ramblings on Twitter @harshcougar.

  • Tim Cleland

    I could see a great advantage in this engine particularly if it allows us to downsize from 4 cylinders to 2 (although it would still have 4 cylinders, it would just have only 2 power cylinders.). Or from 6 to 3. It would be great if the new norm for midsize sedans was 40 mpg.

  • Tim Cleland

    I just watched the video and I understand that it’s totally without a muffler (which is impressive), but it reminded me of the old joke:

    Observer 1: “IT’S WHISPER QUIET!”
    Observer 2: “WHAT?”

  • zack

    At first look I think this would be an awsome platfom for odd numbered cylinder engines! since your compressor volume differs from the combustion volume = less moving parts with out less hp!!!

  • recumbentrider

    Unfortunately, the Scuderi company did not install their engine in a Nissan Sentra, or in any other car for that matter. The claims that Scuderi makes of a ’36% improvement’ in fuel efficiency are only based on a computer simulation of their engine in a 2011 Nissan Sentra, and not on an actual physical test. (One of the articles that discusses this simulation is here: http://www.green.autoblog.com/2011/05/13/scuderi-split-cycle-engine-decreases-2011-nissan-sentras-fuel-c/.) The only Scuderi engine that has ever been built is the proof-of concept prototype pictured in this article, which has only been tested in a lab. As a matter of fact, it has never been tested with a turbocharger or with the ‘air-hybrid’ configuration with the compressed air tank mentioned in this article. (In a press conference at the IAA in Frankfurt early this year, Sal Scuderi of the Scuderi group states this in response to questions at a presentation, which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HxVAA-k2WI). Scuderi’s efficiency claims of their engine with such devices are also only based on computer simulations. To my knowledge, they have not publicly released any efficiency performance figures of their prototype based on the physical testing of this prototype.
    Despite the fact that they have raised about $85 million from investors, the Scuderis have not done any other physical testing of their engine concept beyond their initial proof-of-concept prototype. Until they do, I have trouble taking their claims seriously. Apparently, I am not the only one, as can be seen in this article from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2011/10/11/the-ten-most-controversial-companies-in-green/.

  • Brian

    I agree with Rider 100% in his claims and assessments. The only difference be us is that I was foolish enough to invest in this company. These NDA’s have been signed, in some cases, for years. These claims of improved efficiency are all just in theory. If this author or website wants to thought of as a credible source of information they need to make sure that they do a bit of investigating before they print baloney as fact. The author states the Nissan Studies are more than, “theorycraft.” In fact, it is theorycraft. There is no engine in the Nissan. Instead, it’s schematical data has simply been loaded into a computer at SWRI to better simulate what the results would be if it had the new engine in it. Author Christopher Demorro is wrong when he says there is a real working example of a Nissan out there driving around on the road. The only road this Nissan is driving around on is a road in cyberspace. Oh, and Nissan’s unofficial reaction (as reported by the Wall Street Journal) to the claims regarding the engine’s simulated results thus far? “Whatever.”
    http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/05/18/scuderi-engine-builds-digital-car-that-gets-50-mpg/
    Might be time for Chris to go back to journalism school.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000952005408 Uncle B

    Good, but far too many moving parts for my liking. I saw, once in my time a Detroit Diesel styled two stroke running on pure ethanol, and once warmed up, and pulling hard on a load, water was introduced. Exhaust was very clean, compression ratio astronomic for extreme efficiency and engine weight due to two stroke was half that of a normal 4 stroke engine. Seems to me I saw one up and running at a local tractor pull show and pulling hard and winning its class? lost in my mind and no traces on the net to this day?

  • Andy

    The conclusions and claims in this article could not be more wrong. Another year is about to pass these investors by. Articles like these are not going to help when all they do is foolishly confuse the issue.

  • recumbentrider

    I give Mr. DeMorrow much respect for reading our comments and making corrections to his article. That being said, I still cannot get excited about Scuder’s ‘simulations’. I just cannot get over the fact that after raising $85 million, they have not produced ONE “working, road-going example of this engine”. Are they unable to do this, or unwilling to do this? Right now, we can only guess.

    • http://www.sublimeburnout.com Christopher DeMorro

      @ recumbentrider

      From what I understand, they are working hard towards putting a working example on the road.

      You’ve got to understand that, given the nature of a completely new engine design, you’ve got to hand-make every single piece. Major OEM’s like Ford will spend between $800 million and a BILLION dollars to design a brand new engine from the ground up. $85 million sounds like a lot…but you’re not just building an engine, you’ve got to make sure that everything works, you’ve got to test it and run it for days on a dyno just to make sure that after a few thousand miles it doesn’t fall apart.

      I understand your skepticism, and I’ve already written about many technologies that sound good on paper, but never make it past the idea stage. But something like this will take years, if not decades, to really grab hold.

      • recumbentrider

        Try as I might, I find it impossible to believe that it would cost Scuderi hundreds of millions of dollars to build a few more prototype engines to more fully test and verify their ‘simulations’. Chris, I will respectfully agree we may disagree on this point. It certainly could not have cost them that much to build their first prototype. And Scuderi frequently claims that their engine could use ‘standard’ pistons and other parts similar to ‘conventional’ IC engines, which should make building prototypes less expensive. As a matter of fact, another ‘split-cycle’ engine developer, Lonny Doyle, has offered to build a fully functional Scuderi engine that could be installed in an actual car for $300,000, which sounds very reasonable to me. (Mr. Doyle would have used a 2.3 liter Ford Mustang engine as a basis for this prototype. He said that this engine and parts for this engine are readily available, and he was very confident that he could customize the engine to convert it to the ‘Scuderi cycle’.) I firmly believe that Scuderi should have at least built a second prototype by now. I can see how it would be very expensive for an engine maker to design an engine and associated tooling for mass production. Certainly, it should not cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and test a few prototypes, particularly if the design has been accurately worked out and tested in ‘simulations’.

        • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

          There is a big difference between a “functioning” prototype and a “pre-production” prototype, which requires expensive tooling, facilities, and then (once the first parts are pulled from the tools) intensive government scrutiny before it can be put in a vehicle. Add to that the liability costs, employment, need to purchase land to put this stuff on (now that credit is very difficult to come by, requiring start-ups to have cash in-hand on day 1) and I could easily see a few hundred mil. The big automakers spend BILLIONS on new engine development, so forgive me for saying so, but your guy with the $300K budget might be a brilliant engineer, but I don’t see him pulling off any market revolutions if he can’t see even that far ahead.

          • recumbentrider

            I was not suggesting that Scuderi attempt to build a ‘production’ prototype, nor was Lonny Doyle proposing the building of a ‘production’ prototype, which I agree would be a huge undertaking. I don’t believe Scuderi is anywhere near that stage. Scuderi has built exactly ONE ‘proof-of-concept’ prototype, which basically proves that their engine runs, and little else. They have not, to my knowledge, released any efficiency performance data on this engine. Since then, they have been touting that they have ‘simulated’ their engine with a number of modifications in a number of vehicles and made claims of increased efficiency based on these ‘simulations’. They have not put their engine in an actual car to see how it would perform. They have not even built a ‘bench’ version of their engine with their ‘air-hybrid’ concept, or with a turbocharger. All of their claims of efficiency are based on computer simulations, and not on physical tests, either on the road or in a lab. With $85 million, I believe they should have done more physical testing by now. I just find it incredible that they expect the world to believe their claims without physical proof. And they certainly don’t need to build a ‘production’ engine to provide this proof.

  • Brian

    I don’t know why my above post was so filled with typos. It didn’t look like that before it was edited. Now it reads like the corrected article. Anyway, I give the auther much credit for the corrections in his article. Go to the company website for this engine and try to post something on one of its air hybrid blogs and you won’t get the same freedom of discussion offered here. Oh, unless your post is entirely positive. Otherwise you’ll never see it. I used to wonder why such a controversial product with so many investors and so much interest had so few comments within the blogs in its own site. That changed when I tried to post a critical question. Go ahead, give it a try. Also, Rider – what happened to the Greentech site?

    • http://www.sublimeburnout.com Christopher DeMorro

      @ Brian

      The facts are the facts, and there is no excuse for me getting them wrong. Scuderi also reached out and asked that I make some corrections to the piece. I should have done a better job in the first place writing the article.

      As far as comments and conversations go, I’ve always believed that a healthy dose of skepticism for any future technology is usually the way to go. Censoring comments is counter-productive to real conversations and discussions. All I ask is that we keep it clean and semi-respectful (I deserved to be called out in this case, and I don’t mind admitting my mistakes…I make a lot of them…)

      • Brian

        @Chris.
        You’re right. I was a little over the top in my initial post and I’m sorry if I offended you. But just watch, if this blog is well managed, it’ll take off and there will be some serious passion on both sides of this issue. Rider and I, although we do not know each other, are acquainted through another site that had easily 1500 posts before it slowed, and eventually crashed. Again, I am an investor. I have watched this for years. Lonny Doyle, as Rider says, offered to build the engine. He is somewhat a pioneer himself and has received quite an interest in his own engine design. It is frustrating for me because this company makes soooooo many claims and leads us, as investors, to believe a signing with an oem is always right around the corner. For YEARS! I appreciate your interest in this topic, but when I read your article, it reminds me of all the other non-substantive articles on this topic. If there’s anyone out there that fashions themselves as a serious writer or jounralist, I’m begging you…do some homework and find out why this company, with so many claims of technological breakthrough, muzzles its “independent” lab, repeatedly fails to sign anyone, and cannot bring this “game changing” engine to market. As a follower for years, I’m telling you there’s a story here. I feel it in my bones.

        • http://www.sublimeburnout.com Christopher DeMorro

          @ Brian

          No offense taken, I learned early on that a thick skin is something of a job requirement in this biz.

          As far as the story on Scuderi goes, one could argue it is just the same story as any number of amazing innovations; always in development, never ready for prime time.

          I think that, if any of the 19′s OEM’s that have supposedly signed NDA’s with Scuderi see any merit in this design, we’ll see it implemented in the next 10 years as fuel economy standards shoot skyward.

          That said, I’ll ask some questions, see if I can’t get some answers.

    • recumbentrider

      Brian,

      I believe the discussion on the Greentech article was simply overloaded, and may now be down permanently. It was nice while it lasted!

  • T Adkins

    It does make me wonder, if any of what they are working on pans out, could any of these ideas be adapted to the Revetec X4v2 engine or any of the Revetec engines to make them even more efficient than they are.
    http://gas2.org/2008/06/26/low-cost-gas-engine-innovation-doubles-fuel-economy/#comments

    -T

  • Mike

    Aside from nailing down the combustion process, I would be more concerned if they were not using simulations. If these guys were building prototypes to test all operating cycles, conditions, using air tanks, etc. that would be terribly slow and capital intensive. I can tell you for sure as an automotive engineer that if my group was designing this we would be using a lot of simulations. I’m not saying I believe all of Scuderi’s claims, but complaining about simulations when they’re already generating data from a prototype is crazy talk.

    • recumbentrider

      Mike, I am certainly NOT complaining about Scuderi using simulations. I am a mechanical engineer myself, and I am well aware both from my own experience and from others how valuable simulations can be in engineering, especially in the design of something as complex as an IC engine. But at some point, simulations need to be verified by physical testing. This is what the Scuderis have failed to do. They tout their ‘simulations’ as if they were actual physical engine tests, which they are absolutely not.
      The heading of this article says that the Scuderi engine ‘Improves MPG By 35%’. All I am saying to Scuderi is ‘Prove it’. And by ‘prove it’, I do not mean run another computer simulation. I mean build something that works and can be tested by a truly independent lab. Certainly, this is something that needs to be done before anyone will even consider putting this engine into production.

  • logic101

    recumbentrider…says ” I just find it incredible that they expect the world to believe their claims without physical proof” . They are not expecting the “world” to believe their claims. The only people that matter are the OEMs/engineeers/management who will be purchasing this technology. Certainly they don’t need to convice the world, no less any posters on internent blogs and forums. Do you really think for a minute that they are publishing all the advances to this technology? This stuff says in-house… board of directors and engineers do not give out their trade secrects. What company in the world would be giving the general public their technology advances/strategic plans to the news organizations? ….. Think about it….

    • recumbentrider

      Logic, you are certainly correct that Scuderi does not have to convince me of their claims, and I agree with you that the only people they really have to convince are the OEM’s and engine manufacturers that they expect to sell their design to. It looks to me like Scuderi has failed to do this. Over the last decade, Scuderi has approached just about every OEM and engine manufacturer in the world, and no one has yet licensed this technology. I suspect that they hold Scuderi to at least as high a standard of proof as I do. I also believe that if Scuderi came to them with actual physical proof of the alleged efficiency of the Scuderi engine instead of a pile of ‘simulations’, someone would have been working with Scuderi to get their engine into production by now.
      If you are correct in saying that Scuderi ‘does not expect the world to believe their claims’, I would agree that this is something the Scuderis have apparently achieved, at least with a large portion of the world, anyways.

  • Brian

    It will be interesting to see what the Company representatives tell Chris as he begins to poke an prod. I bet they’ll say they hope to have a signing by July with an ipo by the end of 2012. I bet they’ll say that at least one or two oem’s have asked for more tests before they sign and are just waiting for the results of those tests. If I were a betting man, I’d bet that if a carmaker could see a real car flying around the streets with this engine, it would be more compelling that to see it on Cyberstreet, USA. If I was submitting submission after submission to the automotive “world” and no one was buying my jive, I guess I’d build the engine and put my money where my mouth is. But that’s just me.

  • Brian

    Sorry, I meant “simulation after simulation” above, not submission after submission. Also, folks, take it from me, there has been very little communication from the company and investment managers. No more “amway” meetings as they were described by another poster on the Green Tech Site. No more free hats, free appetizers, hats, or open bar. Boy, I miss those days. All great news, all the time.

  • mok

    Brian, I am in the same boat as you and can understand your skepticism and impatience after hearing what we’ve been hearing. However, I have a little different take on this. First off, they should stop telling people a signing is imminent as they have no way of knowing what an engine manufacturer is going to do until they actually do it. I sympathize with the Scuderis in that they are being pressured for infomation all the time and sometimes their gut feelings do the talking instead of the facts. How long does it actually take to bring something like this to market? Nobody knows since nobody ever has! So patience will be tested and that’s that.

    Second, to the naysayers regarding the amount of money raised. It is exactly that – raised, not spent. It says nowhere that Scuderi has spent that much on the development but they have secured hundreds of patents around the world and have hundreds more filed. That takes money too, you know. I respect that they are working hard as a company to protect this technology as there is not one single engine manufacturer out there who wouldn’t “steal” this technology if they could, even just to test it. You must protect your tech first. This is not a cell phone people.

    Lastly, they are not engine makers and are trying to sell a technology. They are better off thoroughly testing the tech and then letting engine manufacturers build and test it themselves. The engine makers are the professionals in building engines, not the Scuderis. They have a reputable lab that helped to work out the bugs, built the test model and are testing it. Let the 19 interested makers invest in what they see and build it themselves. We simply want the royalties for the idea and therefore only need to completely test the tech using all the same devices and processes the manufacturers use, up until actual building.

    I, for one, am really enjoying the ride and the fact the this tech is still being tested and talked about and not dead after 9 years is reassuring that there is something here.

    • Brian

      Mok, I don’t know if you followed my posts at the Greentech site, but just in case you haven’t, I can tell you this: I’m not new at pre-ipo investing – done it several times. I catalogued some of them in the previous site and based on what I’ve learned, I do not like what I’m seeing and hearing. In the past, when I have not liked what I was seeing and hearing, I eventually lost all my money. We have been lied to, misled, or whatever you want to call it. When a company takes your money, tells you they expect a signing in a certain quarter with an IPO by a certain date and it does not happen repeatedly, that’s not “speaking from your gut”, that’s saying whatever it takes to keep you on the hook and writing checks. Don’t be so quick do dismiss their words because they are calculated and informed. You know what we were told. This year ends in two weeks. Also, I’m not speaking for you or putting words in your mouth, but this company has become almost a religion for some people. Some people talk about the greater good and how, even if they do lose all their money, it will have been spent furthering a technology that will make the world a cleaner, greener place. Well let me tell ya something…the only news EVER released about this technology is from their company itself. SWRI is paid by the company and muzzled. There is not a single independent verification of any of their claims. That’s bizarre! And Unusual! Every article is like the one above…a little snippit from a press release here, a little snippit there, and before you know it, an article appears. Just because they say something over and over and over again doesn’t make it all true. And as far as our money? They said at the last investors meeting that their burn rate is approximately 1 to 1.5 Million per month. That adds up fast. All I want is the truth.

    • recumbentrider

      “We simply want the royalties for the idea and therefore only need to completely test the tech using all the same devices and processes the manufacturers use, up until actual building.”
      Only in the mind of the Scuderis (and apparently a lot of Scuderi investors) does ‘testing’ involve nothing more than running computer programs. Heaven forbid that they actually try to build a second prototype to test if their simulations are actually true!
      Chris DeMorrow made an interesting comment a while ago when he said that ‘it will take years, if not decades, for something like this to take hold.” If this is true, it points out a critical flaw in the Scuderi business model: In about 10 years, some of their patents will expire. (For example, the first US patent listed on their site was filed in 2001, and will expire in 2021.) If it takes ‘decades’ to bring an engine like this into production, most or all of their patents will be expired by that time, and you can’t collect ‘royalties’ from expired patents.

      • motor man 51

        You guys never let up! Yes this is probably one hell of a Boiler Room Operation if it is never proven. They have plenty of money to prove it but they cannot prove it because it is based on bad science. As I commented before there is no true gains displayed that could not be aquired by simpler means. And that is if they exsist at all. Also, as fo the reference to GM’s interest in the concept; well hardy, har, har, har! In case you have not noticed their stock is now about half of what it was less than a year ago. This is obviously because nobody pus any stock in what GM does or even thinks.

  • Paulstonian

    I know someone who has firsthand knowledge that the Scuderi family and close relatives are all driving around in expensive cars and are living in very big houses in Western Massachusetts. Investment brokers who know the company and get calls from clients wishing to invest in the company tell their clients to stay the hell away from investing in the company.

    So, let the buyer beware.

    • jack

      Expensive cars? A jeep wrangler and Jeep Commander, couple of high end cars right there.

  • Uncle B

    Doesn’t Ford have an even better scheme for 4 cylinder engines and ready for production in their Chinese factories, to be sold to the vast Pan Eurasian market place and the U.S.A., very soon, in a smaller compact car? I’m sure I read it here!
    Still nobody can tell me about my 2 stroke Detroit Diesel styled Ethanol burner? Sure I saw them on the net, know damned well I saw one at an Ontario tractor pull, once warmed up, switched to diluted Ethanol, got same or better power ! Saw a 4 stroke diesel do the same – smoked black as coal on straight fuel – gave great white plumes on water injection and huge power increase! Twenty years ago, but I still remember! Anyone else ever hear of this stuff?

  • Motor Man 51

    You guys have had a really interesting dialog over this engine, but have completely missed the mark on many points. I speak from experience on This type of matter, having proposed alternative engines to industry and government. So let me factually point out that the bean counters of industry rule here an the gov. paper shuflers are just a public scam as they preform their fraudulent functions. I have been told by those who rule that the auto industry i based on designed attrition because it yeilds the best profits. Similarly, increased fuel ecconomy arrouses te ire of the oiul industry. is all a big scam! Therefore the only way change can be broughtr about is by public demand! Public demand can ultimately rule but sadly they just don’t careenugh to effect any real change.

    • brian

      Very interesting!

  • Motor Man 51

    Interesting comments but largely inaccurate. Speaking from experience I know that the market is what the manufacturer and oil company bean counters want it to be. In theory the consumer is king but they are easily decieved and or are simply lacking in interest enough to make their influence count. This is to say that there are btter engines avalible but the public is not evn allowed to know of their exsistance because of the dramatic downturn they would cause in corp. profits. — The Scuseri unit is probably not one these engines however. No one even commented on this proposed tech. I would like to comment here by noting that the Scuderi unit does not reduc friction or inertia at all. I’m not sold on the concept either, but if it does actually show the claimed improvements, it readily occures that a Rootes type blower could be utilized to cretae the same effects and this would allow an even greter advantage. All and all, from what I haveread the original unit appears to have been highly successful in its intended mission though. Finally, the cost of prototyping is in reality only a small fraction of what the public is lead to believe. Under the present tax laws it behoves the manufactures to exzagerate costs I mentioned I am highly experienced in such matters and therefore this is an entirely factual statement. You will be hearing a great deal more from me in the future and you will be shocked and awed! “Sink the Bismarck was the battle cry that shook the Seven Seas!”

  • Paul B.

    Recumbenrider, Brian,
    Both of you have been putting in a lot of time and effort in bashing the Scuderi Group. I’ve have seen the same postings by you two in many other articles. Maybe if you spoke more about the potential of this technology rather than what it can’t do the readers would enjoy it more. You failed to mention about General Motors press release about the great interest they have in the split cycle configeration with potential of 50% better efficiencies and they intent on making a “major thrust” in advancing this technolgy.

    • recumbentrider

      It is up to Scuderi to prove the so-called ‘potential’ of this engine, not me. So far, with the $85 million they have raised, they have built one ‘proof-of-concept’ prototype, and ran some simulations claiming that their engine is something-percent-more-efficient than other engines, and can make a SIMULATED Nissan Sentra get so-and-so miles per gallon. When they actually build another engine, and when a TRULY independent test lab tests it and announces that it does indeed meet Scuderi’s claims, I would be more than happy to eat my words. (I also find it significant that Scuderi ‘investors’ [I almost want to say 'pumpers'] call these kind of statements calling for proof ‘bashing’.)
      As far as the GM comments go, it is interesting that another split-cycle engine developer, Oded Tour, also refers to them (see http://www2.kenes.com/watec2011/company/Documents/Tour%20Engine.pdf). Until a split-cycle engine is built, tested, and proved to be 50% (or whatever) more efficient than ‘standard’ engines, I do not believe these claims carry much weight.

    • Brian

      You’re right Paul. I give up. I have focused enough resources on this topic. I’ll be watching from a distance, but moving on to better things. My last 1000 units are riding the wave.

  • PAUL

    Recumbentrider,
    Most OEM’s are fine with simulation results, they use them all the time when developing new components and technologies, it’s the most cost effcient way to engineer new products. SWR is working on many projects requested by various OEM’s. If this technology had no potential why is there so much overwhelming interest?

    • recumbentrider

      Paul, you are forever saying that the OEM’s are ‘fine’ with simulation results, and that there is ‘overwhelming interest’ in the Scuderi engine, yet the fact remains that although over the last decade, Scuderi has approached (to my knowledge) EVERY MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE AND ENGINE OEM ON EARTH AND NONE OF THEM HAVE LICENSED ANYTHING FROM SCUDERI. If they are so ‘overwhelmed’ by this technology, why haven’t any of them bought it yet? None of them have even entered into a development agreement with Scuderi to see if there is anything to this engine, never mind a full production licensing agreement. I suspect that they OEMs are probably more capable of running simulations than the Scuderis, particularly since the (currently living) Scuderis have little knowledge about building and designing engines, and have to ‘rent’ that talent and ability from those who do. I suspect that the OEMs are more skeptical of Scuderi’s claims than I am, particularly since the Scuderi group seems unwilling to do any more physical testing of their engine designs beyond their single ‘proof-of-concept’ prototype.
      I guess you and I have a completely different idea of what it means to be ‘overwhelmed’.

  • Brian

    Paul, I spoke too soon. One of the groups got an investor update and a friend of mine got it to me this morning. I just read it. At the end, they say they are no longer going to be so loose with confidential information, and as they move toward IPO, less info will be forthcoming, even though they don’t have to give out less info at this point. Translation: “we’ve told grossly inaccurate things to insiders like Paul who have chugged down our kool-aid. But we didn’t expect those insiders to post our misrememberances on the Internet and now we’ve been exposed.”. I’ sure there will be spin, but the bottom line is they’re going to tell investors even less. I’ve said it before, and I say it again. This is so strange that you can’t make it up! This is the most disorganized march toward ipo I’ve ever seen. You mocked me in January when I said their claims of a signing in 2011 would not happen. They lied to you Paul. All your crap about 2011 being the big year, was just that….insider BS. Please tell us how great 2012 will be!

  • JakeTJ

    The idea seems noble, but after $80 million in fundraising (mostly, it seems, from individuals) years of computer simulations, years of NDAs and no licenses, and years of “wait ’til next year,” you really have to wonder about this outfit. Talk about chutzpah. Based on the lack of information, one can only surmise that the continual and repeated delays in a working prototype that would actually power a moving vehicle are due to some sort of flaw or shortcoming in the design that has so far been unresolvable. I hope they are successful because fuel efficiency is a good thing for everybody – but I wouldn’t invest my own money in this “concept.”

  • PAUL

    Brian, Recumbentrider,
    The debate continues as does the developement of the Scuderi Split Cycle engine ? Your opinions sound ligitimate to those unfamilar with the Scuderi Group LLC and the split cycle engine technology, however soon the answer will present itself. At that time, I would hope you both put as much effrort in endorsing the Scuderi Technology as you have in bashing it in the past.
    Thank you in advance

    • recumbentrider

      I am still amazed that you consider it ‘bashing’ when I or someone else asks for proof of the claims of Scuderi’s ‘technology’. For my part, I will continue to call things as I see them. If. for example, someone were to build a Scuderi engine and had it tested at a truly independent lab, and if it proved to meet Scuderi’s claims, I would be only too glad to acknowledge such an event. However, you will forgive me if I don’t hold my breath for this to happen. Scuderi has had the time and money to do this for years, yet they have not.

      You’re welcome.

  • PAUL

    Recumbentrider,
    Whatever your hidden agenda might be, the Scuderi Group and SWR are not concerned with making you a believer,
    that will come in due time. Their only concern is to continue to show the many interested OEM’s the progress and potential of their split cycle engine technology, answer their questions and move closer to a business partnership.
    Now you may have a set time frame and costs involved to build a split cycle engine that fires after top dead center, including the miller cycle and air hybrid feature, however the OEM’s understand what’s involved, which is why they have continued to show alot interest in this new technology.

    • recumbentrider

      Certainly Scuderi has no concern whatsoever to make me a ‘true believer’. Their problem is that they have failed to make any of the OEMs ‘true believers’ as well. The OEMs know much more about this technology than you or I, and none of them have bought into it. Since it is the OEMs that would be putting in actual money into this, they must be far more critical and skeptical than I. Also, you keep claiming that the OEMs ‘continued to show a lot of interest in this technology’. For this, we only have your word and that of the Scuderis. Until someone is willing to put their money where you and the Scuderi’s mouth is, your statements claiming ‘a lot of interest’ in this engine are just a lot of hot air.
      I would be truly delighted if Scuderi did indeed build an engine that did everything they said their engine could do. If they did this, I would be glad to be an enthusiastic Scuderi supporter. However, regarding your statement about the ‘Miller cycle’ and the ‘air hybrid’ feature, Scuderi seems to have no intention to build even a bench-test prototype of their engine with these features, despite having far more than enough money to do so. A highly-capable engine builder, Lonny Doyle, even offered to do this for them at a cost of only $300,000. (This is about one-third of one-percent of the $85 million that Scuderi has raised.) They seem to be content with just running ‘simulations’, and not actually demonstrating to anyone (OEMs included) that the ‘simulations’ are true. In light of this, I am amazed that anyone takes Scuderi seriously.
      I have no hidden agenda. I just feel the need to say what I think, and to respond to what I feel are misleading statements. I am grateful that you are interested enough in what I have to say to respond to my comments.

  • PAUL

    Recumbentrider,
    I’m sure there are thousands of articles on new engine technologies which you can also have a negative opinion on, however you choose to put alot of time and effort into this technology. You can call it what you want but it really appears that you have a hidden agenda in knocking down the Scuderi Group based on your opinion with out any true or accurate information at your disposal. Once the Scuderi Group closes it’s first deal which should be in the near future you will have nothing else negative to print.

    • recumbentrider

      Paul, what makes Scuderi stand out to me is that for all of the $85 million that they raised, Scuderi has shown an extreme lack of progress that I find very unique among all of the other ‘new technology’ engine companies. All of the other ‘new’ engine companies (Ecomotors, Achates Power, Tour Engine, et. al.) are actively working on refining and physically testing their engine technologies, and are progressing beyond initial ‘proof-of-concept’ prototypes. For example, Oded Tour is now working on a second prototype of this split-cycle engine, and he has far less resources than the Scuderi company. Ecomotors has built and tested multiple prototypes of their engine. Achates Power (which I believe has raised about the same amount of money as Scuderi) has physically dynamometer-tested their opposed-piston diesel design, with results of 20 percent greater efficiency than current state-of-the-art diesel engines (http://www.torquenews.com/119/achates-power-opposed-piston-engine-more-fuel-efficient-four-stroke-diesels). I am not invested in any of these companies, as I consider this type of investing far riskier than anything I can afford. However, I applaud their efforts to truly advance internal-combustion technology. All the time these companies have been working on their engines, all we get from Scuderi are more ‘simulations’, which has frankly caused me to question their sincerity. All it looks like Scuderi has done, at least to me, is separate tens of millions of dollars from well-meaning ‘investors’.
      If you still choose to believe that I have a ‘hidden agenda’, I can do nothing about that. My only reasons for discussing Scuderi is to dispel misinformation (as you can see from my earlier posts about this article), and because I find this discussion interesting and entertaining.

  • paul

    Recumbentrider,
    When the Scuderi Group lands their first signing or in your case lets pretend they obtain a licensing agreement on just simulations, what would your next posting look like then? Would you believe it? Would you acknowledge it?
    Would you praise the Scuderi Group? Would you admitt you were wrong? Would you disappear in shame?
    Now thats interesting and entertaining!

    • recumbentrider

      Paul, as I have said MANY times, the way the Scuderi group would impress me would be if they actually built an engine capable of powering a car (which their proof-of-concept prototype cannot, at least as far as I know) that was proven by an independent party to meet the Scuderi’s claim of efficiency. I would be happy to praise them if they did this. (Frankly, if they had accepted Lonny Doyle’s excellent offer to build such a prototype, my opinion of Scuderi would have drastically changed. I don’t know if it would have changed 180 degrees, but it would have been at least 120 degrees.) Nothing else you are talking about means anything to me, including your talk of ‘signings’, which you have been predicting for many months (if not years), and which somehow have never happened.
      I would hope that you can agree that a ‘proof-of-performance’ prototype would have to be built and fully tested before this engine would have a prayer of going into production, and earn any royalties for the Scuderi company. I would have thought that investors would be more concerned than I (a non-investor) that such a prototype be built as soon as possible. It would give Scuderi credibility in the industry (which I believe they lack), and it would greatly encourage the ‘signings’ you have been predicting over, and over, and over again.
      (BTW, I hope that you have found this reply ‘interesting and entertaining’.)

      • motor man51

        Well Well, Well, You guys certainly like to carry on about this boiler room operation! It has no chance at all but those behind it will eventually move on and laugh all the way to the bank. The vidio reveals nothing but a lot of valve clatter, probably because of far oo many moving parts in the valve system. Additionaly, the feeder cyl. is smaller than the drive cyl., therefore volumetric efficiency could never reach 100%. Further, ignition takes place( according to the animation) WHILE THE INTAKE VALVE IS STILL OPEN! Given these flaws that compeomise efficiency it is a wonder this contrption even runs. It is my consider opinion that if indeed it does run, there are far too many parts to make it a viable alternative. But if you hqave an inside vested interest it probably is the greatest thing since pockets!

    • Brian

      Paul, why do you insist that rider admit he is wrong? In fact, you and I are the only ones here who have been shown to be wrong. We invested in a product that we were led to believe would be in a car by the end of 2012. He’ll, how many times have you yourself given end dates for when they’d sign or ipo? I agree with you on one thing, though. That is, that the oems are showing lots of interest. But where you believe this interest is heading towards a contract, I believe they are walking away as skeptics who will continue to do their due diligence in every corner of the engineering world. I realize I was wrong. The fervor of their meetings and EXACT quotes claiming, “Largest IPO in years” hooked me ( and you). Me and all my friends who were there heard it. Those exact words were said by the guy that came from Germany with Lutz. Remember the applause he got? I ask you: 1. When was that supposed to happen? 2. Do you think it was said just to get a few more checks written? 3. What’s in store for 2012. My answers are: 1. Already. 2. Yes. 3. Nothing. What say you?

  • joe

    Scuderi seems to not want to build a engine(which is a costly and capital intensive business) but rather license their design to OEMs
    For those who insist on proof via Scuderi building an engine I don’t think it will happen. That isn’t how they have structured their business from what I can tell. Seems like they just want to profit off of their design and usage of their design by auto/engine makers.
    Why it is taking them so long to get an automaker/engine producer to sign on is puzzling but also not surprising as they tend to move at a turtles pace. Whether it be Scuderi or other designs it would be nice to see an automaker sack up and test out newer technologies other than full on electric which seems problematic.

  • recumbentrider

    Lonny Doyle offered to build a fully-functional Scuderi engine for $300,000. This is about one-third of one-percent of the $85 million that Scuderi has raised. For a company with this kind of money, this hardly seems ‘costly and capital intensive’ enough to make much of a dent in their cash flow. I suspect if they went to other engine builders, the cost would not be much more. I think there are other reasons that Scuderi is unwilling to proceed with a second ‘proof-of-performance’ prototype; perhaps, for example, they fear the prototype would prove their simulations were wrong, or (as other posters have suggested) that there are defects in this design that the simulations have ‘glossed over’.

  • Brian

    Happy New Year, all.

  • Paul

    The increased OEM interest from the generator and auto industries is a good indicator that there is something here that the critics are incapable of understanding. Only time will tell whether this technology will ever make it into production however I am extremely confident it will happen. It’s funny how the critics always have an underlying purpose for their opinions although they comment with out the proper knowledge, experience or information on what is really going on..

    • recumbentrider

      And its funny how the Scuderi-pumpers like Paul say things like ‘the critics always have an underlying purpose for their opinions’ when he has absolutely no basis whatsoever for such statements. And it is also funny that these same pumpers refer to those of us who seek physical proof of Scuderi’s claims as ‘critics’.
      Until I see some evidence that Scuderi is proceeding with more physical testing to verify their ‘simulations’, they will continue to look to me like they are just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of would-be-investors. As I look at other message boards discussing this engine, I can see that many have the same views about Scuderi as I. All of this talk of ‘increased OEM interest’ seems like more hot air, particularly when it comes from someone who has been consistently wrong with other ‘predictions’.

  • Paul

    Recumbentrider,
    There is no reason for anyone to pump up the Scuderi Group as they have plenty of money to complete their business plan and have no intention of raising any additional financing before the IPO. However It’s a little strange to see you posting the same old story whenever possible without having any real facts or details about the engine technology or the Scuderi Group. That’s fine! If it makes you happy, however it’s really getting borrrrrrrrrring.

    • recumbentrider

      I believe it is possible that some of you are pumping this company is because you believe you will (someday) be able to dump your ‘stock investment’ in this company on others for profit, that is if Scuderi were to ever get to an IPO. (How a company that has NEVER HAD ANY REVENUE [never mind profits!] since it has existed for ten years can go to IPO is beyond me, but I know this is the rumor among some of you.) And you have been posting your same old story FAR longer that I have been posting mine. If you find my posts ‘boring’, feel free to ignore them. As far as ‘facts about this company’ go, despite raising $85 million:
      They have only built one ‘proof-of-concept’ prototype of their engine, and they have not publicly released any efficiency performance data on this prototype.
      They have only ‘computer-simulated’ but have not physically tested their ‘air hybrid’ or ‘Miller-cycle’ concepts.
      They have only ‘simulated’ the performance of their engine in various car, but have not actually installed a real Scuderi engine in a real car.
      In the last ten years, they have approached virtually every major automotive OEM and engine manufacturer on earth, and none of them has licensed their technology.
      In all of its years of existence, Scuderi has not earned any profits, or even revenue.

      I believe everything I said above are actual facts about the Scuderi company. Which of them are untrue?

  • Paul

    Recumbentrider,
    If the Scuderi Group obtains licensing for it’s technology and goes public, selling their shares would be the last thing they would consider. The royalities are based on owning shares not selling them and the future growth for this company would be tremendous. All it takes is one licensing agreement and the Scuderi Group will be an instant success. Sounds pretty doable to me!

    • recumbentrider

      For the Scuderi group to earn income from royalties, someone will need to license their design and put it into production. On this at least, I think we can agree. Before anyone puts a Scuderi engine design into production, they will have to build and test fully-functional prototypes that actually run real cars. I would hope that we could agree on this as well. If someone were to build these prototypes, and if they achieved the efficiency results that Scuderi’s simulations forecast, then the Scuderis as well as Scuderi investors would most likely be rich. (And they would have my full congratulations, for whatever that is worth.) However, if after building these prototypes, and if the prototypes proved to be no better (or possibly worse) in efficiency than engines currently in production, then the Scuderi engine would not go into production and Scuderi company would be worthless. This is the only path I can see to success for the Scuderi company and its investors, and it is far from ‘instant’. I think it is unfortunate that Scuderi has not even started this development work by building at least one ‘proof-of-performance’ prototype (and I DO NOT MEAN a production prototype) to prove their efficiency claims, even though they have the money to do this. I think this inaction speaks to their credibility in this industry.

  • Paul

    Recumbentrider,
    You have lost credibility when you made the statement, “I think this inaction speaks to their credibility in this industry” when several experienced engineers have mentioned simulations was in fact the best way to develope this new technology with limited resources (some of these comments are on this website). Also, how would you know anything about the industries opinion on this technology? What is your design engineering experience of new technologies? Or maybe you have been in touch with the many OEM’s in the industry? Still sounds like a personal vendetta to me???

  • recumbentrider

    Paul, if what I am saying sounds like some sort of ‘personal vendetta’ to you, that is your opinion and I can do nothing about that.

    As I have said MANY times in other discussions, I firmly agree that simulations are indeed an excellent (and necessary) way to develop a technology like a new internal combustion engine design. However, there comes a time in a design process when you need to move beyond simulations and start testing your designs and concepts the real world, and verify if your simulations are true. (Perhaps a more colloquial version of this statement would be ‘sh!t or get off the pot;’.) I believe this is the opinion of other ‘experienced engineers’ besides myself. I also believe that Scuderi has moved beyond this point, and that they should have started trying to verify their simulations with physical tests, and that their unwillingness and/or inability to do so (despite having raised $85 million) has eroded their credibility in the engine industry. I am not in touch with any OEMs. However, I do know that after ten years, none of them have purchased Scuderi’s technology. I also think this is because they do not believe Scuderi. Also, as I noted before, the ‘experienced engineers’ of the Tour Engine company, Achates Power, and Ecomotors are all actively working (to various degrees) on physically verifying their simulations. How far these companies will get is anyone’s guess, but at least they are actually actively trying to develop their engines.

    Do you at least agree that someone will need to physically verify that Scuderi’s simulation are true before this engine reaches production?

  • Paul

    Absolutely!

    • recumbentrider

      Finally, we have some common ground. And despite everything I have said, no matter what happens to the Scuderi company, I do hope someone does build and test a ‘real’ Scuderi engine some day, and powers a car with it. Perhaps we can agree on that as well. And if it really were to work better than current IC engines (which I will admit I am skeptical of), we can all celebrate.

  • paul

    Recumbentrider,
    It will be interesting to see how things turn out, your points are well taken.

  • http://simonsays.schoolheart.com marc

    suderi engine is the best, you all know the rest, good nite all, and to all goodnite

    • recumbentrider

      This remains to be proven. I think we all hope that someday we will see whether or not this is true.

    • motor man 51

      Not so fast, I’ve clearly stated that your hart throb is simply bad science and there has been vindication to that accusation thussfar! I’ve watched all this banter, but no where did you show any thue evidence of any noteable accomplishment with this engine. At this point I can only assume that, given the money involved, A prototye was actually bilt and it fell on it’s face. Given that basic concluesion it only follows that there will be games that are played on avoid the obvious legal ramifacations! If you were so technically niave as to get sucked in by this BS, then tough apples to you! Please don’t try to bring others i to a hopeless situation.

  • Paul

    motor man,
    Since your an engine expert, maybe you can explain why the Scuderi technology/split cycle engine is bad science?
    Several OEM’s have been researching the potentials of this configuration, GM actually endorsing its potential at the Dept. of Energy consortium. They must of did some research on this technology to come to this conclusion. If it was “bad science” wouldn’t they just walk away from it? In the past the split cycle engines have not been as efficient as the Otto engine design however they seem to solve many of the problems of the past.

    • motor man 51

      Paul, As In have said before, if anything your engine increases both fricio and no. of components. Additionally, the simulation shows ignion to take place with the intake valve still open. This could only mean a very low copressio ratio. It is my considered opion that the three ways of increasing the efficiency of the gasoline engine lie in: 1. Increasing the compression ratio. 2. Improving the homonisagation of the fuel air mixture. 3. Reducing internal friction. Your enginje does none of these. It does however, attract investors looking for easy money, so it can’t be all bad because somebody made out along the way. Similar to this is ytour note about GM. GM is a joke, and has been for many, many years. If, indeed they vare showing interest in this tech. it is eirther because they are a bunch of fuck’in idiots or because the bean counters decided that pursiut of the tech. would allow for a very slect group to profit from exsessive overchargin for research that goes nowhere. The Feds love this sort of BS because it makes their BS jobs appear important. I have 35+ years in dealing with this type of matter, so be ashured I know what’s what here. Sincerely, hope you didn’t invest too much in this dead end!

  • Brian

    Paul,
    Why don’t you respond to my questions? Perhaps you’re beginning to think I’m right? The last time I was wrong was when I sunk money into this “investment.” Month after month, quarter after quarter, year after year since…I’ve been right. You’re the only one here who has been repeatedly wrong. Your last few postings show a little glitch in your armor, though. I sense you’re becomming unsure.

  • paul

    Motor man,
    Unfortunitely your “opinion” is based on limited or lack of information, the Scuderi Group would never disclose their technology secrets publically, that is for OEM’s who signed NDA’s only.
    Brian,
    I’m as confident and optimistic as ever, the only thing you did wrong was selling your 1000 units due to impatience.

  • Brian

    Still have 1000. Sold the rest. Ecomotors now has two oem’s signed, Navistar and Generac. They have a great, “year in review” posted on their website. They continue to release data. They have major venture capital. Our team has gone silent….silent I remind you, while living off our contributions. Generac and Navistar are big, reputable companies…leaders in their respective markets. I wonder why they didn’t go with the simulated engine? Hmmmmmmm?

  • Brian

    Oh, I forgot. Three oem’s. Zhongding signed as well. Chinese cars may be Ecomotors powered by years end.

  • paul

    Brian,
    It sounds like you should sell your 1000 units and invest in those Chinese cars.

  • popfinger

    Paul, save your cyber breath. You and I both know what is forth coming for the Scuderi`s. The Scuderi`s don`t owe any explanations to ANYONE! Especially these guys who constantly bash them on this forum. Recumbent will eventually eat his words and vanish into shameful obscurity and Brian is going to wish he never gave up those 1000 units. And Motor Mouth, will also be put in his place. These guys really need a life! They say that people follow this like some sort of cult, they should really take a good long look at themselves.

    • recumbentrider

      Well, I don’t feel I have anything to feel ‘shameful’ about. And despite having one of my posts published in Forbes magazine, I think I am already in obscurity. And just what words of mine do you think I will be eating?

      As far as having a life goes, I do have one and I am quite happy with it. As far as being in ‘some sort of cult’ goes, to me it looks like many Scuderi investors were the ones that ‘drank the Kool-Aid’, and not I. (I am basing this conclusion on what many Scuderi investors have been posting on this and on other boards.)

    • Brian

      Really popfinger, please tell me what’s in store. I’m dying to hear about who will sign and when. But no matter what you say, the fact is…you really know nothing, do you. We were all led to believe, several times in fact, that a signing was right around the corner. I’d be a millionaire if I had a nickel for everytime Paul predicted a signing. And he has billed himself as a self professed insider. Are you going to profess the same? What do you know that the rest of us don’t? Have you signed a NDA? Or are you guessing? Those of us who are honest with ourselves know the truth. You might base your belief in faith, or maybe a hunch. Faith should be saved for your God, and if you invested on a hunch, that’s laughable. I invested based on what the company and it’s managers told me. They haven’t delivered. Not even close…. and well over half the raise is gone. When we get our K-1′s this year, you’ll see…it’ll be shocking when you see what’s left of your investment. Unless you don’t mind being taken for a fool, you should be at least mildly concerned at this point.

  • paul

    Recumbentrider,
    I had a few Kool-Aid stands in my childhood days and have always made a great return on my investment.
    I don’t think Scuderi investors are delusional, they are just standing behind the Scuderi Group’s management team, SWR and the technology itself 100%. Most of us would never even post if it wasn’t for the constant negative “opinions” from those who have limited facts and details. However it’s all good, lets see what happens
    and I will try not to rub it in if this technology someday gets into production. Hey you never Know!
    Have a good day!

    • recumbentrider

      Paul, I do not think this engine will ever go into production, but if it does, I would be more than happy to congratulate the Scuderi group and all of its investors. Like I have been saying, I would just like to see an truly independent lab (or any independent entity, for that matter) build and test a ‘real’ Scuderi engine to see if Scuderi’s simulations are indeed true. We at least agreed that this had to happen before this engine went into production. And for the record, I thought I was done with this discussion until I got called out – again.

      Peace out, Paul.

  • paul

    Recumbentrider,
    Discussion over, your points are well taken, if I ever said anything to offend you it was only in jest.
    Have a nice day!

  • recumbentrider

    Thanks, Paul, and likewise. We obviously disagree on many things about Scuderi, but I believe you are a good man, and I have no complaints about anything you said to me. I would say the same thing about most others I have had these discussions with as well.

  • Brian

    Paul, who has limited facts? I have to believe my information on this company is better than even yours. I don’t think I’ve ever posted anything that has been proven wrong. But, many of the kool-aid drinkers have made some rather dubious predictions about what would happen when. Go back and look, like I do periodically, and see who really has been right and wrong on this topic. I can tell you’re worried. I see it in your posts. It’s ok to admit they’ve failed you, ya know. You can’t move forward till you admit the truth and face the facts. Maybe then, the company will tell us what the hell happened to all our money.

  • paul

    Brian,
    Your opinion is irrelevant, all your anti-Scuderi comments are irrelevant, nobody cares what you have to say. Though my time forcasts have come and gone, this has not detered my beliefs in anyway, and my faith has never waivered. Since you evidently are a very disgruntle “minimal” investor, why are you still holding those 1000 units. Maybe you should sell them so you can sleep better at night or is it possible something inside of you still believes this is going to happen? I know it is!

  • Popfinger

    Brian, when you investedin Scuderi, no one twisted your arm.You made a consciense, rational decision upon the information you read on this technology, and you obviously felt it was compelling enough to invest.You also were told as well as I that nothing is a sure thing. So with that being said, and the Scuderi`s being where they are at this point in time, a few misplaced dates to me are not that big of a deal. Alot of strategies have changed as far as new patents and innovations (eg. Scuderi-miller effect). And they do want to include these in their licensing agreements which will make it all the better for all investors. I personally know individuals that are friends and family with the Scuderi`s. And believe me they have no intention of “screwing” anyone. Give them a break. All good things come to those who wait!

  • Brian

    Pop, you’re right. I did make a conscious decision, but it was based on what the company alleged would happen, not only to me, but everyone! When they told me Q1 signing with a Q2 or three ipo, they got my cash. When they said Q3 signing with a Q4 ipo, they got others cash. God knows what they told you and Paul, but they got your cash. I can’t help but ask again, “what will it take for you to realize you’re losing all your money.”. It doesn’t come back, you know. Do you have the slightest investment knowledge at all? At this point there are scenarios which are more likely to take place than a signing. They’re burning cash! Here’s a quiz for you. Do you think another raise would be good or bad? If a major venture capital backer entered the game would that be good or bad? Answer: both would be bad because they would significantly dilute your investment. Better option than bankruptcy, but a very bad development. How come I have a feeling that you and Paul would ignore reality and sing the company song no matter what it is…spinning reality beyond what a rational person could expect to believe. Undeniable fact alert: I’ve been right. You and Paul have been very, very wrong. No signing in 2012. No ipo in 2012. Take it to the bank.

  • Popfinger

    Brian, Paul and I were not told anything different than you were. All I can tell you is that this type of investment is alot different to what you have been used to. We are also talking about a tremendous amount of money that OEM`s are going to be forking over. Sometimes certain time frames can be misjudged. I feel that based on the way things were moving along, that the Scuderi`s felt they were close, and possibly did not anticipate other unknown obstacles. As you know there is a period of time when things have to be kept on the QT. So all I can say is you came this far, try and bear with them a little longer.

  • paul

    Brian,
    Is there anything positive you can say about the Scuderi Technology? The split cycle engine technology has become a very interesting concept to many OEM’s. If you can agree there is some OEM interest in this technology, why not the Scuderi?

    • guy smiley

      I’ve read through the above. Interesting take on both sides. I personally feel that despite not happening by certain dates, the ball is still rolling….I am an investor in the technology. I was aware of all of the above before i invested, but still felt good about things. I invested right before the closing. I of course could be wrong, but I hope that is not the case. Good luck to all in your investment choices.

  • Brian

    Paul and Pop,
    1st – pop, the quiet period is regulated by the SEC prior to ipo. We are not in it yet. When you post things like that, it shows how clueless you really are in how this process works. As far as what I was told…I was told we’d have a signing by now with an ipo on the way. Call it a failure, misjudgment of time, or however you want to spin it. The fact is that it was a calculated lie to get more money from suckers like us.
    2nd – Paul, what can I say good about this company? It was an interesting concept. Unfortunately, it is dying a certain death like beta, VHS, floppy discs, and the carburetor. The oem’s, I’m sure, were curious about the tech, but they never really took it as seriously as this company wanted us to believe. Meanwhile, Ecomotors and Navistar have announced that they’re just a couple months away from having a real (not simulated) truck running with the OPOC motor.
    http://www.truckinginfo.com/equipment/news-detail.asp?news_id=75780&news_category_id=70
    Admit it Paul, it’s over. All the lies they told you which you so eagerly spread on the Green Tech site and elsewhere were just that. Lies. Another month is gone Paul. Join me in demanding answers from you friends.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    you guys willing to sell your shares? let me know please. thank you…

    • Brian

      Dan,
      For me, it would depend on the price. I have already sold 2500, and am down to my last 1000. I am interested in seeing this years K-1 before I make a decision because of the obvious tax implications and/or benefits of losing it all vs selling at loss. I did have some other luck with investments and may be looking to offset those gains. What would you be willing to offer for the last 1000 units?

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    1.60 per share

  • Brian

    Dan,
    Thank you for the offer. It is definately a fair one but I’ll have to pass. I, unfortunately got in at 5.60 and was lucky to get out of my other units at that price. I do believe you have an accurate, maybe even slightly generous, price point. I’m still waiting on my k-1 for this year. Anyone get theirs yet? Must be pretty ugly, I’d imagine.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    happy super bowl everyone. go jints! anybody have any info? it sure is quiet out there. if their was a time to put a great new engine on the market this is surely the best moment. the scuderi engine is the best greentech right now for a company to buy and use in their auto’s not to mention the marine, military, power co’s to explore and benefit from. wish all investments come to pass for everyone involved with scuderi. stay strong…

    • recumbentrider

      Well, it is certainly the best ‘simulated’ green-tech out there. Until Scuderi proves the efficiency of the engine with (at the very least) a second prototype, I don’t see it being used in any auto’s, not to mention ‘the marine, military, and power co’s.’ Ecomotors and Achates seem to be making real progress with their engines. Scuderi doesn’t seem to be doing any engineering at all.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    get lost cucumber..

    • recumbentrider

      I am glad you still find my posts interesting enough to respond, dan. However, you must forgive me if I do not feel obliged to take your advice to ‘get lost’, as I can see no reason to do so.

      • recumbentrider

        By the way, wasn’t there supposed to be a Wartsila signing in January, or something like that? I guess it didn’t happen.

  • LF

    So do you think this thing will ever go IPO and when.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    cucumber!

    • Brian

      LOL Dan, But Rider is absolutely right. Sometimes I read his posts and wish I weighed viewpoints like his more than I did before I jumped in.
      LF…I really doubt an IPO is in our future. Everything has gone completely silent. Even Paul, who is usually the enthusiastic purveyor of all things positive (if not crazy), has gone silent. Yet another month has passed with no news of a signing or a real car with a real engine. I wish I was wrong LF. I wish Paul was right. I don’t enjoy being a gloom and doom guy, but in the face of crazy claims, someone has to point out reality.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    whats the old saying? no news is good news… well their it is. dont take the silence to heart everybody. its easy to become a naysayer when you have no interest to begin with. just wait and see. let things come together. im sure about the future for the scuderi engine. hey lets get those positive people back to this board. its been to long. let cucumber swing. stay with it scuderi people you will make money, you will be happy, and you will be driving with a scuderi engine under your hood soon. stay strong and keep the faith…

    • recumbentrider

      And here I thought that this thread was dead. Thanks for bringing it back to life, dan. I look forward to actively participating in this discussion again, particularly since I have not posted in any other Scuderi discussions lately.

      As far as anyone ‘driving with a scuderi engine under your hood soon’, I have trouble seeing how that is going to happen. Scuderi seems to have no interest whatsoever in actually putting a prototype engine in a car, and I don’t think anyone else does either. Scuderi seems content to try to mislead the world that their computer-simulations of their engine are actual ‘tests’. It seems to have worked in the case of one ‘journalist’, but I am not sure if it will work with anyone else. (Except most current Scuderi investors, of course.)

      Since they seem to have such a great ‘simulated’ engine, perhaps Scuderi could try licensing their design to computer gaming companies. There may not ever be a ‘real’ car with a Scuderi engine, but maybe you can ‘drive’ a Scuderi powered car in the game ‘Grand Theft Auto’, for instance.

      Peace out.

  • Brian

    Dan, I have heard the term, “No news is good news.”. How funny it is that you chose it because it sums up the extent of denial many of the investors here have come to epitomize. For you, having no news allows you to believe that bad developments are unlikely and you can continue to live in a sad little fantasy. I looked up the origin of your little idiom tonight. It came from King James I of England, who in 1616 famously said, “No news is better than evil news.”. I don’t know how anyone can invest money in a company, believe in all the falsities they claim, and then actively ignore reality, while cheering the fact that there is a complete lack of communication. Strange bunch, this group.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    then how bout you sell me your 1000 units brian. then you can stop spending time commenting altogether. wouldn’t that make you feel better. what im saying is put up then shutup. you and cucumber can naysay someplace else. the offer still stands. have fun!

    • recumbentrider

      Brian, whether you sell your stock or not, there is no reason for you to leave. It is one of the many delusions of some of the more foolish Scuderi investors that they feel that they have ‘ownership’ of these discussions, and try to tell this or that person to go ‘naysay someplace else’. I don’t think anyone should leave these discussions, unless it is their own choosing. There is room for everyone in these threads, and I say the more different viewpoints the merrier and more interesting these discussions are.

      I am still very interested to see more physical testing of the split-cycle engine concept. It is a shame that the Scuderis have no such interest. It will be interesting to see if their view ever changes.

  • LF

    ok ok I hear what you are saying…maybe it the calm before the storm. I have to believe……….its time to make some money. Instead if all the joking is there anyone out there that can give me some insight about the IPO? they say it is coming soon.

    • Brian

      LF, who is they? I wish it were true but I really can’t imagine it.
      Dan, what does put up then shut up even mean? Again, your offer was very fair in my opinion, but too low for me to bite. How about YOU put up OR shut up and give me $15 per share? That’s what put up or shut up means. It’s like, ” put you money where your mouth is.”. Put up – then shut up – seems to suggest I’m supposed to back up my words with a financial committment and then shut up after I do it. You crack me up, Dan. You really have no clue, do you? As Bugs Bunny would say, “A real ultra-maroon.”
      I miss Paul. Even though he was wrong virtually 100 percent of the time, I still miss the crazy yarns he’d spin.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    stop crying brian. you seem so ultra negitive on scuderi that i thought you wanted out so you could be on your way. thats all. if you take it to heart im afraid your on the same downward slope as cucumber. suffer anyway you want then.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    whatever brian. stop crying. I offer you a way out and you complain? shit or get off the pot. you and cucumber sail under the naysayer flag.

    • recumbentrider

      It is better to sail under a ‘naysayer flag’ (or as I like to call it, a ‘realist flag’) than in an imaginary, simulated Scuderi boat that doesn’t hold water.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    well ok then cucumber as you like. just sail away. cucumber!

    • recumbentrider

      It will take more than a troll to chase me away.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    hi cucumber glad your name calling. it shows your inbreeding. well then this troll is on a roll. cucumber!!!!

    • recumbentrider

      I am glad you are so interested in my posts, and now want me to stay. I am also glad you acknowledged that you agreed with my assessment of you, which (of course) means that I am not ‘name-calling’.

      It is too bad the money you put into Scuderi is gone. You sound frustrated about it. Perhaps this is why you have wanted me to ‘leave’. But why be mad at me? I wasn’t the one who stole your money.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    stay strong scuderi engine. get ready to buy american. buy a scuderi engine.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    everyone knows why they call you a cucumber. Im just trolling along singing the scuderi song. come on everyone join in. scuderi scuderi we’re so merry. cucumber!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • recumbentrider

      Well, certainly the Scuderis must be merrily singing. Thanks to Scuderi investors, the Scuderis are very rich, no matter what happens with the Scuderi engine.

      • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

        For now, you may be right – but if they don’t produce an engine, there will likely be audits and lawsuits.

    • Brian

      Holy crap! Dan has lost it! Name calling, multiple use of pointless idioms, accusations of familial incest…what’s next? I have not laughed this much in a long time. Attention all Scuderi investors: Behold Dan – your spokesman, for it is he who represents you to the masses. His shrewd, intelligent, well thought out posts, are a direct reflection on the silent majority. Personally, I don’t think Rider did anything which rose to the level, even remotely, which justified such incendiary comments and insults. To be clear, I hope my last 1000 units make me rich. Sounds crazy doesn’t it. That’s because it is.

      • recumbentrider

        I think your assessment is very intelligent and insightful, Brian. I look forward to hearing from you and others, and keeping this discussion going. It will be interesting to see how this story plays out. Mr. Borras’ comment above yours is also interesting, although I am personally unsure Scuderi investors will have any legal recourse if this ‘investment’ does not pan out. I suspect that the Scuderis have been very careful to protect themselves through all of this.

        • Brian

          Rider. Jo is probably right. Not being an investor, you don’t have access to the occasional investor updates that come out. In addition to those, some investment club managers have come out with some pretty specific predictions. I hate to say it, but it may be the one thing that gives me hope about this panning out. They’ve exposed themselves to such an incredible degree that you almost have to think they’d be fools to say the things they did if this doesn’t go public. The words they have used to drum up operating capital could someday be strong evidence against some of them. I’m no cherry when it comes to life or investing and they snagged me hook, line, and sinker with an ipo and product that may never exist.

          • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

            Well said, Brian. This isn’t some private VC con – or, if it is, they seem to be doing a lot of “the right things” too keep people “off the scent”.

          • recumbentrider

            Obviously, Brian, you have a view of things on the ‘inside’ of this that I will never have. My only sources of information are public news items about Scuderi, and postings from other Scuderi investors on message threads such as this. Obviously, Scuderi has been very careful in what they have communicated through public news outlets. I do not believe that I have ever heard them say exactly when they will get their first ‘signing’, or when their company would have its IPO. I have only seen one ‘insider’ document, which was from the president of several Scuderi investment clubs. Even in that letter, much was (perhaps strongly) implied, but I found no specific statements in that letter about when someone would sign, or when a Scuderi would have their IPO. Some time after that, I also saw some information that was purportedly from another Scuderi investement group leader, but even that was permeated with such non-committal phrases such as ‘things are going well’, or that a signing with so-and-so would happen ‘probably January’. In the (very) few communications of this type that I have seen, the words are very carefully selected to imply that great riches are at hand, but they just stop short of saying when (and even if) all these Great Things are going to happen.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    thats not crazy only u r.. whats the what cucumber? swat any scuderi flies lately? looks as if your trolling net scooped up. brian. he’s swallowed your bullshit hook line and sinker. here’s to you naysayers out there. cucumber!!!!!!!!!!!1

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    attention scuderi investors. cucumber and brain contend that legal action is at hand! more naysay negitive nonsence. just keep your units folks cause they have worth. not like the dribble you have read from cucumber. the scuderi engine will be on the market at some point so stay together and strong. cucumber!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  • Brian

    This has taken a turn for the bizarre. Dan might be certifiable.

    • recumbentrider

      From what I am seeing, I think more Scuderi investors are starting to see the writing on the wall. At least those that can read and spell, that is.

      • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

        Right, because all these millionaires invest money on a whim and don’t have any due diligence considerations, consultants, etc. … but you’ve got a funny feeling in your toe, so they’re stupid? You have your billion-dollar fortune earned with proper investing in “real” technology to back this assertion, right? I mean, I get that it’s an attack ad hominem, but recumbent riders are always weird bitter dudes in their 50s or weird geeky dudes in their 20s, and (in either case) they don’t seem to be investment/engineering super-brains (in my experience). Granted, I’m just some douchebag with a blog, but I like to think that the people making cabinets know how to make cabinets, and the people making investments know how to make investments.

        • recumbentrider

          Jo, I am not sure where all you are saying is coming from, but I am not ‘bitter’ at all. I have a very happy, comfortable and peaceful life, for which I am extremely grateful for. And I certainly agree that the people who make cabinets know how to make cabinets, and that investors such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates know how to make investments (far better than I do, for that matter). However, I do not believe that any such investors have invested in the Scuderi group. I know for a fact that some of the Scuderi investors have more money than I do, but I also think that a lot of them do not.

          My main belief about Scuderi is that for the $85 million they have raised from (mostly small, I believe) investors, they should have built and tested more than one ‘proof-of-concept’ prototype. They have yet to build even a second prototype to test if their (many) simulations of their engine are true. To me, this is highly inconsistent behavior for a company that claims to be in the business of designing engines. I have trouble seeing how this belief makes me a ‘weird bitter dude’. (Although for the record, I will plead guilty for being a somewhat ‘weird geeky dude’.)

          Also for the record, I am sure you are far more than ‘some douchebag with a blog’.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    cucumber!!!!!!! so u r a weird geeky dude as you say. although you left out the part of a geek with nothing better to do than to rag on the people who made investments in scuderi. so let us finish the profile. you are nothing more than uninformed cucumber who has nothing better to do than to spend his time making fun of people. stay strong naysayer your day will come. scuderi is a winner and your just a cucumber geek….. cucumber!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

      I think “cucumber!!!!!!!” would sting more if you used proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. That’s just my two cents, though. You keep on keepin’ on over there in 13-year-old text land.

  • Brian

    Rider, Jo, Dan, Paul (If you still exist),
    FOR A MOMENT, LET’S ALLOW OURSELVES TO CONSIDER A SUCCESSFUL OEM SIGNING….EVEN IF THIS DOES GO IPO…Another consideration I have that worries me is that the shares have become diluted. Although most of us bought in at $5.60 per unit, many early investors got in at $1.60. Those who got in at $1.60 have already seen their shares split at least once. If they raised $85Million and we went with the higher $5.60 figure per unit, that’s still over 15Million outstanding shares, not counting splits and shares the family will keep for themselves. Assuming the family will keep at least a controlling interest of shares if they ever IPO, we would need an initial valauation in excess of one billion dollars for our investment to be really worth it, considering how long some of us have tied up our money. One Billion Dollar IPO’s are pretty uncommon. Anyone have any thoughts on that? Again, in the light most favorable to the investor…

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    thanks joei….

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    thanks joei. cucumber would like that.

  • Allen

    Hello Brian and Recumber long time no chat. I seem to remember a European analyst stating that if , and its a big if, the scuderi engine were to infiltrate 10% of just the automotive market the royalties expected would be in the 5 billion range annually. Not sure how that would relate to the IPO, but an interesting fact none the less.

    • recumbentrider

      You are right, Allen, that is a big if. If Scuderi can physically prove their engine works as well as this article describes, even I would have to admit they would have a shot at a fraction of the world automotive engine market. However, to do this, either Scuderi or someone else will have to start building and testing Scuderi engines, either in cars or on dynamometers. Until this happens, I don’t think they have a chance at penetrating any market.

  • Brian

    Five Billion would certainly be huge. That would put the value of the company in the hundreds of billions. Interesting…

    • recumbentrider

      Brian, I believe that ’5 billion’ figure is from this article from a year ago, which I believe you are familiar with:
      http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/transportation-equipment-mfg/15518987-1.html

      I thought that it was one of the more interesting Scuderi articles that I have seen, as it actually talks more about finances than other articles that I have read.

      • Allen

        Guess we will just have to wait and see. The smiles on Scuderi investors that is.

  • http://Doylerotary.com Lonny Doyle

    Hello everyone,
    This site feels a lot like the old Greentechmedia site.
    I am still jealous of the amount of money and interest the Scuderis have acquired. They have done very well. We will be seeing them at the SAE World congress in April. My wife, son and I are going up there to show our latest progress on the Doyle Rotary Engine. It sure would be cool if we could pick up some investors this year but we are still making good progress with self funding.
    We are hoping to have it running before the show but I just dropped $7500 on a booth. It will likely be sometime in May before we will have enough disposable income to use for the DRE.
    If you get a chance check out our progress on our website and let me know what you think. I have been taking pictures of the parts we have been machining and posting them.
    I had made an offer to build a prototype of the Scuderi Engine using their Simulation Data. I know for a lot of people it would seem impossible that I could build their engine from their data, so it might help if they look at the parts that I have been machining for the DRE. I have less than $40,000 in this prototype and it is near completion. With $300,000 to spend on a prototype there would be enough funding to machine each component to very precise tolerances.
    I wish the best for the Scuderis and all of the other engine designers out there.

    • Allen

      Lonny, just out of curiousity what number prototype is this new one. Two, three, four?

  • http://Doylerotary.com Lonny Doyle

    I have built many prototypes through the years, eight of them I think, but this is the second prototype of my new design. I use to design engines in two dimensions so by the time I had them about half way built I would discover a better way of doing something and would go back to the drawing board with a new design.
    Once I started using 3D modeling programs I was able to create a more complete design before machining.
    One big thing that I am lacking is simulations. I do not have the funding to have simulations done.
    If I had the funds to create simulations and then test with physical models I could speed up the designing process considerably.
    You can make quick changes using simulations to get some ideas of what to try with a physical prototype.
    I know that even if my engine runs well, it still will not likely be efficient yet. It takes a combination of simulation and testing over and over to refine a new design.
    Scuderi has built a prototype and it runs, they do not likely need to build a new prototype they just need to test that engine as it is until they have all of the data that can be achieved making software changes and then use that data to make educated guesses at small hardware changes and test it again. Eventually the will be able to say that component design #23 in this position and size is better than these other ones. This is the process that we use when engineering race engines and it is relatively inexpensive for the amount of knowledge you can gain.
    I am fairly sure that Scuderi’s prototype did not run as well as they had hoped. If it had they would do what I would have done an had the results plastered everywhere.
    But this does not reflect badly on their design it just means that they have not done enough physical testing yet.
    If an engineer was shown a diagram of all of the parts of a working OEM conventional Otto cycle engine without any dimensions and was asked to build one as efficient as possible I am 100% sure that their first prototype would not be anywhere near as efficient as the one that the diagram was taken from. It would take years of simulations and dyno testing of physical models to refine the components to work together efficiently.
    You had had asked how many prototypes I have built, why do you ask?

  • Brian

    Great stuff Lonny. I find it all very interesting. The Scuderi news has gone dry and I have to believe there isn’t much going on. We’ll probably get a little blurb of news after SAE World Congress about how everyone wants the Scuderi Engine and how crowded their booth was all the time. That’s their usual M.O. That and the occasional Torque News propaganda. I can’t for the life of me figure out why no company has bit, considering all the claims made about this engine. It doesn’t add up. Unless the claims are wrong, or worse yet, false.

  • Brian

    @ Chris DeMorro,
    Any results to you inquiries referenced within your 12/1111 post?

    • http://www.sublimeburnout.com Christopher DeMorro

      @ Brian

      Nata. Stonewalled.

  • Brian

    Thanks Chris. Muldoon recently posted this on the old Greentech site we used to bang around on:

    muldoon_reports

    Updates hot off the investor wire……Licensing talks are beginning with Euro OEM next week. Finish concern is also beginning licensing talks within the next month. Dr. Rader, VP Licensing, will be attending both licensing talks.A small German generator company is skipping the NDA process and going directly to licensing conversations sometime early 2012. Though not a big company it will be another license to put in the portfolio.Scuderi is developing a software package for a large US/Euro OEM so they can do simulations in house. The software is coming from the Brighton, England facility.Large US OEM is going to SwRI next year, with the idea that if Scuderi can show them that the Miller Effect does what they say it does and has no negative affect on the Otto engine plus show them they can use it in their engine scheme they will begin licensing conversations.A late-to-the-table large Asian OEM will be signing the NDA next week and are ready to move ahead quickly.A meeting with Indian OEM went well with another meeting scheduled within 30 days.The lead bank position for IPO continues to be in flux. Latest approach is a proposal that would promote Scuderi as the first true green tech IPO once the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange) and the DAX (German Stock Exchange) merge.Scuderi is shooting for June 2012 IPO date. If they miss the June date they will then go for September. Nothing will be done over the summer because of European holiday and US vacations – too many people out of the office.Scuderi management is confident they will have 4 licenses by the first quarter 2012 and possibly more by the time of the IPO.Calls are coming in all the time now and there aren’t enough people to get to everyone quickly.
    show 2 replies reply

    Where Muldoon got the info, I don’t know…

    • Allen

      @Brian the well has indeed gone dry on information coming out of the Scuderi office as it should if licensing negotiations are ongoing. I find it interesting that you find all of Lonny’s information exciting but the information that the Scuderi’s put out exaggerations or even false. As for Ecomotors doing well with multiple business deals with engine and generator manufacturers, congratulations to them. As I see it, there are 3 types of engine designs and stages of development on this blog. Lonny’s, Scuderi’s, and Ecomotors. Is it any wonder really which order the development has progressed in. Poor Lonny, scratching by on his own funding basically begging to build a moto rfor the Scuderi’s so he can get some of the funding to advance his own design. Then there are the Scuderi’s with their fathers brainchild, working through private investors slowly developing their design and working with OEM’s to try and fit their bill. Yes, they’ve now brought in 85mil. total and guess what, they seem quite a ways ahead of Lonny working out of his garage. Then we come to Ecomotors, another design to hopefully increase mileage and decrease emissions. Started in 2008 their opposed piston design has been rapidly advanced. Where did their venture capital arrive from? Well none other than the founders of Sun Microsystems and ….wait for it…Microsoft. 85 million, Eco probably got that check just for their advertising bill.

      • Allen

        @ Lonny I’m not sure which design your on. Maybe as the above you should try and get venture from good old Bill Gates. As you state your design has a lot of work left to be done even if you can get it to run well. Hopefully you put in those steel parts instead of aluminum.. Oh, and Brian how long has the Scuderi prototype been running now?

        • Henry

          Allen,
          Lonny is moving through the one and only path that may lead toward success.
          Its beyond the power of cynical comments to contribute any goods in favor of Scuderi initiative.

  • http://Doylerotary.com Lonny Doyle

    @Allen
    Wow what is it with some of you Scuderi investors!
    Why in the world do you see a need to be rude to me? The offer I made to build a Scuderi prototype was not so I could have some money to spend on my engine, if I need $100,00 to spend on I have it, it was just an offer that I thought might help you guys.
    From my estimations for me to build a prototype of the Scuderi engine would have absorbed all of the $300,000 and I would have been doing a lot of the designing and machining on my time. (A GIFT)
    I am not some poor can collector begging for my next dollar so I can pour it into my engine. My engine is just a hobby.
    I have never made any claims as to how efficient it is or how much fuel it will save or how rich I am going to be.
    When I said I need investors it was not for a few hundred thousand. You guys of all people should know how much money it takes to properly fund a new engine design. The burn rate for Scuderi, from what I have read on these posts, is about 30 to 50 thousand dollars a day. So $300,000 would last about a week!
    Although I am admittedly jealous of the Scuderis accomplishments I fully support them. They have obviously made a lot of good decisions to get to this point or we would not be talking about them.
    There is a reason that Scuderi does not have a licence yet and other engines do. I do not know why that is, but it could be related to not having an efficient prototype that they are willing to release the numbers to. This is just a guess and I am in no way implying that it is true. This is why I was was willing to help you guys and Scuderi by offering to build a prototype at cost.
    I don’t go on here and imply anything about your financial capabilities with statements like “Poor Lonny” or “begging to build a motor for the Scuderis so he can get some funding” so if you want to speak about me, make it the truth and not some disgruntled stab at me.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    calm down sport. its fine if you want money. we all do. also its ok to say so. your engine is your business. make an engine to be proud of, but as an investor i hope it is not at the expense of scuderi. maybe you ought to not post here anymore if you feel slighted. you don’t seem like the sort of person who wastes time. invent you product sir and good luck. don’t be a cucumber an rail against scuderi people cause you have nothing better to do. you seem to be a much better person than cucumber.

  • recumbentrider

    “There is a reason that Scuderi does not have a licence yet and other engines do. I do not know why that is, but it could be related to not having an efficient prototype that they are willing to release the numbers to.”

    Well said, Lonny. This is something that I have believed for a very long time.

    The headline of this article claims that the Scuderi engine ‘Improves MPG by 35%”. If Scuderi had an actual prototype that proved this, (even if it was only on a dynamometer and not necessarily in a car), I believe that Scuderi would have some paying customers by now. I believe their unwillingness (or possibly, their inability) to attempt to build such an engine greatly undermines their credibility.

    It is good to hear from you again, Lonny. I agree with dan, and hope you don’t take what some of these posters say too seriously. And it is always great to hear from a real engine builder in these discussions.

  • Allen

    Lonny, looking back I can see how my remarks can be taken as a dig against you. It was not meant to be and I apologize for not being any more clear in my remarks. I give you all the credit in the world for attempting what you are doing the little guy trying to make it big in the engine world. Perhaps given Bill Gates type backing your design would be as advanced as ecomotors, which was my point. You have 3 levels of development in these 3 designs. Is it any surprise that the leader of the 3 has basically unlimited capital to advance it and the least advanced is the one with virtually no backing. In researching articles on other blog there was one that listed no less than 8 in development in various stages Scuderi being one of them. What I find frustrating is bloggers comparing one design to another when in fact they know nothing about how far advanced a design is or what stage they are at in achieving their goal of partnerships. Scuderi Group has been at this for quite a few years and it is frustrating not to have a license signed, however they have advanced to the point of having OEM’s and others interested so it has merit. Lonny I don’t know how long you have been at this but I’m sure you will agree you could be a whole lot farther with Microsoft/Sun or even Scuderi type backing. Keep plugging if the design has merit it will get to where you want to go with it. Ecomotors was created in 2008 , how long the engine design was in the works before that (before Gates backing) I have no idea. Again in finality I apologize with the way my crude analogy was taken and I hope this post makes it more clear.

    • Brian

      Allen, I give you credit for your above post. Well said.

  • http://Doylerotary.com Lonny Doyle

    @ Allen
    Thanks for posting the clarification. You have totally impressed me.
    Scuderi has the financial ability to be the best and it is frustrating to see them so close and not quite getting there. While they are financially sound and on top of the medias attention they need to make a list of everything that could possibly help them achieve a licence and do them. I think a car driving down the road with an efficient Scuderi engine pushing it would be a guaranteed sell. i hope they don’t wait until they start to loose momentum before doing it.
    Good luck to you guys.
    I will have some extra tickets to the SAE World Congress if any of you need them and if any of you make it the show I would really like to meet you so come by and say hi.

  • Brian

    Great posts Allen, Lonny, and Rider. Lonny, I so very much wish I could go to SAE but I have other commitments that week. Thank you for the offer of tickets. I’m not really an engine guy like many of you are. I’m more of a small, but dedicated, investor. That being said, I have learned so much about engines and competing technologies that I really believe SAE would be fun. I was actually online looking at ticket prices just last week, but alas, I won’t be able to go. And Allen, long ago on the Greentech site, I posted several comments about Gates investing in Ecomotors. I think that moment was devestating to our cause, because it is the direction in which the “smart money” went. With Gates and Khosla’s money, Washington connections, and name recognition, Ecomotors has an advantage you can’t imagine. I have to say that the constant drumbeat of oem interest and NDA’s, which are pointed to as success indicators by the Scuderi loyal, really don’t mean much to me. Tour, Pinnacle, Eco, and all the other manufactures point to similar contacts and discussions. I repeat…I’ve been through this many times, and although I remain foolishly hopeful, I don’t think it looks good for us. As an example, I hold a small position in a company called Mascoma – cellulosic biofuel. I just received notice they’ve filed their S-1 registration for proposed IPO. With all the talk of OEM’s, NDA’s, Signings, etc, I am yet to see this company file an S-1 with the SEC. Yet, some on this site still insist that they are being quiet because the the pending signings and IPO! I do want them to succeed, but it’s just frustrating for me because I know what good looks like, and this isn’t looking all that good right now. Sorry. : (

  • Brian

    No to belabor the issue. But in case anyone is interested, this document is what you are waiting on. The first one would give us a glimpse of what to expect. Be aware, these are filed long before an IPO.
    http://moneycentral.hoovers.com/global/msn/index.xhtml?pageid=1972

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    hey brian do think your the only one who invested on scuderi? sorry its so frustrating for you. sell your shares then and be done with it. tired of reading your self pity.

    • Brian

      Dan, then don’t read it! Why is it that everytime someone adds a comment you don’t like, you try to get them to leave? Can you really be that insecure? For Pete’s sake, you’ve accused one of the other posters here of being inbred! Do you ever look at the stuff you post?

  • Allen

    The Scuderi prototype has been running since 2009 at SWRI……on a dynamometer.

    • Allen

      Like I said people posting when they have no idea how far advanced a design is or how close a company may be to achieving their ultimate goal of partnerships.

    • recumbentrider

      Certainly the Scuderi proof-of-concept prototype has been running on a dynamometer. However, it has never been tested with a turbocharger or with the ‘air-hybrid’ configuration with the compressed air tank mentioned in this article. (In a press conference at the IAA in Frankfurt last year, Sal Scuderi of the Scuderi group states this in response to questions at a presentation, which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HxVAA-k2WI). Scuderi’s efficiency claims of their engine with such devices are also only based on computer simulations. To my knowledge, they have not publicly released any efficiency performance figures of their prototype based on the physical testing of this prototype.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    hey cucumber please dont agree with me ok. also stop kissing lonny’s ass. what do you really know about engine making or makers. you ride a bike around your apartment.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    stop writing it then i wont read it. sell.

    • Brian

      Oh brother…yawn.

  • Allen

    @ RE Have any of the other engine designers you have mentioned posted such numbers publicly. Havent seen anything on any of those websites. In fact , I see less than what is posted on the Scuderi site.

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    stop yawning and sell. oh dear im so frustrated!

  • Allen

    @re So no one has an engine running in a vehicle that you say Scuderi must have to get to the next step. Yet with Scuderi working through SWRI a world wide accepted independant research company stating they get better fuel consumption and less emissions than the Achetes who apparently do all their own testing at their San Diego facility, you still favor a company because they have multiple prototypes. As for the tour, have you looked at his original prototype? As for multiple prototypes, maybe just maybe Scuderi got it right the first time.

  • Henry

    Allen , quote “Scuderi working through SWRI a world wide accepted independent research company stating they get better fuel consumption and less emissions than the Achetes”. Who’s statement is that one ? Scuderies or SWRI ?

  • Allen

    Henry not sure what you are questioning. Based on the results publicly issued by Scuderi/SWRI and Achetes the Scuderi results have been better. If you are questioning , as some have, that SWRI is a world wide accepted independant research company I’d say both along with companies like Lockheed, NASA, and organizations like OSHA.

  • Observer

    Allan
    It is simple:
    Achetes – Their 45% is from their dynamometer with a real operational engine.
    Scuderi – “Improves MPG By 35%” and other claims BASED on SIMULATIONS! (By SwRI). This is still a simulation even if it is indeed done by a worldwide accepted independent research company.
    Scuderi is the best example how simulations should be looked upon with caution:
    Scuderi prototype at SwRI operates SIGNIFICANTLY with lower efficiency than today’s common engines. All you need to do is to read the two SAE papers published by SwRI about their prototype (Scuderi Split Cycle Research Engine: Overview, Architecture and Operation 2011-01-0403 Published 04/12/2011). All the measurements as shown in Figures 19 and 20 indicate that the BMEP is about HALF at best of the simulations predictions. So Allan, why are going around and around?

    Maybe because Scuderi is doing a “great job” confusing the simulation with real engine measurements? They got you confused, that is for sure.
    The issue here is that you take it upon yourself to spread and spear the confusion. Are you one of their brokers?

    To be clear, I hope Scuderi will be very successful, and personally, I do believe in the potential of split-cycles. I also think that the poor prototype measurements are not an indication that their technology is not promising. It is an indication that there is work to be done.

  • Allen

    @observer- First I’m not a Scuderi broker although , like Brian, I do have a small amount invested in Scuderi. Hardly enough to make me rich though should the stock take off at some point. Second, let’s match apples to apples when stating numbers. In their test (Nov. 2011) in a comparison to a medium duty 4-stroke diesel engine the achates achieved 20% lower fuel consumption, no reduction in emissions , and 45% themal efficiency at its highest point. These numbers were attained by using measurement from a single cylinder and using a model to develop results for a 4 cylinder medium diesel. Sounds an awful lot like what Scuderi does. Achates and Scuderi are on similar tracks with their engines. Achates has shown improvement in each of the last few quarters in fuel consumption improvement and could very well sign on with an OEM a some point.

    • Observer

      Apples to apples?

      Scuderi is basing their positive results only on SIMULATIONS: You take one Scuderi inefficient single cylinder EXPERIMENTAL results and multiply it by 4 and what do you get? Four inefficient cylinders.

      The point is that Achetes EXPERIMENTAL results are promising, which is a big step ahead of Scuderi SIMULATIONS.

  • Allen

    @observer Like I said Achates power has showed consistant improvement over the last several quarters. Hopefully, many gas saving improvements and designs come to full development with gas prices exploding. I guess we’ll have to wait though to see which if any of the many designs in the works OEM’s choose to go with.

    • Observer

      Allen. I hope more than one. Each new designs offer potential unique benefits.

  • LF

    another quarter is going by and yet we here nothing from scuderi. I am a small time investor and I would love some info on what going on. I keep hearing next quarter next quarter. When does the IPO come out?

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    think motorcycles and ships?

  • paul

    Dan,
    Hang in there, things couldn’t be better, you don’t need to defend the Scuderi Group, let Brian and Recumbentrider read about it in the news. Have a nice day everybody!

    • Brian

      News?

  • Ryan

    Got my K-1. I need good news and I need it now!

  • Brian

    It appears nothing is happening an no one knows anything. Investor’s angst is rising. Paul says there’s news and things couldn’t be better, but he’s been wrong exactly 100 percent of the time, so take his delusions with a grain of salt.

  • Billyg

    If you have received your K1 than you know that about half of the investment is gone in the last year and a half. Not a good sign. The quiet period before an IPO lasts up to 90 days. You, I believe, are past that. Not a good sign. Why are most investors convinced that the IPO will be valued higher than the preferred shares? I hope you are right. Good luck.

  • paul

    Brian,
    I said nothing about any news, all I said was that things couldn’t be better. I still can’t understand why your still holding your units. Many people have made you offers and you won’t budge. On behalf of all Scuderi investors thank you for your endorsement and continued optimism.

  • Brian

    Paul,
    You wrote the following on March 8, so don’t tell me you said nothing about any news:

    “Hang in there, things couldn’t be better, you don’t need to defend the Scuderi Group, let Brian and Recumbentrider read about it in the news. Have a nice day everybody!”

    The reason I hold the shares is because I’m being offered a mere fraction of what I paid for them. Also, Look at your K-1. You can’t get back more than what your investment is worth. The money that has been spent is gone. I have the equivalent of pennies left so I have no choice but to let it ride. The statements I make are just my opinions and not meant to be considered facts. Your predictions, however, have undoubtedly suckered in some people and I believe they are dangerous. On March 8 you said there was news and things couldn’t be better. So what gives? Did you make it up?

  • stephanie wartuzk

    If anyone knows the first thing about K-1s, they would know that there is no possible way to extrapolate the worth of any investment from that form. The numbers on the form simply refer to a capital account, which has nothing to do with the investment itself.

  • Billyg

    If the K-1′s mean nothing, why does an accountant require them for tax filing as a gain or loss. I differ with your opinion about K-1′s. I wish it was otherwise.

  • Billyg

    Why are the forms required by my accountant for filing a tax return if they mean nothing?

  • Billyg

    Sorry for the repeat

  • Brian

    Stephanie, if you invested 20k in a company five years ago and your k-1 shows $2k as the amount not used, do you think you can go back to your llc and get the full $20k? No, you can’t. Also, the percentage of ownership you have is clearly stated. And by the way, the IRS does feel hey are important.

  • Brian

    Also, sorry, I forgot. If your k-1 says you have X amount of money tied up an an llc, the value of your investment is at least that amount. What can’t be determined is the value of the monies outlayed. In my opinion, if you claim it as a loss, which most do…it is lost.

  • stephanie wartuzk

    No, you are wrong. I’m a CPA. On a K-1, the capital account reflects the capital contribution (investment dollars) one put in. Of course your accountant wants it because the IRS will be receiving this information from the company, and your return should include the K-1 when issued. The main reason is to determine what taxes are owed on an investment. If you receive income from your investment, this is reflected in an increase in your capital account – when there is no income, you get a loss. This is simply a reflection of what actual money you paid in or were paid from that company, not if the value of the total investment. When a company is allocating the research and development “losses” (because they are pre-revenue) they may choose to allow the investors to take those losses (assuming they have passive losses at the time, like income property). That way, when the investor sees a gain in the investment in the future, they can offset the taxes owned with the losses of past years. With each years’ K-1, the amount in each individual capital account goes down, only due to the fact that they have already been allocated that loss. Eventually, each and every investor’s K-1 (for ANY company that is an LLC) would reach zero. This just indicates that they have “used up” their tax loses in a R&D company that is pre-income. BTW, many very successful pharmaceutical companies have set this up in just the same way in the beginning.
    I’m not an investor, but an accountant who has clients who are investors. I was involved in a divorce settlement where the h & w were investors in this Scuderi Company. They had invested at under $2.00 but the court accepted that each of their units were now valued at over $5.50 based on an audited appraisal.
    I don’t want to go any further explaining tax forms, tax law or investment evaluation here on this forum. For further information, contact your accountant or the company itself.

  • paul

    Brian,
    By not selling your shares “at any cost” it sounds like to me, somewhere deep inside,you know this would be a great mistake. But unfortunitely your ego won’t allow you to admit this due to all your Scuderi bashing. What a dilema?

  • Brian

    Stephanie, Thank you for the great info. I’ll see if I can get the full value of my investment back but I’m certain my llc manager told me I can only get back the percentage of my original investment which remains as it relates to my percentage of my current ownership in the llc. Thank you very much for the great, informative post. I appreciate you taking the time.
    Paul, No ego here. As far as the bashing goes, I’ve been fair and balanced in my opinions, and of course they’re only opinions – just like yours. I may be wrong from time to time and I’ll admit it – but you’ve never been right. Not once. Are you ready to post your news yet? I want the news you claim is coming! Is it good news or bad? Prediction: Paul will have nothing substantive and nothing new to say. Because he has no news. He just made it up like all his other false claims.

  • paul

    Brain,
    I’m hurt! Your a funny guy and I love you for that, but that really hurts. However I am not phased by your erroneous claims of my bad character, I’m smiling like never before about my Scuderi holdings.
    Have a great weekend, I’ll talk to you soon, Paul

    • ang

      Paul
      Haven’t heard much lately…..I need some encouraging words from you………please?

  • Brian

    As I predicted.

  • J.D.

    The Scuderi President has announced many times over the past 4 years that we will eventually enter a “Pre-IPO Black-Out Period”. Additionally, this was formally announced in the 12/20/11 Scuderi Investor Update. The continued release of insider information would be damaging for potential costumer investors(Dahmler, Toyota, Fiat, etc) if we were to receive continued insider information. This “Pre-IPO Black-Out” period should be very favorably received by all Scuderi Investors. I find it hard to believe the Scuderi Family would mislead their hundreds of local friends, neighbors, investors…..

    • Brian

      So there are really people out there that think this is the pre-IPO blackout period? This is what you believe they meant in the last investor update? Blackout periods last 30-35 days, are formally announced, and strictly regulated. If you believe, or someone led you to believe, we’re in th pre-IPO blackout period, you’ve been misled – by who, I don’ know, but you should certainly call them and straighten them out.

  • J.D.

    The look back period from the SEC is much longer than just 30 days. The SEC will do an audit of a pre-IPO company by reviewing all internal and external communications over a much longer time period than 30 days to get a clear sense of any advantage that may have been created. (we all know how stringent the SEC can be). The leakage of insider information that may benefit one group over another is not something to be challenged. Additionally, I do know hundreds of investors that have received the Investor Update notifying them of this “pre-IPO black-out period” and just as many have been personally & directly informed of this by members of the Management and Consulting Teams. If you are right and the Scuderi Group is committing fraud then there will be a lot of unhappy investors that live in the same neighborhood as the Scuderis. Do you really think the Scuderi Group is deliberately invoking the Pre-IPO black-out period to cover-up their failures even after they have been informing all investors of this at the open meetings for over 4 years? What about the fact the Pelligrino & Associates has Scuderi listed as one of their clients?

    • Brian

      This is actually great news. I had not been informed, nor was I aware, that any investors were specifically informed they were entering pre-IPO blackout. Thanks for the information. Also, I have never thought they were committing any outright, intentional fraud. I felt that some of the postings and some of the claims made on this and other sites amounted to false information. And they were. People who claimed inside knowledge and relationships were posting specific IPO timelines. They were wrong and it was clear they either made it up or were misinformed. But I digress. This is a very interesting development and I appreciate your information. A pre ipo blackout announcement is huge news. Thanks.

  • Brian

    J.D., my brother and I were discussing your post last night. Neither he, nor me or my sister received any notice of blackout. Can you be more specific as to what you were told by the company? I also did some research and saw that one of the principals recently wrote a guest article and they have a technical paper presentation coming up. This is very unusual to see during the blackout period. Blackout essentially means complete blackout. Nothing can come out from the company with the pending IPO. Sorry to bother you for it, but can you be a bit more specific? Thanks.

    • J.D.

      Send an E-mail to me at Joey1z@yahoo.com and I will send you the 12/20/11 Investor Update.

  • angie

    how long does a blackout last??

  • cakes

    So…I am confused. Does this mean the IPO is a bust right now?

  • marty
  • ant

    Any idea when e this will go public?

    did we get anyone to sign? its been a long ride and would like to see a return for my investment.

  • Brian

    Sounds like we’re still years away…

  • http://greentechmediascuderiblogs dan

    one small thought. since we as taxpayers now own gm why not use our company with the money we paid to bail those losers out to promote and install a scuderi engine. then with the public as our judge see whether or not the american people deserve a better shake out of american car compaines. get one car on the road, just one, and heads and wallets will turn. what are we waiting for? this stalemate is a bad joke on us all…..

    • Henry

      The one and only way GM or any OEM will go for Scuderi engine will happen if and only after their engine will prove its superiority.

      • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

        Superiority isn’t profitable.

  • Brian

    I’m with you, joe. Unless the scuderis gave money to Obama, they’ll get nowhere with this administration in office.

  • http://gas2 dan

    guess that means the scuderi’s should give money to mitty? get out of town, or move in with joe. anyway it has nothing to do with who’s running for pres. it has to do with what we want with our gm, our money, our engine. simple. if you say this is wishful thinking then thats fine. i can’t do a thing about it, but we own gm and should have the right to say what we want as the owners of gm. how is that bad or unrealistic? a scuderi engine can make its way into a gm car if the american people demand it. and the american people own gm. take a look at the volt and see how superiority kicks up its heels. that car was junk. take a look at independent lens on line to see how gm works. then let the real owners take a look at the scuderi engine and let them decide. superiority in numbers?

  • http://Doylerotary.com Lonny Doyle

    At the SAE World Congress Several new engine designs were present. There was Grail, Pinnacle, Tour, Scuderi and us the Doyle Rotary.

    Many OEM Power train engineers made their way to each of our booths.

    I can only state the concerns about each engine from what was told to me at my booth about each of our engine designs.

    Grail…I did not hear much good or bad about the Grail engine.

    Pinnacle…many were impressed that they were in production but felt they have a poor power density due to using two cranks for one engine.

    Tour… I also heard concerns about their engine needing two crankshafts. It was also mentioned that they would not have enough time to fully combust their fuel because they were firing after TDC.

    Scuderi… I heard similar thoughts about the Scuderi engine as I did about the Tour engine. It was brought up several times to us by the power train engineers that they did not believe that it will be possible to make an engine efficient while trying to fire after TDC of the power stroke.

    Doyle Rotary…You have too much spinning mass!
    How are you going to cool those cylinders.?
    How are you going to oil the rings?

    I think Scuderi needs to build a prototype to put in a car to prove to the OEMs that it will work.

  • http://gas2 dan

    evaluation without verification seems, or should i say “is” nothing more than an exuse to deem the scuderi and your engine sir as unworkable. dont be suprised to see an engine simliar to yours and the scuderi in a OEM car someday soon in a showroom. with that said i wouldn’t give a wooden nickel to any rep of a major car company to tell the truth. best of everything to you.

  • Brian

    Lonny, great to see you received some positive press out of sae. Good work.

  • http://gas2 dan

    positive press?? the guy just as well could have hit lonny’s engine with a sledge hammer an smashed it to bits and thats positive!! go figure cause i can’t..

    • http://Doylerotary.com Lonny Doyle

      I think Brian may have been referring to the articles and interviews that we recently posted on our website.

  • Henry Ford

    Lonny,
    concerning OEM’s power train engineers ability to correctly evaluate new engines designs please let me repeat what I have already written in my bibliography 100 hundred years ago.
    “All the wise people demonstrated conclusively that the engine could not compete with steam. They never thought that it might carve out a career for itself. That is the way with wise people–they are so wise and practical that they always know to a dot just why something cannot be done; they always know the limitations. That is why I never employ an expert in full bloom.
    If ever I wanted to kill opposition by unfair means I would endow the opposition with experts. They would have so much good advice that I could be sure they would do little work.”
    By the way, I doubt if even one of those engineers took the necessary time to deeply study those new engine technology.
    Henry Ford
    19XX-20XX

  • http://independent Paul

    The SAE had a video released on the top 5 automotive engineering concepts for this years show. The Scuderi Technology came in at number #2. Seems like the Scuderi Technology
    was well received at the show and I’m sure the white papers had something to do with it.

  • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

    I’m allowing this post, but FYI people: the email address the comment was posted from does NOT match the scuderi address in the message.

  • Popfinger

    Mr. Borras, the newsletter you posted on this website was supposed to be for a private audience only. I would respectfully request that you remove that posting from this forum. Thank-you in advance from all who are concerned.

    • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

      Your email address and ip do not match any of Scuderi’s or the poster of the newsletter. Either show up with credentials, or stfu.

  • ry-yehy

    The big quistion can we make use of this motor in public cars or only in labs due to indusrial difficulties

    • recumbentrider

      An even bigger and more basic question is if Scuderi can prove that their engine is more efficient than engines ALREADY in production, in the lab or otherwise. The data that Scuderi has chosen to release (http://www.scuderigroup.com/assets/Documents/English-Docs/2012/ScuderiDataSheet0510123.pdf) shows that they have yet to do this. According to this document, without turbocharging (‘naturally aspirated’), their engine has a specific fuel consumption of 269 g/kW-hr, which translates to an efficiency of 30.4%. (I used data from the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption for this conversion.) The Scuderi document also states that with a turbocharging boost pressure of 3.2 bar (absolute), the specific fuel consumption of the Scuderi engine drops to 233 g/kW-hr, which translates to 35.1 % efficiency. According to this document from Ford published by the SAE in 2004 (http://www.icatconf.com/icat2000-2006/tr/2004/matbaa/papers/12.%20Dogan%20San%20-%202004-01-2688-2.pdf, table 3, page 7), the Ford ‘ECOTorq’ diesel engine has a specific fuel consumption of 197 g/kW-hr at 1498 rpm, which translates into an efficiency of 42.5%, which is 21% higher than the turbocharged Scuder engine. This page at http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Brake_Specific_Fuel_Consumption_(BSFC)_Maps shows a variety of specific fuel consumption maps for engines that have been in production. All of them show minimum specific fuel consumptions numbers below that of the naturally-aspirated Scuderi engine, and many of them show numbers below that of even the turbocharged Scuderi engine. For example, the Geo Metro 1.0L engine shows a minimum specific fuel consumption of 250 g/kW-hr (32.7% efficiency), the Volkswagen Jetta TDI 2.0L 2009 shows a minimum specific fuel consumption of 196 g/kW-hr (42.6% efficiency), the Toyota Prius 1.8L 2ZR-FXE 2010 shows 230 g/kW-hr (35.5% efficiency), and the Subaru EJ22 2.2L SOHC shows a minimum 190 g/kW-hr specific fuel consumption (43.1 % efficiency). It looks like even in their labs, Scuderi has a long way to go just to catch up to the efficiency of EXISTING engines.

  • Henry

    Does this make sense ?

  • http://gas2 dan

    cucumber if you take this vid and you posted mag piece as gospel, your in need of brain transplant. get one anyway please your such a cucumber. this vid and your artical are one in the same. stop your bull parade. the scuderi engine and business is well and fine…

  • http://gas2 dan

    whats the name of that rag that cucumber posted (snoop)? well well cucumber your on the ball so we all should hold our heads an bow. go away Q your a naysayer and spoiled since birth.

  • Henry

    Thanks Cucumber, sorry about the dirt one of Scuderi’s believers spilled around.

  • Henry

    Recumbentrider, sorry about the dirt one of Scuderi’s believers spilled around.

  • Billyg

    I would not worry about the content of the video too much. I did go on the VW UK site and saw that the blue motion 1.6 was in their Jetta lineup. The EPA was 78 highway and 67 city. This was on 100Kiloneters. 100 kilometers is only 62 miles and when you convert this it comes out to roughly 41 city and 48 highway for a diesel powered car. It is impressive but not staggering. FYI

  • Fox

    Hello American fellows, who needs Scuderi? Who needs homemade backyard dramatic innovations?
    No more of American ingenuity and innovation, the twin engine of the country’s economy since World War II.
    Those days…..Kodak, Microsoft, IBM, Ford (T6) are over.
    Eat as you can, away with future.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo

    • recumbentrider

      According to the Wikipedia article about the Scuderi engine at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuderi_Engine, the PREDICTED best specific fuel consumption of a turbocharged Scuderi engine is 233 g/kW-hr. (This is also stated on a document on the Scuderi website at http://www.scuderigroup.com/assets/Documents/English-Docs/2012/ScuderiDataSheet0510123.pdf.) This is actually a HIGHER rate of fuel consumption than many engines that are already in production, such as the Volkswagen Jetta TDI 2.0L 2009 at 196 g/kW-hr (http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Brake_Specific_Fuel_Consumption_(BSFC)_Maps). Also, a GM/University of Wisconsin team has tested a ‘triple-pulse-injection’ system on a light-diesel engine with a specific fuel consumption of 176 g/kW-hr.(http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/04/20120430.html)

      After 10 years, and after raising $85 million, Scuderi has yet to acheive the efficiency performance of engines already in production, never mind other engines that are now being tested in laboratories. This hardly sounds like ‘innovation’.

      • Henry

        Is low specific fuel consumption Scuderi’s main concern?
        I don’t believe so.
        They are fighting to convert, a yet inferior, Discrete Compression Discrete Expansion engine into a competitive working machine.
        Personally I salute them; we all should encourage those efforts.

        • recumbentrider

          The Scuderis have had $85 million dollars worth of ‘encouragement’, and don’t seem too have much to show for it. I am very skeptical of what they claim they are trying to accomplish. After spending tens of millions of dollars, they have built exactly one prototype engine, and have only ‘simulated’ putting a turbocharger and an ‘air-hybrid’ system on it.

          I came across an article (at http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2009/01/12/ducati-v-one-twin-to-supercharged-single-conversion/) that is about 1-1/2 years old that describes how someone converted a twin-cylinder air-cooled Ducati engine into a single-cylinder supercharged engine, using one cylinder for power and the other cylinder as an air-compressor. He even has an ‘air-hybrid’ compressed air storage tank in the system. Now this is the kind of ‘backyard innovation’ that I think is worth saluting! I am not sure how efficient this guy’s engine is, but on the other hand, it doesn’t look like he spent tens of millions of dollars from investors on it. He seems to have actually done some of the things that the Scuderis only talk about doing.

          • Henry

            Recumbentrider: I agree with your judgment, so far it looks like the Scuderi’s achievements do not justify this kind of investment.
            But, There is no doubt in my mind, that splitting the known four stroke cycle into Discrete Compression Discrete Expansion engine carries enormous efficiency and pollution gains.
            We should back the Scuderi’s efforts, society has to learn how to do it right and…… sooner then latter a new, smart enough, split cycle engine will emerge and become a surprising star.
            Now, in regard to the mentioned “ducati v engine”. This guy plays on a totally different ball game. His gaol is “power density” in contrast to fuel efficiency and pollutants reduction.

          • recumbentrider

            Henry, based on their track record, I don’t feel any need to back Scuderi, nor do I feel that society needs to back them any more than they already have. I respect that some will disagree with this view. There may be something in the split-cycle concept, but I do not believe the Scuderis will be the ones to unlock it. I believe that for all of the money they have raised, they should have far more to show for it. I simply cannot take them seriously.

            The one ‘split-cycle’ guy I do take VERY seriously is Oded Tour. He seems to be making excellent progress with his split-cycle design on a fraction of the budget of the Scuderis. His opposed-piston version of the split-cycle concept looks very simple, and it reminds me of the Achates opposed piston diesel, which is proving to be very efficient in tests. Achates may be on their way to proving that the opposed-piston design can have less heat energy losses, and be more efficient than conventional engines. The opposed-piston Tour engine may share some of this advantage with the Achates design, and will also include any advantages the split-cycle concept has to offer. I will admit that the advantages of the split-cycle have yet to be physically proven, but I have a strong feeling that if anyone does it, Oded Tour will be the first.

  • Henry

    Recumbentrider, professionally I agree that Tour initiative is simple and technically promising. I would not be surprised if the Scuderi’s already cooperate with other split cycle technologies.

  • Paul

    Recumbentrider,
    After the Scuderi Group obtains several licensing agreements, what will you do with your life? The time is nearing when you will have to take up another cause, maybe you should start thinking about it now.

    • recumbentrider

      Paul,

      You have made numerous predictions in discussions about Scuderi licensing agreements. Every single one of them has been wrong. Perhaps you should examine your own life and perceptions before you ask about others.

      Scuderi’s own numbers about their engine show it to be less efficient than those already in production. Apparently you have nothing to say about that.

      • Fox

        Paul, your wishful prediction are doing nothing but harm the Scuderi’s. Scuderi engine is based on a brilliant idea, an idea that ……..so far do not hold water.
        The Scuderi’s know it (hopefully!), the OEM’s knows. In this stage, Its is beyond the power of dreams to push this cart forward. .

  • paul

    Fox and Recumbebtrider,
    First of all, neither one of you have a clue as to the progress of the Scuderi Group or it’s Technology. Second of all, can you or will you endorse the Scuderi Technology when the Scuderi Group obtains a licensing agreement? Is it your mission in life to put the Scuderi Group down? Well it doesn’t really matter, nobody really cares what you have to say.

    • recumbentrider

      Paul,

      If you don’t care about what I say, why do you keep asking me questions? Especially, why do you keep asking me questions you have asked me before, and that I have answered before, both on this board and on others?

      In my recent postings, I have attempted to discuss the Scuderi engine, particularly the data that Scuderi has posted on their website. I have compared this data to data from engines that actually exist, and that have been in production. The fact that these comparisons are unfavorable to Scuderi is due to the data itself. And if I have reported any data numbers incorrectly, please feel free to post correct numbers.

  • paul

    Recumbentrider,
    Do you work for Southwest Research? Are you a cutting edge engine developer?
    Are you an OEM who signed a Scuderi NDA and have access to all the data and mapping results? I don’t think you have any credibility when it comes to critiguing or comparing any results on the Scuderi Technology. If the Scuderi Technology results are below average, why do they have more interest now than ever from various OEM’s in several different industries? I know it’s your personal mission to dish the Scuderi Group and their technology however, I hope someday you can move on to something else with your time.

    • recumbentrider

      Paul,

      Your questions about me are boring and pointless. You have asked them before, and I have answered them before. I am not sure why you want to know about me, but that is your business.

      The numbers I posted about the Scuderi engine are from the Scuderi website. If you have a problem with them, too bad. Maybe you should ask the Scuderis about them. If you think that the numbers i posted are wrong, please feel free to correct them.

  • Paul

    Recumbentrider,
    What I’m trying to say is your not qualified to make any technical comments on any engine data you think you might understand. AS you made it clear my postings are pointless and boring, so I will disappear again leaving you one person to talk to, that being yourself.

    • recumbentrider

      Paul,

      The specific fuel consumption numbers I posted are clear. I didn’t make them up. You don’t have to have a doctoral degree to understand them. They clearly show that the Scuderi engine consumes more fuel per unit of power than engines currently in production. If you have a different interpretation of these numbers, I would be interested to hear it.

  • recumbentrider

    I have come across an item that may be of interest to those following this story. In March of 2010, GM filed their own patent application for a split-cycle internal combustion engine. According to the US Patent and Trademark Office site, GM was mailed a ‘Notice of Allowance’ for their patent on May 29, 2012. This means that after they pay the required fee, GM will have their own split-cycle engine patent.

    According to the examininer’s ‘Reasons For Allowance’ report, the patent is being allowed because ‘the prior art fails to suggest a split cycle engine comprising power pistons, expansion piston, compression piston, each with their own crankshaft, and the crankshafts operatively connected, as set forth in the independant claims.’

    If you wish to view the documents concerning this application, go to the site http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. After you enter the required characters in the ‘Captcha’ box, in the ‘Search for Application’ screen, enter the application number ’12/724461′.

    To my knowledge, GM is the only automobile company that has publicly expressed interest in split-cycle engines.

    • henry

      Recumbentrider
      The mentioned GM patent don’t really deals with the basic split cycle engine configuration and challenges. (http://www.google.com/patents/US20110226224)
      Basically, this patent describes a split cycle engine that takes advantage of an additional expansion piston (a serial second one) which utilizes heat energy residue extracted from the main expansion cylinder.
      If one day, GM wants to make use of this patent, they should have, in advance, the knowledge how to build an efficient workable split cycle engine.
      From the above sited patent drawings, it seems they have adopted the Scuderi split cycle configuration (good sign for Scuderi!).
      In another split cycle issue (tour engine) you have recently mentioned , please read the following article:
      http://www.torquenews.com/119/wanted-engine-technology-best-adapts-natural-gas
      Any comments ?

  • Henry

    Recumbentrider, the mentioned GM patent don’t really deal with the basic split cycle engine configuration and challenges. (http://www.google.com/patents/US20110226224) The patent describes a split cycle engine that takes advantage of an additional expansion piston
    (a serial second one) which utilizes heat energy residue extracted from the main expansion cylinder. If one day, GM wants to make use of this patent, they should have, in advance, the knowledge how to build an efficient workable split cycle engine. From the above sited patent drawings, it seems that for now they have adopted the Scuderi split cycle configuration (good sign for Scuderi!).
    In another split cycle issue (tour engine) you have recently mentioned, read the following article: http://www.torquenews.com/119/wanted-engine-technology-best-adapts-natural-gas.
    Any comments?

    • recumbentrider

      Hello Henry,

      I saw the article you are referring to this morning. It is good to see the Tours getting coverage. I have to say that I am still unsure about the possible merits of the split-cycle IC concept. Until someone shows me some physical test results that back the claims of efficiency performance for the split-cycle, I will always wonder if the split-cycle is a technological dead end. However, the concept that Hugo Tour pointed out about being able to dynamically adjust the compression ratio of their engine is intriguing. (I am not sure if the mechanism to do this is trivial, however.) I still believe that if there is indeed anything to the split-cycle concept, the Tours will be the first to prove it.

      The GM split-cycle also has the compression (and expander piston, for that matter) on separate drive shafts. It looks like it could have the same ability to adjust the compression ratio as the Tour engine because of these separate drive shafts.

      The concept of the ‘expander’ piston on the GM engine is interesting. It looks like its purpose is to get some more energy out of the exhaust gases by expanding them further. It looks to me like they are trying to do with a piston what a turbocharger does with a turbine. I wonder how well this will work?

      I wonder too if this GM split-cycle engine has a prototype running in one of their labs somewhere, or whether this engine concept is ‘vaporware’ that only exists on paper and in simulations. How serious is GM about this engine? They were at least interested enough in it to get a patent, but what (if anything) will they do with it?

      It should be validating to the Scuderis that the GM split-cycle is similar to the Scuderi approach, except with the addition of the expander cylinder. It might be disconcerting to them, however, to know that there may be a very big player with many decades of engine experience competing with them.

      • Henry

        Recumbentrider
        OK, our perceptions are close.
        Your post,
        Quote: “I have to say that I am still unsure about the possible merits of the split-cycle IC concept. Until someone shows me some physical test results that back the claims of efficiency performance for the split-cycle, I will always wonder if the split-cycle is a technological dead end”
        My thoughts: Although splitting the cycle the way the theory imposes carries huge efficiency gains it also places two significant challenges:
        1. A reliable, extremely fast and accurate, wide and thin single crossover valve – hard to accomplish, but in my mind possible.
        2. IC engine engineers know “one should not mess with combustion nature”. During combustion initiation piston vs. fire front relative motion is a key power and efficiency factor. Any deviation from optimum timing imposes huge penalties.
        Your post,
        Quote: “I wonder too if this GM split-cycle engine has a prototype running in one of their labs somewhere, or whether this engine concept is ‘vaporware’ that only exists on paper and in simulations. How serious is GM about this engine? They were at least interested enough in it to get a patent, but what (if anything) will they do with it? “
        My thoughts: GM acknowledged their labs are working on it (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/10/taub-20111003.html), as previous posted, their split cycle version follows Scuderi intermediate third chamber approach (1, 2 connecting tunnels- whatever). I don’t know if they already build some hardware, I do know that during scientific lectures they publicly present cross section split cycle model pictures.
        Your post,
        Quote: “I still believe that if there is indeed anything to the split-cycle concept, the “Tours” will be the first to prove it. “
        My thoughts: Out of “Tours” limited published information it looks like Tour engineers understand the involved real live problems (a statement I can’t credit with neither SWRI nor GM ). It looks like Tour is bypassing the dominant above mentioned challenges.

  • Brian

    Just checking in. How’s everybody’s investment doing? Any signings yet? No? Next quarter? Oh…ok.

  • cakes

    ok ok…its hard to hold back….every month I hear that I will hear something next month. What is going on? when will we hear something. The blackout period should be over. Anyone know whats up?

  • Brian

    I can’t believe I’m still getting email notifications of posts on this site. Cakes, it’s over. You’ll never see your money again.

  • Fox

    Brian, don’t be so sure.
    The superiority of the split cycle technology, as envisioned by late engineer Carmelo J. Scuderi was, in my mind, a brilliant idea. Unfortunate, moving even the best ideas from theoretical machines into practical once, takes more than….. So far his successors could bring to the table.
    With help of many people they did good job in collecting the necessary means, they were less successful in moving their father vision into a market place as a winner.
    In my mind, technically they tried again and again to solve problems by adopting stupid mechanical solutions; most of them are failed attempts that actualy took their cause backward.
    Since I do have interest in split cycle success, I wish they distance them self from experienced “prime time experts” and, do their best to get talented thinkers. If they do so, you might be surprised how fast they will move the engine forward.

  • Brian

    Fox,
    Bottom line is they got my money by exaggerating how close they were to bringing this to market. The whole family is living on handouts and the product has gone exactly nowhere. These are just my opinions, but they’re educated and formed over time.

  • Joe R

    By looking at the diagrams of the engine, it looks like a poor way to super charge an internal combustion engine. Super or Turbo Charging increases efficiency of any engine, but the Scuderi design over complicates it and adds extra weight and drag with the dead compressing cylinder. They may have a working engine, but I see no advantage in the design, in fact I think you would get much more power and fuel economy from a plain old turbo or supercharged gas or deisel engine on the market today. The amount of monies collected from investors with no return should warrent an investigation from the Feds.

  • Goldbaby

    If anybody wants to sell, I am buying at $5.60 cash per unit. Please advise. Thanks.

    • MamaTried

      Hey Brian,
      That’s $5,600 for you… sell to Goldbaby and sleep well my friend.

    • Tony

      I’ll sell my 1,000 shares @ $5.60 per unit! And my business partner will relinquish his shares as well.

  • paul

    Goldbaby is one smart person!!

  • http://yahoo billyg

    Why would anyone pay $5.60 per share for something that is valued, by the company itself, at between $2 and $3 per share at present? Is someone offering $38 a share for Facebook also? Anyway, if you got contacted by the company recently you know that there will be another offering shortly. God bless the diehards. I need some of those rose colored glasses.

  • Paul

    billyg,
    Your post is 100% incorrect, your either very confused or your talking the the wrong people.

  • billyg

    Hi Paul,
    I was referring to the present value stated on the last K1 forms. That, in my opinion is the present value of a share of Scuderi stock. A goo price at IPO could easily prove me wrong. It might be a tough sell in the upcoming offer to get new money for a company that has yet given any profit to it’s shareholders. I hope the company, for many peoples sake, goes through the roof. Would be good for all and bad for none. Thanks

    • Wiseguy

      My accountant advised me not to take the investment loss on the K-1 until a distribution/dividend is received in that same year. It is not a reflection of the unit’s market value, rather just a portion of the investor’s write-off. If anybody wants to sell their units I am buying at $5.60 cash per share. Let me know.

      • Tony

        I’m interested in your offer…

  • tony

    any news yet

  • http://velociter.net Sammy G

    No news…..Not looking good at this time. Diamlar pulled out….

  • popfinger

    Sammy G, are your sources reliable? I was unaware that Diamler was still interested.

  • ANT

    THIS IS GREAT NEWS IPO IS NEXT

    Dear Investor,

    We will be sending out a regular investor update on Friday, but we are very excited to share with you some information today.

    We are happy to announce that we are finalizing an Agreement with a world-renowned automotive manufacturer who plans to use our split-cycle engine technology to help them achieve future emission and mileage standards.

    The decision to utilize our split-cycle engine technology was reached after evaluation of numerous engine technologies.

    We will notify you as soon as all documents have been signed. At that point, we hopefully will be able to share more details about this exciting project.

    Ruth Scuderi
    Director of Investor Relations

    • recumbentrider

      Well, I guess that it is not private any more.

      • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

        For the record, guys – the way this comment system is handled on the Admin side makes it difficult to see what you’re talking about. Good rule of thumb: if something is private, don’t post it. If something gets posted by an individual not associated with this site, sending me emails and comments saying “You should take that down.” doesn’t help me figure out what you’re talking about.

        Thanks for making us the de-facto place to go to complain about Scuderi, though – we appreciate the page hits!

  • http://gas2 dan

    hi cucumber!

  • http://gas2 dan

    hey joei nice cartoon pic of u. cool beard.

  • http://gas2 dan

    ipo lookin better an better. its going to be raining cash. we have it made. its about time. checkout proboards for rumors. also micky the 5 star administrater. he gives himself the stars. that garbage site is full of tattle tales, back biters, babies, and low life snobs. very entertaining. drop in to observe and you’ll see. funny stuff. scuderi wins. deal time….

  • http://gas2 dan

    any new info? hearing upbeat positive stuff. can anyone confirm? whats the latest?

  • Lars

    Dan, the reason you are so despised and have to run from blog to blog (these are actually comment sections, not blogs but I’ll humor you) is because you beg for information and then shit on the same people who gave it to you. You’re an idiot. I hope you don’t draw any poor unsuspecting constructive people into your idiocy.

  • http://gas2 dan

    growup larrrs. iI ask for info just like u or anyone else so get off your pot and dont shit where u eat. you sonny need a brain, but thats ok. i’ll keep posting and you’ll be just what u r. larrrssss. the crybaby. what a loser. bet u didn’t even invest. guess your just another proboarder bore. asswipe….

  • Lars

    Nice Dan. Tell your mom I said Hi since you still live in her basement. How bout you find a job instead of playing on the internet in your robe until 3 in the afternoon. You are a fool. Why don’t you beg for more info and see if anyone but myself actually respond. Actually don’t bother because nobody will.

  • http://gas2 dan

    bravo lard!

  • Dannrde

    Proboard slugs make no investments in scuderi engine co. really bad blog site if anyone wants straight talk about scuderi. Proboard administrater pompus bore and knows less than nothding about scuderi and blog sites.

    • gotohelldan

      Feel bad for you Dan. Having no firends has to be tough. I wouldn’t know personally because I show respect so alot of people will talk to me. You are simply a dick.

  • Dannrde

    Wow! Go to hell dan. Your a dick. wow! You have no friends. anyway scuderi position keeps getting stronger. Consortium, patents, and a soon to come deal with a maritime co. nothing to worry about about. Leave the negetive coments behind.

  • Mrfixit

    The Scuderi brothers are living a great life in fine homes. This engine has been in the making for over 10 years. How long does it take to build an engine? If it was so great wouldn’t big companies want it? It would make them a top competing company. So why has no one bought it? The brothers are flying all over the world with your money and all you have are empty promises of future riches. For your sake I hope I’m wrong but I myself see the engine as a dream that will never come true. For one , an engine needs at least a 10:1 compression ratio to run somewhat efficient. This engine is lucky if it’ll get 5:1….good luck people

  • Jim

    myperfectautomobile article and all the comments disappear today.

    Welcome to the old Russia.

    It could of been funny but it is sad…….

    Very sad

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Miller/100000952005408 Bruce Miller

    P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }

    This engine of great promise is still
    only an ‘interim engine’ as the electric, three moving part power
    train is fed from nano carbon super capacitors or better
    technologies, even as we speak. The day of the piston engine as we
    know it is over: all but for the inertia carried by its long term
    use. Electrics will soon rule, and in all likelihood, without the
    cumbersome expensive labour intensive and complex sheet metal bodies
    of today. Rather, University of Alberta hemp molded bodies, Chinese
    carbon fibre bodies, with much aluminium from the Thorium energized
    refineries of China, replacing iron and steel. America’s 20th
    Century, Grand as it was, cannot build bulkheads against advances in
    science, and the moving pen haven written moves on, V-8 piston
    engines take their positions beside the great rotary and radial,
    piston aircraft engines and huge ship and submarine diesels of a day
    gone bye, and America bids a fond farewell to the final roars from
    the remaining piston powered age. Google the White Zombie Dragster
    for a small sample of the decades to come. Sands of time have shifted
    and with reluctance, much sentimentality, and even a tear or two,
    sodade! We must tear away from the past and march boldly into the
    electric car future.

    • Jim

      soon…

      your grandson or his son will see 20% electric….