[29 lines snipped]
Woefully underpowered.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Quality Of Tools
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Err, it's an Imperial Unit. From schoolboy applied mechanics, two pies and tea over 33,000.
2 x pi x n(RPM) x T(Torque in lb/ft)------------------------------------- 33,000
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Well, I've seen a Mini with two engines...
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
:-) did notice that, ommitted to point it out! however, even with the correct units the definition would have been completely incorrect.
-- Richard Sampson
email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
The word "meant" might give you a clue.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Yes, the Twini - two front subframes (and two gear levers!). Or is this a more recent one?
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
The original Mini Moke was intended for military usage (dropping by parachute, etc). It had two engines, one in the front and one in the back to give it 4 wheel drive. If there was a problem in battlefield conditions you just took out the whole engine gearbox dive and replaced it with another. I have actually replaced a normal Mini engine/transmission in under an hour, so a Moke would be minutes.
The US army were interested in the Moke and assessed it, and rejected it. Apparently they like the small size for special operations, but thought the engine/transmission too complex. Now it is not regarded as complex. And probably because it wasn't American. The British army also rejected it as they were heavily committed to the Land Rover. So the Moke ended up as a fun vehicle.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
That's right...and they called the prototype a .... Twini.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Because it's useless over rough ground due to inadequate ground clearance and limited suspension articulation.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Put in two then.
One in case the other goes wrong, in the same way that VW Beetles have a spare in the back.
A win-win situation..... :-)
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Oy - I've already done that one.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
You are getting it. It also better for weight distribution too. Citroen did experiments with twin front and back engines.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
They could put one large 50 kW combi in then.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Doesn't matter. IMM usually does them a few more than that.....
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
100bhp?
Still underpowered. Unless it's a motorcycle.
"Too much is just enough".
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
.... and, was the result useful?
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
I don't know. I recall that uneven power distribution to either front or back was a problem. electronics can solve that now. So two small engines front and back can work a treat. I suppose two rotary engines would do, as they are small and light. If I recall rightly they were not using a gearbox and going direct reducing weight and transmission drag.The combines weight must be about the same as a normal engine/transmission setup. I suppose it makes sense. With two engines on low power and at some point one drops out and then drops in for high speed. All from memory.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Totally pointless and very expensive. You seem to know even less about cars than about plumbing.
Two lots of engines, complex transmission, so much to break.
And crap. Rotary engines are a lot like communism. They are an excellent idea on paper, but simply don't work very well in the real world. How many production cars today use rotary engines? Precisely 1. And that's done purely as a sales gimmick. This is after 30 years of development of rotary engines for road use!
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
What research have you done into this field?
I am not a plumber.
You can't read and know nothing of engines or plumbing. No transmission in one case and each engines would have a simple transmission.
You know nothing about engines. You are sad.
RX8 which is superb. Rotary engines are used in planes, helicopters and other applications. the Russians have a twin rotary engine helicopter. Because an industry that scorns advancement does not use it, the car industry, does not mean it is not viable.
You need to learn more, especially about plumbing. Q 1 for you. What is a stop-c*ck? Slowly I will build up you knowledge.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
I haven't - but many car manufacturers have, and many of their results are openly available.
I really like the idea of /no/ transmission...
Ten pounds says I've rebuilt more engines than you've plumbed in boilers (inlcluding both your own boilers).
My answer was in the question - precisely 1.
Not very much, and not at all at any volume. Slightly more than in road cars, because weight is more of an issue, but still not very much. Biggest drawbacks are fuel efficiency and high rate of rotor tip wear.
Good for them.
You really are clueless. The car industry went through a phase of being one of the most innovative industries around (granted this is no longer true). During that period, we saw many rotary powered cars, we saw gas turbine cars, and a whole load of other wacky shit. Piston engines won the day on simplicity, cost and reliability.