Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy - Australian company, Revetec, claims

[JohnWxy]

http://gas2.org/2008/06/26/low-cost-gas-engine-innovation-doubles-fuel-economy/


Revetec, a little known company from the Gold Coast region of Australia, may be on to something huge: they’ve created an engine that is 50% smaller, 50% lighter, has 50% lower emissions and is cheaper to manufacture than a conventional internal combustion engine of the same horsepower. Oh yeah, did I mention that it doubles the fuel economy too.

What that means is a car like the 2007 Toyota Yaris, which is rated at 40 mpg on the highway, would get 80 mpg with a Revetec engine.

This isn’t some hoax… They have a prototype which has been attached to an actual vehicle and independently tested to substantiate their claims.

In personal communication with Mr. Brad Howell-Smith, the Chairman, Inventor and CAD Designer for Revetec, he says “road tests have estimated that uses around 50% less fuel than a conventional engine” and if it were converted to run on diesel, that performance gain could be much higher.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I haven't been able to find anything more on this engine. Maybe somebody else can find something later than July, 2008. Would like to hear of published results confirming this claim.


Here's some design info: http://www.rexresearch.com/revetec/revetec.htm

[DJ13]

1. They have a website with later news

http://www.revetec.com/news.htm

[JohnWxy]

16. from their web-site: two Chinese auto manufacturers are interested in their engine.

Revetec has signed agreements with a German Institution and a Chinese group which is funding a testing and development program, and upon satisfactory conclusion of the test and development program, is assured from the Chinese group that two of China's top ten car companies will jointly develop an Automotive production engine.

[truedelphi]

2. Thank you for that information. It is pretty exciting.

Our automotive engineers got lost somewhere along the way.

Chrysler was building a K car sedan that got 41 mpg - way back in 1980's. But the Reagan revolution slowed that down.

But at least we an watch these car commercials about the new Lexus - and how it gets 35 mpg! What a feat!

[Statistical]

5. Well weight has a LOT to do with it.

Cars in 1980s won't even pass safety crash ratings today much less get 3,4, of 5 stars required to sell product.
Compact cars today weight also as much as midsized cars did 30 years ago.

Making a car that can get 50, 60, 80, 200, even 1000 mpg isn't that hard.

1000 mpg Shell Eco challenge winner.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/03/29/shell-eco-marathon-meet-the-1000-mph-cars-of-the-future/

Making a car that is street legal and something people wouldn't want to buy is the challenge.

[old mark]

11. '80's GM cars with the V6 could be tuned to get nearly 30 MPG and still get

good performance - full size GM cars, like Buick and Olds.

mark

[Statistical]

15. They were lighter than comparable full sized vehicles today. n/t

[DJ13]

7. My wife and I owned an 84 Honda Civic that got 40 mpg

And that was with a carburetor and an automatic transmission.

I think the problem with todays cars is that they have added so much optional crap that the weight has increased too much (and horsepower is a selling point now) to get that kind of mileage.

[TommyO]

8. Most of the weight increase has come from safety features and size

not "optional crap"

[DJ13]

10. Where do you think the automakers make the profits?

From all the optional crap.

Try buying a base model,

Even trucks today are equipped more like Cadillacs than the traditional work truck of past years.

How long has it been since you saw a vehicle with window cranks, or found a model on the lot that came without a 10 speaker Dolby surround system?

[Statistical]

18. There is a lot of "optional crap" but it usually doesn't add much weight.

The three largest factors in fuel economy are:
weight - this is the single largest factor
shape (coefficient of drag) - wind resistance at highway speeds
engine efficiency

The optional crap doesn't meaningfully affect those three parameters.

Look at curb weight on a stripped to the bones model and top of the line model they are almost identical. Fancy gadgets and crap don't add much weight and they (compared to load by AC) don't really require much electricity either.

Over last 20 years engine efficiency has improved, CoD has improved and weight has gone to hell in a hand-basket.
Two major reasons for that:
a) adding weight is cheapest way to improve safety - light weight high strength materials are expensive
b) larger vehicles. Even a "compact car" today has substantially more interior space than one 10, 20, 30 years ago.

[JohnWxy]

13. This appears to be a very small company really struggling to get enough capital to get moving on

this engine. a letter to shareholders (29 May, 2009): http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021721545.PDF

indicates they need more working capital to complete testing in Munich!


They do say they have interest from companies in China and Germany for test models of their engine. Brazil has asked them to modify their prototype to run on Ethanol!

But this is an extremely small company. They had to issue shares of stock on the Australian stock exchange just to get money to meet current expenses! ($175,000.00!).


I think they are a likely candidate for a buy-out from a large corporation. THey are engine designers but setting up the manufacture of an engine is another matter entirely.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

17. Again I ask, where's the newer information from the company?

[elifino]

3. Links

http://www.revetec.com/

http://www.revetec.com.au/

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Revetec_Cam-Drive_Engine

Search engine found many pages of links

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Looks realistic. Should work. N/T

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

6. Why is the latest news on their site dated 02/02/2009 ?

[zipplewrath]

9. That's a big claim

I'd be curious to know how they are measuring efficiency. If one measures efficiency at the "tire" so to speak, on a trip by trip basis, yes the current car is about 12-18% efficient. But much of that isn't due to the engine as much as the air, tires, and idling. If they are saying they got this up to 20-25%, okay, maybe, especially if they are idling and starting more efficiently.

Measured at the crank shaft, engines tend to be around 40% efficient when running anywhere in their efficient range (2000-4000 rmp). Doubling that, without some exotic materials, would tend to suggest they are violating the Carnot Efficiency Theorem.

[JohnWxy]

14. That can best be answered by checking the links. Dyno-testing so far.

http://www.revetec.com/news097.htm


The Directors are pleased to announce that the X4v2 petrol engine achieved a repeatable Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) figure of 212g/kW-h (38.6% engine efficiency) with a best figure of 207g/kW-h (39.5%) at our requested target test of 2,000rpm with a BMEP load of 450kpa (approximately 75% load) and an air/fuel ratio of 15.2:1 using 98 RON petrol and a 10:1 compression ratio. We also achieved a BSFC figure under the same rev and load conditions using an air/fuel ratio of 14.5:1 of 238g/kW-h (34.4%)


full test report here: http://www.revetec.com/pdf/REVETEC%20X4V2%20Engine%20Evaluation%20Report_final.pdf

[elocs]

12. Yes, the giant and keyword here: "claims".

Claiming is easy. Proving is a different matter altogether.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Volkswagen 1-litre car

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

[Gman2]

20. I dont beloieve it yet. There is more to it.

In essense, you are making it a two stroke. Without direct cumbustion chamber injection, it aint happening. Twice the power, sure. Half pollution? Nope. Half the size, same power, maybe. At lower revs, not as likely.