14 ms·

Porsche's idea for a six-stroke internal combustion engine

• ttwwmm 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • yardstick 2y ago
    > Why waste R&D on a dead end? Because they’ll still make money from it. Because they are selling a sports car. They’re not targeting the same audience as your typical car manufacturer.
  • tehlike 2y ago
    Because it will continue to sell - it's a porsche. Something i wouldn't do, but i understand.
  • andrewxdiamond 2y ago
    I think it’s likely we have passed the peak of R/D spend on ICE, but the momentum of research that has gone into it for decades is going to continue to produce innovations for a while longer.
    • usrusr 2y ago
      The engineers are still there (where else would they go!) and with ICE development moving far out of strategic focus, there might actually be more room now for trying odd curveball approaches than back when ICE refinement was still a cornerstone of success.
  • locallost 2y ago
    Because it's the only thing these companies know how to do.
  • abenga 2y ago
    Why is it a dead end? I agree that it should be, but it seems the entire world is walking back the commitment to a full transition to EVs.
    • thebruce87m 2y ago
      https://www.edie.net/one-in-seven-new-cars-worldwide-is-now-electric/?amp=true https://www.edie.net/one-in-seven-new-cars-worldwide-is-now-... > One in seven new car sales worldwide is now electric > Year-to-date figures show that nearly 10.6 million EVs have been sold globally as of July 2024, marking a 16.3% increase compared to the same period last year. What constitutes “walking back”?
      • yardstick 2y ago
        Not the op but in NZ there has been a significant drop in demand due to removal of subsidies and introduction of a distance-based tax (road user charge) for EVs. https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/15/car-importers-stuck-with-excess-evs-weak-demand/ https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/15/car-importers-stuck-with-... “In 2023 January through August, one in four new light passenger vehicles sold were EVs. Fast forward to 2024 and EVs make up just one in 11 new light passenger vehicles sold”
        • thebruce87m 2y ago
          The original claim was for the “entire world” which is why I specifically used global stats.
          • yardstick 2y ago
            Maybe not every single country, sure. In the EU sales are sluggish. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2024/05/19/europes-wobbling-ev-mandate-will-force-hard-choices/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2024/05/19/europes-w... “Current sales of EVs in Europe have stalled at just over 2 million a year, as early adopters and corporate purchasing peaked out. Schmidt Automotive Research said during the opening third of 2024 Western Europe EV market share stalled at 14.4% compared with the same period last year, according to its provisional data.”
  • lb1lf 2y ago
    Presumably as Porsche is not about efficient transportation; it is about emotion, driving as an experience, making a statement, etc. Chances are there will be - or, at least, Porsche appears to bet there will be - a sufficient number of well-heeled enthusiasts who prefer the sound, smell and vibration of an ICE to the quiet performance of an electric motor. I am really curious to see how this pans out in a generation or two - I suspect nostalgia plays a significant role in the 'performance cars should have ICEs' mindset, so what happens when the generation who grew up on EVs enter middle age and have the disposable income for a performance car? As for the rest of us, if, say, 1 in 1000 cars in a couple of decades' time burns fossil fuels, it is hardly going to be a nuisance. I'd be more worried (If I owned an ICE-powered vehicle) about the infrastructure needed to get the fossil fuels I needed in the tank. (Glancing anxiously over at my 1949 S1 Land Rover (1.6l I4 petrol) and 1981 Land Cruiser 42 (3.4l I4 diesel) - neither of which are performance cars by any stretch of the imagination! The 3B engine in the Land Cruiser will merrily chug along on just about anything vaguely combustible you pour in the tank, though.)
    • sheepdestroyer 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • lb1lf 2y ago
        Oh, they will be, no worries - doubly so as the fuel they need goes from being a necessary evil of civilization to a niche product for enthusiasts. There's going to be along tail of ICE vehicles out there, though - say, I have a tractor on my farm (which is not being worked commercially, it is basically an expensive and time-consuming hobby seeing as my wife's family has tilled this plot of land since the dark ages. Literally.) Anyway, even if diesel prices soar to $25/l (That's $100/gal for the metrically challenged), with our current usage, it will still be cheaper to buy diesel at that cost than to invest in a new, EV tractor. Hence I can't see that tractor going anywhere anytime soon.
      • wiseowise 2y ago
        They’re already heavily taxed. But why vilified?
  • squarefoot 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • larodi 2y ago
      So if you built your fortune on IT running in datacenters which consume magnitutes more energy to feed your customers; or else - if your business is about delivering stuff with 1000s of vehicles regularly being wasted... Tell me, at what point you start giving a damn about environment, and what pollution are we talking about at all? Sorry, but HN is full of people who made fortunes not giving major fucks about lots of rules. Not being one of them, I still find it perfectly appropriate to see this article and appreciate it here precisely, and not on... CNN or DW. You may go ask "Founder mode" whether he can dever be blamed into "not giving a damn", considering his caring character towards all humanity. One thing I agree - nobody cares if a Porsche is putting a 0.00001 KG of CO2 out now and then, as its aesthetic value is much much higher.
      • azherebtsov 2y ago
        It’s a ridiculous argument. You are typing this comment just because this damn not environmental friendly data center exists. But you pay nothing for HN. Hence someone’s do. That maybe this damn dude who made a fortune. But more than that, this dude has had to work hard long ago so that the data Center could be built and some nerds have got their jobs.
        • wiseowise 2y ago
          I’m not sure what your point is. The comment you’re replying to never argued that this data center is unnecessary. Both prestigious cars and data centers are necessarily evil. Just for different audiences.
        • larodi 2y ago
          Telling people why they do things is 1) bad wording; 2) puts them in defense mode; 3) projection; 4) etc.. you name it not OK. I pay nothing to HN, but HN exists thanks to lotta money moved around by people running HN. What are you telling me now, that HN would not emerge in some other form, had it not been for Founder Mode to showcase Algolia's search? Sorry, I doubt that it is how society evolves. HN can emerge from anybody persistent enough to go forward with it. Slashdot, Craigslist, Reddit and 4chan if you want are very apparent examples of how smart people fill in when they have the chance. HN may well disappear very soon, I would miss all the smart voices, but I won't miss HN itself and the fair amount of very obnoxious people who tell others 'how they should feel, or felt'.
  • larodi 2y ago
    Seems brilliant to me, as this is true marvel of engineering, contrary to electrocars which... well are not. They could've been should the engine be powered by fuelcells, but in their present form the electrocar movement took off only because of green deal, climate change, etc, which forced governments to allow business create the needed infrastructure of batteries and powerstations. Besides, you'd be surprised at the amount of work geard towards hydrogen-based economy which is still about burning stuff to turn wheels (even when electricity is produced) as they did in 1890s...
    • pineaux 2y ago
      Yeah. It looks pretty cool. There is something satisfying about a complex mechanical mechanism. However, in its current form it is not the future. Combustion engines in general are not going to be the future. Hydrogen is a joke. Not energy dense enough. And expensive to make (energy wise). It also needs a vast network of gas stations.
      • larodi 2y ago
        Who says so? Batteries been available for hundred years yet we keep talking about fusion being the future, and we have fission. Which both drive turbines, which are a thing from the past? No? What is joke and when? To me is a joke that we keep heating water to move magnets to get energy in 2024 with all the quantum entanglement, Johnson teleportation, lasers, etc. engineering magic happening around. And we do what? heat water to move magnets to squeez energy? So why is then hydrogen bad, just because it goes boom? Plenty of things we use daily go boom now and then, not meaning recent news, but in general. I also invite you to take a look at the Tokamak and then try to argue again that metal tubes wired around to pump liquids and do some combustion is not the future.
        • 00N8 2y ago
          Compressed hydrogen has low enough density that even at dangerously high pressures it would take up most of the luggage & passenger areas of a car, just to get mediocre range. Liquid hydrogen has better density (roughly 2x), but it's still not great, & you're dealing with a cryogenic propellant that's constantly venting explosive gas (so it runs out of gas when parked for ~3 days, can't be parked in an enclosed space, & still doesn't deliver impressive range). I'm all for using hydrogen for things in general, but as I understand it there are hard physical limits that make it a poor choice for personal motor vehicles as we understand them today (size, safety & range in particular). Methanol or renewable synthetic gasoline seem like they'll always outperform hydrogen for ICE cars. Hydrogen airships would be cool though & we could make them safe with modern technology (both preventing fires & making the passenger compartment an under-slung survival cell with parachutes & giant airbags so a catastrophic loss is survivable)
  • Merad 2y ago
    ICE aren't going to go away any time soon. Battery tech has a long way to go before it can compete with the energy density of liquid dinosaurs, and if it did there are plenty of cases where ICE has major advantages over battery power. But even if say 90% of the vehicles on earth could be replaced with electric, should we really stop innovating on that last 10%?
    • snthd 2y ago
      https://www.thoughtco.com/does-oil-come-from-dinosaurs-1092003 https://www.thoughtco.com/does-oil-come-from-dinosaurs-10920... >Tiny Bacteria, Not Huge Dinosaurs, Formed Oil >try to grasp the concept of deep geologic time, a talent possessed by very few people. Try to wrap your mind around the enormity of the figures: bacteria and single-celled organisms were the dominant forms of life on earth for a whopping two and a half to three billion years, a virtually incomprehensible stretch of time when measured against human civilization, which is only about 10,000 years old, and even against the reign of the dinosaurs, which lasted "only" about 165 million years. That's a lot of bacteria, a lot of time, and a lot of oil.
  • hnlmorg 2y ago
    Electric cars still consume fossil fuels. It’s just earlier in the pipeline. People love to talk about combustion engines being pollutants but few people talk about just how damaging it is mining for rare metals to make those batteries. Nor how harmful for the environment it is disposing of old batters (we haven’t yet solved the problem of recycling them either). And that’s before you even touch on problems at the power grid. Eg many addresses don’t have high quality enough power infrastructure to cope with everyone switching to electric, so that would need to be upgraded. And a lot of countries still rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity to begin with. Electric cars are likely the future. But they’re not as green as people like to think. In fact for some use cases they can actually work out both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly once you total up their carbon footprint in full. And I think it’s going to be a long time before they become the greener option of everyone. Whereas in the meantime, research into combustion engines can provide benefits for more than just petrol-fuelled sports cars.
    • xxs 2y ago
      >how damaging it is mining for rare metals to make those batteries. Even thought I'd agree mass EV would not be carried by the current grid, or that charging density and time is not satisfactory (in most of Europe)... LiFePO4 doesn't contain rare earth metals, unless you count Li for 'rare'.
      • AtlasBarfed 2y ago
        On top of that, the commenter is completely ignorant of the rise of saltwater batteries which don't even use lithium. Also probably unaware that with the rise of extremely low cost, solar and wind, Fossil fuel use on the grid is economically nonviable long term. Even so, the fossil fuels consumed on the grid are very likely to be combined cycle natural gas, which has less carbon emissions than have equivalent. Amounts of energy were burned in ice engines. Also, The energy efficiency of electric vehicles is much higher than an ice car, so if solar and wind do not generate the electricity, it still will emit less carbon than an ice. The only useful new engine technology I am interested in is an extremely compact recharging engine for use in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. There was something about the inside out rotary engine a couple years ago but nothing has come off of it.
  • night862 2y ago
    I definitely think this is a valid question. ICE engines and every type of motor have a Power Curve. Many things go into the power curve including the construction, configuration, fuel and general type of motor. The power curve graphs engine power output as it relates to engine rotational speed. Every one of these different motors and transmissions out there including electric as well, have differing characteristic curves which effect the handling of the vehicle to great effect. This affects their possible applications. Controlling the power and efficiency curves of motors is the entire story of the very well known "VTECH" Variable Valve Timing technologies, super and turbo chargers or other forced air intake, and even the way that Tesla electric motors arrange the magnets in their electric vehicle motors. Inventing a new way to operate an ICE is good for many things. This patent looks cumbersome, and a bit complex. In my mind the long-term future of ICE for vehicles is in more specialized use cases as fossil fuels reach the long tail. Certain highly reliable, or certain types of safety prohibiting voltage or battery chemistry, types of standby vehicles, certain rugged vehicles, industrial equipment, small motors, these might be better off being petro-like. It might be better to make corn-gasoline than to stash a huge battery onto your lawnmower all year in this case. But please do not discount: They are enjoyable. Even during the end-of-days, we can process something like biofuels into "gasoline replacements". We can use waste vegetable oil to create biodiesel today. Small volumes are pretty easy and although we desperately must reduce fossil fuels to near zero (I dont need to have a blast gunning my Porche in bumper-to-bumper traffic, for example...) I don't see a reason why people can't still buy a motorcycle, even if we are living under sci-fi-like domed cities. All else, people would simply make them themselves in their own garages. For Fun.
  • left-struck 2y ago
    Could be any of several reasons. As a backup plan, for niche uses, or just uses that you are not considering such as small aircraft. Could be a stop gap as well, it seems like there was a quick uptake in EVs but they aren’t replacing petrol engines just yet, even in cars.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Why waste R&D on a dead end? "There were an estimated 20 million horses in March 1915 in the United States" [1]. In 2023? Almost 7 million. Internal combustion engines will be around for a long time, in part because they're beautiful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States#St... [2] https://www.ppfas.com/pdf-docs/b-finance/cigar-butt.pdf https://www.ppfas.com/pdf-docs/b-finance/cigar-butt.pdf
    • 082349872349872 2y ago
      Pedantry: they aren't the same horses, though: in 1915 they were mostly draft horses, with a few sport/pleasure; in 2023 they're mostly sport/pleasure, with a few draft.
      • ManuelKiessling 2y ago
        Porsche engines are clearly sport/pleasure engines, not draft engines.
        • 082349872349872 2y ago
          True; looks like their last tractor was over 50 years ago. Other marques are still extant: https://www.ferraritractor.com https://www.ferraritractor.com https://www.lamborghini-tractors.com/en-eu/ https://www.lamborghini-tractors.com/en-eu/
    • AlecSchueler 2y ago
      Were horses ever actively restricted by governments around the world or did we move away from them because better solutions were available?
      • tonyedgecombe 2y ago
        They were causing environmental problems, cities were clogged up with horse shit. I don't know whether that influenced the transition though.
  • frankgrimesjr 2y ago
    For sports cars, internal combustion engines still provide a weight advantage over battery packs.
    • mistercheph 2y ago
      I'm really looking forward to when someone manages to bring to market an EV that is light and efficient with small battery pack and lowish range that is purely about driving pleasure and fun, but E/V early adopters still want massive ten thousand pound luxury tanks, for now!
      • usrusr 2y ago
        Unsurprisingly, Lotus (aka the maker of the car that Tesla converted into their Roadster) did not completely abandon their lightweight sports car identity in the BEV age. The Evija advertised with a range of 315 km.
  • 000ooo000 2y ago
    Not all ICEs must consume fossil fuels. The tech could bring alternative fuels closer to viability.
  • freetanga 2y ago
    Because large manufacturers are seeing EVs are struggling to take off. Might as well spread your bets. They are also working heavily on efuel, that works with ICE engines, does not pollute much, but currently would cost 2x at the pump. If they could shave that cost in half we could keep most ICEs (plus an add on catalyst). Distribution networks could be kept. Batteries and their chemicals would not be needed. So if either pays off, it’s a fortune.
    • freetanga 2y ago
      Just to clarify: I had to do an analysis on car markets across 10 countries in EU, Mexico and Latin America recently. If 100% of new vehicles were electric today, it would take 15 to 20 years to renew the whole fleet in those countries. But today the share of new EVs were between 0 to 5%. While there is a subyacent network effect (when 30% of gas stations close, it will be so hard to refuel that adoption will spike, which in turn will kill more gas stations), it still seems way off. The people I interviewed at car makers seemed to see EV as a new segment more than a new paradigm. Your mileage might vary.
  • whiteboardr 2y ago
    Honestly, i can’t get my head around how many folks actually think that it is an either or situation. There’s zero chance we will be able to electrify all personal mobility let alone the elephants in the room being construction equipment, planes of all sorts and above all marine vessels that ship our goods globally. EVs are well suited for a couple use cases but far from a monolithic solution. It is beyond me how a group this large actually thinks that ICEs are facing “death”. Once line is done going up in that field, i sincerely hope the discussion around this will mature and become less histerical.
    • tonyedgecombe 2y ago
      I wonder what three degrees of warming will be like.
  • Phil_Latio 2y ago
    I think you should rescale your ideological compass. If you just brush such inventions off the table, something is wrong. Electric motors will prevail long term, simply for the fact that ICEs can't reach their efficiency. So no need to have this attitude.
  • uluyol 2y ago
    ICEs have a lot of advantages that make them much better suited than EVs to certain tasks (extreme climates and remote locations, for example). They will likely stick around for niche use cases (at least) for quite a long time. As for why Porsche is spending money on ICE engines...well, no one really buys a Porsche because it's a "practical car", do they?
    • TacticalCoder 2y ago
      > As for why Porsche is spending money on ICE engines...well, no one really buys a Porsche because it's a "practical car", do they? I don't know. I find my daily very practical: a Porsche Panamera MY2013, now nearing 125 000 miles and 12 y/o. Still under extended manufacturer warranty. I have it since more than five years now (bought it used). Next car is another used Panamera (probably a 2020 or something). Very sweet, comfy, luxurious ride and yet if you push the pedal to the metal, way funnier to drive than, say, a Mercedes Class S.
      • tecleandor 2y ago
        Well, in a big city I wouldn't call a 5m long car that drinks 12 or more liters "practical". Also it's an expensive and high maintenance car even when functioning properly (I'd be scared of the bill for changing those tires or doing Porsche's maintenance...) But, you said it: sweet, comfy, luxurious, funnier. Valid reasons, of course, but different :-)
    • magicalhippo 2y ago
      Here in Oslo, Norway, they got BEV busses for a lot of lines, and last year was a really cold winter. Somehow, the ones in power were shocked to discover the range dropped to half due to the electric heaters needing a lot of power, causing a public transportation chaos as busses queued up for charging instead of transporting passengers. Now the busses are getting retrofitted with fuel-based heaters, which will be running on bio-diesel... better than nothing I guess.
  • blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    You can have carbon neutral synthetic fuels.
    • tonyedgecombe 2y ago
      Not at scale.
  • Szpadel 2y ago
    I think many of people here live in US and assume that it everywhere things look similar. in my European country electric infrastructure is not ready for electric cars and with current energy prices this makes no financial sense. I own plug in hybrid and I live in apartment meaning I have no possibility to charge at home. near me (about 10 min of walking there is public single phase allow charger with 2 plugs machine maxing 3.5kW total (for both)) and if I'm lucky I manage to find free slot one a week, but usually that's one every two weeks. This is only "free" charger in reasonable distance from me, and free means that I can use it when I have ticket for public transportation with I need to have anyways. there are some normal chargers, but they cost 2x for slow charging or 3x for fast charging than energy prices here + you have to pay per minute of taking parking spot. in summary when I calculated how much does it cost $/km it is very similar to gasoline but it's much trickier to recharge. I would love to own fully electric but without also owning house with solar this makes no sense right now.
    • arresin 2y ago
      So spend on that infrastructure instead, or mandate it. Honestly, spending resources on anything ICEs (outside of special industries) in this day and age is just wrong.
      • LightBug1 2y ago
        They're called sports cars for a reason. They're driven far less than everyday cars. They're fantastic fun. I'm an enviromentalist and I'd still buy an ICE Porsche. No EV has come close ... only the Hyundai ioniq 5 N seems to be looking interesting.
        • tonyedgecombe 2y ago
          >I'm an enviromentalist and I'd still buy an ICE Porsche. Environmentalists walk or ride bikes.
          • chromatin 2y ago
  • badgersnake 2y ago
    Until somebody comes up with a replacement technology that so the same or more there will be a place for it. Military contracts can make anything make economic sense.
  • nikanj 2y ago
    The same reason people still do R&D for vinyl records: There's enough customers who want to buy the old thing, for ideological, emotional or other reasons
  • cesarb 2y ago
    > Seems pretty dumb considering it still consumes fossil fuels. Internal combustion engines are not limited to fossil fuels. For instance, here in Brazil it's common to use sugarcane ethanol as an alternative fuel, and many cars come from factory ready to use either gasoline or ethanol (the keyword to look for is "flex fuel").
  • hnbukkake 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • rsynnott 2y ago
    Even the most ambitious petrol car bans are normally targeting 2035 or so, new cars only. That’s probably time for one more engine generation iteration.
• teo_zero 2y ago
  But isn't the chamber full of exhaust at the beginning of the second power stroke? What will burn?
  • OJFord 2y ago
    It says the goal is efficiency, so I assume the point is that if the first does say 80% combustion, then another cycle eeks out another 80% of 80% or whatever. (Brb, have an 8 stroke engine to patent.)
    • OJFord 2y ago
      Oops, another 80% of the remaining 20%, I mean. (But also I would guess it is probably less efficient than the initial one, not another 80%.)
    • _yb2s 2y ago
      When Porsche says efficiency they mean making more power, not using less fuel. Porsche has a long track record of adopting efficiency tech and using them to make fast cars that still use a ton of fuel.
      • dahart 2y ago
        What’s the difference between getting more power out of a given quantity of fuel, versus using less fuel to achieve a given power output?
        • serial_dev 2y ago
          Extremely simplified, when you drive a sports car, you want to maximize power (work per unit of time), period, you don’t care about fuel. If you want to go the farthest with a full tank, you want to maximize the total work (proportionate to traveled distance) for unit of fuel. Reality for practically all cars are between these two extremes, you want to enjoy driving, go relatively fast, and still not wasting 25 liters for traveling 100 km.
• everyone 2y ago
  I'd love to see a decent effort with some funding behind it to make a rotary vane engine.. https://youtu.be/UPFFXBAe5mc?feature=shared https://youtu.be/UPFFXBAe5mc?feature=shared
• bell-cot 2y ago
  Not to say that modern IC engines are any sort of "simple"...but there appear to be a lot more high-precision moving parts, under load, in their clever new crankshaft assembly. (Vs. traditional 4-cycle IC engines.) Obviously, Porche's target market isn't likely to care about that. But for possible down-market uses of this technology - are there any mechanical engineers in the house, to comment?
  • _yb2s 2y ago
    I drive a 24 year old Porsche and the engine already has a lot more mechanical complexity than most other engines- especially for their variable camshaft timing system. You’re right that Porsche and their target customers don’t care much. I’d say German engineering culture in general is to make things work better (when new), and not worry about complexity.
    • nolan879 2y ago
      I Do Cars did a tear down of the M96 engine from a 986 Boxster S. Seeing inside of them, it makes sense how these motors cost $20K to teardown, rebuild and remedy Porsche's cost cutting in their first water cooled engine. I would own another 986 or 996 in a heartbeat. Tear down video: https://youtu.be/qrkALiq5hTU?si=0OmBKYcim-cflJEy https://youtu.be/qrkALiq5hTU?si=0OmBKYcim-cflJEy
      • _yb2s 2y ago
        Thanks! I’m not sure what people expect from these engines- they’re somehow basically the most reliable car engine from that era (they regularly came out at the top of reliability ratings), while still making ~1.5x the power per displacement that was standard at the time. Things like the D chunk failure and IMS failure can happen, but most people will get a reliable 200-300k miles before they do, and the IMS can easily be prevented with a new bearing kit that is fairly cheap and easy to do. The 2.7 Boxster engine had none of the cylinder issues- that’s the Porsche to get if you want low hassle fun transportation IMO. It’s true they’re expensive to rebuild properly but you can get used engines with a lot of life left for just a few k.
• magicalhippo 2y ago
  I'm a programmer, not an engine guy. From the description in the article, they do one intake stroke, two pairs of compression-power strokes, followed by an exhaust stroke. Also, it seems the initial compression-power strokes are done with the piston moving lower, ie both lower top dead center and bottom dead center, hence would have lower compression, and the second moving higher so with higher compression. From my understanding of more fuel means less compression is tolerated before knocking[1], and vice versa. So do I understand it correctly that their idea then to make the first power stroke rather rich with lower compression ratio to eliminate knock, and the second at a higher compression ratio to burn the remaining unburnt fuel? Or the other way around, ie lean with high compression first? If so, it seems like an evolution of variable compression ratio engines[2]. edit: my morning-brain is having issues with thinking about how air-fuel ratio change in rich-burning vs lean-burning scenarios. So perhaps they aim for a good stoichiometric ratio and rely on the exhaust gasses to avoid knock when increasing compression the second time around? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_compression_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_compression_ratio
  • i_am_jl 2y ago
    >more fuel means less compression is tolerated before knocking Generally, no. Knocking happens from pre-detonation, that's usually caused by heat from compression causing the fuel/air mix to ignite before it's triggered by spark. To avoid this engines will run a fuel/air mix that is not stoicheometrically ideal, to make the mixture less likely to ignite early. It is safer to run a fuel rich mix than to run a fuel lean mix as it keeps combustion chamber pressures low (unburned fuel takes heat out of the exhaust). It is more economical and more ecologically friendly to run fuel lean since you paid for that unburned fuel and it's kinda gross. In general, more fuel than ideal means more resistance to knock. But these things are complex. EDIT: Knocking happens from pre-detonation. Knocking can also happen from predestination, like in the case of turbocharged Subarus.
    • to11mtm 2y ago
      > EDIT: Knocking happens from pre-detonation. Knocking can also happen from predestination, like in the case of turbocharged Subarus. Edit of the week IMO.
• kopirgan 2y ago
  Know nothing about automobile engineering but somehow this feels like Wordpress releasing a version for DOS when windows already captured most of the PC market.
• kopirgan 2y ago
  Know nothing about automobile engineering but somehow this feels like WordPerfect releasing a fantastic version for DOS when Windows was already capturing all the market. Btw they did that. Rest is history.
  • bayindirh 2y ago
    Considering that people still love vinyl, automatic watches, fountain pens and hand made notebooks, I think this will still has its niche, and more interesting designs will follow to push the internal combustion engines forward. On the other hand of the spectrum, Hyundai Ioniq 5 N can emulate a sports car with an internal combustion engine and 8 speed sequential gearbox.
    • mrangle 2y ago
      ICE aren't niche, and there isn't strong evidence that they will be. There doesn't seem to be a public Come-to-Jesus moment for electric cars on the horizon. There seems to be solid reasoning behind that reluctance. That is, it will be difficult to displace. If phasing out ICE comes down to regulations only, then the antique interface analogy doesn't fit. >On the other hand of the spectrum, Hyundai Ioniq 5 N can emulate a sports car with an internal combustion engine and 8 speed sequential gearbox. Sports cars are sometimes for vanity, which is a role that a Hyundai wouldn't fill. But you referenced driving characteristics. Fair enough, and so no need to talk about the vanity attraction of a future all electric Porsche. When not for vanity only, sports cars are for people who like a driving experience. Sports car culture is strongly critical of any deviation from an ideal experience even with better ICE cars. Therefore, it tends to detest "the other end of the spectrum" the most. Sports cars are integrating electric motors, but mostly as horsepower and torque supplements for ICE. The most well regarded sports cars for the common man err toward being ultra-light weight, relatively low power, and high rpm with a manual gearbox. With the rest being as analog as possible. With incremental deviations from that ideal only as preferred for specific owner comfort. None of that criteria speaks to an appropriate / desired role for an electric motor.
      • freeone3000 2y ago
• adrian_b 2y ago
  The number of the Porsche patent application: 20240301817 (which can be used on various sites, e.g. https://pat2pdf.org/ https://pat2pdf.org/ to retrieve the document)
  • jtxt 2y ago
    https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadBasicPdf/20240301817 https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadBasic... o
    • ralfd 2y ago
      { "message": "Too many requests" }
• rikthevik 2y ago
  If I remember correctly the engine in the Mazda Millenia was a Miller cycle engine and did something unconventional like this. Props to Mazda for trying new stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Millenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Millenia
  • Ccecil 2y ago
    Miller cycle (IIRC) was a bit different. It simply kept the intake valves open longer and used boost from it's supercharger to emulate a valve "closing". It used a boost level that was significantly higher than a supercharged Otto cycle would use. Volkswagen is doing something similar with the EA888.3B (B cycle) motor that is in the most recent Tiguans. https://www.motortrend.com/features/inside-volkswagen-ea888-b-cycle-2-0-tsi-i4/ https://www.motortrend.com/features/inside-volkswagen-ea888-... This six stroke is doing something a bit more complex...more impressive, IMHO. Similar in complexity to what Nissan is doing with their variable compression engine they are currently using https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY/ARCHIVE/VC_TURBO_ENGINE/ https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY/ARCHI... There was also a 6 stroke diesel a while back that injected water into the empty cylinder after the exhaust stroke to gain an extra compression stroke from waste heat...Bruce Crower (Crower Cams fame) built one years ago but I never heard anything more about it. https://www.autoweek.com/news/a2063201/inside-bruce-crowers-six-stroke-engine/ https://www.autoweek.com/news/a2063201/inside-bruce-crowers-...
    • addaon 2y ago
      Note that the motortrend link you give says that the Miller cycle "closes the intake valves much earlier." I'm just reading about this for the first time, but this is exactly the opposite of the description on Wikipedia [0], and from a quick glance at the patent Wikipedia is correct, and motortrend is exactly wrong here. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_cycle
      • Ccecil 2y ago
        Good note...especially since I misspoke. Apparently..it doesn't use standard Miller cycle. They are calling it Budack cycle. https://alexsautohaus.com/whats-changed-with-volkswagens-new-ea888-b-cycle-engine/ https://alexsautohaus.com/whats-changed-with-volkswagens-new...
• osigurdson 2y ago
  I'm sure one day we will look back and laugh about how we used to install actual mobile power plants in our cars. But as of today, they are still objectively better on many criteria.
  • martinky24 2y ago
    What makes you so sure? We don't look back and laugh at people using horses for transportation. We understand that's what they had at the time.
    • osigurdson 2y ago
      It personally strikes me as a little humorous, particularly from the perspective of a human in (say) 2150. But, not in a mean spirited way. Of course, much respect for the pioneers of the ICE engine and on-going improvements today.
  • jeffreyrogers 2y ago
    I thought the nuclear powered aircraft concepts were very cool. None every flew though (as far as we know). Russia claims to have a nuclear powered missile.
• markhahn 2y ago
  I always wonder about premises in cases like this. a pair of compression-power cycles is a nice way to question the usual. has anyone gone through all the features of a conventional engine and asked: what if there's an alternative? for instance, what if we're just interested in range-extension? can we transform the motion created by combustion into electrical power in a clever way? cylinder-solenoid coils? are poppet valves so great? suppose we have some other mechanism to create the motion (solenoids?) or rotating valves? something electromagnetic appeals because it gives complete control over timing (rather than a crankshaft). rotary engines are appealing, for the same contrarian reasons. but they seem to either have practical problems (wankel) or don't seem to be making it to market (peanut-shaped rotors, etc). if 6 cycles makes sense (presumably in combustion physics), does it make any sense to burn in one chamber, then move those products to another chamber for some further (potentially different) cycle? would it help if you could ignite from more than a single place? multiple plugs sounds like a bit of a pain, but could you generate an annular spark? would you want to control the location-timing of the combustion front? does rotating-detonation have any meaning in this context? are there ways to reconsider the materials engineering of engines? make them dramatically cheaper, lighter? one of the best EV arguments is simplicity, but how much of current IC engineering is based on assumptions that can be broken?
  • ithkuil 2y ago
    Iirc Koenigsegg is using camless valves (using solenoids?)
    • cr125rider 2y ago
      Christian and his team over there are actually pushing boundaries and doing really cool stuff.
    • Too 2y ago
      Freevalve yes. They’ve got loads of other cool thinking outside of the box solutions. Like the Lightspeed transmission with 7 clutches, providing instant shifting between any gears and ability to slip freely between them.
    • 2y ago
• outside1234 2y ago
  Reading these articles is like when you used to read articles in 2005 about people "innovating" on OS/2. The market has moved to electric (see China) and Porsche would be well served on investing there versus on OS/2 (nee ICE engines).
  • bluGill 2y ago
    While you are onithe right track, the market may not be moving quite that fast and to a small amount of ice inventment may be needed.
  • _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    It's all in a weird state. Tweaking ICE engines was a fun hobby with lots of 'consume' products to dream about. Electric just out of the box stomps ICE, but not in the same 'acquiring things and putting together a puzzle' type way that feeds our monkey brains. That said Porsche is dead and the super wide Audi's pretending to be Porsches just because they have a Porsche skin are lame.
  • m463 2y ago
    There was quite an overlap between the use of bows and guns. Bows were reliable, accurate, quiet, would work in the rain and reloaded quickly. Guns took a long time to exceed them. I think there is still quite a bit of time left for internal combustion engines. Long distance is a big one, as is racing. Fuel is lightweight and can still be added quickly.
  • akira2501 2y ago
    > The market has moved to electric It has not. > (see China) Understand the impact of subsidies. > versus on OS/2 (nee ICE engines). There is no roadmap to an electric plane in your lifetime. ICE engines are going to be here longer than you are.
  • Too 2y ago
    They do have one of the better EVs on the market.
• johnea 2y ago
  That is brilliant! As soon as they release one with a coal fired steam engine, I'm onboard! Nothing like last millenniums technology today...
• adrianmonk 2y ago
  > To do this, Porsche's patent shows a crankshaft spinning on a ring with two concentric circles—an annulus. ... this engine has two top and bottom dead centers. Instead of doing this complicated crankshaft, I wonder if you could do this with opposed pistons. The difference between the two top dead centers (and bottom dead centers) is small, so the secondary piston wouldn't have to move far to create the same change in volume. I can see some advantages and disadvantages. The crankshaft gets simpler, but you need to move the secondary piston somehow, presumably off the camshaft? Which sounds pretty rough on the timing chain. Also, it would have to go where the valves currently are. And another piston ring to wear out. On the other hand, the crankshaft gets simpler, and it's a critical component since it's transmitting all the engine power. Also, with the opposing piston, you could use a cam to get greater control of exactly when the volume changes happen.
  • hommelix 2y ago
    2-strokes opposed pistons engine already has a phase shift between bottom and top crankshaft for spooling purpose. Controlling the position of the top crankshaft relative to the bottom crankshaft seems doable.
• digga3000 2y ago
  This article has brought out a lot people to comment who don't know anything about sports cars, but feel necessary to insist they do. It's bad enough that I had to login in to dispell this reoccurring canard: "EVs are faster in a straight line! EVs have a flat/high torque curve!" -- big whoop. 1) 0-60 times are biased against ICEs as their torque curves _aren't_ flat and so the start of range is mostly when the engine is at a disadvantage. In an actual road situation the ICE is already at speed and therefore at or near the peak of their torque curve. 2) Actual roads have these things called "curves". Your bulky heavyweight EV handles like a brick on 3 wheels. And it doesn't have as responsive braking due that weight.
  • jamescmartinez 2y ago
    Your second point misses an important fact: the Tesla Model S Plaid set a 7:25 Nurburgring lap time, and the Porsche Taycan did it in 7:07. Both of these lap times are faster than many high-performance ICE cars, and close to GT2/3 times which are just below 7:00. As you might expect, the technology will continue to evolve, too.
    • _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      This person is explicitly ignoring that EVs use tire and braking configurations that maximize efficiency over performance in order to make their point. It's like saying ICE cars are inherently bad at performance because of Ferdinand Porsche's VW Beetle design choices or because my 3000lb vehicle (lighter than a modern Porsche) Jeep XJ isn't a sports car ICE vehicles can't be performance vehicles.
    • tempestn 2y ago
      True, but you do still feel the weight. Even with good tires, they give up time around the corners and make it back with insane acceleration. That's why you generally see hybrids for the most extreme hypercars, at least over the past decade or two. They have most of the advantage of electric without the weight penalty. (I own and track both ICE and electric cars and find both have advantages and disadvantages.)
    • 2y ago
• M95D 2y ago
  I like the old 6-stroke engines better: - Dyer/Crower engine = 5th stroke compresses air only, then inject cold water into the overheated cylinder and has another power stroke on 6th (from the generated steam) - Ilmor/Schmitz = the exhaust stroke from two normal 4-stroke cylinders power the down-stroke of a 3rd larger cylinder, alternatively, then evacuates the gas on 6th up-stroke. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muq1xlF8Gu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muq1xlF8Gu4 PS: For some reason, the Ilmor/Schmitz is call a 5-stroke engine.