Two cylinder cars

[GasSavers_Ryland]

sure motorcycle engines are designed to run at higher revs, more valve overlap, and have an all around more agresive cam, but what would happen if you were to graft half of a lean burn vtec-e engine head (maybe the 3 stage vtec, the one that opens the 2nd intake at 2,500 and then opens them even farther at 5,000) on to a 2 cylender motorcycle engine, it could come close to being a built from scrach engine I supose... and if the high redline was kept then you could have a high gear for cruseing, keeping a low engine speed, and down shift a few gears, winding it way way out for passing, and avoiding accedents and all of that.

also, the VW bug started out as a twin cylender engined car, some were back in the 1930's 18hp I think, and honda made alot more then just the N600, they made station wagons, sports cars, trucks, all kinds of cars with 360-800cc engines, only a few of them were ever avalible in the US of course, but like the trucks I think were suposed to get 50-60 mpg unloaded, not sure what fully loaded, but fully loaded they could carry twice their own weight (2000 pounds) if I remember right.

http://www.hondasportsregistry.com/about.php

[SVOboy]

also, the VW bug started out as a twin cylender engined car, some were back in the 1930's 18hp I think

Indeed, hitler has like 700 produced in 38 or 39 and then stopped production cuz he needed the money and effort to go to tanks and other boring things.

[krousdb]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Indeed, hitler has like 700 produced in 38 or 39 and then stopped production cuz he needed the money and effort to go to tanks and other boring things.

Ahh yes the various Mk Panzers, the Panther, the Tiger 1 and the King Tiger. Nothing at all boring about them, especially if you were in a Sherman that was in the sights of a King Tiger's 88mm main gun. The German tanks could peel the lid of of a Sherman in one shot, didnt even need to be a direct hit. The achilles heel of those behemoths was poor reliability and abysmal fuel economy. 6" of armor and superior firepower doesn't mean squat if you run out of gas.

[SVOboy]

Meh, war sucks. So does me. I finished redoing my ecu harness for A plug, got B and D plug left.

[Sludgy]

So the thread has gone from two cylinder cars to Tiger tanks using 6 gallons per mile? I thought this was Gassavers. Sheesh.

What about my original proposition: Manufacturers should make cars with two cylinder engines with the newer performance goodies:

fuel injection (perhaps direct),
4 valves per cylinder,
variable valve timing,
undersquare cylinders and pistons,
ebullient cooling
1.0 - 1.5 liter displacement.

Cars like this could deliver about 100 HP and 50-60 MPG in a car approximately the size and shape of a Toyota Prius. If they were "boxer" engines (like BMW motorcycles) they would also be smooth running.

Volkswagen, and Peugot once made engines and cars like these. Engine technology is so much better now that they would be practical and peppy. General Motors, are you listening?

[SVOboy]

What is the VW Lupo in terms of cylinderage? I'd be interested to see that, it could be what you're looking for.

EDIT: 3 cylinder, 1 liter, turbo, 61 hp.

[MetroMPG]

here's the reason they won't sell these cars here, as read today in the toronto star "wheels" section.

it's from a story about the "new" honda fit, and why it's in fact new only to north america. it's popular in *117* countries, and a best-seller (THE best seller) in japan.

the reason?

It's because the drivetrains that Fit was initially launched with — 1.0- and 1.3-litre four-cylinder engines coupled to your choice of manual or continuously-variable automatic transmissions — weren't suited for the North American market.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1143154015483&call_pag eid=968867497088&col=969048871196

to which we may now all say: nonsense!

gm and suzuki sold hundreds of thousands of 1.0 and 1.3 L engines in 3 generations of suzukiclones. what has changed so much in 5 years (the last metro was sold in 2001) that these engines - and even smaller ones - are now considered not suitable for north americans?*

(* smart car notwithstanding. on a related note, if you haven't read it already, ZAP is now selling US-certified smart fortwos in the states.)

[kickflipjr]

I think that we won't see 1.0 / 1.3L cars until gas prices go up. I still think the car companies don't want to release a cars with under 100 HP (unless its a hybrid).

[rh77]

So I rented the cheapest car in America: the Chevy Aveo. Even equipped with the automatic is was too fast! 1.6L automatics shouldn't be fast. I kept up with traffic, I accellerated briskly. That's not how an economy car is supposed to be. It needs to be helplessly underpowered and efficient. The calculated mileage was 14.3 mpg. Even if it wasn't entirely full, the margin of error wouldn't produce that low of a result. The gauge was past F upon receipt, no A/C used, crank windows and everything. 50% City, 50% highway. It should've gotten at least in the high 20's (or mid-20's with the margin of error). What a rip. 2.99 gallons for 43 miles. And it's really Korean adapted for U.S.

RH77

[Sludgy]

The "American market" concept is crap. There are plenty of buyers for fuel efficient cars that don't cost an arm and a leg like the hybrids do. If niche vehicles like the Mini Cooper can be profitable for car companies, so can high-tech, but non-hybrid, fuel economy cars. And I don't mean "cheap" cars. Luxury versions of cars can be efficient.

As I've said before, there are lots of incentives for the states and federal government to want a lot of motor fuel sold.... after all, about 45 cents of each gallon is tax. And there are many subtle and not-so-subtle pressures that the government can put on car companies to keep their fuel efficient vehicles away from North America. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but .............................................