Two cylinder cars
 

I once owned a '78 Chevette and a '82 Ford Escort, each with 1600 cc, 4 cylinder engines. They made about 60 HP, and consistently got about 40 mpg highway. I was happy with them. So, 60 HP is enough power for small cars.

More modern engines are much peppier than the old engines due to 4 valve cylinder heads and fuel injection. For example, GM's 2800 cc 4 makes 175 HP. A twin cylinder 1400 based on this engine would produce almost 90 HP. Thats 50% more than my old Chevette 4!

2 cylinder cars should get mileage similar to hybrids at 2/3 the price. I'll bet that a 2 cylinder Chevy Cobalt would get well over 50 mpg.

Why can't Citroen or Honda build 2 cylinder cars again?

My Honda n600 is 2 cylinder,
 

My Honda n600 is 2 cylinder, but it also is carbed and uses points and condenser.

I would love to put a water-cooled fuel injected 2 cylinder engine in that thing.

Maybe the only solution is a water-cooled motorcycle engine.

Don't motorcycle engines
 

Don't motorcycle engines make 150hp?? and rev past 12000rpm?

That is a good combo. But the problem is then you would need different gear ratios for the tranny. You can't just put a different motor and expect your gears to work right with the motor.

Some maxima guys are putting in VQ35's in their maximas that had VQ30's and most can't even use 1st gear.

Re: Don't motorcycle engines
 

Just like car and truck engines, each one is different.

My n600 engine gets 35ish HP, and revs past 8000RPM if I push it. I imagine most 600cc engines have similar power.

Yes, plus matt's engine is a
 

Yes, plus matt's engine is a motorcyle engine in the first place, if we get technical about it.

Anyway, any sort of transmission adapter plate can be built of the most part, you could prolly put and ITR tranny with LSD on the n600 if you wanted to spend the money to do it, :p

Motorcycle engines
 

Motorcycle engines make lousy car engines.

Motorcycle engines (with the exception of Harley Davidson) are designed for high rpm power instead of low rpm torque. They do this by making the bore much shorter than the stroke, and by using a lot of valve overlap. Also, most motorcycle engines use carburetors, which are not nearly as good as fuel injection.

Putting a motorcycle engine in a car won't result in a big mileage improvement in a car.

Re: Motorcycle engines
 

but it might result in a huge entertainment improvement in a car...


https://www.smartuki.com/images/Smartuki_Car03.jpg


https://www.smartuki.com/

https://www.smartuki.com/Smart.wmv

https://media.putfile.com/Diablo-19mb

NO
 

NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was laughing like crazy with that last video. Talk about a sleeper.

While we're talking about
 

While we're talking about sleepers...

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6133912955628716829

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4908181233385690454&q=minivan

this isn't as cool as matt's video, but it is a sleeper.

grafting a head on?
 

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.

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

Quote:also, the VW bug
 

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.

Re: Quote:also, the VW bug
 

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. :)

Meh, war sucks. So does me.
 

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

Blah, Blah, Blah
 

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?

What is the VW Lupo in terms
 

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.

here's the reason they won't
 

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?

https://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.)

I think that we won't see
 

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).

Cheapest Car in America
 

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

"American market"
 

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 .............................................

I agree
 

I agree, there has to be some forces at work in multiple levels of government to pressure the continued sale of fuel in quantity. The lobbying forces of all who benefit are openly very strong, and continue to be.

I read an article in a Car and Driver issue from a few months back that Mercedes did some testing on it's new E-series with the Diesel engine. They ended up breaking some world records: in Texas on a test track, they ran the Diesel for 100,000 continuous miles stopping only to pit (change oil, tires, etc.) and 3 teams of 6 drivers were on-hand to drive 2 hours and 10 minutes for each driver. After the test was completed, the average speed was about 148 mph, and the average mpg was 17! Now the E is pretty luxurious, and gets an EPA rating of 27/37 when not driving flat-out. The diesel's design is a quiet, common rail, direct injection, non-smokey design and clearly yields power, luxurious torque, and some degree of reliability. This is not a prototype, it's a model you can buy here for a lot of dough.

But alas, America has been tainted by Diesel. Only small niche groups are convinced to buy them. Most people on this site would love to get their hands on the Euro Accord Diesel sold in Europe only -- but they love the D over there. Even though it's more expensive, it yields more bang for the buck. People here see it as more expensive per gallon, messy, stinky, and not available like gas.

My failed Acura CSX experiment is a prime example of compact luxury in the US. The vehicle is basically a new Civic with Acura luxury inside and out. Is it sold in the US -- nope. Compact luxury with LEV-2 compliance. Trying to import one would pose some obstacles that proved to too costly, and dealers here probably wouldn't honor the warranty (if it was even needed). Insuring it would be tricky, even though it meets or exceeds all US Government Regs from the EPA to the DOT.

Was it Honda's independent decision not to sell it here, such as market research? Maybe they want to sell more TSX's, who knows. Maybe it's our "American Market" perception that small and luxury doesn't go together. We must have been brainwashed by the domestic auto makers and our own government over time. Except for us here who have figured it out. America's first attempt at the small luxury car: the mid-80's Cadillac Cimmaron. "Hey let's take the Cavalier, and stick some luxo parts on it. Nobody will notice that it's really a Chevy. We'll make millions!". FLOP. Have they tried since? Not that I can recall. A large paradigm shift has to happen from the public, but that doesn't happen overnight.

RH77

Fiat is finally going to build two-cylinder cars, and as predicted, the fuel mieage is going to be outstanding, and for a fraction of the price of hybrids.

https://www.fiatgroupautomobilespress...ticle&id=10794

Maybe they read this thread........

i def wouldn't buy one right away(upon it's release). hopefully they could produce them w/ better dependability than other cars in their history.

maybe their rep has a bad rap. any euro or other owners of them care to comment?

I remember a friend who's family owned Fiats back in the early '70s. One was a sedan, the other was an 850 Spyder. Both were '72 models, IIRC. In '73, either myself or another friend had to go out and drive him places because his car kept breaking. Along about '74 or so, I remember the sedan having a front seat broken off the seat track. I think there were other problems as well.

That 850 Spyder got that guy plenty of dates, however...

Two? No. Will you take three?
 

Can't say if GM hears you but perhaps Ford has:

Ford will adapt its Ecoboost concept to a three-cylinder 1.2-liter engine available in the US Fiesta from its mid-cycle facelift around three years from now. The engine will produce about 135 horsepower and 135 lb-ft of torque from about 1500 rpm.

"Ecoboost works by combining three critical technologies: dual variable valve timing for the twin-cam head, direct gas-injection and a turbo. The direct injection means a higher compression ratio of 10 to 1 can be used for much greater efficiency than regular turbo engines. There is no possibility of knock because the fuel is injected late in the cycle, and less NOx is created because the evaporating fuel cools the piston."

"The overall result is an engine with an impressive power and torque curve, good throttle response and great efficiency because the downsizing means less friction and mass, and more efficient light-throttle running."

"Using small engines with fewer cylinders also improves handling by cutting front-axle weight. This is especially important in small cars such as the Fiesta."

"The three-cylinder Ecoboost will reportedly need dual balance shafts to reduce vibration, but otherwise will share most components with the four-cylinder."

Read more: https://www.motortrend.com/features/a...#ixzz0hDwOl9Io

why would a 3 cylinder need balance shafts the crank throws are positioned at 120 degree intervals and inherently balanced.

According to the Society of Automotive Engineers:
 

"For the three-cylinder engine whose crankshaft has a phase of 120 degrees, the total sum of unbalanced inertia forces occurring in each cylinder will be counterbalanced among the three cylinders. However, parts of inertia forces generated at the No.1 and No.3 cylinders will cause a primary moment about the No.2 cylinder. In order to eliminate this out-of-balance moment, a single balance shaft has been attached to the cylinder block so that engine durability and ride comfort may be further improved. Accordingly, the forced vibration analysis of the three-cylinder engine must be implemented to meet the required targets at an early design stage. In this paper, a method to reduce noise and vibration in the 800 cc, three-cylinder LPG engine is suggested using the multibody dynamics simulation. The static and dynamic balances of the three- cylinder engine are investigated analytically. A multibody dynamic model of the three-cylinder engine is developed where the inertia properties of the connecting rod, crankshaft, and balance shaft are extracted from their FE- models. The combustion pressures within the No.1 cylinder in three operating conditions (1500 rpm-full load, 4000 rpm-full load, and 7000 rpm-no load) are measured from the actual tests to excite the engine. The vibration velocities at the three engine mounts with and without the balance shaft are evaluated through the real-time vibration analysis. Obviously, it is shown that the vibrations of the three-cylinder engine with the balance shaft are reduced to an acceptable level."
https://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2000-01-0601

If you've ever sat at a stoplight in a Geo Metro with an automatic, you'd understand and appreciate anything that would lessen the vibration. On the other hand, it's a nice massage. I doubt this would be an issue in a manual shift Metro...

Also, while the crankshaft throws are every 120 degrees, the engine fires every 240 degrees.

The Fiat engine looks like it's an in-line twin. Large twins need a balance shaft to be reasonably smooth. A better solution to the vibration problem would be a boxer twin. But the inline would be a lot more compact........

Or perhaps they could source a V (or more accurately an L) from Ducati.

Re: Two cylinder cars
 

It's sometimes a two cylinder car:

https://www.volkswagen-media-service...6c?actionID=ms

Re: Two cylinder cars
 

What comes to mind is the Citroen 2CV, 500 and 600 air cooled twin. The Fiat 500, again 500 air cooled twn. Subaru 360, same just smaller, oh yes the DAF, a Swedish car with twin variator transmision.

There is a kit to make a VW air cooled into a compressor, by making two cylinders pump air. The same can be said for taking two cylinders and disconnecting them, making a 60 horse into a 30 horse. Cant go on the freeway, but city mileage would probably be good.

The old 70's Tri Magnum took the concept of hanging a motorcycle off the back of a kit frame. Fiberglass body and the sound of an F1 style motorycle howling behind you.

One of my favorite concepts was the Suzuki GSXR-4, take a 170 HP motorcycle engine and put it behind the driver, then use a Quad style rear axle. A mid engined two seater that sounded like an F1 car. You can tell I like a car with 5 or 6 speeds and an engine note, lets you know your driving, not sleeping behind the wheel.

Oh yes, in the 60's there were a bunch of Italian 500 and 750 cc, little touring coupes. The Honda 500 and 600 R, coupes.

There is a DMV exception for Cycle Cars. It seems this is the best way to make light economical car-cycles. Now with the SUV reenforcements, economy cars are nearing 3000 pounds and things like the New Mustang comes in at 3800 lbs for the V8, 4100 for the convertible.

The Smart car was supposed to have a diesel twin, but got a 1 litre 3. I rented one to use on a trip to San Francisco and loved it. It was fast, people look at you and smiled. We challeged each other to find the smallest space you can park the car in. I got 28 city and 38 highway. Not close to book, but its all hills in the Bay Area.

I would love to see a return to 500 and 750 two three and four cylinder cars, perhaps even a tiny turbo rotary.