wonder how hard it would be to re-work an engine to handle it?

there are several schools on the six stroke concept..

one is actually a five stroke, that uses an extra (but opposing) cylinder/piston.. it 'fires' once every other revolution, but I reckon it shares just as much concept with other six strokes that it is still considered such..

for those new to the concept, in its basics, it's this:

after the power stroke, straight up wawa.. good ol' h20, is sprayed through an injector into the cylinder.. it turns to steam instantly, and expands at a rate of 1600:1, and provides an additional power stroke that is just as powerful as the fueled power stroke.. the concept is proven, and it's being applied in engines specially made for this purpose.. you don't need any coolant in the engine.. I'll say that again: You don't need and coolant in the engine.. no coolant.. no radiator.. no fans.. no pump.. it cools itself.. an engine can turn 5k+ RPM's and be tolerantly cool to the touch..

so, just bouncing this idea around you gear heads- my question is:

could an engine made to be a four stroke be converted to six? there is no ignition of the load (controlled by PCM), the injection could be handled via free standing like megasquirt.. it seems that it could be done.. I gotta be missing something...

thoughts?

 

Why do I have a feeling you're going to be asking someone to "hold mah beer" when you fire that thing up?


Cool concept, but I think there would be some more in-depth programming required for the PCM.

 

it's a helluva concept, that's been around since 1870.. curious, no? the issue then was injecting at the right time on a variable speed engine..

there are ways to handle that now, and have been since the advent of electronic fuel injection and computer controlled ignitions..

figure this, just for grins:

two power strokes per cycle.. almost double your performance numbers.. lower your fuel consumption by damn near a quarter.. no parasitic loss by running fans, or pumps..

instead of bumping ethanol production to 15%, and at the cost of food stores and food costs (grain going to ethanol instead of feed for cattle, not to mention cost in grains themselves), maybe it should be focused on developing engine technology and/or retrofitting existing engines..

I can't do it.. but I can't find a good reason why it can't be done to every four stroke internal combustion engine out there right now.. like I said, I gotta be missing something..

 

Hence the reasons I LOVE computer controlled FI systems!

 

Seems like the biggest issue would be actually installing the stuff to do it. A whole other injection system would be rather costly.

Also seems like the Crower method is only mostly beneficial at lower rpms, not sure if the huge gains remains when you start to wind the engine up.

Also, you would have to install a rather large water tank somewhere on the vehicle that likely has nowhere else to put a large tank of the kind

 

wouldn't have to be a large tank, you could easily get by with a ten gallon supply..

the crower method holds true throughout the entire range- it's simply adding two strokes- the valve train would have to operate differently- to a small degree.. most of what happens would be controlled elsewhere..

the injection is the easy part- simply tap another injector per cylinder adjacent the existing ones, solely for water supply..

the issue would be all to do with splitting the fuel sync signal to alternate between fuel and water, and spark to be set to fire totally differently (spark would have to 'float' to strokes ahead of where it thinks it should be).. that could be handled via PCM though.. there would have to be some sort of mechanical trigger for the water injection though..

 

See that all sounds rather costly

 

I can imagine it would be silly expensive.. for a prototype.. but once that bad bear is ironed out? the cost of new heads, new intake manifold, new exhaust, new computer and likely a split dizzy w/ separate gear driven shafts- one for spark/sync, and the other for h2o sync..

there is one fella with a marine application engine running (brace yourself) 400bhp with an engine weighing 50lbs.. amazing.. without all the trinkets to cool it, special made engines are nailing it down right this second with MUCH less moving parts than what we deal with now..

I can't see why it's not being developed for retrofit.. it's a floggin' awesome concept..

 

It's an interesting concept for future considerations, but definitely not for retrofits. It would be too costly for people to want new heads, exhaust, and everything else changed out on their existing vehicle. Something like this would be better planned for future development where the vehicle can be designed around the system.

 

absolutely agreed.. but, it can be done..

for engines designed around the six stroke concept, the 'five' stroke is better it seems.. it has an opposing cylinder per cylinder, and uses exhaust heat directly from exhaust valve to drive it (in addition to h20).. some of the weight to performance ratios on them will make your eyes pop..