By on November 16, 2017

Infiniti VC-TWe’ve mused on Infiniti’s Variable Compression Engine in the past, calling it everything from a chameleon to the holy grail. Its killer app? The ability to changes the distance the pistons travel in their cylinders by as much as 6 mm, or about a quarter of an inch.

Why is this important? Because it is, arguably, the first major change to the workings of a internal combustion engine in more than a century.

Certainly, advancements in the areas of ignition and fuel injection have allowed manufacturers to make huge leaps forward in the never-ending quest for more power and greater efficiency. At  its core, though, all those innovations have been addendums to the internal combustion engine — improving its supporting cast without upgrading the main star.

“VC-Turbo technology is a step change for Infiniti,” explains Roland Krueger, chairman and global president of Infiniti and senior veep of Nissan. “It is a revolutionary next-step in optimizing the efficiency of the internal combustion engine. This breakthrough delivers the power of a high-performance 2.0-liter turbo gasoline engine with a high level of efficiency at the same time.”

Sounds a lot like the promises made when manufacturers starting downsizing the displacements of their engine fleet and slapping on turbochargers. The difference here, though, is that the VC-T engine fundamentally changes how an engine works.

As most readers know, pistons in conventional internal combustion engines travel the same distance up and down in the cylinder, regardless of speed and vehicle load. The times this doesn’t happen can be counted on one hand, such as when cylinder-deactivation technology kicks in or the timing belt lets go on a ratty ’92 Escort at highway speed, causing all the valves to depart the 1.9-liter engine and dance on the hood. This is a purely hypothetical example, of course, and not something that happened to this author while trying to court a new girlfriend 20 years ago. She started dating someone with a Fox-body Mustang instead.

Anyway. The pistons are connected to rods, which are mounted to a crankshaft. The engine’s compression ratio is fixed, determined by the amount of space above the pistons when they are at top-dead center. The smaller the space above the pistons, the higher the compression ratio and, generally, the greater an engine’s power output.

Here’s where the VC-T engine departs from its mundane brethren. The pistons in the VC-T are connected to rods which are in turn attached to one end of an elliptic device Nissan calls a multilink. This  multilink is mounted on the crankshaft where the connecting rods would normally be found.

Infiniti VC-T

The opposite end of the multilink has a short rod connected to a shaft. An electric actuator moves the shaft, causing the multilink to tilt up or down slightly. When the end of the multilink closest to the piston is tilted up, the piston travels to the top of the cylinder, providing a compression of 14:1. When the multilink tilts down, the piston’s travel in the cylinder is stopped before it reaches top-dead center. This lowers the compression ratio to 8:1.

Here’s the kicker — because the turbocharger kicks in at this time to fill in the blanks, the engine’s power output increases. The turbo pressurizes each cylinder with a dense mix of fuel and air. This increases power.

According to Infiniti, these two compression extremes are simply that — the extremes. The system apparently has the ability to vary compression between the two bookends of 8:1 (for high performance) and 14:1 (for high efficiency). The engine control logic automatically applies the optimum ratio, depending on what the driving situation demands.

This also means the displacement of the engine changes as the multilink does its job. Will Nissan advertise the engine as a 1.6-2.0-2.4-liter? Those questions remain, as yet, unanswered.

Nissan’s chief powertrain engineer, Shinichi Kiga, has stated Infiniti’s VC-T engine is expected to deliver a EPA fuel economy gain of 27 percent over the QX50s’s outgoing 3.7-liter V-6 on the combined city-highway cycle. The engine is rated at 268 horsepower and 288 pound-feet of torque, says Kiga, who expects the 2019 QX50 will reach 60 mph almost one second faster than its four-cylinder competitors.

Now, we have seen this story play out before — a breathless announcement from an automaker saying its new engine technology is going to revolutionize the modern automobile. Witness the rotary engine from Mazda, the Miller cycle patented back in 1957, and various iterations of gasoline engines that don’t need spark plugs.

It would be unfair to write off those technologies as flashes in the pan, as most of them failed to become popular thanks to deficiencies of marketing and consumer perception, not engineering. However, the VC-T from Infiniti stands an excellent chance of hitting the big time, mostly because it solves problems that have been vexing engine builders for decades.

We’ll likely see this new technology in the 2019 Infiniti QX50 at the upcoming L.A. Auto Show.

[Images: Infiniti]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

60 Comments on “Compression Test: Infiniti Set to Unveil a Variable Compression Engine...”


  • avatar

    I foresee the future:

    V-1.8-1.6-1.4

  • avatar
    Menar Fromarz

    As a former ‘92 escort wagon owner, who’s timing belt popped on the highway, I can assure you that the valves kept thier places as that motor was non interference. The 1.8 Mazda motor in the GT, well, that was a different kettle of fish.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    The people that think turbocharged engines are too complicated (even though they don’t actually add very many moving parts to an engine) are gonna have a field day with this.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    What’s the fuel requirement on this one?

    87 – 92 – 114 octane?

    As soon as they invent variable octane gasoline this will be GOLD!

  • avatar
    dont.fit.in.cars

    27% better efficiency would null any advantages of a diesel.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Making a big assumption that this works as hoped, it will make the environmental case for EVs even tougher. EVs are already dirtier than comparable gasoline cars wherever coal is a substantial portion of the electricity generation mix (i.e. most of the world), so a 27% improvement in efficiency and corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emission from this technology will make EVs dirtier in almost all markets. Take away the environmental benefits, and governments will have a hard time justifying EV subsidies, and take those subsidies away and the EV market dies.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      Here we go yet again.

      http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green

      Even that study made a probably false assumption that electric cars won’t last as long as gas cars. Even if a battery is replaced, gas cars replace engines and transmissions

      Do you agree that power generation can/must/is getting cleaner?

      Should we wait until some point in that shift before any electric cars are deployed? If so, at what point do you think it would be appropriate? If so, do you have different timing for different locations?

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

      …standing by for the funded boilerplate…

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        As usual BrandLoyalty your information is highly biased, but even so only proves my point. Comparing a Leaf type EV to a typical American vehicle’s emissions is highly misleading – of course a Leaf will be cleaner than an F-150, but those two vehicles are not cross-shopped very often. In India and China (the two highest population countries in the world), a Leaf type EV gives the emission equivalent of an 25-30 mpg gasoline vehicle, but a Leaf sized gasoline car will typically get 35-45 mpg, which means it is cleaner. Also note that all the white regions of the world are very likely to use coal as their primary fuel as they develop, because it is the cheapest most reliable fuel available for most of the world. Sure Norway and Switzerland have good results with EVs, but they only have 15 million people, it is China and India that are the places that will make the big difference globally and they run on coal. If this Infiniti engine improves efficiency by almost 30%, it means much of the rest of the world will also be better off with gasoline.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Zürich and Geneva have a handful of Teslas but they mostly contain petrol and diesel ICE vehicles (with Zürich having at least one silver 1977 Lincoln Continental Town Car, schweeeet!).

          Fuel per gallon last summer was about 6 CHF, at least in Geneva (where they also accept Euros for payment incidentally).

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          Stingray, here’s where your logic against electric vehicles falls down: It assumes that the future of electric power generation will be very much like the present.

          Let’s start at the ending: If we don’t go much farther in getting our energy from sources other than unlocking hydrocarbons, it will kill most human life within less than 100 years. That said, cars that run on electricity will be ready for the changeover that definitely will be necessary, while cars that can run only on combustible fuels definitely won’t.

          Now let’s proceed to the middle of the story: It’s well established that power generation by other, cleaner means is already technologically viable, starting just as soon as governments and societies commit to it (which they have not done yet, due to governments being in thrall to fossil fuel extraction corporations). Pretending there’s no reason to produce cars that can use clean energy is a handy way to pretend clean energy production itself is a non-starter, but that logic loops us back to the End of the Story, and I for one don’t care to go there.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Tony – the only established cleaner power generation method is nuclear, which the greenies almost universally are against. Hydro is pretty much maxed out and the greenies actually want to tear down existing dams to save the fishies. Solar and Wind are only viable in a few areas with lots of wind and sun, but even there they require conventional power backups until cheap and reliable energy storage systems are developed, which are probably a few decades away. This is why coal is projected to increase its world share of power generation through at least 2050 by the EIA, while solar and wind are projected to still be minor sources of power. Most EVs will be coal powered for many decades to come.

          • 0 avatar
            2manycars

            “If we don’t go much farther in getting our energy from sources other than unlocking hydrocarbons, it will kill most human life within less than 100 years.”

            LOL!!! Cripes, don’t say funny stuff like that while I’m drinking coffee, now I’ve got a lot of cleanup to do. What a bunch of utterly ludricrous environazi malarky!! I guess now that their peak oil wet dreams have failed to materialize, they have to move onto newer, bigger lies.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            Stingray 65:
            “This is why coal is projected to increase its world share of power generation through at least 2050 by the EIA,”

            https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

            “Renewables are the world’s fastest-growing energy source, with consumption increasing by an average 2.3%/year between 2015 and 2040.”

            “Compared with the strong growth in coal use in the 2000s, worldwide coal use remains flat in the IEO2017 Reference case [2].  Coal is increasingly replaced by natural gas, renewables, and nuclear power (in the case of China) for electric power generation, and demand for coal also weakens for industrial processes. China is the world’s largest consumer of coal, but coal use is projected to decline in China by 0.6%/year from 2015 to 2040, and in the combined OECD countries coal also declines by 0.6%/year over that same period. …… The coal share of total world energy consumption declines significantly over the projection period, from 27% in 2015 to 22% in 2040”

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            ……the only established cleaner power generation method is nuclear, which the greenies almost universally are against. Hydro is pretty much maxed out and the greenies actually want to tear down existing dams to save the fishies. Solar and Wind are only viable in a few areas with lots of wind and sun…

            Presently the US generates 10% of its electrical energy from solar and wind. Not a bad start. As for “greenies” being against nuclear power, well this greenie understands that nuclear power has to be part of the short term replacement for coal and other fossil fuels. Maybe with technology in 20 years might change that but for the near future will require power that will require nukes

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          Stingray65:

          First I want to point out it was you who posted on an article about new ICE technology, an attack on ev’s.

          Second, the use of the Nissan Leaf for comparison is entirely appropriate in all markets other than the US and Canada. And I could find no indication the study was not comparing the Leaf and equivalent non-ev’s in North America.

          Third, the study was done in 2009, and the numbers would have changed since then. Probably in favor of clean power and ev’s.

          Fourth, you have not answered the questions I asked you.

          And fifth, if you think subsidies to ev’s are expensive, just wait as the bills for climate warming just keep coming in and relentlessly mounting. Maybe it’s time to track carbon footprint so those costs can be allocated fairly.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            The market price for a ton of carbon emissions is about $10, and most estimates on the environmental damage caused by CO2 emissions is less than $50 per ton. Even under best case scenarios, CO2 reductions from EVs cost hundreds of dollars per ton, which means they are very inefficient. The cost per ton will only get higher for EVs when you look at markets with more coal (China and India) or if you get technology improvements with internal combustion as this Infiniti technology promises. EVs make no sense economically or environmentally, which is why they need huge subsidies just to get a small market share.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            Stingray65: How about providing some links to back up your claims?

            Such as: “most estimates on the environmental damage caused by CO2 emissions is less than $50 per ton.”

            “Most estimates”? Where did you get that? Have a look at this article and judge if the study used superior methodology.

            https://news.stanford.edu/2015/01/12/emissions-social-costs-011215/

            “The “social cost” of carbon dioxide emissions may not be $37 per ton, as estimated by a recent U.S. government study, but $220 per ton.”

            Every time I look into one of your claims I find serious problems. Frankly the volume and nature of those claims leads me to believe you have some vested interest, specifically in coal.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          Stingray65:
          “If this Infiniti engine improves efficiency by almost 30%, it means much of the rest of the world will also be better off with gasoline.”

          As Scoutdude explains later, your conclusion is based on a gross misunderstanding of the matter. Your rounding error may account for most of the gain. For your convenience here’s what he pointed out:

          “Note no where do they say that this engine is 27% more efficient than a standard ICE design. They say that the new QX with a turbo 4cyl will have a 27% better EPA rating than the old QX with the old 3.7 NA V6. You can be certain that some of that is also due to other changes to the vehicle and/or transmission.

          This technology might if they are lucky be responsible for 5% of that increase, while lighter weight, better aero and the simple fact that it is going from a large NA V6 to a small turbo 4 will account for most of the gains.”

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            National Academy of Science estimate on Social cost of carbon = $31 per ton:
            http://www.pnas.org/content/114/7/1518.full

            Market cost of carbon $7.69 per ton:
            http://www.pnas.org/content/114/7/1518.full

            EIA Solar and Wind % of US power generation 2016 = 6%
            https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01_a
            https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01

            EIA World Coal Use projection through 2050 = .1% growth
            https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=7-IEO2017

            QX50 V-6 267 ft/lbs torque, new QX 288 ft/lbs
            https://www.infinitiusa.com/crossover/qx50

            Now lets see your comic book sources that show how the world is all wrong and you are right.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          Stingray65: Rather than increase in use as you falsely claim, coal may collapse faster than most forecast:

          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/15/growing-number-of-global-insurance-firms-divesting-from-fossil-fuels

          “A growing number of insurance companies increasingly affected by the consequences of climate change are selling holdings in coal companies and refusing to underwrite their operations.

          About £15bn has been divested in the past two years”

          These are not the actions of lunatic greenies. Or has the fraud merely captured more victims?

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Denver

      This is it! The miracle cure that will save the IC combustion engine and get all those fools to stop talking about electric vehicles once and for all. I would not count on it.

  • avatar
    TR4

    Variable compression engines have been around since 1928 in the form of the CFR (Co-operative Fuel Research) engines used for measuring octane of fuels:

    https://www.asme.org/getmedia/ffedc33f-7e2b-4775-95ec-2f633ddc16f6/50-Cooperative-Fuel-Research-Engine-1928.aspx

    • 0 avatar
      2manycars

      Saab had a prototype variable compression back around 2000. It involved a two-piece engine block that would pivot under hydraulic control to change compression ratio on the fly. I remember reading about it at the time and thinking it was overly complex and possibly prone to failure, but it seems a model of simplicity compared to this crazy Infiniti variable crank scheme.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Variable_Compression_engine

  • avatar
    ajla

    This sounds like a good offering for countries that I don’t live in.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    I would find this very promising and exciting if it weren’t being launched by the company that has been unable to make a simple belt and pulley transmission last as long as far more complicated geared transmissions.

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      Agreed, 30. We ain’t talking about Toyota here. We’re talking about Carlos Ghosn, aka Le Cost Cutter.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Go check out a new Camry and tell me Toyota isn’t deep into cost cutting.

        • 0 avatar
          tnk479

          I think they are letting the engineers kids design the cars now. The new Camry is hideous. I really hope a professional designer wasn’t paid for that monstrosity.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          Mike, I assume you are referencing interior materials rather than mechanical durability. I’ll take hard plastic on my lower door panels if the powertrain holds together. If a carmaker is going to cut costs, I’d rather they do it on the trim and not under the hood. My worry with Nissan involves the latter.

          As an aside, I sat in a 2018 XSE. It’s quite nice. Nicer than the outgoing one and–at first glance–on par with the Fusion Titanium and Mazda6. I’m sure the basic LE is less impressive, but they don’t want much money for those.

  • avatar
    Jack Denver

    I wonder what the failure mode is for this when the actuator breaks? Does it lock in place at wherever it was at that point or does it flap freely up and down with insanely loud banging at each end of the travel and cause more damage? How much do you have to tear apart the engine when the actuator fails?

    It’s sort of counter-intuitive that the “power” mode is at the point of LOW compression. I assume the multi-link not only lowers the TOP dead center but it also lowers the BOTTOM dead center (it has the same effect as a shorter connecting rod) so that there is more room in the cylinder for the turbo to fill it with bigger charge?

    • 0 avatar
      motobyte

      In regards to failure mode, I would think that the actuator would fail in place. The engine would then be able to run at a fixed compression ratio using it’s full compliment of sensors. At a minimum, it should be able to find the right fuel, timing, boost, etc maps using just a knock sensor. I’d expect the actuator to be a stepper motor mounted on the exterior of the engine case, so replacement would be simple.

      Power mode makes sense at lower compression ratio, because it is turbo charged. Higher mechanical compression is not needed when relying on boost pressure. Variable compression ratio also allows for fluctuations in fuel octane while retaining good performance and economy.

  • avatar
    chris724

    “This also means the displacement of the engine changes as the multilink does its job.”

    I don’t believe this is true. When the piston is moved down at TDC, it is also moved down the same amount at BDC. The stroke is unchanged.

    • 0 avatar
      Tele Vision

      Same stroke but with more headroom. Less engine compression to accommodate the turbo waking up. If they can make this work with regular fuel I’ll be impressed.

    • 0 avatar
      Erikstrawn

      I caught that too.

      Also, “…pistons in conventional internal combustion engines travel the same distance up and down in the cylinder, regardless of speed and vehicle load. The times this doesn’t happen can be counted on one hand, such as when cylinder-deactivation technology kicks in…”

      Could the author please explain how cylinder deactivation changes the distance a piston travels?

  • avatar
    IBx1

    Cylinder deactivation doesn’t disconnect the pistons from the crank; in most cases the valve lifters on the target cylinders are collapsible pistons. Also in most cases, they wear down and get stuck somewhere between no actuation and full actuation after 100,000 miles.

  • avatar
    1500cc

    From the article: “As most readers know, pistons in conventional internal combustion engines travel the same distance up and down in the cylinder, regardless of speed and vehicle load. The times this doesn’t happen can be counted on one hand, such as when cylinder-deactivation technology kicks in …”

    Cylinder deactivation doesn’t change anything about how the pistons travel. It merely shuts off the valves and fuel.

    “This also means the displacement of the engine changes as the multilink does its job. Will Nissan advertise the engine as a 1.6-2.0-2.4-liter?”

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around how this engine works, but I don’t think that’s true. Displacement is a function of the sweep of the piston (and of course the bore). While the starting and ending points of that sweep can change in this engine in order to effect the compression ratio change, I believe the piston is still going to travel the same distance from BDC to TDC in any given stroke.

    • 0 avatar
      Stanley Steamer

      I was about to disagree with you and then I realized you are right. The length of the upper link is fixed.

    • 0 avatar
      motobyte

      I believe you are correct in that displacement as a measure of piston stroke does not change. Yet, the combustion chamber volume will change as the TDC position is moved closer or further from the cylinder head. Part of what makes this so interesting is that we now have a way to change volumetric efficiency on the fly.

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    No those other technologies didn’t fail because of a lack of marketing they failed because they were not practical solutions or the technology is still lacking to make them practical in the real world. This too will fail in the real world as just too complicated to be practical.

    Note no where do they say that this engine is 27% more efficient than a standard ICE design. They say that the new QX with a turbo 4cyl will have a 27% better EPA rating than the old QX with the old 3.7 NA V6. You can be certain that some of that is also due to other changes to the vehicle and/or transmission.

    This technology might if they are lucky be responsible for 5% of that increase, while lighter weight, better aero and the simple fact that it is going from a large NA V6 to a small turbo 4 will account for most of the gains.

    • 0 avatar
      Greg Locock

      “You can be certain that some of that is also due to other changes to the vehicle and/or transmission.” Scoutdude, good point. They’ll also be bundling in weight reduction, lower rolling resistance tires, and looser bearing fits, and probably some aero as well into that 27%. I have worked on a program where the much publicised efficiency improvements in the downsized engines were masked by the need to work them harder, and the only real world fuel consumption benefits were due to the tires and aero.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      This technology is certain to add to the cost to make an engine, and use more resources to do so. Reliability remains to be seen. Looks pretty iffy to me. That will erode the benefits.

  • avatar
    PandaBear

    Cool idea. Complicated if you are adding another turbo on top of this, or any other options like CVT or hybrid.

    Most likely it will be a way to make BIG engine efficient, and not worth it on smaller engine that can just add a turbo and call it a day.

    Useless on anything for fuel economy if you have a CVT or hybrid to begin with.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      It will allow you to use big turbos, without killing efficiency and inducing lag the way the necessarily low mechanical compression otherwise would.

      When under no boost, you’d have a NA style 14:1 mechanical compression ratio; when under max boost, you’d have a WRC style 8:1 one.

      For awhile, Saab was always just a few years from delivering a production ready version of something similar………

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    It’s fun to see stuff like this and HCCI making to to production (or at least close enough to be promising it). The old gasser isn’t giving up quite yet.

    Back in the early days of the Abrams tank program development, the GM version had a Continental diesel with variable compression. That design used pistons with hydraulically variable compression height.

  • avatar
    stroker49

    Saab invented a system for variable compression less than 15 years ago. GM is probably the owner of that patent.It is a brilliant idea together with a turbo. But of course there are difficulties to overcome. One example is that the combustion champer is moved down in the cylinder barrel and that is a disadvantage.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Variable_Compression_engine

  • avatar
    LeBaron

    Wouldn’t an modern Atkinson cycle engine with variable valve timing applied to the intake valve produce the same results without all the added reciprocating weight and complication?

  • avatar
    conundrum

    Engineers struggle for years trying to get ideal combustion chamber shapes, getting the right tumble of the incoming charge, positioning the fuel injector tip just so, likewise the spark plug, and getting just the right amount of squish, where the piston comes close to the cylinder head and squishes the charge towards the plug or wherever it is found best to direct it. The payoff is that the better the shape, the quicker the combustion, and not surprisingly, the less total advance of the spark timing you need to avoid knock. Best practice seems to give about 25 to 27 degrees total. if you’re back in the 30s, then you have some way to go to optimize things.

    Then Nissan comes along with the monkey-motion variable “crank” setup some Victorian steam genius thought up a century and a half ago. The big end of the conrod doesn’t come close to describing a circle with this setup, so there’s jitters at higher frequencies. The displacement is variable, because it is greater at low CR, simply because the piston never reaches the top of the cylinder by 6 mm or so but goes down the bore about the same. Say we have an 80 mm piston, then the greater volume is 16*pi*0.6 cc or about 30 cc at low CR compared to high CR – for each cylinder.

    Unfortunately, at low CR, all semblance of decent squish nd combustion chamber shape is thrown out of the window, and knock resistance is worse. So you give ‘er the fuel, max the boost, retard the ignition, hope for the best and worry you don’t have to put up with this condition for too long. No, you want the high CR for economy.

    Seems like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. You put up with a cr*p combustion scenario at max boost, monkey motion in the crankcase, and the rest of the time you have a 14 to 1 CR, just like the current Mazda SkyActiv or new Camry hybrid engine. I’m not seeing the benefits except for peak power. I mean, what is the likelihood the thing will run much of the time at say 11 to 1 CR? About zilch, I’d say. You’re going to be at one extreme or the other.

    But the new Mazda SPCCI is pure genius. You create a virtual small combustion chamber by exploding a small ball of good air-fuel ratio gas at the sparkplug, artificially creating high compression, which allows the very lean remaining mixture in the cylinder to light off like a diesel. It’s so neat, you just wish you’d thought it up yourself. Worst case, it works like a current SkyActiv when you need power with a 13 or 14 to 1 CR, and leans it out from there. Poor old Nissan defaults to 8 to one for power with a cr*p combustion chamber shape, and only gets as good as the current SkyActiv at high CR of 14 to 1.

    There’s a winner here, and it ain’t the one with monkey motion and a load of levers in the crankcase. Sorry, Carlos.

  • avatar
    Penguinlord

    I am not exactly an engineer but I am curious: could this effect also be achieved by sliding tops for the combustion chambers?

  • avatar
    AtoB

    @ golden2huskey

    “Presently the US generates 10% of its electrical energy from solar and wind. Not a bad start.”

    As of 2016 just under 15% of US electricity was produced by all renewable energy. Of that wind was 20.8%, solar 15.8%.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

    By my math that put solar and wind at 4% not 10% as you claim.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Fordson: Some makes just should never produce SUVs…this is one of them. Look at the Maserati car in the group...
  • FreedMike: Toyota. Why do you think they haven’t invested in EVs?
  • redapple: Who will buy Tesla? GGM?
  • forward_look: Once I bought a ’74 (?) Colt/Mitsubishi for $100 that had the strut towers rusted out. I welded...
  • thelaine: Tick tock

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States