why don't cars have crazy engine layouts like trains or planes do?
>>28927696>why don't car manufacturers make incredibly heavy, complex, expensive, and convoluted without any additional benefit engines for passenger vehicles?Maybe you should email a few of them so they know those crazy engines exist.
>>28927700>2 smokes>complex>expensive>heavydid you hit your head or something?
>>28927702>2 smokesYeah, I'm sure everyone wants their car smoking everywhere they go with a need to buy or put in oil every time they fill up the gas tank. Why aren't more consumers willing to perform tedium just to get around town? Its a mystery, anon.
>>289277122 stroke engines are superior to 4 stroke
>>28927721In what way?
>>28927731more power more torque weighs less smells better
>>28927696Because packaging is TOO GOOD
>>28927696unlike cars, locomotives benefit from being stupidly heavy, they can't compensate lack of grip with better tires so being fat as fuck is a cheatcode to tractionderiving some extra efficiency out of a weird engine they can fit into that weight allowance is a nice bonusin the context of the entire train, that extra locomotive weight is like you packing an extra 2 liter coke with you in a car, so the benefits way outweigh the negatives
>>28927696Based Deltic poster
>>28927696Weight limits
>>28928200Who remembers the KUGELMOTOR?
>>28927696Emissions standards.
Just bolt a radial on the front end.
>>28927696Trains in the developed world have used pretty simple 2 stroke V12/16/20's for decades now. Planes used V12's or radials which are also pretty simple. Now days they used simple oversized Subaru engines. It seems like only euros and thirdies used stupid engine designs like that. That's probably why there's an American car on the moon. KISS.
>>28928311>American car on the moonyou're not serious
>>28927696Some do.
>>28928313Yes, the US has three cars still parked on the moon.
Now this is pod racing!
>>28928313They built four flight-ready models. Three are on the moon, the last is in a museum.
>>28927702>3 crankshafts >not complex >not expensive>not heavyWrenchlet confirmed
>>28927702A Deltic isn't a little girl, you don't get them in mopeds.
>>289277212 stroke diesel engines are fine for big, slow-running engines. 2 stroke gasoline engines are shit - yes they are cheap and have a high power/weight ratio at the expense of all other parameters.
>>28928289Why not in the trunk?
>>28928491I front trunk frunk fucked your mother last night, fag
>>28928343But that's an EV...
cars dont weigh enough to require such power
>>28928201Wouldn't that vibrate horribly with the mass reciprocating laterally like that?
>>28927696Have you never seen an Audi engine
>>28927696Because it's needlessly expensive for the purpose of powering a car and the packaging 3-4 cylinder inlines and 6/8 cylinder V engines have is pretty great for cars.Tha fanciest ones that made it to serial production are probably VAGs W-type engines.Otherwise:>V12/A12Made sense for planes, because it is long and has a small frontal area>radialEasy to aircool in a plane, horrible in a car.>delticOnly usefull if you want a train-sized engine to rev at semi normal rpm.Also ridiculously mechanicly complex.>I4Great packaging for transverse car drivetrains, also fits well enough in longitudal and has decent ballance with low mechanical complexity>V6/V8Great packaging for longitudal car drivetrains
>>28927696Specific engines for specific jobs.Trains, tanks, heavy duty machinery etc. Usually offer more space, less restrictions on weight and/or less regards to fuel consumption.They also tend to use low-rev/high torque engines which can be built heavy and robust even when mechanical complexity is added.
>>28928289They are meant to work at one specific RPM for most of their run-time and need to be subjected to a constant stream of cold air.Not that great for ground-vehicles.
>>289277344 strokes have more torque due to their higher expansion ratio.
Apart from the Wankel engine most cars use fairly normal 4 stroke engines in various layouts.I suppose the standard 4 stroke is just at a sweet spot between complexity and simplicity and more than a century of development has given it an advantage that is hard to overcome with a new design.A new engine does not only have to run smoothly, it has to be at least as efficient, reliable, clean and cheap as a contemporary piston engine.
>>28929059And they have double the power because they have double the power strokes. But I agree they're garbage for most applications.
>>28929185"They" being 2-strokes. Saw the post again and it wasn't clear.
