>>21477
>japanese engine

>>21495
...believe it or not, I think I might have one of these under a tarp outside my garage.
When my grandpa passed away, I was tasked with cleaning out his garage.
He was born poor as dirt during the height of the great depression, spent his early years in a "hooverville" style slum, and literally never threw out anything that could still have value.
He was an engine mechanic on an LCI ship during WW2 at 18 years old, and he had a fascination with tinkering and repairing all kinds of things.
In another life, with any kind of actual education (I don't honestly know if he ever went to school at all), he could have probably been a brilliant engineer or inventor.

I thought the fucking thing was a homemade air compressor because there were a bunch of his more modern machined parts on it, but it might have actually been him repairing it or trying to get it to run on some other kind of fuel?
I put it aside like ten years ago and kept it because I didn't feel right sending it to the scrap yard, always planning to figure it out later, but never got around to it.
Fuck me this just sparked a mystery for me I need to look into.

>>21514
Imagine where they could be if they refined that shit into bitumen instead and started paving their fucking roads.

They even made bivalent engines that could run on gasoline and CNG/LPG.
Brazilians can fuel ethanol made from sugar cane in their cars.

>>21523
>refined
gonna be a little difficult now

>>21505
checked, Wrong.
Wasn't the engine itself (<--six of one half dozen of the other)—it was the two-speed two stage supercharger installation.

>>21477
Lotus is Malaysian

>>21526
The two state supercharger that Rolls Royce created and placed on the Merlin 61

>>21524
Ethanol as fuel is retarded.

>>21529
Ethanol is the fuel of mankind, you shut your whore mouth

>>21514
>Then there's Mazut. The coal tar-like awfulness the russians use for central heating systems in their cities, and what still powers some of their navy ships.
>The accursed Mazut shit the russians burn in their central heating plants is exclusively a third-world thing.
>In terms of fuel quality and contamination levels, Mazut is significantly worse than the Bunker-C heavy fuel oil the allies were fueling their ships with in WWII.
>The shitter parts of the former soviet union, and Iran, are the only significant producers and consumers of Mazut.
>Mazut is such utter garbage that there are international laws preventing the use of such fuel to power commercial ships on the open oceans.
>It's arguably even worse than coal in terms of pollution and smog.

Guess I'm not the only guy who watches the Australian soviet ship autist

>>21496
2 of 18 as of yesterday

>>21497
>how much does one of these cost?
>don't worry about it

>>21530
It's inefficient to produce, significantly less energy dense and hygroscopic.

>>21534
For performance it's great though. It's 108 octane and doesn't have the less efficient combustion reactions in lean conditions that gasoline does, so you can actually make a bit more power with e85 than with racegas. Also the can buy it at the pump for about the same price per mile as regular.

>but it's only that cheap because of subsidies! You're paying for it twice!
I have to pay the taxes regardless of whether I use the E85. It's silly to pay for great fuel with your taxes and then not make use of it.

>>21525
*if they had refined that shit

>>21508
Turbine fuel injectors don't generally have a crack pressure of 3.5k psi on the low end.

>>21477
>thread about engines
>pictured british car doesn't have a british engine

>>21471
There's a number of reasons, one is that turbines are a thing and essentially give you that capability within certain limits. many turbines will run on anything from diesel to avgas while many "multi-fuel" engines are marketing slogans that mean:
>give me a ethanol and gasoline mix but nothing else
>my engine accessories are able to handle diesel grades ranging from slightly dirty to very dirty

The other thing is that the other way around is much easier logistically. If you can deliver fuel A to a vehicle in the field reliably you can also deliver fuel B to said vehicle. Which is why the US standardized on JP-8. One fuel to make most things go. One fuel the engines need to be designed for.

And compared to refining, transporting and even storing fuels making engines isn't that complex.

>>21471
tl;dr they are mediocre at any specific one, and so anyone who specializes wipes the floor with them

>>21528
yes. the early merlin was pretty mid (pause to listen to the bongs drop their tea and blubber about the battle of britain) and equivalent to the allison in non-turbocharged applications. this is why Curtiss quickly the abandoned the merlin for the P-40 and went back to the V-1710. it was actually the better choice for fighter bomber applications. or, y'know, turbocharging them as they were designed for altitude performance. nobody complained about the allisons in P-38s.
it wasn't until the supercharger improvements solved essentially a packaging problem that the merlin became what is is known for... in 1943. just in time to be replaced by the griffon less than a year later which after many years in development had finally matured and dunked on the merlin in just about every way.
but why are we talking about these weakass inline engines when we know the real chad engine of the war was the R-2800 Double Wasp that tore the nuts off of all of them and did so in all sorts of applications and with many advanced compounding super/turbocharging systems?

>>21471
Instead of an engine that was good with one type of fuel you got an engine that was crap with most kinds of fuel. Because you needed to handle multiple fuel types you couldn't optimize for just one and ended up losing a lot of power for a given weight.

>>21497
This.
And this:
The M35A2 "Deuce and a Half" is famously powered by the Continental LDT-465 (or LD-465) multi-fuel engine. This 478-cubic-inch, inline-six engine uses the "Hypercycle" combustion system, allowing it to reliably run on standard diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, heating oil, and even used motor or vegetable oils.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCXRUXOPMHQ

>>21471
What if we simply burned any fuel to heat water to move a piston to move the vehicle?

>>21471
you need to retune after changing the fuel type to get full performance and service life

>>21528
that to fit into and operate efficiently+effectively installed inside of a P-51 as its main powerplant system required a full 18 months of design development engineering and machine ground, wind tunnel and flight testing work by Rolls-Royce, North American Aviation (<--especially them for the airframe aerodynamics of the new engine install), Packard, and multiple independent consultants and engineers. New radiators, fuel system plumbing, engine mounts + thrust line, wing lowered by 3 inches, trim controls, ducting, fuselage design and structural strengthening, cowlings, carb intakes etc. Almost an entirely new airplane except for the general outline-config and wing cross section.
(it wasn't just solely simply 'slap the 60-series in derrrr')
Merlin engines used in the P-40F and P-40L were single-stage supercharger XX-series

Just use this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesselman_engine

>>21547
Why didn't it take off?

>>21522
Godspeed and don't forget to post images on /diy/

>>21497
My favourite thing about them are the stories of how insane their power output is with the governor removed

>>21544
Weight I guess

>>21481
It's a performance thing
Squeezing out max performance eventually fucks every engine.