Why don't car makers use this?

lambo or holden · Aug 13, 2005, 7:24 AM

I found out about this new engine called the Quasiturbine engine.
After looking at this site I started wondering why car makers didn't use it.
Here's a link
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm

navecko · Aug 13, 2005, 8:55 AM

Investment needed to refine for real world use. A preatty damn cool engine though! http://www.quasiturbine.com/

Leandro Paparelli · Aug 13, 2005, 9:03 AM

the link above doesnt wor
are you guys talking about turbonator (www.turbonator.com) or something like that???
because if you are forget about it, its f*... crap!

shadow_FIX · Aug 13, 2005, 9:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leandro Paparelli

the link above doesnt wor
are you guys talking about turbonator (www.turbonator.com) or something like that???
because if you are forget about it, its f*... crap!

No...this is a completely new engine design patented in 1996. Works kindof like a rotary engine.

[shadow_FIX]

Ghalos · Aug 13, 2005, 11:14 AM

Sounds like it's a turbine engine, and if I'm not mistaken, back in the early 60's a US company tried that using an Italian design firms body and ended up with a car that flopped because while it'd run on just about anything, gas, methane, etc...it was like a turbocharger and thus, took awhile to get going.

Cooper "s" · Aug 13, 2005, 11:34 AM

didnt, the Tucker I thnk it was called like this use a helicopter engine. only 53 ever made.

Thermodynamics · Aug 13, 2005, 11:47 AM

Did any body think about Friction....lubrication seems difficult to me because the thing has bearings that roll around the cylinder wall.

navecko · Aug 13, 2005, 12:54 PM

Hmm good point but they are connected in the middle so that would be where most of the fource gets transmitted to push it in a circular motion. And I guess the oil gets flung outwards to the backs of the bearings where it is mainly needed. Also compression, combustion and exaust fource the bearings towards the center so there wouldn't be that much friction on the walls, again, I guess.

tabber · Aug 13, 2005, 2:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghalos

Sounds like it's a turbine engine, and if I'm not mistaken, back in the early 60's a US company tried that using an Italian design firms body and ended up with a car that flopped because while it'd run on just about anything, gas, methane, etc...it was like a turbocharger and thus, took awhile to get going.

LOL, that's when they were putting those in the rocket-style cars. It was totally impractical because it took forever for the turbine to charge up to produce enough power to move the car. Obviously not suitable for LA traffic.

Thanks for bringing that memory back Ghalos.

igaboj · Aug 13, 2005, 5:56 PM

A turbine? Useful only uber-fast boats and Jets. Not exactly necessary for cars.

Driftster · Aug 13, 2005, 7:29 PM

sounds like a good idea, but it also looks as if Anything goes wrong..like a rotary engine..
The whole engines gonna crap out

and what material would be used in those hinges that won't wear out after constant contact rotation and rubbing..
cause if they wear....detonation WILL occur.

12 inch pianist · Aug 13, 2005, 7:53 PM

Ghalos is right, turbines produce huge power but need a lot of time to spool. It would be like driving an armored Fiat 500 until it did

lambo or holden · Aug 13, 2005, 10:13 PM

I don't think it was used in cars in the sixties because it was Patented in 1996.
I can see why it might take a while spool up but if the explosion was powerfull enough to break regular pistons it would make sence for it to speed up fast.

Dumboguy03 · Aug 19, 2005, 12:39 PM

I'm with drifster. They would have to patent some new fabricated material that would hold up. Another thought is unforseen cost. I know some guys with older RX-7s that are picking up their bicycles from their parents' houses. With gas the way its getting though, we ought to ask those "thinknng $hi* up guys" at nasa to come up with something.

lambo or holden · Sep 17, 2005, 9:39 PM

Yes but this engine is meant to be more efficent then the internal combustion engine with clydinders.
I just got this post in within the month with 1 day to spare.

Aug 13, 2005, 7:24 AM	#1
lambo or holden SCF Addict Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The Ghetto, Perth, Australia Posts: 8,627	Why don't car makers use this? I found out about this new engine called the Quasiturbine engine. After looking at this site I started wondering why car makers didn't use it. Here's a link http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm __________________ watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNZE2kYytzM

Aug 13, 2005, 11:14 AM	#5
Ghalos SCF Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York Posts: 12,604	Sounds like it's a turbine engine, and if I'm not mistaken, back in the early 60's a US company tried that using an Italian design firms body and ended up with a car that flopped because while it'd run on just about anything, gas, methane, etc...it was like a turbocharger and thus, took awhile to get going. __________________ "I couldn't fire someone today and it made me sick, firing people is a perk of my job!"

Aug 13, 2005, 11:47 AM	#7
Thermodynamics Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Barbados Posts: 407	Did any body think about Friction....lubrication seems difficult to me because the thing has bearings that roll around the cylinder wall. __________________ Im allergic to BULL$****...

Aug 13, 2005, 12:54 PM	#8
navecko Junior Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 42	Hmm good point but they are connected in the middle so that would be where most of the fource gets transmitted to push it in a circular motion. And I guess the oil gets flung outwards to the backs of the bearings where it is mainly needed. Also compression, combustion and exaust fource the bearings towards the center so there wouldn't be that much friction on the walls, again, I guess. Last edited by navecko : Aug 13, 2005 at 1:09 PM.

Aug 13, 2005, 5:56 PM	#10
igaboj Forum Guru Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The Golden State Posts: 3,599	A turbine? Useful only uber-fast boats and Jets. Not exactly necessary for cars. __________________ It's pronounced "Eye-Guh-Boe-Jay"

Aug 13, 2005, 8:55 AM	#2
navecko Junior Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 42	Investment needed to refine for real world use. A preatty damn cool engine though! http://www.quasiturbine.com/

Aug 13, 2005, 9:03 AM	#3
Leandro Paparelli CLK-GTR Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Recife - BRAZIL Posts: 813	the link above doesnt wor are you guys talking about turbonator (www.turbonator.com) or something like that??? because if you are forget about it, its f*... crap!

Aug 13, 2005, 11:34 AM	#6
Cooper "s" Coop DeVille Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Weston, Florida Posts: 12,711	didnt, the Tucker I thnk it was called like this use a helicopter engine. only 53 ever made.

Aug 13, 2005, 7:29 PM	#11
Driftster Bimmer DBAG Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 42,590	sounds like a good idea, but it also looks as if Anything goes wrong..like a rotary engine.. The whole engines gonna crap out and what material would be used in those hinges that won't wear out after constant contact rotation and rubbing.. cause if they wear....detonation WILL occur. __________________ M Power is the Solution To the Energy Crisis - i RIP Randy

Aug 13, 2005, 7:53 PM	#12
12 inch pianist Forum Napoleon Complex Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: On the good ship SS 300 Foot Pianist Posts: 3,349	Ghalos is right, turbines produce huge power but need a lot of time to spool. It would be like driving an armored Fiat 500 until it did __________________ I won't correct you if you're not wrong

Aug 13, 2005, 10:13 PM	#13
lambo or holden SCF Addict Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The Ghetto, Perth, Australia Posts: 8,627	I don't think it was used in cars in the sixties because it was Patented in 1996. I can see why it might take a while spool up but if the explosion was powerfull enough to break regular pistons it would make sence for it to speed up fast. __________________ watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNZE2kYytzM

Aug 19, 2005, 12:39 PM	#14
Dumboguy03 Starting Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: PlanoTX Posts: 14	I'm with drifster. They would have to patent some new fabricated material that would hold up. Another thought is unforseen cost. I know some guys with older RX-7s that are picking up their bicycles from their parents' houses. With gas the way its getting though, we ought to ask those "thinknng $hi* up guys" at nasa to come up with something. __________________ Does anybody else here know how to work an elephant? -Capt. T.C. Doyle

Sep 17, 2005, 9:39 PM	#15
lambo or holden SCF Addict Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The Ghetto, Perth, Australia Posts: 8,627	Re: Why don't car makers use this? Yes but this engine is meant to be more efficent then the internal combustion engine with clydinders. I just got this post in within the month with 1 day to spare. __________________ watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNZE2kYytzM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
buying a car	Maserati Man	General	61	Aug 17, 2005 2:21 PM
The Saga of Hondtard	Pontius Pirate	Amateur Racing	7	Jun 09, 2005 3:45 PM
what defines a sports car more? Handling vs acceleration	Tuna	Comparisons	59	May 25, 2005 4:32 PM
Car Magazines and Unbiased Comparos?	slowfiveoh	General	8	Apr 04, 2005 8:19 AM
new car time	TheOtis	General	5	Feb 13, 2005 12:26 PM