Way back in 1994, Ferrari Experimented with a small 1347 cc two stroke to research the highest specific power they could reach.
So, direct injected, turbocharged, two stroke, three cylinder to reach 216 cv or just under 213 hp. It kind of reminds me of a Fiat 128 engine.
213hp seems awfully low for a turbo 1.3L if it was actually a max effort.
Run_Away (Wears Clogs) said:213hp seems awfully low for a turbo 1.3L if it was actually a max effort.
Exactly, the 1.5 liter turbo F1 engines were north of 1000hp in certain tunes IIRC. Those intakes don't look like there is any missing supercharger that used to be fitted to it either. I'm thinking it was naturally aspirated, then that 213 is impressive.
Agreed. 1000cc Sport bikes are making well north of that now N/A on pump gas.
I'm just guessing, my Italian skills are a bit lacking... but I think it is a translation error. In Italian, the order of the sentence is reversed to English, so they say "Materiale Plastico" instead of "Plastic material". So I think the wording "Turbo volumetrico" indicates that the engine is built with "cylinder volume for turbo". Perhaps as an exercise/preparation for a rule change towards smaller boosted engines?
If the Italian wording communicates that it is an "Experimental 2-stroke Ferrari engine with 3 cylinders and displacement for turbo", the hp-number makes more sense. Obviously, whoever translated it screwed up the translation from Turbo to "Supercharger". The Italian word for Supercharger is "compressore", like the German "Kompressor".
It's easy to think that "Surely Ferrari has professional people translating this correctly for them", but only if you haven't lived and worked in Italy. It is still common to translate stuff word by word with a dictionary, or (in best case) google translate, even in a corporate environment. It's often just not valued or regarded very important - if someone wants to learn about the little Ferrari engine, they can start with a class in Italian.
Hmm... If the intake and exhaust are in the block, I wonder what the OHC is doing?
In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
That's a real good point. I cant picture how that would work at all. I'd love to see some sort of cut away or exploded view
In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
Yeah, that engine doesn't make much sense to me. OHC, 2 stroke?
Unless the top pulley is the supercharger. But I'm not sure how that would work.
As far as I know, the definition of "direct injection" is that the fuel is injected straight into the cylinder? This engine very obviously has fuel rails and injectors on the manifold.
In reply to Torkel :
It may be possible that those are oil injectors since it is a two stroke.
Looks like 1:1 ratio on whatever the drive is. Edit: Google "Ferrari f134 engine" Seems to be exhaust valves. There are more pics....
In reply to Mr_Asa :
Well, 3 of them perhaps, but all 6? I'd assume 3 were for oil and 3 for fuel.
In reply to Torkel :
Oil is much more viscous than fuel, and I would think it was heavier, I wonder what its spray characteristics are? Maybe two different spray angles for different RPMs in order to stay lubed?
It may also be a translation issue like was mentioned above? The early-mid 90s seems early for direct injection to me.
Edit: one to spray to go with the airflow, the other to spray when the piston is above the ports in order to lubricate the rest of the system?
Probably a 2 stroke with exhaust valves, similar to a Detroit Diesel.
So with the ports pretty clearly in the block, why is the head so big?
The google translage version of the page is, well, not a good translation.
We made that power with a 1.0L Firefly/Metro engine 10 years ago
Google image search, what I'm assuming is the same engine, shows the exhaust port in the head. I'm standing by my Detroit Screaming Jimmy comparison.
Run_Away (Wears Clogs) said:213hp seems awfully low for a turbo 1.3L if it was actually a max effort.
That is not particularly impressive for a four stroke motorcycle engine.
In reply to Torkel :
I wonder if "Turbo volumetrico" is the Italian phrase for loop scavenging?
Back in 1961, Mickey Thompson built a supercharged two cylinder Pontiac engine (half of a Tempest four cylinder, which was basically half of a full size Pontiac V8) that made 250hp with 91 cubic inches / 1500cc.
The object of the externations is not the classic two-stroke that characterized the MotoGP from the seventies until the early years of this millennium, but the modern unidirectional units which, in addition to perfectly digesting direct injection and exhaust gas turbocharger , are as clean as a four times. This is because they do not combine lubricating oil with the fuel mixture . Thanks to the presence of an overhead drain valve for each chamber with attached cam shaft, which makes the expansion chamber superfluous, the unidirectional 2t is not characterized by the construction simplicity of the classic one but maintains its drive torque almost double compared to a 4t of equal displacement.Furthermore, given the presence of a mushroom valve to manage the discharge of the flue gases, the expansion chamber in the exhaust becomes superfluous . This modern variant of the 2-stroke engines is only slightly more voluminous than the classic, but still much more compact than the 4-stroke. All to the advantage of the weight distribution and the front section of the vehicle in which it is installed.
In reply to noddaz :
Makes perfect sense. It is a 3 cylinder Detroit with fuel injection. Not direct injection, that is a translation error in the original display. Pretty poor specific output.
After that thread we had on the 3-cylinder, 6-piston 2 stroke engine that was twincharged I really want Ferrari to revisit this again.
You'll need to log in to post.
