Turbo Diesel Motorcycle.

I recently read a very detailed article about the relationship between Horsepower and Torque. Seems that Horsepower is calculated from Torque. And they say it's torque that gets you going off the line when it comes to acceleration. Now with the high compression ratios of diesel engines and the greater power and fuel economy potential to be had, why don't they make a diesel powered motorcycle? Put a turbo to feed the engine and away we go.

 

This has been tried, here are some of the issues: weight, limited RPM range, more battery power to crank it, ect, ect. The deisel technology is advancing rapidly and whos to say that in a number of years this may be viable but not right now.

The interesting thing is that, I think it was the LeMan series or Rolex series where the top 4 finishers were deisel. So there is hope. Practical????? Thats not so easy to answer.

I just hope the bike that has a deisel in it won't require a Mack Quadbox tranny. (Has anyone else had the pleasure of driving one of those??)

The Buff

 

The U.S military had a prototype made several years ago in a Kawasaki KLR frame from memory http://www.gizmag.com/go/4272/ as great buffalo says been done but like all things usually built for a specific purpose not very marketable ----yet!
800kms to a tank!
Make a great adventure tourer though.
Turbo wouldn't add much bulk would it?

 

The U.S military had a prototype made several years ago in a Kawasaki KLR frame from memory http://www.gizmag.com/go/4272/ as great buffalo says been done but like all things usually built for a specific purpose not very marketable ----yet!
800kms to a tank!
Make a great adventure tourer though.
Turbo wouldn't add much bulk would it?

 

check out this site www.dieselbike.net/ very interesting and informative on diesel bikes.

 

its possible but i don't see it being used in anything but touring bikes...
turbo would be about the same size as the turbo on the turbo secas

its just going to be heavy and need more to start it
http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/roadte ... index.html

http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/roadte ... index.html\

http://www.fasterandfaster.net/2008/02/ ... s-for.html

 

Well, horsepower is basically torque x RPM. That's why low torque engines with very high red lines can still make high horsepower. The question then is whether the gearing of the vehicle is set up to make good use of the peak horsepower area of the engine's power curve. Torque at a given RPM maps directly to accelleration at that RPM.

Diesels make high torque, but have low red lines. So, at lower RPM's you're getting better accelleration and better horsepower out of the diesel, but once you rev past the diesel's peak torque point, the gas engine will start to pull away, because its torque curve will still be rising.

As for weight, the current production Ford Fiesta 1.6 weighs 20Kg (2%) more in its diesel version than it does in its gas version. Some of that's the turbo and some of that's probably a stronger transmission to better handle the extra torque. With modern diesel technology, a bike wouldn't have to weigh much more than a gas engine. In modern engines, both use fuel pumps, ECU's, oxygen sensors, and common rail injection. Even the extra cranking torque is not much of an issue anymore - with modern diesel's being very easy to start. The one trade off is the extra power at startup for the glow plugs versus the fact that, once running, a diesel doesn't need any electrical power for an ignition system.

P.S. It was the 24 hours at LeMans that was won by a turbo diesel Audi a couple of years ago, but the fact that that's an endurance race, and diesel makes it possible for the car to run the race with less fuel stops, has a lot to do with why a diesel won.

 

Here is (was?) currently the world's fastest BIO-diesel bike doing it's record run Sept. 2007 at Bonneville - "The Crucible" @ 130 mph. Was a BMW 1150RT ... uses converted BMW car engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmy1DRk_xGY

Bike runs with only 22% of the emissions of a standard diesel engine.
Diesel bike technology is coming on fast and hard.

 

There are at least 3 diesel bikes in production right now, with many more homebrew versions out there -- spend some time with Google and/or YouTube and you'll find them.

 

that is because diesels are being made to have power like that. there is nothing about the injection systems that limit the rpm capabilities, someone needs to make a diesel that WANTS to spin fast. in light of longevity and efficiency manufacturers keep the engines spinning slower. diesels up until recently have been associated with work, not "racing". that is changing fast, look at the lemans cars!

8) yes it is!!! the engine technology is there already, someone just needs to put the puzzle pieces together on a bike. when they do.....LOOK OUT!!! think about having a bike that can have an extra 100 hp at the flip of a switch 8O carbs? spark plugs? NO! common rail injection, variable geometry turbos, and a bike that will always be tuned perfectly!

for a long tim enow i have wanted to build one from the ground up, but $$$ is not on my side for that one. :roll:

 

I have a prediction that the first practical deisel motorcycle will come from BMW. They seem to be the most foreward thinking company with their heads in both camps.

If Mercedes Benz made motorcycles they would probably be first.

OK, I'll take my Nostradamus hat off now.

The Buff

 

I'm not so sure. I lived in Europe from 2004 through 2007. My daily driver there was a 2002 Ford Mondeo TDCi. Nice car. 2.0L, about 130HP, and great on the autobahn (topped out about 130MPH).

There are a lot of little diesels in Europe and they are being made for regular cars and sports cars, not work trucks. They still have much lower red lines and peak torque points than gas engines. Two reasons that you didn't consider are:

1. They DON'T have an ignition system, so timing is determined entirely by spontaneous ignition under compression - i.e. no advance. This can be tweaked a bit by mixture and waste gate control, but I believe it's going to be a limiting factor in how much high RPM power you can make while still making usable power at low RPM.

2. They have longer strokes and heavier pistons due to their higher compression. This means more reciprocating mass, which will also be a limiting factor of red line compared to a similar gas engine.

 

reciprocating mass its about the only reason that you can't get them to rev higher or if you do you though a rod

if you fumigate the incoming air with propane/menthol and water it will help to spread the flame front so that they will get better combustion more power and more efficiency

faster the flame front the faster the engine can spin
a higher compression diesel will all so have a faster flame front but, because of the higher combustion pressure you will have to beef up the engine, in creasing the reciprocating mass

you could maybe see 6k out of a diesel engine but be cautious the side effects

 

This bike is the land speed record hopeful in the Bio Diesel unlimited class.

And it has a TAG !

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rs_Kk42pA ... re=related

Looks like they sacrificed nimble handling.

 

We may see diesel touring bikes one day; I doubt we'll see diesel sportbikes before electric hybrids or something else comes along.

 

I don't get it?
Most engineers are doing everything they can to bring-down weight and uncomplicate plumbing.

Huge bikes with Turbo Diesels, Chevy V8's, Turbines and the like aren't anything that would interest me.

 

I'm with you Ricko

 

I agree that the huge bike-as-art things are a bit odd to me. But I don't think most of those are meant for anything other than one-off curiosity pieces.

On the turbo diesel side, though, the added complication of a turbo is a good tradeoff for the efficiency of a diesel. A diesel engine gets about 40% better fuel economy at the same power as a gas engine. But the only way to make good power with a diesel is to add forced air induction. Turbos are ideal for this because they provide pretty much free power, and modern turbos have come a long way in terms of efficiency and lifespan from the ones used on things the Seca 650.

So, yes, you need to add the turbo, the waste gate, probably an intercooler, and some extra air and exhaust ducting, but you end up with a very responsive engine that gets you 40% further between fill ups. You also do save a little weight and complication by removing ignition coils and the wiring and control logic for them.

 

In the max power to weight category (sport bikes), I don't think we'll see anything but gas engines, ever, unless gas engines get banned. Hybrids add much more dead weight to drag around than diesels do.

Much further down the road I suppose such technologies as CNG or hydrogen could provide a similar power to weight ratio to gasoline engines, but I wouldn't expect them any time soon. Pure electric might make sense as well, if battery technology can be improved (or people will settle for pretty short range capabilty).

With current technology, though, I think any of the big bike companies could easily make a touring, cruiser, or sport touring bike using a scaled down and souped up car turbo diesel engine. For instance, Alpha Romeo (FIAT's high line) has a 1.9L 16V turbo diesel that makes 150 HP stock. Chip it and you get more like 180. Scale that down to 900cc and probably 90 HP, and you've got a pretty nice motorcycle engine that will accellerate off the line much faster than its 90 HP would lead you to expect.

 

1- ignition timing is controlled by WHEN the fuel is injected, wich is totally adjustable. the only limitation on that is you need to have enough heat in the cylinder to ignite, but with higher compression ratios there is enough heat at 60*BTDC. thats why when you spray a diesel with ether it pings.

2- long stroke and heavy pistons are not a requirement for diesel engines, its how they have been made since their inception. its the industry mindset, wich as of the past few years is changing quickly. 30:1 compression can still be achieved with a short stroke, as well as a light piston. nothing about burning diesel fuel limits the rpms.

the 7.3 powerstroke in my truck is a WORK HORSE engine, redlines at around 3200, and if you spin it up to 4000 you are basically guaranteed to throw rods out the side. but with a stronger set of rods (and a lot of fuel, coupled with 160psi boost ) its able to spin up to 7000 and hold it pull after pull, reliably for several seasons.
DOUBLE OVERTIME- powerstroke diesel

i agree that some European auto diesels are lighter and faster, and not designed as industrial powerplants, but they are nothing compared to some of the prototypes and future engines to come out.

one huge technology that will allow for an extremely high revving diesel, is camless electronic valves that allow for a high profile and aggressive valve timing to be used. camshaft driven diesels could not use a cam with long valve overlap or large duration because it would bleed off slow cranking pressure and not have enough compression to efficiently burn the fuel at slow/idle speeds. also, the electronic valves allow for an infinitely adjustable "cam profile" so you can get the most power out of any given rpm.

 

what about rotary valves?

 

[quote="Zookie4001- ignition timing is controlled by WHEN the fuel is injected, wich is totally adjustable. the only limitation on that is you need to have enough heat in the cylinder to ignite, but with higher compression ratios there is enough heat at 60*BTDC. thats why when you spray a diesel with ether it pings.[/quote]

I can see that this might be true for the newest direct injection diesels, but how does this help with the older, but still produced, common rail diesels like my Ford, that still have an intake valve (or two) between the injector and the cylinder?

 

Just a thought. Diesel fuel is a slower burning fuel than gas. Gas flashes very quickly. Maybe diesel just needs more time to burn and limits how fast an engine can spin.

 

common rail isnt old, its the new! ok its been around, but its the "hot setup" and will be around for some time. and why are you calling your diesel OLD? if its common rail, and in a ford pickup its the new 6.4, and is the NEWEST! if you have a 6.0 or a 7.3 its not common rail, its a HEUI (hydraulic electric unit injector) engine, that uses an electrically controlled high pressure oil piston that injects the fuel.

to answer your question-

you dont have a valve between the injector and cylinder, your injectors are directly in the center of the combustion chamber. with a normal, from the factory cam (mild) it does not bleed off compression at low rpms, and has plenty of heat to ignite the fuel LONG BEFORE the piston reaches TDC.

diesels that are computer controlled, the computer decides when to inject fuel, EXACTLY like the gasser ecm would decide when to spark the plug.

mechanical diesels that use an injection pump still vary engine timing but it is not "adaptive". it is on a preset advance curve based on engine rpm and throttle application will move the entire preset curve advanced or retarded (just like the vacuum controlled distributor on an old ford 351).

depends on the conditions, in a puddle on the ground...yes. in an engine, no! gasoline injection is very sloppy, whereas diesel injectors are very good at atomizing the fuel because they have extremely small holes. also the average gasoline engine is injecting fuel with less than 50psi at the injector, a common rail diesel is running 20,000 psi. you have marbles of diesel and bowling balls of gasoline. that, coupled with the extremely high combustion chamber temps in a diesel give it a FASTER, almost instantaneous burn. MOST gasoline engines cant compare, and would be spitting fire out the headers.

 

'Fraid not. Again, if you look back at my previous posts, I'm talking about European car diesels, not Navistars. My Ford was a 2002 Mondeo TDCi 2.0 liter 130 HP.

These common rail diesels use port injection much like most gas FI engines, with the injector firing at the intake valve(s). Direct injection, which is the newest technology, fires directly into the cylinder, as you are describing.

Direct injection is also common rail, but manufacturers specify direct injection in their model naming to make it clear what it is.

Fords in Europe that use direct injection are labeled as TDDi (turbo diesel direct injection) as opposed to TDCi (turbo diesel common rail injection).

 

my mistake, wrong vehicle info.

BUT....your 2002 Mondeno TDCi 2.0 .......had direct injection, so its not really that different. the common rail system was made by seimens or bosch, depending on your cars build date. both systems are direct injection, regardless of what vehicle they are installed on.

both systems capable of 6 injection cycles per engine cycle, wich also helps in the efficiency of diesel engines today. most engine manufacturers running common rail injection are only using 3 injections per cycle, pilot inj., pre inj., and main injection, and possibly a 4th injection that would happen with the exhaust valves open during DPF regeneration, to pump raw superheated (but unburnt) fuel into the catalytic converter.

even if you had an indirect injection diesel, the injector is still within the combustion chamber, but there would be a smaller chamber that the injector "hides" in rather than within the flame cup in the piston. its terribly inefficient. on an IDI engine, the timing is still controlled by fuel injection events, and the injector is NOT in the intake port.

 

Hmmm.... learn something new every day.

Thanks for the info. I guess Ford just made a big deal about the TDDi's as a marketing campaign, then.

I'm back in the US now, and I really wish I could get one of those cars here.

 

i hear you on that one!!! when i was on my honeymoon in saint martin, there where the coolest little mini trucks everywhere. I WANT ONE! also we rented a Daihatsu Charade 3 cylinder, it has more cabin space than most hondas, and was overall a smaller car. top speed was about 55, and it would get there no problem.

hopefully the american auto market will change in light of economic distress, and we will be able to get cheap tiny kick ass vehicles. im keeping my mustang though 8)