Last month, we reported that Achates Power had developed a 2.7-liter four-cylinder opposed-piston engine, and made an inference that it could make its way as one of the 2019 Silverado’s engines. However, testing for the new engine will begin in a Ford F-150, Ford Authority reported on Wednesday.
Achates Power said the engine will surpass 2025 CAFE regulations with a 37 mpg rating and push 270 horsepower and 450 pound-feet of torque. The oddball engine uses a turbocharger and supercharger to control engine response over variable valve timing and thermal efficiency is allegedly 45 percent. Typical engines only achieve around 25 percent thermal efficiency.
The engine will find its way under the hood of the Ford F-150 later this year, as Achates Power promised in a press release from early 2017. Other development engines are available to other automakers as well. Previously, we connected the dots and made a sound case for the portfolio of 2019 Silverado engines to include the opposed-piston mill. After all, Chevrolet only shared three of the 2019 Silverado’s six powertrains thus far.
And we think the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado will boast a rather revolutionary powertrain somewhere within its six-engine lineup. After all, the pickup fits everything from inline-six diesels to even fuel cells.
Comments
This is just the start of some crazy things we will see.
There is a lot of change coming.
The Silverado isn’t getting 6 engines though right. It’s getting 6 combinations of powertrains. Powertrain=engine+transmission.
6.2 10spd
5.3 8spd
5.3 10spd
3.0d 10spd
Then likely a NA V6 mated to the 8spd, whether it’s the 4.3 (upped to something like 300hp 320lb-ft) or 3.6 (335hp 290lb-ft). And wild card is the last powertrain option, is it just a 10spd option on the V6. Or is it another engine on the 8spd, if that’s the case at launch its likely the 2.0T with its 270hp 290lb-ft
Add the E-assist to 5.3 &6.2
They have that engine displayed in an F150 at NAIAS. I talked to a guy at the show and he said they have no manufacturers lined up to take a shot at that engine. They want to offer the same engine in gas and diesel form but neither one has passed any certifications yet. The engine at the show is just a prop and not a running motor. It looks like they have way more work to do before any dreams come true for them. I doubt that Ford is even involved with testing. It’s just a vehicle they decided to use for display.
This is just one of the many “better mouse traps” that have come before. There is no chance GM puts someone else’s motor in their trucks without owning a large share of the company! If anything, it could find a home in the Ram with todays EPA rules?
My two bits are on the table!
Never say never. Desperate times call for desperate measures. They have deactivated 7 cylinders now. I don’t think 8 will work.
Keep in mind GM spent billions on the Wankle and only canceled it due to seal, Emissions and poor fuel economy reasons.
This engine may not pan out but on the other hand GM is open to options if they can’t find more MPG on their own.
I thought engine driven fans (replaced by electrical ones) went the way of the dinosaur.
Not totally. Mechanical fans still move more air then electronic fans.
Equal RPM only air restriction or obstruction could alter the amount of air moved by a fan. It is more about coolant volume and flow control then the amount of air the fan moves.
After all the fan isn’t doing anything but being an obstruction itself at speed while the coolant is doing two jobs, absorbing then dispersing heat.
The amount of time the coolant has to do those jobs is of utmost importance, try running a car without a thermostat. Todays ECM’s monitor the time it takes an engine to reach normal operating temperature, and will throw an error code if it hasn’t been reached by a pre-determined amount of time.
I’d go for a gas version.
There’s not much to think about, a 2.7L Opposed Piston engine has 60-percent less pieces than a supercharged V6 and is 10-percent less expensive to build, the engine 270 hp and 450 lbs-ft of torque while getting 37 miles per gallon mileage in a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500; what more is there to think of or consider as just as this engine has the power of the latest generation turbo-diesel engine and will meet EPA emission standards until 2025 as General Motors should sign a contract and begin putting this in every truck, SUV, CUV and sedan that this 2.7L OP engine can be squeezed into.
Opposed piston engines are not new technology. Let’s not forget that you have two pistons/rods for every cylinder. Also, opposed pistons require a comparatively heavier and more complicated piston/rod design, or dual crankshafts. In an opposed piston, two stroke, six piston, three cylinder configuration, the power pulses would be 120 degrees apart, similar to a typical V6 or I6. Though less inherently balanced, a two stroke I3 would accomplish the same as the opposed engine with far fewer moving parts and complexity. Things get worse when you go to a 4 stroke. A 4-stroke I6 or V6 will fire 120 degrees apart. To achieve the same with a 4 cycle opposed piston engine would require 6 cylinders, 12 pistons/rods, and either dual cranks or more complicated/heavier rods. Both opposed piston engines and regular piston engines can make use of super/turbo charging.
There are two advantages an opposed piston has:
They are inherently balanced (like a boxer or I6).
They require half the stroke to reach a certain compression ratio (which allows higher RPM).
(edit, in two cycle configuration, they can do without the head)
Disadvantages:
Power pulses come come at half the interval per piston/rod.
Comparatively complicated piston rod design, or dual crankshafts required.
Due to larger power pulse separation, it’s hard to make a 4-stroke engine which isn’t drastically worse than a more conventional layout (V, I, Flat, Boxer).
I have to say, I’m a fan of an opposed 3-cyl two cycle mildly supercharged engine. However emissions legislation pushed 2-strokes out of the game long ago, and they’re sub-optimal for 4-stroke engines.
Almost anything can be overcome with good engineering, but why design something so complex when you can make a much better and simpler design?
Jem, you missed the most important advantage and the core differentiation of the OPOC engine… The fact that due to the unique piston configuration, the OPOC engine can capture useful power from each power stroke that NONE of your competing examples can. Put simply, the OPOC is fundamentally better at turning an explosion into rotary motion. The only reasons it is not more widely adopted is, no-longer-at-issue manufacturing limitations, backwards thinking, marketing BS, and an irrational embrace of the status quo.