Ceramic engines?

[454Casull]

Are they durable enough to be put into cars designed with performance in mind? Does the engine have to be 100% ceramic (valves, crankshaft, heads, etc.)? Are there gaskets?

I've heard that some engines were made completely of S2, but I was wondering how well the ceramic crank stood up to the forces put on it.


P.S. Is it true they don't need any lubrication or cooling?

[YellowMaranello]

As far as I know (which isnt very far), its not so much a ceramic engine as it is an engine made of plastic coated with ceramic for heat protection, and yes, its true that they dont need cooling or lubrication.

[454Casull]

1
2

[AEstud]

I've never heard of a ceramic engine til now

[texan]

Some of the major manufacturers were playing around with them last decade, I remember the concept engines which used ceramic blocks and were primarily two strokes (with direct fuel injection). Nothing ever came of them, but I suppose it was more just a fad than anything else.

That site certainly sounds interesting, and I suppose I can believe some of their claims, but it sounds too good to be true IMO. If there were that many advantages why isn't anyone using ceramic engines for any purpose? I mean if they haven't even gotten block development down and in production, how are they going to make a whole engine out of the stuff? I don't know, I just need some corroborating evidence before I buy into the idea it's so superior and has only a few minor drawbacks.

[DMC12]

I think newer technologies will not be adopted because car mfgr's are lazy and stupid.

[V.S.]

With all of those benefits so "obvious", and car makers spending enough money to make god cry tweaking engines and still not using ceramic, I'm tempted to agree with texan.

[ivymike1031]

okay, perhaps someone can tell me where I've gone wrong, but on site 1 from 454's post, the author claims

We have an engine here that has 2.5 times the power of a metal engine of the same size using 1/4 of the fuel. It never uses oil or water and will run almost forever without servicing

If that were true, then wouldn't the engine be 10 times as efficient? Or are they talking about the fuel consumption and power output at different operating points (one at peak power, the other at peak econ)?

10 times as efficient = not thermally possible, unless they're comparing their engine to a ridiculously poor conventional engine

Even if their engine was 100% efficient (100% of the energy in the fuel was converted to mechanical power), they'd be only 2.5 times as efficient as the best IC engines out there. What's more, they'd have to have exhaust that came out at the same temperature as the incoming air, without letting it cool anywhere along the way - something I have a REALLY hard time believing.

[ivymike1031]

he also mentions a VERY high price for crude oil ($100+ / barrel price by 2003) - if he's going to be right about it, the prices had better start soaring soon! As of April 12, 2002, the price was $19/barrel.

http://www.bry.com/prices.htm

[ivymike1031]

Another interesting note - one of the sites that this guy cites as a reference only claims an 18% improvement in fuel economy... I wonder where the inconsistency comes in?

[FYRHWK1]

new to the website, looks like thers a ton of good info on here
ceramic is fairly brittle from what i've read, the crank is an especially big problem due to the jerking it recieves, rods as well i'm sure are causing problems, i wonder why that website makes no mention of it while showing the cons of metallic motors. and i find it extremely hard to believe they can machine pistons/bearings/crankshaft/rods/cylinder heads/etc in 3 minutes, especially being the piston to cylinder wall clearence is only 2 microns.
"Now any engineer will tell you that if piece of machinery looks good, it is good and this demonstration model is a beauty"
I dont know of a single engineer that will tell you that a piece of machineries quality can be based upon its exterior appearance. they also imply here "- Ceramics do not rust. This improves the life expectancy of the engine. It also means that corrosive fluids can be burned safely and cleanly" that metallic motors rust. i wasnt aware corrosive materials meant rusting, i had placed corrosive with the likes of acid which breaks metal down, not rust it. also i dont believe aluminum pistons rust, nor do aluminum heads or blocks, assuming stainless steel valves are used the only thing that could rust would be if the motor contained an iron cylinder wall. if the things they say are true it looks like its a great move forward, but i dont know how credible the can be called saying things like this.

[Steel]

I think he meant to say when he said that cermics dont rust, is that they dont respond to corrosive substances such as acids like metals do. Because a lot of corrosive things are contained by ceramics - glass, porcelin, and silicon if i remeber correctly, is very hard to break down chemically.

[454Casull]

also i dont believe aluminum pistons rust, nor do aluminum heads or blocks, assuming stainless steel valves are used the only thing that could rust would be if the motor contained an iron cylinder wall

Depends on your definition of rust.

[FYRHWK1]

Originally posted by Steel
I think he meant to say when he said that cermics dont rust, is that they dont respond to corrosive substances such as acids like metals do. Because a lot of corrosive things are contained by ceramics - glass, porcelin, and silicon if i remeber correctly, is very hard to break down chemically.

ah, didnt think of that, does make a bit more sense

and 454, i dont quite follow what you mean

[454Casull]

What is your definition of rust?