Pinnacle Looks Beyond Detroit as the Market for Its Opposed-Piston Engine

10/4/11Follow @wroush

(Page 3 of 4)

larger partnerships and perhaps strategic fundraising opportunities. “I am confident that when we have that happening, there are manufacturers that will be able to look at our designs and take us seriously,” says Hoge.

But right now, all Pinnacle has is a working model, which it’s been testing for months on dynamometers (devices for measuring torque or power) in Berkeley and in its own just-completed test cell in San Carlos. The prototype—complete with colorful plastic knobs and Plexiglas windows so that testers can view the camshafts—is clearly just that.

Given time, elbow grease, and thousands more hours of testing in the lab and on the track, Pinnacle could have something big, as Hoge predicts. But when you talk to people from the big automakers, the skepticism you hear toward new engine architectures is striking—and you begin to understand Cleeves’ decision to detour around Detroit. Even some of the most forward-thinking engineers at these companies doubt that Pinnacle, Ecomotors, or Achates can come up with something better enough that it would be worth retooling engine factories.

“There are 50 opposed piston engine companies out there, and they all haven’t gotten to the point where they’ve figured out what their Achilles’ heel is,” says Byron Shaw, general manager at GM’s Advanced Technology division in Palo Alto. Shaw’s job, as I explained in a September profile, is to interface with the Silicon Valley software community to make sure GM has access to the latest technologies for in-car information and entertainment systems. But Shaw says he’s an engine guy at heart, and that he’s seen it all in his time.

“It’s unlikely that [the engine startups] have discovered something that isn’t known,” he continues. “Let’s say they really improve the ability to run air flow ratios super lean, but then they haven’t solved the NOx problem [nitrogen oxides, a by-product of combustion and the source of smog and acid rain]. There is always a ‘but,’ and most of these companies haven’t gotten to the ‘but’ yet. In India and China they don’t have any idea what the ‘but’ is. They are a pure growth trajectory. But as those markets mature, so will their expectations.”

As if to illustrate Cleeves’ point, Shaw tells a story from his days as a young, just-out-of-college engineer at GM in 1988. “I came up with this change to an internal part of the air conditioning compressor,” he says. It was part of a project to switch over to a new, environmentally safer coolant. “It passed every test. I was rocking and rolling. I was going to change the world. My boss said, ‘Okay, why don’t you get on the plane and go down to the plant and tell them all about it.’ So I go down there and I start to give my spiel. And the plant manager says, ‘Let me give you a tour of the factory.’

“He shows me where the blank aluminum comes in and where it’s machined and processed. And then he takes me down this line of machines. There are 320 steps and each machine does one step and it’s really fast and precise. And at the end of the line this part rolls off. And he says ‘The part you want to change is machined on step number two. And on every machine after step number two, that’s where they grab the part and hold it to do all the subsequent machine steps. So we’d have to retool 320 machines. Is your change that good? How much more are people willing to pay for their cars based on the improved performance from your little part change, versus what it’s going to cost the company?’ That was a really interesting lesson for me.”

In a world where big innovation costs big money, in other words, all the incentives are geared toward encouraging smaller, less costly changes. That’s exactly the problem Hoge says he wanted to help solve when he decided to … Next Page »

Wade Roush is a contributing editor at Xconomy. Follow @wroush

Single Page Currently on Page: 1 2 3 4 previous page

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

  • Arnold Shore

    Re “there’s no cylinder head”: True, but there’s two crankshafts. And compression ration can be whatever you want in a conventional engine; it’s set for the expected octane ratings in the available fuel.

    So why the hype if the advantages are real????

  • Blaen

    Arnold:

    That’s not true. With a normal engine, changing compression ratios dynamically is not possible. With the engine described, it can change compression ratios at will.

  • http://gregarious.com.au Eric

    I wonder why Pinnacle isn’t going the whole way and building a prototype car? The engine is the hard part, the rest of it (body, chassis, trim) is very simple in comparison.

  • Andreas R

    Saab developed a variable compression engine and implemented working prototypes which combined with a turbo gave high efficiency and octane tolerance.

    Ironically, GM scrapped the idea when they bought Saab.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Variable_Compression_engine

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxR-3Un6WkU

  • evo

    Slightly off-topic but hey… SAAB had a variable compression engine ( http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/press/000318.html ) Even been tested in 9-5′s and than GM ditched it. Probably because size mattered to them… more than efficiency (and in the end power…)

    Ah.. somebody beat me to it ;)

  • Sean

    Sounds like a Michael Moore documentary waiting to happen – anyone contacted the fellow, seriously?

  • Mike Love

    I think if you view the animation : http://pinnacle-engines.com/technology.html of its functioning you’ll see it all better. It’s incorrect to say “no cylinder head” it has valve mechanisms regulating flow…its simply integral to the main case/combustion chamber. It’s more of an engine inside out design. The key advantage as I see it is the higher Compression Ratio vs Stroke Length. This engine achieves the same CR with half the conventional stroke. This means less mechanical stress, higher RPM possibilities, better vibrational characteristics since its inherently self balancing in each bore, etc. It also may be possible to affect dynamic CR is by changing the valve timings, without the necessity of changing the base volumes swept per stroke. Otherwise it would require the central case/combustion chamber volume be changed to suit the fuel and applicaton.

  • Pingback: From The First Cars In History To 1860 | Car History

  • Larry Steiner

    Radical New Design? Variable compression ratio may be of advantage but Fairbanks Morse built OP engines for years. It’s not really that radical or new.

  • http://metalenergyblog.com Wesley Evans

    That was very well written and thanks very much for the info! I’ve been searching for quite some time but it’s hard to find quality content. Keep up the good work!

  • http://yourgogreensource.com/blog Ian

    Best of luck with your endeavors in Asia. If only the big auto makers in North America didn’t have that not invented here hang up the tax payers might not have had to bail them out a few years back

  • Pingback: Why it is So Hard to Change Things… | eladata