More Dual engine options

[Anonymous]

Since no one is posting on my last thread i thought id start a new one. im just throwing ideas out on getting two engines in my Comet. if you have read my last thread id still like ideas on that. now i a little more curious about havin two engines up front. i know this could be done with a "v" drive. How practical is it? could you mount the engines on an angle so it would form a sort of v-12(still seperate engines) which would require less modidfication of suspension and engine compartment? you could mount the heads on so one intake would be to the right and the other to the left so they would meet in the middle.(again essentially a "v" engine) perhaps this way you can use one 4 bbl to run both engines!! Also, is there a way you could shut down(mechanicly disconnect and kill) and run one engine for economy. or would'nt it matter either way because of the extra engine weight.
perhaps my brain aint screwed on right but i think 2 engines would be a cool idea. this is mostly a street idea. little draggin for me.

thanx all

 

[Anonymous]

I seem to recall an early diesel-electric locomotive built by the Baldwin Works, that had two cranks, but one central cylinder head. It had a line of injectors down the middle, with the intake on one side, and the exhausts on the other. If you could find a wide enough car, why not a flat 12? Two straight sixes, mounted pan to pan, but running off of a central crank- sounds like a good idea to me............

Jared

 

[Anonymous]

No no no I aint thinkin that radical. there is no way im gonna fit 2 sixes pan to pan in my Mercury Comet!! what im thinkin is two seperate engines with a common intake. also possibly the engines mounted in a "v" formation for space savin. no sharin of cranks. im not that hardcore. remeber i want this as streetable as i can get by with
thanx anyway tho

 

[63redtudor]

Actually I belive the builder was called Fairbanks-Morres. The engines had 2 cranks & no cylinder head. Each pair of pistons came together to form the compression chamber. That would be an interesting way to make a motor. Kinda like an inverse opposed six. Take care,
Edwin

 

[Anonymous]

By the time you spend all the time and money making a twin engine car you could just get a Falconer V12 aluminum block 600CI and the common parts are ch<>y 350. And if you ever want to see something thats Rube Goldbergesque look up the Chrysler 30 cylinder engine they put together at the beginning of WWII for tanks, it was five flathead sixes arranged in a star configuration with one mounted upright in a normal configuration and the others mounted around the drive gear at angles. It shared some
stuff like the cooling system and I think one big carb but from looking at one in a museum it looked like a plumbing nightmare.

 

[Anonymous]

Go find a Napier Deltic engine.....
http://www.ptfnasty.com/ptfdelticoperation.htm


-=Whittey=-

 

[Anonymous]

ok i kinda like the v-12 too. it just looks good. now assuming you could fit it in the comet's engine bay(prolly not without mods.) how would you adapt it to a ford tranny? And wat tranny would you use? Or would you go with a GM tranny? Could i keep the stock 2.79 rear gears or would i hafta go to a nine inch rear end? keep ponderin guys

thanks

 

[Anonymous]

I know the difference between a Baldwin and F-M. I spent hours last night trying to find a pic, but no luck. It was a pre-VO series engine, so it was from before 1928. Alcos were vertically opposed, these were basically two engines under one head. Fabricated block, and tons of reliablity probs due to poor materials. My other hobby is trains.

 

[CobraSix]

Actually I belive the builder was called Fairbanks-Morres. The engines had 2 cranks & no cylinder head. Each pair of pistons came together to form the compression chamber. That would be an interesting way to make a motor. Kinda like an inverse opposed six. Take care,
Edwin

I used to work on a ship with Fairbanks Morse 12 cylinder, opposing piston engines. 2 cranks put together by a connecting rod. twin turbo, 9000HP...but almost too large for a train. Very good running engine though.

Why not put one engine in the front with a driveshaft going to the rear and one engine in the rear with a driveshaft going to the front using a 4x4 front axle? You can also have it where you only run the front engine under normal driving and a seperate ignition for the rear engine.

Slade