How Koenigsegg's 2.0-Liter No-Camshaft Engine Makes 600 Horsepower (roadandtrack.com) 131
ArchieBunker quotes a report from Road & Track: You can always count on Koenigsegg to do things differently. Take the Swedish brand's newest car, the Gemera, a 1700-hp four-seat hybrid grand tourer that can crest 250 mph. In a world filled with more ultra-high-dollar supercars than ever, the Gemera stands out. And perhaps the most interesting thing about the car is its engine. Koenigsegg calls the engine the Tiny Friendly Giant, or TFG for short, and it's an apt name. The TFG is a 2.0-liter twin-turbo three-cylinder that makes 600 horsepower. At 300 horsepower per liter, the TFG's specific output is far higher than anything ever seen in a road car. Koenigsegg says this is 'light-years ahead of any other production three-cylinder today,' and he's not wrong: The next most powerful triple is the 268-hp engine in the Toyota GR Yaris.
What's even more unusual is that the TFG doesn't have a camshaft. Instead, the engine uses technology from Koenigsegg's sister company, Freevalve, with pneumatic actuators opening and closing each valve independently. I called company founder Christian von Koenigsegg to learn exactly how this unconventional engine works. The Tiny Friendly Giant was designed specifically for the Gemera. Koenigsegg wanted something compact and lightweight, with big horsepower. Koenigsegg also decided to reverse the setup found in the hybrid Regera, where internal combustion provides the bulk of the total power output. In the Gemera, the majority of the power comes from electric motors, with the Gemera contributing some driving force as well as charging the hybrid drivetrain's batteries. Given this criteria, Koenigsegg arrived at a 2.0-liter, three-cylinder configuration.
What's even more unusual is that the TFG doesn't have a camshaft. Instead, the engine uses technology from Koenigsegg's sister company, Freevalve, with pneumatic actuators opening and closing each valve independently. I called company founder Christian von Koenigsegg to learn exactly how this unconventional engine works. The Tiny Friendly Giant was designed specifically for the Gemera. Koenigsegg wanted something compact and lightweight, with big horsepower. Koenigsegg also decided to reverse the setup found in the hybrid Regera, where internal combustion provides the bulk of the total power output. In the Gemera, the majority of the power comes from electric motors, with the Gemera contributing some driving force as well as charging the hybrid drivetrain's batteries. Given this criteria, Koenigsegg arrived at a 2.0-liter, three-cylinder configuration.
Been done before (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, I think that young Saudi princes, top European football players, and sons of Russian oligarchs will be very pleased with this car. What an accomplishment.
Second, in 1980s Formula 1 racing, the most powerful 1.5L turbo engines already delivered well over 1000hp in qualifying trim. And this is without the 21st century tech like electric motors, batteries, direct injection, variable valve timing, etc.
PS: I love watching vintage footage of 1980s Formula 1 racing. Those cars were basically go karts with 1000hp engine attached to the driver's seat, and they had manual H-pattern gear shifters. Ponder that.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I did a little work with electronic valvetrains; you don't just drop a valve, you drop them all!
simultaneously
Yes.... but what about reliability? (Score:2)
First of all, I think that young Saudi princes, top European football players, and sons of Russian oligarchs will be very pleased with this car. What an accomplishment.
Second, in 1980s Formula 1 racing, the most powerful 1.5L turbo engines already delivered well over 1000hp in qualifying trim. And this is without the 21st century tech like electric motors, batteries, direct injection, variable valve timing, etc.
PS: I love watching vintage footage of 1980s Formula 1 racing. Those cars were basically go karts with 1000hp engine attached to the driver's seat, and they had manual H-pattern gear shifters. Ponder that.
Of course, in the 80s there were F1 cars with 1.5l and 1000hp... but how many kilometers do they lasted?
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, in the 80s there were F1 cars with 1.5l and 1000hp... but how many kilometers do they lasted?
To answer your question, I think a typical Formula 1 race was and is something like 300 km, add or subtract, except corner cases involving bad weather, numerous accidents, etc when it could be less. In 1980s, there were no rules restricting how many engines could be used per year per car (in 2019, it's three engines per car), and so the best funded Formula 1 teams could bring at least two brand new engine
Re: Yes.... but what about reliability? (Score:3)
Er, you do know that many people drive their cars to track days, take it around the circuit for as long as they like then drive home again? The engines aren't the problem, fried brakes and tyres however are.
Re: (Score:2)
Track day is not a race.
Re: Yes.... but what about reliability? (Score:2)
Hey everyone! I found a guy who has never been thrown out of a track day!
Re: (Score:2)
Track day morons really need to grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Another track day idiot who thinks that he is racing.... like WEC or F1. Whatever man.
Re: (Score:2)
Track day moron here, how does an engine know the difference between a track day and a race of equivalent length? Or an amateur endurance race such as ChumpCar/LeMons where tuned or even stock production engines are used? Is there a device on the engine that can detect a difference in passing rules or how many spectators are in the stands and control when the engine blows up to suit?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't. Driver does. Driver behaviour in a competitive race is completely different from trying out stuff on a typical track day. Many behavioural things that driver will automatically optimize during a track run cannot be optimized during a competitive race.
Which results in a completely different pattern of wear and tear.
Re: (Score:2)
On the suspension and brakes, there is some difference, on the engine, not really. The only thing I do differently powertrain-wise is that I shift more gently at a track day...the engine's still running flat out in the same RPM range pretty much all the time for as long as the car is on track. If I'm trying to set a new personal lap record at a track day, there's no difference between that and leading a race.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Twin turbos that's how.
Negative. You don't magically get 600bhp from a tiny engine just by slapping turbos on it. That much should be evident by all the other 2.0L twin turbos on the market generating less than half this power.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you've never heard of boost pressure. Go and educate yourself.
Wankel Rotary engine needs no valves or cam shaft! (Score:2)
Wankels do not need valves or cam shafts. 2 rotors have 6 pulses per rotation so it's equivalent to a 12 cylinder 4 stroke engine. And like a flat engine with opposing pistons counter balancing the Wankel is naturally counter balanced.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazing technology. No wonder rotor engines were such great success in the market place.
Re: (Score:2)
If they could have solved the sealing (think piston rings) problem, they would have had more success. Neighbour had one, lots of blue smoke when he fired it up.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah and if i could find an appropriate catalyst, i could turn a bowl of salad into a nuclear bomb, what's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the shape of the combustion chamber, and the inefficiency of the porting that killed the rotary. They don't achieve proper fuel mixing.
Today's performance and fuel economy numbers are the result of many hours of CFD work, optimizing intake valve mixing (swirl, tumble etc) as well as charge location and density to get an optimum mix into the combustion chamber. The fuel kernel and resulting combustion plume are carefully designed to avoid having combustion occur in the areas close to the cylinder wall
Re: Wankel Rotary engine needs no valves or cam sh (Score:2)
Wankels also have low torque, poor emissions due to oil getting into the mixture as an unavoidable side effect of the design and poor reliability which is why they're hardly ever seen today.
Re: (Score:3)
I seem to recall they also benefited greatly from regular maintenance (probably covered under reliability) - they had a great run in the military, not sure if they're still in use.
Liquid Piston looks like they have a very promising different take on a rotary engine though - one which has almost none of the weaknesses of the Wankel: Incredible, completely adjustable compression ratio. Constant-volume combustion. Apex seals are stationary, which eliminates centrifugal stresses and means they can be lubricat
Re: Wankel Rotary engine needs no valves or cam s (Score:2)
Not to mention the apex seals blowing out rendering the engine a belching seized up lump.
Re: (Score:2)
They sound better in theory than practice. Mileage isn't great and burn oil like crazy. A buddy owned a last generation RX8 and he still had to check the oil every other gas fill up.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's good, Wankels also don't need much road because they'll break down and belch oil before you even get it to the end of your driveway.
Wankels failed in the market for a reason.
Has not been done before (Score:2)
You're talking about a race engine that needs special treatment and frequent regular rebuilds. This is a totally different animal.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, I think that young Saudi princes, top European football players, and sons of Russian oligarchs will be very pleased with this car. What an accomplishment.
Second, in 1980s Formula 1 racing, the most powerful 1.5L turbo engines already delivered well over 1000hp in qualifying trim. And this is without the 21st century tech like electric motors, batteries, direct injection, variable valve timing, etc.
PS: I love watching vintage footage of 1980s Formula 1 racing. Those cars were basically go karts with 1000hp engine attached to the driver's seat, and they had manual H-pattern gear shifters. Ponder that.
However, a F1 car is not a production car. Vintage F1 was great, cars that depended on the drivers ability not just to drive but to sort out the car to get the best performance, with none of the modern electronic control systems. Compare an 70's or 80's vintage steering wheel with todays to see how far electronics and technolgy have taken over F1. Not that it still isn't fun, just a very different type of racing. I think FormulaE has a lot of potential as well.
Re: (Score:2)
F1 engines are totally not suited for daily use, ofcourse it is debatable if this new Koenigsegg is suitable for daily use (but at least it is sold as a road car). ...
If you watch any motorsport, you'll find all those engines produce way more power then whatever you'll find even in the most powerful car. That would be a different story if those motorsport engines also had to follow emission rules, have proper milage, durability, cheap to build, comfort,
The exact is same for EV's or solar powered cars used i
Re: (Score:2)
F1 engine are suited for daily use. Simply limit the RPM to 9000 and do other changes with regards to electronic engine control, as long as it drives a road car, it could last a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
We ran an "old" F1 engine in a land speed record car.
It was a temperamental bitch. Don't even think of starting it without preheating the oil and coolant!
Re: (Score:2)
F1 engine are suited for daily use.
Hardly. F1 engines cannot be cold started. External heaters and pumps are used to bring the engine to up to temp. The crank is then turned with the ignition off to build up oil pressure. Only then is the engine actually started.
Nobody wants to deal with that sort of thing in a daily driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention paper-thin compression rings, and all the other components shaved down to reduce weight at the expense of life expectancy.
Or the fact that the power they produce at 9K RPM isn't really enough to do useful work. Look up "engine power bands"
There was a V8 500CC racing motorcycle developed by Moto Guzzi in the mid 1950s. It wouldn't even run smoothly until 8 or 9K RPM.
Re: (Score:3)
Those F1 engines were also used up after that single qualifying lap(sometimes with a spectactular white cloud or flames shooting out of the exhaust, while the Gemera's 3-cylinder engine can run for quite a bit longer than that.
Turbo Lag (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You gotta be kidding me. Put this Koenigsegg through the stress of racing for only one weekend (and actually any other off the shelf car like Toyota, Porsche, or Ferrari), and there is a very high chance, certainly more than 50%, that this car that war meant to function trouble-free for many years and tens of thousands of miles will give up the ghost, such as require major engine or transmission repair, after only three hours of racing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Been done before (Score:2)
No.
Christian and the rest of the folks at Koenigsegg get annoyed when customers treat their cars as things to look at instead of drive. The company makes cars that are meant to be driven, and driven hard.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the other end of extreme and also incorrect. Supercars are not meant to be driven in any meaningful capacity. Those engines have too much power, which results in maintenance requirements that would be considered borderline unacceptable in most early 1900s cars.
Supercars are show cars, that can be driven occasionally, but should not be used as a daily driver car. They will simply not last in this role. If you actually want a daily driver that is also a pussy magnet, you get a street-optimized sports
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the article it's "only" 500 hp on pump gas.
Still...
The big deal is the full control over the valves (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Most cars have variable valve timing these days but they are somewhat constrained in how they adapt to different circumstances such as rpm and load.
https://jalopnik.com/how-varia... [jalopnik.com]
Re: (Score:2)
+1.
Most cars have variable valve timing these days but they are somewhat constrained in how they adapt to different circumstances such as rpm and load.
https://jalopnik.com/how-varia... [jalopnik.com]
The engine in my car (BMW N55) has variable valve timing (VANOS) and variable lift as well (Valvetronic). This does away with the throttle butterfly - engine speed is controlled by varying valve lift. It's a pretty trick system and a sweet engine with the natural balanced smoothness of an inline six, and twin scroll turbocharged for tons of torque at low RPM.
I like this sort of technology better than EVs personally, but to each their own.
Re:The big deal is the full control over the valve (Score:5, Interesting)
More than that, you can run as a two-stroke during high RPMs, and as a four stroke at low ones, preserving efficiency and emissions while running slow, and making the most power possible at WOT. And the transition is seamless.
Re: (Score:3)
They say that 2-stroke mode is available only until 3000 RPM, because above that there isn't enough time to scavenge the chamber.
Even more interesting that the transition from 2-stroke to 4-stroke is that they have complete computer control over the valve timing. Huh? Didn't you just say that? Let me add emphasis: complete computer control. Humans, even as designers, don't need to be involved except at the start. You let the engine run under different circumstances and allow the computer to explore the
Re: (Score:2)
They will no doubt do that on the bench, but I doubt they will do it in production vehicles. What you want in products in customers' hands is predictability.
Re: (Score:2)
" "Freevalve" is a real breakthrough if it can be made inexpensive enough for mass market automobiles."
inexpensive & mass production don't really come in the picture when talking about Koenigsegg.
but we expect this tech for us mere mortals soon now (in the next 5-10 years), well, that is if newly developed ice engine based cars will still be around by then.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been developing the technology for a while. In this video they show it fitted to an old Saab and claim it can also work on higher RPM motorcycle engines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you mean. And the many other interesting details, such as the torque converter, are just there to draw attention to the valve technology. My first thought was, what about the mileage, haha. Now I'm thinking, maybe that's where this technology will ultimately shine.
Re: (Score:2)
This is seriously interesting....With complete computer control of the valves the car could run at the most efficient setting when the throttle is only slightly pressed.
Definitely, that's the revolutionary part here, replacing the mechanical (and inflexible) valve timing with computer controlled timing. When you read about all the ideas they have (variable number of valves, 2-stroke vs. 4-stroke operation), it's pretty clear there are a ton of possibilities here.
I wish they'd gone into more detail how the pneumatic control works. I recall reading an article about this in Technology Review, oh, 10 years ago. That article speculated we could use solenoids but there are probl
Humourous Swedes (Score:2)
I note in passing that the TFG is probably not called The Friendly Giant by the team working on it but something with a bit more ooomph. Disclosure, I have worked with Swedes and they posess a fine sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
I note in passing that the TFG is probably not called The Friendly Giant by the team working on it but something with a bit more ooomph. Disclosure, I have worked with Swedes and they posess a fine sense of humor.
Hell yes. They've convinced the world Surströmming is a delicacy...
More parts to break (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, it's damn cool and it might work great for a while. But, the more parts you have the more they will break. There are a lot of fancy, high end cars that require constant maintenance or are unreliable as hell.
The most expensive car is a bargain priced supercar....
Re: (Score:2)
They're replacing several parts that require maintenance and are among the more likely parts to break: the camshaft drive and camshaft timing gear. I don't see the parts count rising much.
It gets better: if one of the new parts (pneumatic actuators) breaks, it fails in a safe manner (unlike a broken timing belt which can lead to valve-piston collisions and catastrophic damage) AND the engine can keep running when one valve is out of operation.
Re: (Score:2)
They reduced parts by eliminating the transmission and camshaft.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, it's damn cool and it might work great for a while. But, the more parts you have the more they will break. There are a lot of fancy, high end cars that require constant maintenance or are unreliable as hell.
And there's a lot of modern cars with all their high tech that are significantly more reliable than the old simple mechanical beasts of old. Reliability is not as simple as counting the components and complexity and crying foul. In fact the most reliable systems (systems used in a generic term now, not specific to this case) are usually orders of magnitude more complex than unreliable ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish they had bought out Saab.. (Score:2)
The old 900 2L turbos would pin you to your seat in second gear, canâ(TM)t imagine one with this little 3 cylinder beast in it!
let's cut to the chase, (Score:2)
Quote I like (Score:2)
Here's the quote I like: We’ll get all the positives that I love in the Tesla but with another 1100hp AND 600kgs less weight. [koenigsegg.com] And incidentally, a $million or two higher price tag.
Aftermarket freevalve (Score:2)
Keep a manual compressor handy (Score:2)
Since this uses compressed air to run the valves (like modern F1 and, I think, MotoGP), you are going to need a compressor to charge the storage if your boat sits for a while. Of course, it might be electric, but you need that reserve to crank the engine (and, maybe, light the glow plugs).
Re: (Score:2)
On something large like a cruise ship they could have a couple of conventionally designed diesels whose job is to make sure everything needed is present for the other three engines, which can benefit from this technology.
That would let them benefit from the new tech for 99% of their operational activity; cruise ships tend to run on only two of their five engines anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never heard of these people and I don't understand why you assume I do?
Well it's naturally assumed that if you're a nerd who likes technology and cars you would know about a company that has been producing unconventional high tech supercars for many years.
Of course not everyone is into that, but the general assumption then is if someone sees the word horsepower, camshaft, and engine in the title they would simply skip over the story rather than prove they are bored enough to bitch and moan about its wording.
To preempt you, yes I'm bored too.
Re: (Score:2)
Computer nerds and gearheads are different circles. It's a bit of a reach for this story to be on Slashdot. More computer control of an engine, I guess?
On topic, tuner cars have had all aspects of timing directly computer controlled for years now, so eliminating the camshaft entirely isn't that much of a stretch. However, said tuner cars have a habit of blowing up engines, as that's what happens when you get too aggressive with timing. Not a big deal if you own a shop, and rebuild the engine anyway when
Re: (Score:2)
Computer nerds and gearheads are different circles.
Hah not really, many of my gearhead friends are also hardcore computer nerds (myself included of course). The gearhead hobby can bring rewards for intelligence very nearly on par with its rewards for wealth, especially in these days of CANbus hacking, shadetree engine tuning & data logging.
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Literally every car made for the past 30 years available in the US has included computer controlled systems. A modern European car can have *100* independent computers in it. ARM, MIPS, PPC, Aurix, you name it, itâ(TM)s in there, all talking on multiple networks.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern engines have a lot of computer control. But even then, the valve lifting is done the old fashioned way by mechanical camshafts rotating in sync with the engine. The inlet and outlet valve camshafts were separated in dual cam engines decades ago to allow the timing to be independantly adjusted, which has since become standard, and most engines now can vary the timing in real time under computer control instead of having them on a fixed belt that could only be adjusted when servicing, but the lift is
Re: (Score:2)
You don't believe that someone who is really into mechanical engineering would qualify as a "nerd"? Increasingly, cars are a place where microcontrollers, data networks and firmware meet up with mechanical systems. The current generation of gearheads have to get into computers and electronics if they want to work on a car produced within their lifetime. Many have done exactly that.
For example, TFA is about an engine where proper valve timing has literally become a matter of programming in a hard real-time s
Re: (Score:2)
Computer nerds and gearheads are different circles.
Maybe you need to find a different site since this is news for nerds, not news for computer nerds alone. Nerds come in many different forms and it's not up to you to decide what people are nerdy about.
However, said tuner cars have a habit of blowing up engines, as that's what happens when you get too aggressive with timing.
I can tell you're not a gearhead since what they are doing is far from tuning up a street engine with aggressive timing. They are very much taking direct pressure control of each individual cylinder including the profile and airflow through valves.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot was never a site for violin nerds, nor classical Latin nerds.
They are very much taking direct pressure control of each individual cylinder including the profile and airflow through valves.
Yeah, you can make a cam with whatever shape you need, and divert from that baseline through computer controlled hydraulics that change how aggressive the cam is. Sure, Cleetus doesn't do that with his LS engines, but only becuase it's a bit of a pain to swap cams on a pushrod engine.
Yes, sure, you can vary things dynamically on more axes if the whole thing is electronic, but I doubt it gets you much - it's the valve profile at peak powe
Re: (Score:2)
And if that fails we can just have a flamewar over the correct spelling of litre, another great Slashdot tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah anyone can install a big turbo but this engine is much more than that. It's also a hybrid drive without a a gearbox. The engine can switch from two stroke at low rpm to four at higher RPM for better efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
> However, achieving 300hp per liter of displacement is not;
Now do HP compared to weight.
Re: (Score:2)
> However, achieving 300hp per liter of displacement is not;
Now do HP compared to weight.
From the article, the engine is designed to be extremely lightweight as well. Not having a camshaft helps of course, but it's far more than that. Unfortunately they aren't terribly specific about the weight, but for such a small engine to have so much power and potentially be so efficient is certainly interesting anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> However, achieving 300hp per liter of displacement is not;
Now do HP compared to weight.
OK...
The engine outputs a mere 592 hp (441 kW).
The total output of the engine + electric motors is 1677 hp (1250 kW) for 2580 lb/ft (3500 N/m) of torque (that's a lot of power!)
The curb weight of the vehicle is 4080 lbs (1850 kg).
It has a 0-60mph (0-100 kph) of 1.9 seconds and a top speed of 250 mph (400 kph).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BMW M12 did about 1100HP, for one lap(optimistically), before the engine burned out.
The 1100HP figure is from BMW themselves, btw, the higher figures are all tall tales from various "enthusiasts", youtubers, hacks writing for car blogs etc etc. I wouldn't be surprised if, 2 years from now, people claim that it did 1700 or 1800HP.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of a Wankel engine? That's all this is with some of the more glaring compression issues being dealt with.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of a Wankel engine? That's all this is with some of the more glaring compression issues being dealt with.
This is nothing like that. Nothing at all. You should try reading the article, especially the parts about the pistons, bore, stroke, valves, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Category error. Someone *may* be counted on to do something, even if you never noticed. For example, you could say "you can always count on Bob to turn up to meetings 10 minutes early" is still true, even if you personally we never there 10 minutes early to check.
Re: (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s because they erroneously assumed that you werenâ(TM)t an ignorant rube.
At least he knows how to type apostrophes.
Re: (Score:2)
Indy cars use 2.2 liter, 700 horsepower engines that run on E85.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's a hybrid-electric car! 600hp equivalent!
No. It's a hybrid electric 1700hp car. 1100hp from electric motors and 600hp from the gas engine.
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect. [roadandtrack.com] It's a parallel hybrid, using both electric motors and the internal combustion engine to turn the wheels, the latter via a torque converter (cool). Incidentally, rear wheel drive only.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary tells you of one example, but if you knew how to use Google you could find over a dozen examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Swedes aren't really known for boasting... You of course missed the "road car" qualifier, an easy thing to make if one is incapable of understanding anything remotely technical.
Re: (Score:3)
F1 uses pneumatic return springs, but they have always been cam actuated. There is no real point in variable valve lift/timing on a racing engine, as they only run at full throttle over a very narrow RPM band.