To maximize power from a rotating assembly of a piston engine? Wouldn't you get more power if the motor was up side down? Oiling would obviously need to be redesigned. But I believe we might be fighting gravity instead of maximizing? Rotary designs wouldn't matter. But that design has thermal problem at higher volumes. With today's world of forced air, fuel and oil injection? It could be done. Only question? Should it be tried?
Just dry sump the engine. They probably originally designed engines with cost and known technology as major factors.
Didn't work that great at making power for Walter Minor/LOM.. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...936_(1).jpg/545px-Walter_Minor_4_1936_(1).jpg
WWII the Daimler 603 and Junkers Jumo 213 were both inverted V-12. We know how the war ended, so an inverted engine was not a contributing factor.
But its not on the compression stroke. Half the return stroke is gas assisted. This may be a better question (and easier to attempt) on a 2 stroke engine?
You may be right. Especially at any rpm. Boxer design engines get more RPM per cc and motor weight than V engine designs. They suffer with low end torque. If pistons traveling sideways has shown promise? Then why not take it farther?
If the pistons & rods are gonna live below the centerline of the crank that either means the car is gonna be taller or the driveshaft will be higher in the passenger compartment.... Can't see that making anyone too happy... Or your gonna use gears/chain/belt to lower the power transfer... gears/chain/belt are gonna waste whatever energy you found by flipping the engine over... But hey... Don't let me rain on your parade, build it & prove me wrong...
A way to maximize power is to reduce rotating mass and minimize moving parts. Turn linear motion to rotating motion, replace push rods, rocker arms etc to a rotating motion to avoid the energy losses. Look at modern engines with a camshaft directly driving a hydraulic cam follower on top of the camshaft, no rockers, pushrods etc. required....less linear moving parts. That design was not made to reduce gravity effect. The boxer engine was designed to reduce harmonic vibration in the engine by opposing the cylinders in direction. The other reason was to make the engine lower, causing its point of gravity to sit lower, which helps the car's stability. All in all the internal combustion engine has poor efficiency, i believe that even on modern engines 70-75% of the energy created is lost through exhaust and heat, only the remaining 25-30% is making the car move. All the improvements the engineers had made over the years like forced induction, fuel injection, variable valve systems, etc. improved some but the basic concept cannot be altered. Look at jet engines, a single rotary assembly that turns at high rpm, no other moving parts are there. All auxiliaries like fuel and oil pumps are run separate to keep the beast in action, energy efficiency is a lot higher here.
From google... Passenger car diesel engines have energy efficiency of up to 41% but more typically 30%, and petrol (gas) engines of up to 37.3%, but more typically 20%. That is one of the reasons why diesels have better fuel efficiency than equivalent petrol cars. A common margin is 25% more miles per gallon for an efficient turbodiesel. Its not great really is it. Fewer pistons (and therefore) less internal friction helps....that's part of the reason why the latest AMG63 Merc engine has gone V6 Twin turbo and "only" 4 litres from the old 6.2 V8 NA....the smaller lump has about 50 more horses, more torque and far better fuel economy. The latest Ford Gt went 6 cylinder for the same reason.....much to the delight of Ford fans.....NOT!
