> XTS-210 is about the size of a basketball, weighs in at 19 kg (42 lb), and displaces 210 cc.
So you are talking about a 26HP lawn mower.
While the Camry might make more power at its normal size. It would not if you scaled it down to the size of a basketball. I'm guessing it would make 1-3HP at that size.
This is 1hp per 0.46 pounds of engine weight, nearly three times better than the camry engine.
Granted an RC engine runs on a mixture of fuel and nitromethane, and doesn't have any reasonable durability compare to a Camry engine. But it also only costs $200.
it's like RAID, great until the RAID card itself fails
That's a huge difference. The main limiting factor in engine power is mass air flow, not fuel. Engines are as much air pumps as they are containers for extracting expansion from explosions. Nitromethane provides extra oxidizer in liquid form, putting nitro engines in some ways closer to rocket engines in terms of power-to-weight ratio.
Extracting more power is, most commonly, a matter of burning more fuel, which requires more oxygen. This increases combustion chamber pressure, which drives the piston down with more force; that force is converted to rotational torque and ultimately drives the wheels harder, pushing the vehicle forward faster.
More oxygen can be added in any number of ways; less restrictive intake/exhaust parts, larger valves, cams that are more optimized for whatever load/engine speed you want to produce peak power (or are more optimized for output than, say, economy or emissions), supercharger, turbocharger.
Adding fuel is more straightforward: A higher capacity pump and/or bigger injectors/carbs.
You can also switch to pistons that will compress the air/fuel charge more. This also increases combustion chamber pressure.
You can also run the engine at a higher speed, which will often warrant different cams, stronger valve springs, etc. May also require bottom end uprated components that can handle that task (connecting rods, pistons, bearings, crankshaft).
On the subject of bottom end components, depending on how much you increase cylinder pressure, you may need to upgrade those.
You can also increase output power by reducing losses - a lighter flywheel is a common example with enthusiasts.
Every single one of these involves a trade-off. A lighter flywheel impacts drivability; removing intake/exhaust restrictions and adding forced induction components will both make more noise; etc.
These greater forces cause more stress to factory engine components, so generally at a certain level you will need to replace engine internals with uprated parts e.g. stronger rods and pistons.
You can do a chip tune that might get you more HP across a wide range of RPMs, but you won't be as robust, will need maintenance more often, and will likely wear through oil, gas, differentials, clutches, and related more quickly.
There's MANY things you can do that all basically come down to burning more gas+o2 in less time. Higher intake airflow (turbo, supercharger, better/missing air filters, scoops, etc), bored out cylinders for more engine displacement, more gas (increased fuel pressure/pumps), increased RPMs, and decreased exhaust pressure (better pipes, decreased or missing cats).
Trick is, more gas+o2 burned = more heat, more wear, more stress, hotter oil, faster clutch wearing, faster tire wearing, and generally faster brake wearing. Turbos are driven by exhaust, spin at crazy RPMs, increase air intake pressure, and generally are harder on the engine and oil and make cooling more of an issue. Higher RPMs require more precise timing, better valves+springs, better balanced cam shafts, etc. So what might seem like a cheap/easy change like increasing turbo boost from 10psi to 15psi might like a good idea, but have major impact on engine life and maintenance costs. A single blown head gasket from the increased temp, increased vibration, and increased pressure can be very expensive.
Much like CPUs of today, cars are generally designed carefully for their performance level and there's less spare performance left to be easily tweaked. Much like how older CPUs could be overclocked for substantial performance gains. Now both cars and CPUs will throttle if they don't have enough cooling or any of numerous other sensors detect potential problems. It's pretty common these days to see a car with 300hp, but 350hp for up to 10 seconds before the sensors reel you back in.
Go ask your Camry engine to make 100% rated power indefinitely, and see how long it holds up. That's the difference.
A typical car engine is designed to make 30-50hp sustained, and occasionally generate more power for reasonably short periods of time.
An aviation engine, generator engine, or any sort of "industrial" engine is going to be able to sit there, making full rated horsepower, for thousands of hours without any trouble at all.
As I understand, the reason a typical car engine can’t sit at 100% duty cycle isn’t the engine itself, but usually the cooling and oiling configuration.
Examples:
Looking over the Viking engines, I don't think it's fair to call those "automotive engines," because my read of the description of what they do means they're pulling it apart and replacing an awful lot of pieces. They claim they're "based on" the latest Honda engines, and once you're starting to change the cylinder bore offset, custom hone the cylinders, replace your pistons and conrods, etc, it's no longer a car engine.
On their About page, they themselves say:
> Companies like Honda and Mitsubishi have spent millions of dollars refining and testing. We don’t claim that we can outsmart either company when it comes to the design of any internal running component of these engines. We don't change vital engine parameters around and claim we have different models. The compression, etc. is all stock. Every part is OEM Honda / Mitsubishi, nothing is new aftermarket from unknown origins.
> We start with the most up to date year engines with super low mileage, derived from fender benders across the US. When customers want the information about where there engine core came from and how many miles it had - we have all that documentation readily available to show.
Literally, every one of these engines came out of a car. I think that plainly qualifies it as a car engine.
Marine applications generally means salt water, so they will run at higher power is the salt is what gets the engine eventually not the stress of high power output. Airplane engines are expected to be reliable and so they run at relatively lower power output. There are many small niches in between that have their own idea of what 100% duty cycle is.
This exceeds most definitions of "100% duty cycle".
The XTS-210 can do that?
Our flying club engines in the 172s typically make at least 3000, if not 3500 hours, and I think some of the overhauls at that point have been a "Well... it's still perfectly fine... but..." thing where the board was just starting to get uncomfortable with the hours on it.
And, yes, they spend a lot of time making less than rated power, because of density altitude, but they're still rated for full power operation, and since there's basically no wear going on with an engine in operation (almost all the wear is during starting), there's no real difference there.
It's not until you get into the really large engines where "maximum continuous" is a different thing from "takeoff power." The turbocharged 500s are about the smallest I know of with that sort of rating, and even then I don't think it's all of them. Most of the big radials have that limit, though. If you find a smaller plane with that sort of limit, it's either a possible resonance issue between the engine and prop, or a noise regulation for certification.
Most engineering in the US is done in metric units. Then marketing applies a metric to imperial conversion.
I suspect China does more engineering in imperial than the US, both in total an per capita: most things I buy made in America are all metric (cars are all metric except for parts designed in the 1960s and the adapter bracket to make them fit on a modern metric car). Most things I buy made in China are imperial. I don't really know for sure, but that is my impression of industry.
That's why I asked about engineering, not driving. Nobody converts torque to power etc.?
How is this revolutionary motor being outdone by a mid-range sedan engine?