No need to get flustered - and I don't recall anyone questioning anyone's back ground. If anything it's just to test out ideas and tame natural curiosity and so forth.
The two engines I've pondered in the past were both of an inline design, not a "v" or opposing, thus I don't see how things might get too uncomfortable (1,2,3,4 = 1,X,3,X,1,X,3... or 1,2,3,4,5 = 1,X,3,X,5,X,2,X,4,X,1,X,3...). Will it be "baby smooth" or what not, probably not - likely not quite as much as with all cylinders firing (
honestly). Less power, yes.
I've also learned from others in the distant past to try not to take everything someone says and says alone, as the whole truth. That said, the fellow in the link does leave more to be desired and so forth as many point out.
Dead cylinder activation is for cruise conditions, where steady and low average loads exists. Higher cruising speeds and towing are apt to null such operations because of the greater avarage load demand, which would be better served with all cylinders - again, a compromise - thinking as though engine longevity vs. fuel economy.
As far as a desire for anyone to attempt working out a conversion, we'll they may just have most of what they need already instead of an entirely new engine and control package (saving the green, you know what I mean?). On the other hand, if failure should arise with those testing clunkers, well the vehicles went out with an educational lesson for the rest to learn from (valuable to those who take notice). Some of us just like to tinker, and if that tinkering should happen to provide a benefit for them in the long run that's great.
Just remember what it's all about - having fun, learning, and seeing the day through to the next. Sounds goofy, but hey...
Oh, and
LARKBILL.
[ February 02, 2006, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Curious Kid ]
