Replies

I read this as they're running gasoline in a diesel engine, but maybe I misunderstand.

It seems they really don't want folks to understand too much. In one place, it appeared they were talking "blend". In others, they claim to have the run the engines on a variety of fuels.

The "diesel architecture" to me, read 'high compression'.

The last line;

To minimize friction losses, the Transonic engineers have steadily reduced the compression of their test engines to between 20:1 and 16:1, with the possibility of 13:1 for gasoline engines. In the old days, when the hot-rodders custom built small-block V-8's, going much past 12.5 to 1 made it difficult to keep from blowing head gaskets.

Diesels are more like in the neighborhood of 14 to 1 and more, with modern ones perhaps always more? (I'm not really that up-to-date).

For another comparison;
An 50's era, Chevy straight 6 used 7.5 to 1 compression ratio, and had a head bolt torque of a bit less than one hundred ft. lbs. 85-90 lbs? That sounds about right...
A diesel Caterpillar straight 6 would have head bolt torques of around 350 ft. lbs. I think I remember 345, or was it 365 lbs(?) for a 70's era 343 Cat.

It's much more expensive to make engines that utilize higher compression ratios, particularly if you want them to be durable. Everything needs to be stronger --- blocks, heads, pistons, rods. That's why the diesel "architecture".

Even if this new tech would actually work in the real world, they won't be converting 350 Chevy blocks, to use it. That had been tried in the past, (using lower compression, gasoline "architecture" simply converted to diesel) and it failed. Rather famously.