How do I link 2 engines rotating in reverse?

[JimL]

FYI, go to this link, to the bottom of the page, and click on the video line.  It takes quite a while to load, be patient.  This is two engines connected by gear drive, no load, and it self destructs.  This thing shelled the gears and broke an engine block at less than 5000 RPM.  You'll hear the gear noise start clanking, and then both engines are running out of phase as the front engine starts to break up internally.

I will never again try to hook two engines together by gear, and I probably won't try any kind of coupler that would allow uneven crankshaft acceleration during firing.  I'll be using a solid crank arrangement with two blocks joined....but I only have 2 cylinders per engine.

I still don't know a good answer. It seems like some good setups do the coupling after all the driveline stuff has started smoothing out the power pulses. Definitely beyond my ability.

http://home.earthlink.net/~leinfam/id2.html

[RichFox]

I don't believe MTs old twin Chrysler had the engines connected or the 4 Pontiac except the front drive engines connected and the rear drive engines but not front to rear drive. The B&N "Rinosorous" was for sure not connected. I think Burklands is connected by drive belt to a shaft running along side the engines. Maybe not.

[TheSteelMan23]

FYI, go to this link, to the bottom of the page, and click on the video line.  It takes quite a while to load, be patient.  This is two engines connected by gear drive, no load, and it self destructs.  This thing shelled the gears and broke an engine block at less than 5000 RPM.  You'll hear the gear noise start clanking, and then both engines are running out of phase as the front engine starts to break up internally.

I will never again try to hook two engines together by gear, and I probably won't try any kind of coupler that would allow uneven crankshaft acceleration during firing.  I'll be using a solid crank arrangement with two blocks joined....but I only have 2 cylinders per engine.

I still don't know a good answer. It seems like some good setups do the coupling after all the driveline stuff has started smoothing out the power pulses. Definitely beyond my ability.

http://home.earthlink.net/~leinfam/id2.html

It's a shame that setup didn't live long, it was great looking work. It sounds like the best way to link them are by rotating one in reverse and coupling them at the snouts. I got some good advice from people that are very familiar with this. The gear drives seem to eat themselves alive, as you unfortunately found out. Love the CB by the way, reminds me of my BSA Super Rocket

[SPARKY]

RF, your comparison to the trains is good--two independent engs in the same frame---in my opinion, one of them could be not running, idling, not in gear,---the other eng is still going to be doing all it can do---the accleration rate and the top speed will be less    there have been lots of engs coupled as well as all kinds of ways to couple them  YMMV

[Interested Observer]

Why would you want to mechanically connect the two engines in the first place?  In this day and age, controlling the two rpm rates electronically would seem to make a lot more sense, eliminate a doomed mechanical element, and allow a variable and probably desirable bias front to rear in the wheelspeeds. 

[RichFox]

RF, your comparison to the trains is good--two independent engs in the same frame---in my opinion, one of them could be not running, idling, not in gear,---the other eng is still going to be doing all it can do---the accleration rate and the top speed will be less   there have been lots of engs coupled as well as all kinds of ways to couple them  YMMV

Same thing on much of the heavy equipment used in dirt work. Scrapers have had separate engines front and rear for around 50 years. Seems to work for them. Who remembers the very large  autoclave that passed Wendover some years ago with one very large tractor pulling it and two normal size pushing? The whole idea of needing to insure the engines are  producing the same power is wrong. The ground will keep the rpms the same unless there is some highly unusual occurrence. Iveo's 4 Buick dragster had two engines driving the front and two driving the rear. It would smoke the front tires for the full quarter but could not break the rears loose. Due to weight transfer. Still it made lots and lots of passes. Not a problem.

[Dynoroom]

The first picture is Mickey Thompson's original Challenger Pontiac drive setup.
The 2nd & 3rd are of the Motion 1 that had no connection between the engines at all.
The last shot is the coupling of the Buick's in Ivo's 4 engine car.

[RichFox]

Mike. I see the two engines chained togeather but were the front and rear engines coupled? So that all four were coupled I think like a pulling tractor.

[Dynoroom]

On Ivo's or Thompson's? I think one side pair ran the front driveline and the other side ran the rear driveline in Ivo's application. Thompson might have driven all four engines with his quick change setup. Anyone?

[Glen]

Thompson's car 4 engines, 4 transmissions and 4 quick changes. the 2 front engines drove thru the 2 transmissions and quick changes as did the rear set up,There was a axle between the QC's and each axle at the drive wheel had a over drive gear box. All transmissions were shifted at one time thru a network of linkages. The front and rear engines faced each other nose to nose and not coupled as they had the blower drives to contend with as well. A lot of monkey motion in that car as was the Summers Bros and other multi engine vehicles. It ain't easy to make it all work. It was a home built masterpiece for sure.

I think with a little google research you will find a lot of info. On top of all of that Mickey was an honor to know, a real seat of the pants hot rodder and driver. Like Steve Jobs his head was always full of ideas and plans.

[55chevr]

Glen would know the Challenger deal.  I am sure he was there.  I do recall that the Ivo-s set up was each side coupled nose to tail and then drove an axle. One faced front and the other faced rear. If I recall the HRM article back in the 60-s.   

[John Burk]

Thompson tested the Challenger at a drag strip . I remember reading before hand they decided if  it spun the safest thing was to go to full throttle and let it spin harmlessly to a stop . It did spin and Mickey stayed with the plan and saved it .

[Tman]

Thompson tested the Challenger at a drag strip . I remember reading before hand they decided if  it spun the safest thing was to go to full throttle and let it spin harmlessly to a stop . It did spin and Mickey stayed with the plan and saved it .

And there is a few photos of the tires after the spin, major carnage but they held up considering.

[Jack Gifford]

Thompson tested the Challenger at a drag strip ...

I would have said that it was at March AFB; but then again, my memory ain't the greatest...

[Mr411Fan]

I'm not versed on the deep technical aspects of the Burkland setup, but it gave virtually no trouble during all the runs the car made.  One engine had a special cam/crank for running backwards.  The engines were connected via a special coupler/shaft arrangment, essentially having them act as one V-16 with ablility to transfer power out each end.  Putting the pinion in the differentials on opposite sides allows forward motion on the front and rear axles. I remember Tom pointing to the shaft in between the engines "floating" when the engines were both "happy" and in sync.  Yes, if one engine has a problem it will drag the other down, but it's no different that one big V-16 running clutches/transmissions out each end.  I would contact Tom for details.  It was a very reliable setup that never failed as far as I remember.