Foden 2-stroke engines

Appear to be something of a flop in Australia, but they seem to love them in NZ. Can anyone explain why?

Eightpot,
Don't know if you caught the topic, but there was quite a bit written about the Foden 2 strokes on this forum within the past 12 months or so, even a clip off youtube with a cupla poms tooling around driving a bare chassis with no cab.
As to just why they were popular across the ditch and not here is a bit of a mystery. maybe blokes thought that there was only ever one 2 stroke engine worth utilising? Screamers of course.
Dave

Dave M80

RE: there was only ever one 2 stroke engine worth utilising? Screamers of course.

U kno which side u're bread iz butterd on

:lol: :lol:

cya

I can't really answer your question as to why, Eightpot. There were certainly quite a few of them here in NZ and I drove this one for about a year and loved it.


Take no notice of what Swishy says, he has never driven a 2-stroke Foden so he can't compare them! I have driven both Fodens and GM screamers and can tell you they both sound as good as each other and the Foden engine was smoother.

Vic

Swishy mate
Screamers are suitable for mowing lawns, provided the grass is not too high.
Wartsila-Sulzer RTA 96-C at 107,390 horsepower is a true Uniflow two stroke.
Rex

Yes
Zaclee

Why waste every down stroke
wen it can B a power stroke












Cya

Lets not forget our famous Knockers.

The March issue of Heritage Commercials (pommy) features a 2 stroke S21. It seems you waited nearly two years for delivery of a Gardner powered one but "only' 14 months for a 2 stroke.. Th early ones were down on power so didn't encourage the early users.

VicHung wrote: I can't really answer your question as to why, Eightpot. There were certainly quite a few of them here in NZ and I drove this one for about a year and loved it.

Take no notice of what Swishy says, he has never driven a 2-stroke Foden so he can't compare them! I have driven both Fodens and GM screamers and can tell you they both sound as good as each other and the Foden engine was smoother.

Vic

A nice looking outfit, especially the Prime Mover - Arctic Tractor Unit to us - with the S21 double-skinned cab roof. Having occasionally worked on them I know they can be a bit temperamental and prone to cracking the cylinder heads if care isn't taken. Speak from experience here - once involved in an overnight session changing all six of them in a motorway service park! Somewhat prima-donnaish for my liking, I'll stick to my Gardners. Once they are sorted you rarely have to take them apart again.

Was just going over some old postings and had another look at those figures Swishy put up for that oversized 2 stroke engine in posting #168802.
First glance I thought I either misread it, or it was a misprint.
RPM range of TWENTY-TWO (22) to ONE HUNDRED AND TWO (102) !
I know they are two strokes (as written), just couldn't get over how slow the actual engine ran. I know very little about marine propulsion other than that smaller ships (or boats) sometimes run a reduction box to slow the propeller down and that some degree of "gearing" can be accomplished by changing the pitch on the blades.This may possibly be because a lot of early applications were both marine as well as industrial/automotive design. Also that TOO much blade speed causes cavitation and all sorts of issues. I just find it remarkable that they can get such a large capacity engine with also such a long stroke, to rev so slowly and still remain smooth. That sort of RPM range is more in tune with triple expansion steam engines.
A lot of these massive diesel engines seem to be to what some of us take to be standard (4's-6's-8's even 12's in straight or V formation) as a bit of an oddity. When you start getting into say for example, a 14 cylinder or a V18 or V20 maybe you arrive at a point where the internal balance forces pretty near cancel each other out ?? A lot of them (marine propulsion) seem to be direct drive off the rear( or sometimes even front) of the said engine, seen photos of some of these engines where they either don't have an external flywheel, or if present, a flywheel that seems inadequate for the size of the engine itself. Sort of throws the old idea of massively weighted flywheels on engines from years ago, out the window.
Sort of trying to imagine an engine ticking over at even 60RPM (one stroke every second) you may think that forces building up would punch the conrod out through the hull of the ship!.
Just on the point about the direct drive, some marine engines years ago had a separate set of camshafts/valve trains which came into use after the engine came to a stop, the other set of gear was engaged, then the engine restarted in the opposite direction. I was watching something on TV recently, maybe it was "Mighty Ships" or something similar, where they said that the days of that type of reversing the ship are hardly used anymore as most modern ships have bow thrusters to help them maneuver against the docks. Apparently they can leave the main engine idling (22 RPM?) and the bow thrusters are powerful enough to overcome any opposing forces. Once in position, the main engine is shut down. Like I said, I know very little about it other than what I have read or seen on the TV. Like I said, was surprised reading about the RPM range though.' Used to trucks or even my own diesel vehicle which ticks over at about 550RPM. Even a lot of earthmoving machinery operates up around the 1000 RPM area.
Dave_64