IC engines are relatively cheap compared to other ways of transporting people and things, and society lacked a compelling motive to question the IC engine or to try to replace it till a scientific consensus formed (after computer modelling of the climate had become sufficiently cheap) that greenhouse gases were deeply involved in most climate changes and human-caused emissions were bringing discernible global warming -- in the 1990s.
Internal combustion was not actually popular for quite some time in early engines, I assume because it has more advanced requirements for fuel and ignition control, so if solar were a convenient enough power source it would have been used.
Edit: oh, it looks like your radically edited both of your comments
At any rate, the areal power density is really low and wouldn't have been a good engineering choice, generally, even if it were available. (Agricultural pack animals were solar-powered machines all along. But, it takes no human work to build or maintain the fields of grass that they graze off).
There's an essay and a large HN thread about a related idea—why ancient Romans did not develop (combustion-powered) steam engines, what technological barriers prevented that,
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32607187 (Why no Roman industrial revolution? (acoup.blog)", 519 comments)
Iron-age solar engines may have been impossible twice-over: impossible because of the lack of mirrors, and impossible again because of a lack of metallurgy for building high-pressure steam vessels.
Or networks of mirrors.
My thinking gets stuck on the observation that before petrol, literacy after dusk was powered by the wax of bees and the blubber of whales.