There was nothing wrong with that name until that no-talent ass clown started winning grammys.
There was nothing wrong with that name until that no-talent ass clown started winning grammys.
The Bugatti makes just over 1,000 bhp out of an 8 liter W16 that weighs about 850 lbs.
While not as bad as the Vipers in terms of output vs. size and weight, they aren't exactly at the top of the heap. The Ecotec turbo 4 cylinder are 2.0 4 cylinder engines that routinely make beteen 400 and 500 bhp in lightly modded form. GM will never do this because they have spent a lot of money designing the excellent LS series OHV V8s, but if they took the trouble to make a V8 with two Ecotec banks, they'd have a 1,000 bhp 4 liter V8 - making double the power per liter of the Bugatti.
Stick tow of those together and you get an 8 liter V16 - and the 1,000 bhp is chump change. Heck, the stock 2.0 makes 300 with a mild tune, so you'd have to detune to get it down to 1,000 (ignoring pumping losses with more cylinders etc.). And yes, it would probably weight 850 lbs. too............
In reply to wspohn :
Like everybody else, Bugatti has increased how much power their engines produce since 2005. They're currently up nearly 50%, to just shy of 1,500 horsepower in the Chiron...And I'll bet they've still got plenty of overhead to spare for adding even more power to future variants, as they have been doing all along with this engine architecture. Again, beyond that the Bugatti also still manages to be a completely federal emissions compliant engine too.
And no, your hypothetical 4-valve/cylinder Ecotec based 4.0L v8TT will simply not have the power band of the Bugatti 4-valve/cylinder 8.0L W16QT for any given power output, your hypothetical 4-valve/cylinder Ecotec based 8.0L V16 would certainly weigh over 1,000 pounds, and dimensionally it's important to note that for all of it's displacement and power the Bugatti W16 is also only about 4 inches longer than an Ecotec 4-cylinder.
your hypothetical 4-valve/cylinder Ecotec based 4.0L v8TT will simply not have the power band of a 4-valve/cylinder 8.0W16QT for any given power output,
Interesting question.
One can never make hard comparisons between different situations, but it is interesting to look at the British 1950/60s F1 effort. The BRM multicylinder small capacity supercharged engines were very, very interesting and sounded absolutely great - I have recordings of them on old vinyl LPs. Especially the H16. which was really a pair of flat V8s assmbled one over the other.
You are correct in that a smaller displacement engine usually has a power band a bit higher up, but that can be addressed by twin-charging, using one compression method (either supercharging or turbo) down low and switching to a larger huffer for top end.
All things (meaning BMEP) being equal though, clearly the larger engine will have higher output.
Driven5 said:In reply to wspohn :
Like everybody else, Bugatti has increased how much power their engines produce since 2005. They're currently up nearly 50%, to just shy of 1,500 horsepower in the Chiron...And I'll bet they've still got plenty of overhead to spare for adding even more power to future variants, as they have been doing all along with this engine architecture. Again, beyond that the Bugatti also still manages to be a completely federal emissions compliant engine too.
And no, your hypothetical 4-valve/cylinder Ecotec based 4.0L v8TT will simply not have the power band of the Bugatti 4-valve/cylinder 8.0W16QT for any given power output, your hypothetical 4-valve/cylinder Ecotec based 8.0L V16 would certainly weigh over 1,000 pounds, and dimensionally it's important to note that for all of it's displacement and power the Bugatti W16 is also only about 4 inches longer than an Ecotec 4-cylinder.
This is what I talked about all the time with him. I said that a turbo LS could make as much power, but the powerband of the Chiron is absurd. He thought I was putting down the Bugatti hahaha
No tuned engine will be as smooth as the W16, I'm sure.
A 401 CJ said:Clearly the answer is not the Bugatti or the LSX.
The answer is EMD 645. Power to shame both. This SOB really does pull like a freight train.
Bruh, I read it. EMD swap everything. Redline it to 900 RPM all day!
Driven5 said:In reply to wspohn :
Like everybody else, Bugatti has increased how much power their engines produce since 2005. They're currently up nearly 50%, to just shy of 1,500 horsepower in the Chiron...And I'll bet they've still got plenty of overhead to spare for adding even more power to future variants, as they have been doing all along with this engine architecture. Again, beyond that the Bugatti also still manages to be a completely federal emissions compliant engine too.
And no, your hypothetical 4-valve/cylinder Ecotec based 4.0L v8TT will simply not have the power band of the Bugatti 4-valve/cylinder 8.0L W16QT for any given power output, your hypothetical 4-valve/cylinder Ecotec based 8.0L V16 would certainly weigh over 1,000 pounds, and dimensionally it's important to note that for all of it's displacement and power the Bugatti W16 is also only about 4 inches longer than an Ecotec 4-cylinder.
As transmissions get more and more sophisticated with more and more gears...what are we up to? 10 now?...powerband becomes less and less important.
...so let's not worry about pwer range. Make it like a diesel truck with about a 1000 rpm range and a 20 sp trans, right? SMH!
Guys, for hp for dipacement (not including dragsters as the make power for what, a minute at most) how about the old 2.1 audi 5 cylinder turbo. The early 90s pikes peak runners were running north of 1100 bhp (unofficially of course) And then ther's the BMW 1.5 ltr turbo qualifying engine in the early 80s, 1500 bhp. That's 1000 hp per liter 35 years ago!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said:[CHESNOKOV]
WHY YOU WANT OHC FOR ENGINE? IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH AS PROCURED FROM GENERAL MOTORS? YOU THINK NEEDS IMPROVEMENT? THEN MAYBE YOU FIND JOB WITH COMPANY OF DETROIT! YOU HAVE DRINKS WITH MARK REUSS, TRADE STORY OF MANY ENGINES DESIGNED AND DETAILS OF SCHOOL FOR ENGINEERING!
OR MAYBE YOU NOT DO THIS. PROBABLY IS BECAUSE YOU NEVER DESIGN ENGINE IN WHOLE LIFE. YOU LOOK AT FINE AMERICAN ENGINE, THINK IT NEED CRAZY E36 M3 STICK ON ALL SIDES OF HEADS. YOU HAVE DISEASE OF AMERICAN CAPITALIST, CHANGE THING THAT IS FINE FOR NO REASON EXCEPT TO LOOK DIFFERENT FROM COMRADE. YOU PUT CHEAP TURBOCHARGER OF CHINESE SLAVE FACTORY ON ONE SIDE, YOU PUT BAD SUPERCHARGER OF AMERICAN MIDDLE WEST ON OTHER SIDE, YOU PUT SHAFTS OF CAM ON TOP SO YOU ARE LIKE AMERICAN MOVIE GUY PAUL WALKER.
ENGINE IS FINE. YOU berkeley IT, IT ONLY GET GIGANTIC AND YOU STILL NO PASS LARGEST CAR OF HPDE. GO TO RACE TRACK, PRACTICE WITH MANY TANK OF FUEL. THEN YOU NOT NEED DUMB E36 M3 PUT ON TOP OF CYLINDER HEAD.[/CHESNOKOV]
Quoted for brilliance. Unless you really *are* Chesnokov, in which case, you sneaky bastard.
markwemple said:And then ther's the BMW 1.5 ltr turbo qualifying engine in the early 80s, 1500 bhp. That's 1000 hp per liter 35 years ago!
Those engines were running on toluene. Not even close to pump fuel!
markwemple said:...so let's not worry about pwer range. Make it like a diesel truck with about a 1000 rpm range and a 20 sp trans, right? SMH!
Can't tell if sarcastic or not, but, yeah.
LanEvo said:markwemple said:And then ther's the BMW 1.5 ltr turbo qualifying engine in the early 80s, 1500 bhp. That's 1000 hp per liter 35 years ago!
Those engines were running on toluene. Not even close to pump fuel!
Not to mention comparing a qualifying engine meant to last a few laps in the most expensive series in the world to the engine in a street car.
Excellent comparison.
In reply to z31maniac :
Weyull heck I electron-beam weld my cylinder heads to my engine blocks as a matter of course!
Now, to the big question: Can we weld two W8s and stick four turbos on them? Would make for a great midlana project car engine, no?
Spiritus_Spatium said:Now, to the big question: Can we weld two W8s and stick four turbos on them? Would make for a great midlana project car engine, no?
Anything is possible if youre drunk enough.
z31maniac said:LanEvo said:markwemple said:And then ther's the BMW 1.5 ltr turbo qualifying engine in the early 80s, 1500 bhp. That's 1000 hp per liter 35 years ago!
Those engines were running on toluene. Not even close to pump fuel!
Not to mention comparing a qualifying engine meant to last a few laps in the most expensive series in the world to the engine in a street car.
Excellent comparison.
Forgot to mention they were running something like 3.5 bar (over 50 psi) of boost pressure, had a wafer-thin power band, and were notoriously difficult to drive.
Totally realistic comparison for a road car.
z31maniac said:LanEvo said:markwemple said:And then ther's the BMW 1.5 ltr turbo qualifying engine in the early 80s, 1500 bhp. That's 1000 hp per liter 35 years ago!
Those engines were running on toluene. Not even close to pump fuel!
Not to mention comparing a qualifying engine meant to last a few laps in the most expensive series in the world to the engine in a street car.
Excellent comparison.
I also seem to recall that those engines only ran that much power during qualifying and were turned down for the actual race. Also this was the period where the FIA put in place a rule that said how many spare engines a team was allowed to bring.
I'm pretty sure they physically swapped engines each session.
Top Fuel dragsters still run pushrod motors.
I mean, if we're talking about maximum specific output, that kind of ends the discussion doesn't it? 10k/hp with pushrods and only 2 valves in an "over/under" pattern like a DOHC 4 valve motor.
Does anyone know where they redline at? I'm pretty sure it's a tad over 6k.
9k iirc
In reply to Crackers :
Haha yeah, but those engines run for like 5 seconds before self destroying and having to rebuild them again. Impressive machines, nonetheless. I believe they are very similar to the Elephant architecture, if not the same.
The primary limiting factor for runtime in those motors is the fact they have no cooling system to save weight. So by the time they finish their run they're at their thermal limit and need to be shut back down.
But again, I'd like to clarify, I'm talking about maximum specific output.
Why aren't Top Fuel dragsters running OHC/DOHC if it's truly superior to pushrod motors?
In reply to Crackers :
Yeah, I'm aware they have no cooling. In that case, definitely this would be "arguably" the best engine any way you want to put it. Hp/liter or whatever. Totally agree with you.
LanEvo said:z31maniac said:LanEvo said:markwemple said:And then ther's the BMW 1.5 ltr turbo qualifying engine in the early 80s, 1500 bhp. That's 1000 hp per liter 35 years ago!
Those engines were running on toluene. Not even close to pump fuel!
Not to mention comparing a qualifying engine meant to last a few laps in the most expensive series in the world to the engine in a street car.
Excellent comparison.
Forgot to mention they were running something like 3.5 bar (over 50 psi) of boost pressure, had a wafer-thin power band, and were notoriously difficult to drive.
Totally realistic comparison for a road car.
Really? We are talking theory as much as anything else here and you say that???
Anyway, how about this, take an iron duke and try and make 5-600 bhp. That is what you can do with an Audi 3b, if done right. Oh and a 3b is a 2.2, not a 2.5 ltr engine. It may not do 300k miles but should last 100k with excellent maintenance.
You'll need to log in to post.
