100 ft.lbs per liter???
11-10-2004 | 01:56 PM
#16
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 90
From: LBC
Car Info: 05 WRX wagon, Stock... for now
Ben,
I looked for about 45 minutes for actual specifications such as bore and stroke on the p83. I didn't find the specs, but did stumble onto a forum with good (though rather theortetical and somewhat elitist with a touch of bs
) discussion on efficiency in F1 engines. http://forums.atlasf1.com/showthread...threadid=61653 The bottom line is that like I suspected the p83 because of its high HP at high RPM probably falls well short of the the 100ft lbs/litre. This is evidenced by some of the figures for launching the car etc. Crap, even the idle speed of 4k is indicative of a relatively (compared to its HP output) low torque rating.
So my guess that to gain the 100 ft lbs/litre you'll be looking for slightly larger displacement and lower RPM/HP ratios.
Chris
I looked for about 45 minutes for actual specifications such as bore and stroke on the p83. I didn't find the specs, but did stumble onto a forum with good (though rather theortetical and somewhat elitist with a touch of bs
) discussion on efficiency in F1 engines. http://forums.atlasf1.com/showthread...threadid=61653 The bottom line is that like I suspected the p83 because of its high HP at high RPM probably falls well short of the the 100ft lbs/litre. This is evidenced by some of the figures for launching the car etc. Crap, even the idle speed of 4k is indicative of a relatively (compared to its HP output) low torque rating.So my guess that to gain the 100 ft lbs/litre you'll be looking for slightly larger displacement and lower RPM/HP ratios.
Chris
11-17-2004 | 06:49 PM
#18
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 90
From: LBC
Car Info: 05 WRX wagon, Stock... for now
Found it... well close enough.
Check out http://www.hotrod.com/howto/113_0206_1000/. The motor in question in its form for that test didn't quite make it since its like 9.2 litres, but after talking with the builder (coincidentally the same gentleman who I looked to for help on my boat motor ) There was room to add more compression, and if the motor could have run on some VP, it would have busted the 100ft lb / litre barrier we are talking about.
It's a 565ci mill, I'm guessing the bore at 4.600", stroke at 4.250". In further discussion, he felt that current Nascar motors are probably doing about the same since they're running about 2.2hp/ci and compared to an F1 motor, the RPMs are fairly low. For oldschool pushrod motors, this is pretty damn amazing. OHC stuff should be able to run the same if not better. Obviously this gets easier the more compression you can run, so race gas orriented motors will have an easier time pulling off this acheivement.
Getting back to the roots of this though, I can't find any production or limited production vehicles that acheive this mark.
Chris
Check out http://www.hotrod.com/howto/113_0206_1000/. The motor in question in its form for that test didn't quite make it since its like 9.2 litres, but after talking with the builder (coincidentally the same gentleman who I looked to for help on my boat motor
) There was room to add more compression, and if the motor could have run on some VP, it would have busted the 100ft lb / litre barrier we are talking about.It's a 565ci mill, I'm guessing the bore at 4.600", stroke at 4.250". In further discussion, he felt that current Nascar motors are probably doing about the same since they're running about 2.2hp/ci and compared to an F1 motor, the RPMs are fairly low. For oldschool pushrod motors, this is pretty damn amazing. OHC stuff should be able to run the same if not better. Obviously this gets easier the more compression you can run, so race gas orriented motors will have an easier time pulling off this acheivement.
Getting back to the roots of this though, I can't find any production or limited production vehicles that acheive this mark.
Chris
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
amelnikov
Engine/Power - EJ20T (pre-2006 WRX and JDM)
13
02-11-2003 05:59 AM
