Dyno Queen

Yeah I mean shit, that's even somewhat of a boring question with how tried and true the turbo iron LS formula is- Nip nong straight six of your choosing in places that are not freedomland.

2J would be cheapest, RB26 would be the most expensive one to build on the list, and still be the most fragile and likely to explode.

>ACERT

Fucking yuck.

Marine 3412 DI Turbo

Small block turbo ford 302. 1000hp for like $30.76

2JZ because i dont want to open the engine and ill keep the change

Doesn't the 2J only go to 800 on stock internals

Would getting 3x13b or 2xLS and making a custom crank be cheating?

L28

20b and a few grand on xboxhueg turbos

if the goal is just 1000hp

13b + pport + massive turbo

all in all can be done for under 35. pocket the rest.

Highest HP rated on a stock 2J was over 1K, though obviously it wouldn't last forever in that power range. I think the general consensus is 750ish tops for stock top end, 850ish for stock bottom end.

>buy 2JZ
>spend less than 10k
>over 1000HP
>pocket more

>i have no idea what im talking about
post ignored

I would do it based on a Ford BOSS 6.2l modular. Big honking 8-71 with two Fast EFI or similar tbi bodies on it and long tube headers.

Would be neat

26B

You think pistons and rods and a larger turbo are gonna cost over 10k?

>rotary with a truck turbo

Is that an audi? Those coil packs are definitely VAG, I have them on my car

Yup, the old inline 5. That thing was stupidly overbuilt.

even at 800hp+ they will do over 10k miles on the street, and thats with like 60k miles already on the engine.

Aan 20v, only because I already have one. IF I didn't I'd go m73 built by these guys with option e, racingpowerplant.com/bmw_m70.htm

LS honestly

2JZ because if you just want it for the dyno it wont last and its not worth keeping either

plus cheap

Its in a proper race car.

Why not be interesting? Ford Essex 3.8 v6, 1996-2003 Windstar version.

kek, a stock roller 302 splits the block at 500, 351 on the other hand would be no problem.

In reality the cheapest, easiest, most proven way would be a jy iron 6.0, some ebay head studs, open up the ring gap and some tarbo's.

this

the 351w found in 90's F250 can make over a thousand

Yep, and all 94+ (F4TE)'s are all roller block ready, I picked up my last one for $200, and it came with a free truck.

Some gt40p's, a lighting lower, explorer upper, a decent cam and a bit of boost will make for tons of dirt cheap reliable fun.

>make over a thousand
I thought the rule of thumb was that everything over 750-800hp on a 351w was buying time. you will probably split the block above that.

Why the hell can jap iron block 4 and 6's make 1000+hp on the stock iron all day, but the same era burger iron blocks all crack?

Where American iron blocks made from melted down chinese rod iron lawn chairs??

Memes, plenty of 2000HP+ engine builds using Modulars and other Murica V8's.

Top Fuel uses built Hemi's instead of built 2JZ's for a reason.

forged internals.

>why is an engine designed in the late 50's only good for x amount of power

This user knows whats up
dragzine.com/news/john-mihovetz-lowers-ford-mod-motor-record-to-a-blistering-5-88/

I could build a couple 1000HP Honda four-bangers and still be less than $50k.

barra i6 turbo

cunts

>10156 horses
More like 9600-ish.

we talking 1000hp at the flywheel or wheels..
Ether way 632+ ci inch big block Chev. Fit suitable power-glide or TH400 behind it. Shoe horn into fox body/2nd gen/3rd gen with suitable suspension mods/diff.

If it don't make the 1000hp n/a hit it with some laughing gas for shits and giggles..

That or 12v92TTA powered Kenworth.

I start here.

I'd be much, much more interested in getting max reliable power (NA, preferably) out of any non-generic tuner engine.
But that's vastly more expensive and really an art in itself.

Audi five cylinder because silly specific power and AWD powerslides.

youtube.com/watch?v=8ni-vnLNKkg&t=70
youtube.com/watch?v=Smt52JO6O3U&t=38

Big block chebby.
But why stop at 1000hp, why not go for a megawatt (1341.02 hp)?

Tier 3 not tire 3 dumb ass

ACERT basically means common rail diesel with ECU control.
(its supposed to stand for Advanced Combustion and Emissions Reduction Technology, but apparently you can't trademark an anagram so it's just ACERT)

Umm, you can add....
>cylinder head modification
>custom exhaust system
>machine and fabrication work
>camshaft and valvetrain upgrades
>turbo upgrade
>cooling system upgrade
>air system upgrade
>dyno tuning and development work
Budget around 1000 for each of the above
Power don't come cheap

Umm, more like the exact figure retard.
They used a wireless strain gauge on the engine output shaft and measure the torque directly.
And the instrumentation was made by AVL so you can guarantee its top quality.

50K is a rather big budget. I'd go with an aluminium Windsor or 3rd gen Hemi, at 427 or 426 ci respectively, with a twin screw blower on top. Add some nitrous to make the rest of the power.

>2JZ is cheapest 1000hp
[Citation needed]
I doubt it'll be cheaper then a junkyard 5.3 with the rings opened up.

I'd do this, right here.

nelsonracingengines.com/~nelsonracing/assets/images/pdfs/dynosheets2010/572-tt-cdd.pdf

>1600hp 1700ft/lb on race gas
>1190hp 1260ft/lb on pump gas

$40k, buy a built transmission and any beater shell of an old pickup for under a grand, next farmtruck.

>6.0
Aren't those significantly weaker than the 5.3/4.8?

2000 and up US V8's can generally make absurd amounts of power if you pick 'em right.

>Late 50's
Can't think of any mainstream (GM, Ford, Mopar) V8 still produced in the 70's that was designed in the 50's though.

First I ask why I have to do it.

Do you see the readout constantly going up and down? That's basically the sensor being inaccurate. Take the average between the peak and the valley, and you end up with an (uncorrected, and not complete accurate anyways) more reasonable assumption. You can't just say that the peak sis the true measure. Without having the actual graph, you can guesstimate it at about 9500-9600hp.

Simply put, there aren't capable enough sensors to measure this kind of stuff accurately. There might be, but those probably don't like being exposed to Top Fuel-levels of acceleration while they're measuring. I hav eno doubts about the instrumentation itself, but the human readout claiming 10K+ HP is just a bit wrong.

Because somebody asked you to build a 1000hp car, and prmised you 50K if you made it happen.

I can't see much profit left over from doing this for someone so I would decline and stay focused on my main job.

What if they gave youa 50K budget to build it, and a 10K paycheck afterwards?

I'll just buy a terminator

>shiny wheels

Disgusting

Lsx454r makes more power with less displacement and small block dimensions.

Mercedes M103

Speaking of Mercedes (but sadly out of budget): I wonder how much those new 4.0 biturbo M178's can take if you really stretch their legs.

>1000 for each
I bet you get jewed a lot in life, a tune is 100 bucks, exaust for like 300 and the rest for a fraction.

The engine achieved 10,456 hp. You can't say it didn't because the data is there showing it did.

A 100 buck tune? one hundred dollars.....
I doubt the technicians would even finishing getting the car on the rollers for that.

Do you honestly believe you can get a custom manifold (because for that power you wont get anything off the shelf) and full turbo back exhaust system capable of 1000hp reliably for 300 bucks?

You're dreaming pal. You haven't got a clue.

No, the sensor read 10,456hp for a split second because fuck me, it's reading 10K hp. That's where they stop being accurate. It just spiked. It's not as if that engine is eacutally delivering power that erratically, it's just that the curve hasn't been smoothed out. Learn to statistics.

>It's not as if that engine is actually delivering power that erratically
why would you say that?
Have you ever seen top fuel?

Are you Rob Dahm?

>why would you say that?
Because a 1000hp spike in power (as seen in that chart) tends to blow the tires right off.
>Have you ever seen top fuel?
Yes. Been there. Even sat in the middle between a set of Top Fuel Harleys when they took off - that's truly a bucket list experience in terms of chest-thumping awesomeness. My uncle co-owned one - go look up the Dixie Hammer.

Anyways, what you're seeing is a sensor giving erratic measurements. On that particular run, on that particular sheet, I don't see any real any continuous measure that suggests 10,000hp. Split the peaks and valleys, and you'll get a lot more realistic numbder, again, probably around the 9500 to 9600hp mark.

However, I've looked up the Hotrod article where that chart was first posted. They're saying that the torque sensor is mounted between the clutch packs and the diff - not directly on the engine output shaft. That means that, given the (significant!) power loss in the clutch packs, they're making over 10K at the crank itself.

1000 hp is 10% variance between combustion cycles.
That's only a miss fire on one cylinder or a partial combustion event or a shift in ignition timing.

turbo lsx foxbody