Not having two engines

I think it's just a mid rear I3

0-60 in 2.8, anyone?

>those lawn tractor wheels in the front

I bet it turns like pic related

suddenly

>Not having 3467 pound feet of torque
>Not having 1220 horsepower
>Not having two 11.6L engines

>barely 50hp/l

My EG Hatch could smoke that piece of shit

cant turn

There's gotta be a point of diminishing returns where more engines does not equal better

And I think, I THINK, that it ends with 1 engine. But I am not a certified engineer

I think you'd need a few simple mods first

Maybe this belongs in another thread but I can't help but ask..

What is to stop someone from putting two engines in a car? Obviously it's been done but what makes it so hard? Maybe two fwd trans and driveshaft to front and rear with engines put in their respective spots. Is it even worth it just for a no fucks given build?

You have to have synchronous power outputs at each side. Transmission has to be custom too

The reason one engine works so well is because when the blastygas runs at its speed the spinny thing goes to the box of sprocks and sorts the spinnys to the rolly rubber roundos. But two blastygases running at different speeds trying to send both their separate spinny things to the same box of sprocks? Madness! Need a super advanced rooty tooty electric computey to ensure both spinnys don't spin faster than the other

those are the HP and torque figures for one engine btw... So it's about 2400 hp and 7000 torques total.

it's just silly.

>not building a 1.0l NA V-16
>out of motorcycle engines
>and get 180hp @ 17.000 rpm

>tfw no 9 mini rotor shaft drive baiku

All I want is a tiny, fully functional engine that I can just keep on my desk or something. Thinking of dropping $100 on a nitro engine or something like that. A wankel would be way cooler but I bet they're pretty expensive.

try 2.3

this is the single cutest thing i've ever seen

i bet there are cheap steam/compressed air models available somewhere around you. If not, you can probably make one if you have basic tools and some time to spare.

>not having a reciprocating engine in the front and a turboshaft in the back
>not turning on the fucking rocket for max torque while speeding off

>Need a super advanced rooty tooty electric computey to ensure both spinnys don't spin faster than the other
nonsense.

just use a differentializer to let the faster rootle be king a doodle

I was wondering, what makes bike engines have so much higher hp/L than car engines?

weight.

rev range, i guess. HP is function calculated from torque and RPM

i have no idea why bike engines can rev so high though

also g forces- but of course these are induced by the overall weight.

the fact is if a car engine revs that hard, it's going to bend/tear apart from all that weight transfer

...

just for fun I solved this problem

If you put the engine of the car in a suspension of its own, then used a flexible rotor to link the transmission, the car could rev in theory, as high as a motorcycle.

>used a flexible rotor to link the transmission
cont.

to dampen the vibrations from the chassis and road.

if you were to add to this engine suspension system 3 gyroscopic balancing wheels, I don't think anything could ever destroy this engine but a MASSIVE and continuous high g-force turn

upon further thought. 2 suspension systems (1 for the body, and 1 for the gyroscopic engine bay) would function like a tuned mass damper. improving stability and tire grip.

this could be the future of cars.

...

...

Bikes at full lean pull 1.5-1.9g.
About the same as a car sans aero help.

now try operating g forces.

what I mean by this is the pistons are operating with a certain g force. this high g force is transferred into oscillation and vibration depending on the geometry. in a car, where do you think this g force goes? Right into the chassis. And the chassis itself is loaded with a ton of weight.

on a motorcycle. there isn't a bunch of weight interfering with the smooth operation of an engine. especially since their designs are balanced you can rev it forever.

Well both of my cars have 2 engines in theory.
The BMW M70 and early M73 V12 engines were kind of a hackjob, basically 2 engines sharing a crank. They had two of everything like ECUs, throttle bodies and such.

Rev limit is mainly from piston speed. It can only go so fast before the connecting rod stretches and the piston slams into in valves or spark plug. Other eay around, from BDC upwards, the conrod could just bend.

To explain this, we need to look at cilinder dimensions. The bore x stroke figure explains alot. Mainly because the shorter the stroke, less the distance the piston travels during 1 revolution which means the piston sleed is lower. On average around 21 m/s is the limit. You can see this in diesel cars. Maasive stroke length, low rev limit but FUCKHUEG torks from idle. Bikes makes 0 torks but because hp is (imperial torks×rpm) / 5252, they just rev to infinity and beyond

Tl;dr look at bore and stroke. Overbore makes high redlines, underbore makes mad torks

Please keep in mind this is vastly simplyfied. I have left out thing like reciprocating mass, valve actuation crank design. Bikes have nothing that resembles a car's flywheel.

My 97 er5 has a B×S of 74×58, 9.7:1 CR, 500 cc total and still outaccelerates pretty much every modern europoor car to 100kph

Goddamnit fucking phonepost. There's a comma missing between
>valve actuation
and
>crank design
Also, the er5's rev limit is around 12.5k, neat for a 2 cilinder

during european hours, nobody makes fun of a bmw v12, i wonder why ...
these are awesome engines my dude, torque beasts

>nobody posted that yet
youtube.com/watch?v=3a8-bYWFy-I

I'm disappoint Veeky Forums

Because the BMW V12 is powerful, reliableish and goes surprisingly light on the fuel, for a monstrous V12 engine that is.

Almost the perfect engine if they weren't so heavy and a bitch to maintain.

sup, are you related to engine design?

BMW totally had their shit together with that engine, for once, showing mercedes how its done.
No, absolutely not i change my oil and read alot... does that count?

So with the whole vibrations can't transfer etc, bike engines won't work in cars, how does something like the ariel atom 500 work with bike engines?

No idea man, I wish I knew. Maybe through perfect balanced engine configurations? I know the ~2009 and newer yamaha R1's use a crossplane crank in their i4 engines to mitigate vibrations. They almost sound like aprilia V4 engine, which has perfect balance and sounds godly btw

Sound

m.youtube.com/watch?v=q3WdxhXlLpc

FUGGGGGG

I was talking about this today with a friend after I thought about it the other day when reading a toyabaru thread.
There were measures thrown out of 100hp/L is actually pretty good, but bikes have been pumping out more than that for years.
Then I thought, why not 2 rsv4 engines together for a small 2L v8, like I can only imagine how amazing that would sound.
Imagine a little gokart v8, with an engine that you can pick up with your bare hands.

h2 busa engine

it's two busas blocks/heads mated to a single crankshaft.

Is there a video? I need to hear this

I know this is just a mockup but isn't the Mazda rotary pretty modular? Couldn't you just get a custom crank and 10ft connection bolts and make a 15 rotor engine?

bikes are fast as fuck bruh, but I'd rather own a car

that explains a lot, thanks

But boring engine does not raise rev range, right? I mean, entire formula is not that "bore/stroke ratio makes engines rev high", but "low stroke makes engines rev high"?

having both is superior.

You forgot to add, those are per engine.

FEED ME OIL

just fly over it like in RUSH 2049