could you make one of these last long enough to put in a supercar? since you would not be forced to use decades old technology the cooling problem could be solved. you might want to use a quad turbo setup since you get more power than a turbo and lower fuel consumption. you could use the fuel as the coolant by misting it on the hot parts of the engine, or having a hyperchilled alcohol coolant. better materials can be used to make the block, facilitating cooling passages. the oil pan can be enlarged and massive oil filters installed. a titanium muffler and exhaust would keep it from blowing out your ears and would not melt. a separate driving mode would limit the vehicle to about 2000 hp to make it quiet and easy to street drive and to keep fuel consumption down. any ideas on how to do this?
Top fuel on the road
Other urls found in this thread:
procharger.com
twitter.com
It's just a chrysler 426ci also hemi heads are shit.
no its not dude. its BASED on it, but its really a completely different engine. look up the differences.
>last long enough
No. The extreme wear is a direct result of the power
>cooling issue
What cooling issue? Nitro keeps it very cool
>quad turbo
This sort of makes sense but at the compressor size you would need to compare with the screw blower you would never make boost
Also
Fuel consumption kek
>better materials
As in
>separate driving mode
The Aussie who put a top fuel motor in his burnout car had a system like this. It was a stopper that only allowed the throttle bodies to open 2mm other wise the car didn't have enough traction to stop itself from instantly revving past redline and destroying itself
>easy to drive
Throttle would literally be on or off
ie stationary, or doing a 4th gear burnout at redline
If you want an 11 thousand horsepower street car use a jet turbine or a massive truck engine
>it's just a
It makes 11000HP out of "only" 8 liters and can pump more fuel than a 747
cant that be fixed by using better materials than shitty aluminum? what about titanium or something?
Yeah that's the nitro responsible for that not the cheap shit v8
Both you and op don't seem to get that it's called top fuel for a reason. The engines or anything else don't mean shit, it's all about that nitro
I guess if you just shove a shitload of nitrous in your shitbox, you could make 5-digit power too, right?
Titanium is a meme. It's only strong under certain circumstances. Also what is heat expenasion
Pic related is super mega strong titanium that has been bent after a massive application of 0.5 lb/ft needed to crank my car
no, dumbass. the cast aluminum block in the regular engine would pop like a balloon because of the thinner material, poorer build quality and those pesky coolant passages. and nitro gives you LESS power than gasoline but its more compressible, so you can shove so much in there that it eventually gives you more power than gasoline, which requires an insane fuel pump
is there anything that would decrease the wear enough to get 1000 miles out of an engine like that? its going to be a completely different engine based on the top fuel engine, but completely redesigned and optimized for road use while getting the same or more power.
>nitro
>nitrous oxide
>nitromethane
Only two are correct and I leave this to you to decide. Top fuel motor could literally be a fucking 4afe if it was built to the same standards and it would still make 5khp
What is your point here? That what engine it is doesn't matter but the construction of it does? Oh cool so the fact that it's a shit old hemi has nothing to do with it like I said.
And now you are telling me about nitro after I told you about nitro. Nice.
Yeah. Make it fucking huge like most industrial engines that produce over 1mw are. Top fuel engines are literally the peak of mans ability to cram power into space.
Limitation being in the head design and ohv, but it makes sense because if it's going to be destroyed after every run no point in investing in anything better
your engine needs to be built and designed from the ground up to burn this stuff. there is no stock engine that will handle it, no matter what mods you make. the type of engine does matter as only hand machined engines that are specifically designed to run nitro will do it. you might get away with lower doses, but 90% is off the table.
why would you want that for only 2000hp
thats retarded
you can make that on a small block 2 turbos and race gas
why? there has to be something that cn
an be done. why do they wear out? it might work as a 16 liter w16 to spread it out a bit...
Where to start...
Take a look at people like Jeff Lutz who are building and racing street legal drag cars and racing them on HotRod Drag Week. We are talking 3000-3500HP roughly, 540big block with twin 88-98mm turbos and shit. Different fuels and fuel systems for racing and for street driving. I think some years he even used different coolants. That shit is insane to comprehend and it is not because he wanted to do it for the sake of it, he had to do it in order to deal with more problems than you can imagine. I think he pushed it as far as street legal big horsepower drag car goes. I would say that is the final sane frontier. Of course, until next year when he one-ups himself.
Now you want to stick to top fuel nitromethane engine, which as you may know, has no cooling passages, is milled out of forged aluminium block... and where engine has to be rebuilt after every run because even though it is running super rich and fuel itself is used for evaporative cooling, it still melts it. Like, take it as you wish, if you tried to run that engine for 10 seconds at full power, it would absolutelly die. Cooling would however NOT help, because not only it would compromise the block but it would create problems with cooler and warmer parts - even normal engine is most happy at operating temperature, now imagine your engine having to cope with melting temperatures on one side of cylinder liner and freezing on the other. Cracks all over the place, warping of the block, yadayada...
Oh, also, think one step further, what gearbox would you use? Are you aware how clutches work on a top fuel dragster? How they would literally melt and stick on the first lights when you would floor it? Or is there any off the shelf gearbox that can handle 10kHP easily?
what if i invented/used a material with a higher melting temperature and was strong enougn to allow small cooling passages? plain old aluminum is pretty soft and weak. as for the gearbox, i would use a hydraulic torque converter or design my own manual transmission to handle the stress.
Yes but it doesn't need to be based of a shitty pushrod hemi does it
Well said
Yeah but "what" alien space battleship armour would you use is the question. It doesn't exist.
the best analogy I can come up with for your transmission is you want to build a transmission for your Corolla, but it has to be made of lego. Sure you can physically build it, but there is no way to build it with the structural integrity of the very materials you have so that it won't immediately tear itself apart when any power is applied to it.
The only realistic system for putting such power down consistently is once again an industrial one; have a huge alternator and electric motors on the wheels. But then that defeats the whole specific output beinfit of a top fuel motor anyway
Actually I think I have something insiprational here - Mi-26 A fucking russian helicopter. Now, bear with me and you will see it is not so stupid as it seems:
>worlds largest and most powerful helicopter
>D-136 turboshaft engines. 11400 HP each. Two of those, to be specific.
>main gearbox weights 3639kg, can handle almost 20000 HP from engines. Oil capacity is in metric tons, not quarts :D
Now real question is, why you you NOT use that working and proven package instead of dragster engine that wants to destroy itself after every run? Here you have flight-ready engines and tranny that will work hundreds of hours without any hassle and given its russian military origins, it will fun about any fuel that burns. You can even figure out some oversized diff (spool would do) and put whatever-tires-will-not-evaporate-into-plasma on it.
Or you know, put it into a helicopter frame, fly it with 20 tons of cargo because, you know, that is what for that power is there.
good idea. how much would one of those engines cost?
Yeah great except how do you get moving and how do you come to a stop.
Also how do you use that power? Powerband on a turbine is extremely narrow. This is starting to sound more realistic than the top fuel plan but I still don't see how you will design something drivable let alone fast out of it
Free from Chernobyl
you have a reducer planetary gearbox on the shaft that gives you the rpm and powerband of a normal engine so kt can be put in a car, its been done before and theyre standard equipment.
>It's been done before
Once again yeah sure it has on a 1100hp turbine but not on a 11000hp turbine off a hind. Imagine the fucking torque output from stepping down 55000rpm or whatever the fuck it idles at down to 600rpm for a nice vehicle take off speed
That is why I mentioned whatever-tires-will-not-evaporate-into-plasma - because I realised that putting 11000 (hell, let's use two of those because that is what that gearbox begs for anyway) horses into low rpm equals to fucktons of torque.
As for those "not so insane figures", for my street build I would use powertrain from Abrams tank anyway, it has even output to the "wheels" and solves all the problems. Yeah, it is kinda heavy but it would liberate Iraq without any problem. Twice.
Nitpicky detail, those are not hind engines. Mi-24 has impressive engines (in terms of reliability and ability to fix them in the middle of africa with a hammer or a rock and retrofit them easily into any common Mi-8 as well),. but those babies are just 2200 HP - each :D
Tires will be the least of your worries, I'm referring to stepping down the rpm with a reduction ratio. Sure the gearbox designed for the helicopter engine you mentioned can handle various rotor speed rpms, but not a reduction down to typical wheel speed rpms.
Also aren't Abrams drive trains electric? Defeats the purpose imo like I said in At that point you would be better off going with a twin turbocharged small block on race fuel. A lot of hassle, money and weight saved.
no, mechanical. like i said, it has been done before. the fuel would likely run out at full before you had a chance to damage tires anyway. a gearbox could be made quite easily. compared to lifting a massive helicopter into the air at 10s of thousands of rpms, pushing a lambo type thing is nothing.
forgot pic
If there was a practical way to scale down that level of power and make it last do you not think it would already be done? Why would you spend all that money building an entire engine room for a container ship if you could get it out of a comparably tiny car engine?
You would be surprised but main rotors on helicopters are rotating fairly slowly - 300-500 rpm max for the most cases. It has to do with the fact that any faster and tips of the blades will go supersonic (drag, shockwaves, vibrations, heat, all those nasty things we dont need). So I think that is ideal for road use at that point.
Issues are powerband (very narrow, idles at 70% of max rated rpm - like if your car would idle at 700 and redline at 1000), slow power build up (takes seconds to increase the speed). I would say we just jack the car up on red light, throttle up engines and drop the jack - and leave about the longest burnout ever.
Tires will be a problem. Those huge soft warmed up dragster tires on a prepped track can't even deliver full 10-11k HP topfuel dragster makes - power increases during the run when there is enough downforce to help with traction. So despite having significantly heavier powertrain (2 engines, gigantic gearbox full of oil) we would get some extra downforce but those tires would just melt under such power - or not grip at all.
because hp and torque are verh different things. the dragster, being smaller, produces way less torque than a 100,000 liter cargoship engine despite burning as much fuel as a 747. the dragster engine would crunch trying to turn the screws, and would probably just rip itself off its mount first.
the reducer gearbox solves the powerband problem by giving you insane torque which, for a supercar, is adequate at all rpms, since the shaft will be spinning at like 1000:1 ratio because gas turbines spin at like 30k or more rpms and idle at 70%or so as you said. that kind of torque increase means you would get insane performance and the turbine wouldnt break a sweat. a 3000 hp gas turbine would smoke every supercar ever made, as the most powerful ones only go up to about 2200 after some serious pimping.
You could theoretically put a gigantic blower on a marine diesel engine and physically scale it down too. The point being that cramming the power plant into a smaller space just makes it into a glorified bomb.
they already do this. the auto industrys been doing this for years for fuel economy reasons. you can make an inline 4 as powerful as a huge v8 and use way less fuel and materials if you quad turbo it, which is why you see them now.
>quad turbo
>inline four
Why do people associate more turbos with more power. There are few situations where multiple turbos are more efficient than a single larger one, save spool time and space notably on a v engine
dude, if gas engines stick around much longer, 1 turbo per cylinder is gonna be standard. the first person to patent a way to design heads based around integrated turbos is gonna get rich.
efficiency is king
>Efficiency is king
>Introducing more inefficiency
Turbos do not like pulses.
>what if i invented/used a material with a higher melting temperature and was strong enougn to allow small cooling passages?
Then you would probably not have a problem affording a decent engine instead.
~$150,000
Or 4 miles worth of Hemi engine rebuilds.
>comparing a regular ICE that uses regular petrol to a full blown dragster that has an engine that fully utilizes nitromethane
This is a retarded comparison. Already have two posters who explained this thoroughly as to why.
Biggest problem with a turbo in this application is Nitro motors that run fuel at such high percentage have a throttle that works at either zero or full load. And when you have an engine that ignites off compression, this doesn't work very well. With a crank driven positive displacement intake pump you can maintain a relatively consistent compression from idle to redline under 0-100% throttle. Which is another reason you couldn't realistically daily drive one (amongst 1000 other reasons), it throttle modulation doesn't exist. To pedal these engines its either on or off the throttle, and let the clutch packs in the transmission do the rest. Even if it was possible, you modulate the throttle under varying loads, it would burn itself out.
>It was a stopper that only allowed the throttle bodies to open 2mm other wise the car didn't have enough traction to stop itself from instantly revving past redline and destroying itself
Bang on. Biggest thing that kills these apart from maybe human error during assembly or manufacturing a defaults is instant zero load (mostly through tire shake or some other loss of traction). Best case scenario, it throws a belt and burns itself out (which is normally what happens).
I'll take the bait, why are hemi heads "shitty"?
Unless you turbo or supercharge they are shitty and have no compression. If you make the cylinder like pic related you lose power by weakening the flame front. Hemi is obsolete in this era.
>It was a stopper that only allowed the throttle bodies to open 2mm other wise the car didn't have enough traction to stop itself from instantly revving past redline and destroying itself
That's fucking brutal
2000hp on 93 pump gas.
Lol. This is why retards need to be bitch slapped.
Ever wonder why a race hemi, hell even the new standard production hemis have dual plugs? "Flame front" problem solved.
maybe for a 1/2 second
a stock block 2jz can do that big deal
pushcucks btfo yet again
Not as a daily driver in a 4000 pound wagon.
A 2Jz block's limit is about 600hp. He's being retarded on purpose.
It couldn't make 2000 whorepower on 93 octane either.
I just had to flex nuts and show him he's stupid.
issa joke, also is that wagon 2000hp?
It's an 8 second pump gas, daily driver. In a lighter chassis it's at least a 6 second car.
2000hp on pump gas? 2JZ builders BTFO.
there was a guy in the 40s or something who put a 3000 hp airplane radial engine in his old shitbox. you can get way more than 2000 hp on pump.
No it's not, stock internals can do 1000whp, RB26 block's limit is at 600
E85 is pump gas you faggot.
>comparing a 27L Merlin engine with a 3L grocery getter
Nah the reason is that a turbo charger actually does make an engine technically more efficient. The turbo-charger recycles otherwise wasted energy from the exhaust gas and it over-comes the drag caused by the intake vacuum. However beyond that once you start burying the boost needle it just enables you to piss fuel into the cylinder and burn it off faster (and thus make more power).
So they can get impressive fuel economy numbers when the test driver feathers the throttle and watches the boost gauge.
If you are driving your 4 cylinder turbo like a boiracer you aren't going to get better fuel economy though. Turbocharged engines are only more efficient when you drive like a granny.
Likewise though Corvettes have been getting over 30mpg highway since the 1990s because being able to cruise at highway speeds at a relatively low RPM is another way to effectively reduce engine drag.
> hurrr E85
It's not fucking gasoline, and it's barely pump gas if it's only available at 3,000 gas stations in the USA (out of about 150,000 total stations). By that standard, 100LL or some other bullshit is "pump gas".
Besides, for the same price I see 2000hp E85 2JZs, you can buy a 3000hp big block that can run on 93.
actually its anywhere between 20 and 50 % pump gas
NO WAY! not on any street. google fuel usage of a top fuel engine. they make about 3500hp on nitro methane which cool as it burns so no need for radiator and after doing a toatal of one mile (4 runs) its cactus. you dont get more power with quad turbos otherwise top drivers would use them geddit? plus the engines arent cheap can easily swallow 100k. 8 seconds? you dreaming. they are much faster than that, 5-4 second passes are happening. the latest top fuel engines are too high compession to run on regular pump gas.
Well you US cucks don't have it, but in civilized countries you can DD an E85 car everywhere. Also I would rather have a car run on E85 than 93 octane anyways because of the cost.
Nah, 17% to 49% petrol
This is a big short sighted misconception and a complete disregard for the difference between the way fuel rate and fuel economy is measured.
An engine with a well matched turbocharger will provide a a better fuel consumption per kW/h than a similarly powerful N/A engine. So, if you accelerate with varying degrees of throttle input on the N/A vatiant, the turbocharged example will usually provide better economy when matching those acceleration rates. You also have to take compressor efficiency and boost curves into account, but again, this is presuming the turbo is adequate for the application.
You have nfi what you're talking about.
They aren't used in relevant series for quite awhile. Nascar and NHRA are the only ones that still use them stay stuck in the 60's boomer.
there is no cost savings around here. there is a station that sells e85 at the same price as mid grade.