PDA

View Full Version : One of the most awesome modified cars I've seen in a while



LHutton
April 19th, 2014, 06:02 AM
I don't normally get too excited about modified cars but this was pretty impressive:

10 liters of displacement, Proline built, all billet, twin 100mm turbos, ProEFI, air shifted sequential, custom race AWD conversion. Now they just need to get it to work.

http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/484154_471692379535644_630846260_n.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFIZHphVmtU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S92CUSRaARI

thesameguy
April 19th, 2014, 09:25 AM
10 litres makes perfect sense.

Random
April 19th, 2014, 10:17 AM
Nice round number.

SkylineObsession
April 19th, 2014, 08:26 PM
Would be epic if it was road legal. :D

thesameguy
April 20th, 2014, 09:51 AM
They'd probably be better off with ten 1l engines. For obvious reasons.

Freude am Fahren
April 20th, 2014, 01:57 PM
Holy shit, I think you're on to something. I'm gonna make a car with 100 100cc engines. Now imagine that gas mileage.

thesameguy
April 20th, 2014, 03:30 PM
I just did some quick math in my head, and I think that configuration might produce gasoline!

JoshInKC
April 20th, 2014, 03:51 PM
But would it produce enough to fill up a completely empty tank at one time?

Godson
April 20th, 2014, 07:09 PM
Interesting factoid I heard a long time ago on a documentary. If engine size is reduced by 1/2, power is only reduced by 1/3. Or something like that.

Sad, little man
April 20th, 2014, 09:04 PM
Did you watch the documentary just a few minutes at a time?

Godson
April 20th, 2014, 10:05 PM
Nope, I failed at that one. Did it all in one sitting.

samoht
April 21st, 2014, 11:35 AM
If you keep the revs and pressure the same, I think power would reduce in proportion to reduced capacity. However I'd imagine that smaller pistons can rev higher, thus offsetting the reduction, hence 2/3 the power from an engine 1/2 the size.

I don't however think there's any significant difference between (a) a single engine with lots of small pistons (like a V16) and (b) lots of separate small engines in terms of power capability. I suppose there's a limit to how many tiny pistons you can get onto one crankshaft, though.

thesameguy
April 21st, 2014, 11:54 AM
Big combustion chambers are very difficult to control making them relatively inefficient versus smaller ones. I'm sure there's also inertia, pumping losses, and other size related issues that come into play, but I think combustion control is the 800lb gorilla.

Kchrpm
April 21st, 2014, 12:07 PM
I'm thinking 100 of these bad boys should be fine

http://www.conleyprecision.com/609.htm

http://www.conleyprecision.com/scharger.JPG

21Kid
April 21st, 2014, 12:52 PM
I just did some quick math in my head, and I think that configuration might produce gasoline!

:lol:

LHutton
April 23rd, 2014, 04:25 AM
If you keep the revs and pressure the same, I think power would reduce in proportion to reduced capacity. However I'd imagine that smaller pistons can rev higher, thus offsetting the reduction, hence 2/3 the power from an engine 1/2 the size.

I don't however think there's any significant difference between (a) a single engine with lots of small pistons (like a V16) and (b) lots of separate small engines in terms of power capability. I suppose there's a limit to how many tiny pistons you can get onto one crankshaft, though.
Combustion-wise the optimum size for a cylinder is about 250-300cc, hence why F1 engines have traditionally maintained this cylinder size until somebody screwed up the rules. They tended for the upper side of the optimum due to weight and packaging issues, potentially to reduce valvetrain friction too.

KillerB
April 23rd, 2014, 11:55 PM
I miss small displacement multi-cylinder engines. Anything that's not a truck engine over 2.0L ought to have more than four cylinders.

thesameguy
April 24th, 2014, 12:21 AM
Can't get fuel efficiency with that many moving parts, forget about packaging.