One of the most awesome modified cars I've seen in a while

[LHutton]

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]

10 litres makes perfect sense.

[Random]

Nice round number.

[SkylineObsession]

Would be epic if it was road legal. :D

[thesameguy]

They'd probably be better off with ten 1l engines. For obvious reasons.

[Freude am Fahren]

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]

I just did some quick math in my head, and I think that configuration might produce gasoline!

[JoshInKC]

But would it produce enough to fill up a completely empty tank at one time?

[Godson]

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]

Did you watch the documentary just a few minutes at a time?

[Godson]

Nope, I failed at that one. Did it all in one sitting.

[samoht]

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]

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]

I'm thinking 100 of these bad boys should be fine

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

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

[21Kid]

I just did some quick math in my head, and I think that configuration might produce gasoline!

:lol:

[LHutton]

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]

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]

Can't get fuel efficiency with that many moving parts, forget about packaging.