Not just 4700HP, but...

[Howard]

...24000 lb-ft of torque anybody?

 

[GasX]

with the right transmission, you could actually make a fast Civic with that engine... 😉

 

[vi edit]

Oooooh, it's low emmissions too!

 

20,000 plus cubic inches and only 4,700 hp ?

My lawnmower engine has a better hp per cubic inch displacement ratio.

 

[PG]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
with the right transmission, you could actually make a fast Civic with that engine... 😉

haha, check out the weight of the beast: 65,900 lbs

oil capacity: 387 gallons
water capacity: 484
displacement: 20,704 cubic inches

 

[Mr N8]

Buy Case equipment. You'll be much happier in the end. 😀

 

[PG]

Originally posted by: Roger
20,000 plus cubic inches and only 4,700 hp ?

My lawnmower engine has a better hp per cubic inch displacement ratio.

Yeah, but this engine hits peak HP at only 1000 rpm.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Roger
20,000 plus cubic inches and only 4,700 hp ?

My lawnmower engine has a better hp per cubic inch displacement ratio.

Just wait until they make a automobile transmission for it.

 

Yeah, but this engine hits peak HP at only 1000 rpm.

Fine, I'll regrind the cam in my lawnmower to an extremely short duration profile and install a sleeve in the carb to reduce the venturi down to 1/4 inch, this will effectively reduce the power band down to 1,000 R.P.M. and it will still have a better hp to cubic inch displacement ratio.

I am really surprised that no one pointed out that the cubic inch disp to torque ratio is exceptional, generally maximum torque is equal to the displacement of the engine. (turbo)😉

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: Roger

Yeah, but this engine hits peak HP at only 1000 rpm.

Fine, I'll regrind the cam in my lawnmower to an extremely short duration profile and install a sleeve in the carb to reduce the venturi down to 1/4 inch, this will effectively reduce the power band down to 1,000 R.P.M. and it will still have a better hp to cubic inch displacement ratio.

I am really surprised that no one pointed out that the cubic inch disp to torque ratio is exceptional, generally maximum torque is equal to the displacement of the engine. (turbo)😉

Bah to you, you HP-per-diaplacement fanboy - go drive a Honda 😀 Inefficiency = crazy power, just look at the Viper's V10 😀 *grunt grunt grunt*


😛

 

[radioouman]

I wonder what you'd get out of this with some headers, a free flow exhaust, and some V-Tec stickers on it?

 

[Howard]

The stickers would be melted away, I think.

 

[FrustratedUser]

387 gallons of oil!

pricey oil change :Q

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: radioouman
I wonder what you'd get out of this with some headers, a free flow exhaust, and some V-Tec stickers on it?

But, imagine what you could do with 8 T-88 turbos and a bunch of NOOS.

 

Bah to you, you HP-per-diaplacement fanboy - go drive a Honda Inefficiency = crazy power, just look at the Viper's V10 *grunt grunt grunt*

Little do you know, high efficiancy design is not limited to small displacement high revving engines, if you took the Viper's V-10, reworked the cylinder heads to a high squish wedge design, installed low friction pistons and rings and reworked the ports accordingly you would end up with better fuel mileage, more power and longer engine life, what makes you think that high efficiancy is limited to foriegn cars with small displacement engines ?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
with the right transmission, you could actually make a fast Civic with that engine... 😉

Maybe you could point that out to this goof.

 

[Viper GTS]

Good God, those cylinders are bigger around than my head.

:Q

Viper GTS

 

[Spooner]

:Q very very nice

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: Roger

Yeah, but this engine hits peak HP at only 1000 rpm.

Fine, I'll regrind the cam in my lawnmower to an extremely short duration profile and install a sleeve in the carb to reduce the venturi down to 1/4 inch, this will effectively reduce the power band down to 1,000 R.P.M. and it will still have a better hp to cubic inch displacement ratio.

I am really surprised that no one pointed out that the cubic inch disp to torque ratio is exceptional, generally maximum torque is equal to the displacement of the engine. (turbo)😉

Sweet! My Zuk has 1.6 liters of Torque!

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Good God, those cylinders are bigger around than my head.

:Q

Viper GTS

Yeah, but your head's all pointy so that's not really a good example.... 😉

 

[Howard]

Well the combustion chambers might be pointy-shaped too. 😉

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Roger

Bah to you, you HP-per-diaplacement fanboy - go drive a Honda Inefficiency = crazy power, just look at the Viper's V10 *grunt grunt grunt*

Little do you know, high efficiancy design is not limited to small displacement high revving engines, if you took the Viper's V-10, reworked the cylinder heads to a high squish wedge design, installed low friction pistons and rings and reworked the ports accordingly you would end up with better fuel mileage, more power and longer engine life, what makes you think that high efficiancy is limited to foriegn cars with small displacement engines ?

And why don't they do that at the factory? It sure seems beneficial to have all the hard stuff done during casting. And what's not to like about more torque/power?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: Roger

Yeah, but this engine hits peak HP at only 1000 rpm.

Fine, I'll regrind the cam in my lawnmower to an extremely short duration profile and install a sleeve in the carb to reduce the venturi down to 1/4 inch, this will effectively reduce the power band down to 1,000 R.P.M. and it will still have a better hp to cubic inch displacement ratio.

I am really surprised that no one pointed out that the cubic inch disp to torque ratio is exceptional, generally maximum torque is equal to the displacement of the engine. (turbo)😉

Sweet! My Zuk has 1.6 liters of Torque!

LMAO!

 

And why don't they do that at the factory?

Corporate politics and bean counters.

 

[Howard]

Sigh... the bane of all that is holy.

And you're right about efficiency not being limited just to small engines. In fact, larger engines would be slightly more efficient than smaller engines being that the volume/surface area ratio goes up, and correspondingly, relative friction goes down. Thermal efficiency might also go up too.