I mean a supercar with dual V8s.
Unlike the Cizetta, with two monster supercharged Big block V8s.
You could easily have 1500+hp or even 2000 hp.
Of course you would need a transmission and chassis to handle it.
Printable View
I mean a supercar with dual V8s.
Unlike the Cizetta, with two monster supercharged Big block V8s.
You could easily have 1500+hp or even 2000 hp.
Of course you would need a transmission and chassis to handle it.
why stop at supercars?
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/uXJ68.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/V1Lqf.jpg[/IMG]
Or there's that MX5 with the two V8s in series. You couldn't really do it the same as the Cizeta V16T as I'm pretty sure you couldn't fit two big blocks sideways in a car. As Clutch's photos show there, two (small blocks?) barely fit lengthways next to each other in a van. Basically.. it's not a great idea due to packaging reasons. Much easier to just turbocharge one of them up to that power level. They weight and size of attempting to shove two of them in something would seriously compromise the handling of a supercar.
Bugatti kind of did that by joining 2 4.0L V8's onto the one crankshaft to make the 8.0L W16, then strapped on 4 turbos.
Yea, but the V8 banks are very narrow angle VR8s, like the old VR6s that VW used to use.
The 2003 Cadillac Sixteen had two Northstar V8s welded together longitudinally but that thing was designed to be a land yacht.
Having two cast iron big blocks in a supercar would just be stupid heavy and completely useless.
[quote=pimento;981626]Or there's that MX5 with the two V8s in series. You couldn't really do it the same as the Cizeta V16T as I'm pretty sure you couldn't fit two big blocks sideways in a car. As Clutch's photos show there, two (small blocks?) barely fit lengthways next to each other in a van. Basically.. it's not a great idea due to packaging reasons. Much easier to just turbocharge one of them up to that power level. They weight and size of attempting to shove two of them in something would seriously compromise the handling of a supercar.[/quote]
Why not?
Big blocks are about 34" 800mm long. Even after considering the 90 degrees gearbox you still have considerable space as most supercars are about 80" 2000mm wide.
It is a subcompact van only 66.5" 1690mm wide
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Delica"]Mitsubishi Delica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Why not have both Big blocks turbocharged and maxed out for even twice as much power?
As for the handling the car would probably need a larger wheelbase with the engines located more amidship and the cab more forward.
[quote=Big time;981665]
Why not have both Big blocks turbocharged and maxed out for even twice as much power?
[B]
As for the handling the car would probably need a larger wheelbase with the engines located more amidship and the cab more forward.[/B][/quote]
Why not? Cost, packaging, and reliability. Bugatti needs like ten radiators to keep the V16 and the turbos
As for the handling issue, you've addressed it. ;) Too short and you'll have something that makes a vintage 911 look stable, too long and you'll have something that goes ridiculously fast in a straight line but doesn't handle as well. The question is, how long/wide? As pimento has pointed out, it's not going to be very easy to setup so you can drive fast without a death wish.
[url="http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1vgq2/RacecarEngineeringFe/resources/33.htm"]Racecar Engineering - February 2012[/url]
Not to mention all the other ancillaries involved. A 2000bhp engine would require huge water cooling, probably intercoolers for the forced induction, probably oil coolers, probably a really beefy gearbox.. if you take the SSC Ultimate Aero as an example of the proposed breed, you'd need double the space taken by the engine and related gubbins. Also remember you need to fit in suspension around the back somewghere too, which'd have to be pretty beefy to support the weight of everything.
[quote=kingofthering;981666]Why not? Cost, packaging, and reliability. Bugatti needs like ten radiators to keep the V16 and the turbos
As for the handling issue, you've addressed it. ;) Too short and you'll have something that makes a vintage 911 look stable, too long and you'll have something that goes ridiculously fast in a straight line but doesn't handle as well. The question is, how long/wide? As pimento has pointed out, it's not going to be very easy to setup so you can drive fast without a death wish.
[url="http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1vgq2/RacecarEngineeringFe/resources/33.htm"]Racecar Engineering - February 2012[/url][/quote]
Cost?
No problem. In fact higher cost the more exclusive the car becomes.
Packaging? This is the big challenge. Altough the side by side engine location helps a lot.
Wheelbase? Probably this will be a super tourer car rather than a rally mini.
[quote=pimento;981673]Not to mention all the other ancillaries involved. A 2000bhp engine would require huge water cooling, probably intercoolers for the forced induction, probably oil coolers, probably a really beefy gearbox.. if you take the SSC Ultimate Aero as an example of the proposed breed, you'd need double the space taken by the engine and related gubbins. Also remember you need to fit in suspension around the back somewghere too, which'd have to be pretty beefy to support the weight of everything.[/quote]
Cooling?
Yet another challenge related to packaging. IMO you'll need a Lotus Elise or Ford GT type front radiators with huge ducts.
Gearbox?
A twice as strong gearbox won't necessarily be twice the size.
Although IMO you'll need a planetary gearbox as a standard gearbox won't survive the monster torque.
The reason why hardly any supercars or cars use this set up is that it doesn’t work very well, if it worked well car manufacture would have done it a lot to get lots of power. Don't you think manufactures like SSC wouldn’t have thought of things like this when they were trying to design a speed machine?
[quote=thebrochureman;981716]The reason why hardly any supercars or cars use this set up is that it doesn’t work very well, if it worked well car manufacture would have done it a lot to get lots of power. Don't you think manufactures like SSC wouldn’t have thought of things like this when they were trying to design a speed machine?[/quote]
There's still a lot of room for improvement.
Cars or anything manmade can be improved a lot.
Until mankind surpasses light speed we can say we have reached the limit.
As for SSC they aren't making the ultimate machine.
This is not to say the SSC isn't an awesome machine of course it is.
But why is SSC still using a pushrod Chevy V8?
Why they don't use an engine with F1 technology without F1 rules that forbit bigger displacement and forced induction?
[quote=Big time;981802]
But why is SSC still using a pushrod Chevy V8?
Why they don't use an engine with F1 technology without F1 rules that forbit bigger displacement and forced induction?[/quote]
power is power, no matter how old the tech used to make it.
tried driving an F1 car on the street though? something geared for peak hp like that would be a pig..
[quote=Big time;981802]
But why is SSC still using a pushrod Chevy V8?
Why they don't use an engine with F1 technology without F1 rules that forbit bigger displacement and forced induction?[/quote]
Cost and reliability. F1 engines aren't designed to run and be daily driven. Interestingly enough the Chevy V8 IS technically a formula car engine (won the Indianapolis 500 a few times) but not derived from formula cars.
That, and as a small time maker SSC probably doesn't have the budget to build custom engines.
Going back to what you said earlier about cost, yes the car will be "more" exclusive but there is a point where NOBODY can afford to buy it. Even at 1 million, Bugatti (or rather, VW) is taking a hit on each Veyron sold. You can keep jacking up the price building an engine that makes no sense economically - you're spending money putting together two individual engines designed to be run as two separate units that could be spent building one complete engine designed to run as one unit from the beginning.
[quote=Big time;981802]Why they don't use an engine with F1 technology without F1 rules that forbit bigger displacement and forced induction?[/quote]
The defining quality of F1 engines is that they are small. You couldn't get larger (heavier) components to spin that fast. Too much inertia.
Having just re-watched the episode of Top Gear where they tested the V8 Atom, I much prefer the idea of mating two small, high-revving I4s from either a Honda or a bike to make a 3-4 liter V8 that revs to 10,000 rpms.