3 litre V8 atmo
(personal preference, old skool, nothing sounds as good as a V8 imo)
Printable View
3 litre V8 atmo
(personal preference, old skool, nothing sounds as good as a V8 imo)
Why has fuel been limited to petrol? (see post #1).
That will exclude oddities like the Howmet Gasturbine engine, and even more importantly, the V10 Audi LMP1 engine from the R15.....(so much power with so little noise....)
[IMG]http://img54.exs.cx/img54/9562/12rotor2.jpg[/IMG]
[quote=Matra et Alpine;886249]
I'd go for the 787b engine, not just for the screaming sound and the exhaust note but mainly for the sexy variable length intakes :) :) Small engine, small capacity, LOTS of ooooomph[/quote]
beat me too it :rolleyes: not to mention uniqueness... and the fact that it won le mans. and if i'm not mistaken, had twin kkk turbos.
[quote=henk4;886279]Why has fuel been limited to petrol? (see post #1).
That will exclude oddities like the Howmet Gasturbine engine, and even more importantly, the V10 Audi LMP1 engine from the R15.....(so much power with so little noise....)[/quote]
I purposely didn't want diesel being used, as that's what powers roadside digging machinery and tractors, but as for gas turbines, I'll allow a few bottles of avgas if you you promise to use it well.
[quote=W.R.;886308]I purposely didn't want diesel being used, as that's what powers roadside digging machinery and tractors[/quote]
and winning racing cars....
20b pp
[quote=charged;886326]20b pp[/quote]
indeed, twenty beers per person.
Type 912 flat-12 engine of 5 litres turbocharged
[url=http://g.imagehost.org/view/0063/9207777991][img]http://g.imagehost.org/0063/9207777991.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://g.imagehost.org/view/0764/139667531924][img]http://g.imagehost.org/0764/139667531924.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://g.imagehost.org/view/0916/192494692322][img]http://g.imagehost.org/0916/192494692322.jpg[/img][/url]
OK, it got the better of me ...........
THis one ... forget your V12 ... a "straight" twelve :)
4 times "better" than the 20b charged :)
But you might need to extend the wheelbase !!!
We were racing over at Sandown Victoria on the weekend and there was a IMSA Ser Rx7 converted to a sports sedan racing with a 20b, it sounded unbelievable down the straight sadly there was a massive smash in SS and 8 cars were binned :( including the silver RX7
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ojKpcekKI8"]YouTube - Sports Sedan crash[/ame]
Our weekend tuned bad also, nephew was leading the trophy race with 4 laps to go and he broke 3rd gear coming onto the straight:(
[quote=Bob;886284]beat me too it :rolleyes: not to mention uniqueness... and the fact that it won le mans. and if i'm not mistaken, had twin kkk turbos.[/quote]
The R26B that powered the 787B was N/A...
No turbos, thats why it sounds so good when it gets up to redline...
although it did have 3 spark plugs per rotor!
Matra: whats with the "small displacement" comment? the 4 rotor R26B engine displaced 7866cc that is pretty large for a car engine regardless of Mazdas marketing magic.
Maybe by "small displacement" you where talking about how physically large the engine is?
Myy favorite engine configuration is probably the Napier Deltic engine: [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Napier_deltic_animation_large.gif"]Here's an animation[/URL]
The turbo-compound varient is probably the coolest engine I can think of...
The R26B was NOT "7.8l" it was in reality 2.6 litres :)
THe "big" numbers are all about arguing equivalency of the wankel configuration !
didn't say displacement, meant SIZE first ie physically and after that the small chambers.
[IMG]http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/motorsports/img/leman_img05_12.jpg[/IMG]
The earlier 757s ran 20b engine with twin turbos, so easy to confuse with the 26 :)
[quote=Matra et Alpine;886418]The R26B was NOT "7.8l" it was in reality 2.6 litres :)
THe "big" numbers are all about arguing equivalency of the wankel configuration ![/quote]
I guess you fell for mazdas whole marketing spiel...
There really isn't anything to argue about it is simple, all three sides of each rotor are contributing to engine displacement at all times. Saying the R26B is only 2.6L engine is like calling a 2L inline 4 a 500cc engine... it just doesn't make sense at all. Do you really think that the R26B only sucked 2.6L air in when all the rotors did 1 full revolution?
Mazdas marketing team came up with the idea that engine displacement should be defined by the amount displaced by one side of each rotor in the engine...
Think about it Matra you have an RX-8, you know the kind of mileage it gets. Does it make sense that a 1.3L engine needs that much fuel? or does it make more sense that a 3.9L engine needs that much fuel?
Wankel engines aren't capable of producing a specific power over 100HP/L they are too inefficient (that isn't to say that specific power is a measure of efficiency).
oh and btw: I am pretty sure that the 13G in the 757 was also N/A the 20B twinturbo engine was a roadgoing engine used in the Eunos Cosmo... That and 757 looks almost nothing like the 787... maybe you meant the 767?
although I could be wrong about that as I can't find any pictures of a 757 engine bay?!
[quote=P4g4nite;886282][IMG]http://img54.exs.cx/img54/9562/12rotor2.jpg[/IMG][/quote]
does it actually work?