Hp displacement ratio

[Sweeney921]

a company that can make a 5 cilinder radial engine that you can hold in one hand, surely can measure precisley it's horse power.

Where'd you see a 5 cylinder RC engine?

[Slicks]

you haven't disappointed me here, I was even considering to specifically mention you in my post , but you took the bait graciously without that. Well done

God forbid i correct your ignorance. Either way everyone knows who your talking about.

[Slicks]

me going? me thinks Slicks would be the one
Anyway he will also be delighted with Callaway's latest project, a 4-litre DOHC V16, intended BHP 550...
http://www.callawaycars.com/V16/

I wonder why they stopped....

Yeah, that V16 is pretty old BTW.

[Slicks]

So tell us all the advantages and disadvantages Slick, I cant wait

If you increase the bore of an engine to it maximum, you run the risks of fragile cylinder walls, if you increase the stroke the piston speed goes up so the available revs will be less because the piston speed is increased in relation to rpm's

Im not doing this with you again, youve already shown me that your just a sheep, cant even give a rational explanation how hp/l is relevant in the real world when comparing engines.

remember Henk as Slick has already stated/insulted many people on this forum, re the HP/litre argument. Its a redundant argument, that only NOOBS and engine builders worry about . At the moment we are chucking out our 2litre turbo boat anchors out of our race cars and installing the superman of all engines - faster, lighter, stronger than all other engines ever produced the MIGHTY CHEVY LS-X engine, its only weakness isnt Kryptonite but piston slap J/K Slicks

Engine builders obveously have no concern with cost, weight or physical size, peak hp and diplacement are the only thing that matters right?

[Slicks]

normally, the higher the L rating the worse the fuel economy.

No, if you want to generalize, its weight. The more weight, the worse fuel economy. The displacement alone tells you nothing about fuel economy.

[henk4]

Yeah, that V16 is pretty old BTW.

let's see what will be in the Callaway C16...(to be revealed in LA)

[henk4]

God forbid i correct your ignorance. Either way everyone knows who your talking about.

I only gave a picture of your line of "thinking"......

[Quiggs]

remember Henk as Slick has already stated/insulted many people on this forum, re the HP/litre argument. Its a redundant argument, that only NOOBS and engine builders worry about . At the moment we are chucking out our 2litre turbo boat anchors out of our race cars and installing the superman of all engines - faster, lighter, stronger than all other engines ever produced the MIGHTY CHEVY LS-X engine, its only weakness isnt Kryptonite but piston slap J/K Slicks

The SBC is king. The sooner you come to terms with this the better off you'll be.

[770]

it has been said turbine engines have the most power for size

[derekthetree]

No, if you want to generalize, its weight. The more weight, the worse fuel economy. The displacement alone tells you nothing about fuel economy.

no, if you put an engine alone on a test bed, a larger capacity engine will consume more fuel per unit time per revolution than a smaller capacity engine.

that generalised enough?

[magracer]

This form Wikipedia if you were wondering just as I was...

Most specific engine output (power per unit volume)
Naturally-aspirated pistonless rotary engine - 140.5 kW (191.1 PS/188.8 hp) /litre - Mazda RX-8 Renesis (184 kW (250 PS/247 hp) JIS 1.3 L)
Forced-induction pistonless rotary engine - 157.4 kW (214.1 PS/212.3 hp)/litre - 2003 Mazda RX-7 13B-REW (206 kW (280 PS/276 hp JIS 1.3 L)
Petrol/Gasoline (naturally-aspirated) piston engine - 92.1 kW (125.2 PS/123.7 hp)/litre - 2000 Honda S2000 F20C (184 kW (250 PS/247 hp) JIS 2.0 L I4)
Petrol/Gasoline (forced-induction) piston engine - 149 kW (203 PS/200 hp)/litre 400 hp - 2005 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII FQ400 (298 kW (405 PS/400 hp) 2.0 L I4 (The FQ400's status as a "production car" is disputed)
Diesel (naturally-aspirated) - 33.4 kW (45.4 PS/44.7 hp)/litre (100 kW (136 PS/134 hp) DIN 3.0 L I6) - 1995 Mercedes E 300 D
Diesel (forced-induction) - 70.1 kW (95.4 PS/94.1 hp)/litre (210 kW (286 PS/282 hp) DIN 3.0 L I6 twin-turbo) - 2006 BMW X3

Most specific torque (torque per unit displacement)
Petrol (naturally-aspirated) - 114 N·m (84 ft·lbf)/litre (370 N·m (273 ft·lbf)) - 2003 BMW M3 CSL
Petrol (forced-induction) - 241.4 N·m (177.7 ft·lbf)/litre (482.1 N·m (355 ft·lbf)) - 2004 Mitsubishi Evo VIII MR FQ-400
Honorable mention: 233.6 N·m (172.3 ft·lbf)/litre - 700 N·m/516 ft·lbf Dauer 962 LeMans (Road-going version of the Group C Porsche 962)
Petrol (naturally-aspirated pistonless rotary engine) - 170.8 N·m (126.0 ft·lbf)/litre (222 N·m (164 ft·lbf)) - 2005 Mazda RX-8
Petrol (forced-induction pistonless rotary engine) - 226.3 N·m (166.9 ft·lbf)/litre (294 N·m (217 ft·lbf)) - 1995 Mazda RX-7 Turbo Diesel - 193.8 N·m (143 ft·lbf)/litre (580 N·m (428 ft·lbf)) - 2006 BMW X3 3.0sd ????

[Slicks]

let's see what will be in the Callaway C16...(to be revealed in LA)

That will be interesting. Have you read/heard what car they are using?

[Slicks]

I only gave a picture of your line of "thinking"......

Ever noticed that the engines in all performance cars are continuously getting MORE dispalcement?

[Slicks]

no, if you put an engine alone on a test bed, a larger capacity engine will consume more fuel per unit time per revolution than a smaller capacity engine.

that generalised enough?

Which pretty much means nothing in the read world, with gears, and cars and all.

[henk4]

That will be interesting. Have you read/heard what car they are using?

http://www.callawaycars.com/

this is where they show it...