Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
it had a meteor in it.
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
 couldnt remeber
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by jr
Paul, i can see whta you mean, and usally id agree
but this is a rover SD1 with a 27litre tank engien in it, whats not to like
yes it would prober be faster with a twin turbo V8, but then its niether as intresting or as challangin to build
If you read my post - I say I love the project, and love the work that's gone into it 
It was just people who were wanking over how quick it'd be since it's 27 litres 
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
Most people are thinking it's quick because it has 650bhp+ and 1500lb/ft+ if torque though Paul.
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
it will be quick though  simply as pure grunt will ensure it,
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
we'll see.
it all depends on if the gearbox copes
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by jr
it will be quick though simply as pure grunt will ensure it,
yeh It'll be quick, just not silly silly quick like those Skyline's I posted.
Yes it'll produce 1500 lb ft of torque, but as I said on the other post it'll barely be useable as it's lazy torque and doesn't rev that high.
You'll have to whack a really long ratio'd gearbox onto it to get it useable, but then that's negating the whole torque thing, as a long ratio gear will take more effort to turn.
I have no doubt it'll be quick once rolling, hence it probably better suited to high speed runs. Just off the line I think it'll be a bit of a barge. What's the point in lots of torque if you can't really use it.
Look at Turbo Diesels, produce lots of torque - but only rev to about 4k rpm - so are ultimately slow down the 1/4 mile. Once moving though they'll accelerate quickly in gear.
This is my point.
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
agreed. and usign Jaguar XJ6 transmission is asking for trouble IMO
|
Chris F
Show Staff
Organiser: East Anglia
Premium Member
Registered: 26th Dec 05
Location: Newmarket Drives: Escort Van 1.8
User status: Offline
|
did you see the size of that turbo omg!
|
puregarage87uk
Member
Registered: 7th Jan 06
Location: medway towns
User status: Offline
|
lol c20 let eat your heart out.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
quote:
Originally posted by jr
it will be quick though simply as pure grunt will ensure it,
yeh It'll be quick, just not silly silly quick like those Skyline's I posted.
Yes it'll produce 1500 lb ft of torque, but as I said on the other post it'll barely be useable as it's lazy torque and doesn't rev that high.
You'll have to whack a really long ratio'd gearbox onto it to get it useable, but then that's negating the whole torque thing, as a long ratio gear will take more effort to turn.
I have no doubt it'll be quick once rolling, hence it probably better suited to high speed runs. Just off the line I think it'll be a bit of a barge. What's the point in lots of torque if you can't really use it.
Look at Turbo Diesels, produce lots of torque - but only rev to about 4k rpm - so are ultimately slow down the 1/4 mile. Once moving though they'll accelerate quickly in gear.
This is my point.
I take it you didn't read the bit about it using a torque convertor.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
Nah, I didn't.
Is that one of those boxes (a bit like moto gp bikes) that just sit at a certain rpm while the gearbox changes ratio?
So like 1 long seemless gear?
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by timrud_
Hope the cambelt doesn't snap.
They have either gear drive or chains Tim. I don't think cam belts were used that long ago.
If you watch the Swedish clip you can see the engine nice and clearly.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey
quote:
Originally posted by Ry_B
27 litre  
620bhp for 27 litres though? That's shit considering most N/A 2 litres put out about 150bhp
you're an idiot. 1500lb/ft torque. nuff said
Another stupid comment from Ry_b. When will he learn not to open his mouth when he doesn't know what he is talking about.
 Precisely.
620bhp is mind boggling from an engine that is 70 years old. Capacity is academic.
The law of diminishing returns applies immensely here also, especially on a N/A unit.
Also, the engine would have been built with a huge unstressed capacity in order to be perfectly reliable in battle, and therefore is beyond comparison to a passenger car engine of any era.
As stated, the whole point would have been massive torque for moving a tank as IT IS a tank engine.
The horsepower is just an accidental by product.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by robmarriott
needs pipes coming oout of the wings, like a spitfire
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
will probably get slated for this...
but I don't think it's going to accelerate very quickly.
I think it'll have a Really Really high top speed, but acceleration will be a bit pish. Though this may be different if they turbo charge it.
I think the only reason it would not accelerate quickly would be that the 1500 or so lb ft would be busy liquifying/vapourising the back tyres.
Other than that, it should get off the line quicker than snot off a stick. 
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
Bigger is not necisarily always better.
With the obvious exceptions of bills, malignant growths, terrorist devices and vaginas, bigger is invariably better.
|
stuartmitchell
Member
Registered: 24th Apr 04
Location: Kirkliston, Edinburgh
User status: Offline
|
who cares, they put a spitfire engine in a car, nuff said
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
they should have used a spitfire engine, not a tank engine
superchargers are there for a reason
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
It would have meant braking a Spitfire to rob it's engine though, and that's even worse than what some bad people do to Cavalier GSis to make their Corsa go a bit quicker. 
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
HAHAH, bloody impressive
A few vids of the engine though -
Engine Startup
Merlin kart
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
I REST MY CASE
http://web.telia.com/~u13603150/V12TESTDRIVE.WMV
"1500lb ft of torque" bla bla bla - check that video... hardly doing the 1/4 mile in 8 seconds is it.
|
LeeM
Member
Registered: 26th Sep 05
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
i reckon the lotus carlton engine to corsa converion should be a piece of piss after lookin at that...
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
hes not exactly giving it some though is he?
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
hardly doing the 1/4 mile in 8 seconds is it.
Being fair, he's driving an engine strapped to some girders with a little wheel on each corner. I probably wouldn't be giving it any either.
|
