5.0 litre V8 weighing 62 pounds
02-15-2007, 02:54 PM
#1
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location:
Posts: 149
5.0 litre V8 weighing 62 pounds
Here's a link to another forum I'm part of. It's a motorcycle site but that's not the point. This guy has made some crazy stuff including the 62 pound 5 litre V8.
Start on page 2 the first page is all motorcycle stuff.
http://www.dmxsradio.com/forum/forum...PN=1&TPN=2
Start on page 2 the first page is all motorcycle stuff.
http://www.dmxsradio.com/forum/forum...PN=1&TPN=2
02-15-2007, 05:01 PM
#2
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location:
Posts: 149
RE: 5.0 litre V8 weighing 62 pounds
Well I guess you guys aren't intrigued by this - but I find it amazing. Here's the trimmed down conversation.
Acme 39:
It was a 2500cc six valve head four stroke. Made 65 horse @ 2800 RPM redline, but with 120 lb/ft of torque, and an engine weight of 38 pounds. Then engine was 10.5 inches square. And had only one throw of the crank for four cylinders, and only one connecting rod.
There is a photo of it running on the test bench in the photo site.
TerryK:[/i]
I hope you meant 250cc and 28,000 rpm! Lol[/i]
Acme 39:
I meant 2,500cc (2.5 Liters), 152.55936 Cu/Inches. And 2,800 RPM as in two thousand and two hundred RPM. Only 65 to 70 HP but twice the torque of most 1000cc v-twins or four times the torque of a 450f motocrosser. Also this engine makes peak torque @ 600 yes thats 6 x 100 RPM. And is making usable torque at 200 RPM. The torque line then stays flat to the 2800 RPM red line. So the power is so long and flat that we just used a 2.5/1 Hyd torque coverter as the transmission for amaizing acceleration to 130 MPH (209 kilometer/hour).
We also made a 5 liter v-8 that weight 62 pounds, and a 2.5 liter 6-cylinder radial that weighed 40 pounds and flew three of those at Oshkosh in 1984. You can look at the photoshere? http://www.skooks.smugmug.com/gallery/1802027
Muzikp:
Uh - did you say a 5 litre V8 that weighed 62 pounds? How big is it (not CI but actual dimensions)? Why do we not see something like that in our cars? Sign me up fora97 pound 32.8 litre V24 please. I can't wait to tell my friends my mailman just put my new engine in the mailbox.
TerryK:
Damn Gerald, how the hell did you get that kind of displacment out of such a compact package??
Amazing!
Acme 39:
The 62 pound 300 Cu In (5 Liter) engines dimensions are 25" long, 13" wide, and 11" tall. Dual overhead cams, six valves per cylinder, hollow crank and cam shafts. Under 3,000 RPM redline, flatline rated to 15,000 feet. And a BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consuption) of 0.39 PFPHPH (Pounds of fuel per horse power hour).
So, that makes it a gasoline engine with the fuel efficencies down in realm of diesel engines.
Actually I thinks it's even more amaizing that everyone seems to be happy for so long with such oversized engines. I have some theories as to why, but am none the less surprised it's gone on for soooo long.
So, how do you get more power from a given size engine but to spin if faster. If you think of it from that slant, the engines we've done are the same displacement in a minute
What I'm saying is that take this 2500cc engine and spin it at 2,500 RPM it displaces 6,250 Liters per minute. Take a modern 450f spin it at 14,500 RPM red line and it's larger at 6,525 Liters per minute. Hmmmm maybe things can be made more durable if you spin them slower and the cascade effect of that is also lighter and less expensive to manufacture. For example no need for harden ground cranks and cam shafts. I stress prof. grade of carbon steel is enough and the engines just have more time to burn the hydro-carbons, And broad powerband due largely to not having all the drag of 180 to 250 pound valve springs, but these engines have only 6 pound valve springs.
Muzikp:
Wow!!!I like it. I am currently looking into forged internals prior to my supercharging project. How nice would it be to not have to do any of that.
I'm guessing these motors don't sound verycoolspinning that slowly. They must sound like a really lopey cammed out motor when running atredline. Must be a lot less heat from friction.Do they need to be water cooled? What kind of compression do you get with only 6 pound valve springs? The useable torque at 200 rpm part has me flabbergasted. Nothing I own will even idleat 200 rpm.
This makes me wonder though (since I like finding horsepower). Suppose we forge these little guys, increase the valve spring pressure and spin em faster (say 600 rpm redline). Is there any benefit to that?
Andmy burning question remains:what's the negative side of these motors that's keeping them from mainstream use?
Acme 39:
No these engines are very smooth and very quiet. The reason a cammed engine lopes along is due to having those big lifts on steep cam ramps, coupled with very heavy valve springs. That's also one of the main reasons that a cammed engine doesn't make much power down low. The parasitic drag of the valve train is using up 80-90 horsepower, and until the engine gets up into it's volumetric efficient speed has difficulty overpowering the cam.
These engines are only about 85 psi compression that's part of the reason that it only makes 70 horsepower for 2500cc. But that is also the reason that it is making over 2hp / lb of Engine compared to that cammed engine making about 1 hp / Lb of engine. With limited durability. We dynoed these engines at 2500 hours, full load, full throttle. That would be analogous of running a car about 60,000 miles with all the weight it would pull, at full throttle and never backing off or coasting. Aircraft engines only run at about 1000 hours TBO.
The comparison on valve springs simplified is like a 5 liter say Ford or Chev needs 180 Lb valve springs due to the fact that at their 5500 RPM redline the valves dynamic weight is about 160 Lbs so they have the 180 pound spring for control (11% safety) these engines smaller, lighter, slower valves (with a huge dwell) have a dynamic weight of 4.5 pounds at redline controlled by a 6 pound spring (25% safety)
The negative side of these engines are multitude. Too much displacement for the power for racing and taxes. Too quiet. Not good for the Tool Companies (only one size bolt, and one torx wrench).
But these engines are kind of already main stream. Large locomotive, ship and industrial engines use a lot of these ideas. But no one asks you how many Cu In in a large ship engine is some are a million cubic inches. They just want to know how much does it weight, how horsepower, how fuel efficient, how durable. Then don't have racing and taxing organizations limiting the technology.
Also trying to get established motorcycle, automotive or any other established industry for that matter. Would be analogous to Thomas Edison trying to get funding for the electric light, from the manufactures of Gas Lanterns, not likely.
Acme 39:
It was a 2500cc six valve head four stroke. Made 65 horse @ 2800 RPM redline, but with 120 lb/ft of torque, and an engine weight of 38 pounds. Then engine was 10.5 inches square. And had only one throw of the crank for four cylinders, and only one connecting rod.
There is a photo of it running on the test bench in the photo site.
TerryK:[/i]
I hope you meant 250cc and 28,000 rpm! Lol[/i]
Acme 39:
I meant 2,500cc (2.5 Liters), 152.55936 Cu/Inches. And 2,800 RPM as in two thousand and two hundred RPM. Only 65 to 70 HP but twice the torque of most 1000cc v-twins or four times the torque of a 450f motocrosser. Also this engine makes peak torque @ 600 yes thats 6 x 100 RPM. And is making usable torque at 200 RPM. The torque line then stays flat to the 2800 RPM red line. So the power is so long and flat that we just used a 2.5/1 Hyd torque coverter as the transmission for amaizing acceleration to 130 MPH (209 kilometer/hour).
We also made a 5 liter v-8 that weight 62 pounds, and a 2.5 liter 6-cylinder radial that weighed 40 pounds and flew three of those at Oshkosh in 1984. You can look at the photoshere? http://www.skooks.smugmug.com/gallery/1802027
Muzikp:
Uh - did you say a 5 litre V8 that weighed 62 pounds? How big is it (not CI but actual dimensions)? Why do we not see something like that in our cars? Sign me up fora97 pound 32.8 litre V24 please. I can't wait to tell my friends my mailman just put my new engine in the mailbox.
TerryK:
Damn Gerald, how the hell did you get that kind of displacment out of such a compact package??
Amazing!
Acme 39:
The 62 pound 300 Cu In (5 Liter) engines dimensions are 25" long, 13" wide, and 11" tall. Dual overhead cams, six valves per cylinder, hollow crank and cam shafts. Under 3,000 RPM redline, flatline rated to 15,000 feet. And a BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consuption) of 0.39 PFPHPH (Pounds of fuel per horse power hour).
So, that makes it a gasoline engine with the fuel efficencies down in realm of diesel engines.
Actually I thinks it's even more amaizing that everyone seems to be happy for so long with such oversized engines. I have some theories as to why, but am none the less surprised it's gone on for soooo long.
So, how do you get more power from a given size engine but to spin if faster. If you think of it from that slant, the engines we've done are the same displacement in a minute
What I'm saying is that take this 2500cc engine and spin it at 2,500 RPM it displaces 6,250 Liters per minute. Take a modern 450f spin it at 14,500 RPM red line and it's larger at 6,525 Liters per minute. Hmmmm maybe things can be made more durable if you spin them slower and the cascade effect of that is also lighter and less expensive to manufacture. For example no need for harden ground cranks and cam shafts. I stress prof. grade of carbon steel is enough and the engines just have more time to burn the hydro-carbons, And broad powerband due largely to not having all the drag of 180 to 250 pound valve springs, but these engines have only 6 pound valve springs.
Muzikp:
Wow!!!I like it. I am currently looking into forged internals prior to my supercharging project. How nice would it be to not have to do any of that.
I'm guessing these motors don't sound verycoolspinning that slowly. They must sound like a really lopey cammed out motor when running atredline. Must be a lot less heat from friction.Do they need to be water cooled? What kind of compression do you get with only 6 pound valve springs? The useable torque at 200 rpm part has me flabbergasted. Nothing I own will even idleat 200 rpm.
This makes me wonder though (since I like finding horsepower). Suppose we forge these little guys, increase the valve spring pressure and spin em faster (say 600 rpm redline). Is there any benefit to that?
Andmy burning question remains:what's the negative side of these motors that's keeping them from mainstream use?
Acme 39:
No these engines are very smooth and very quiet. The reason a cammed engine lopes along is due to having those big lifts on steep cam ramps, coupled with very heavy valve springs. That's also one of the main reasons that a cammed engine doesn't make much power down low. The parasitic drag of the valve train is using up 80-90 horsepower, and until the engine gets up into it's volumetric efficient speed has difficulty overpowering the cam.
These engines are only about 85 psi compression that's part of the reason that it only makes 70 horsepower for 2500cc. But that is also the reason that it is making over 2hp / lb of Engine compared to that cammed engine making about 1 hp / Lb of engine. With limited durability. We dynoed these engines at 2500 hours, full load, full throttle. That would be analogous of running a car about 60,000 miles with all the weight it would pull, at full throttle and never backing off or coasting. Aircraft engines only run at about 1000 hours TBO.
The comparison on valve springs simplified is like a 5 liter say Ford or Chev needs 180 Lb valve springs due to the fact that at their 5500 RPM redline the valves dynamic weight is about 160 Lbs so they have the 180 pound spring for control (11% safety) these engines smaller, lighter, slower valves (with a huge dwell) have a dynamic weight of 4.5 pounds at redline controlled by a 6 pound spring (25% safety)
The negative side of these engines are multitude. Too much displacement for the power for racing and taxes. Too quiet. Not good for the Tool Companies (only one size bolt, and one torx wrench).
But these engines are kind of already main stream. Large locomotive, ship and industrial engines use a lot of these ideas. But no one asks you how many Cu In in a large ship engine is some are a million cubic inches. They just want to know how much does it weight, how horsepower, how fuel efficient, how durable. Then don't have racing and taxing organizations limiting the technology.
Also trying to get established motorcycle, automotive or any other established industry for that matter. Would be analogous to Thomas Edison trying to get funding for the electric light, from the manufactures of Gas Lanterns, not likely.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post