REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

sonick · 10-20-2010, 08:31 PM

PART 1: http://videos.howstuffworks.com/disc...rger-video.htm

PART 2: http://videos.howstuffworks.com/disc...ower-video.htm

This is crazy. In the 70's BMW built their F1 engines out of passenger car engine blocks that were at least 100k kilometers used, then strapped in giant turbos to get 900+ horsepower per litre...

Amazing how much boost these blocks handled.

donjalapeno · 10-20-2010, 08:47 PM

thats so sick....good watch

maxx · 10-20-2010, 08:56 PM

small wonder all BMWs are solid

TL_99 · 10-20-2010, 09:06 PM

ah ic, so there is hope for my honda fit. LOL

spyker · 10-20-2010, 09:27 PM

The heat cycling of everyday driving from the production car engines made the engine blocks very strong.

F1 turbo era,even today,it's still considered the pinnacle of F1 technology.

KiDEclipse · 10-20-2010, 09:40 PM

Hahah Thats Rimmer from in Red Dwarf

Jackygor · 10-20-2010, 10:05 PM

So how did they get rid of the turbo lag?

k3lv · 10-20-2010, 10:06 PM

thanks for the link, that was very enjoyable to watch

JoshuaWong · 10-20-2010, 10:21 PM

Here are list of other turbo engines from the monstor turbo era.

* Alfa Romeo V8 1.5 L Turbo, V8 3.0 L, Flat-12 3.0 L and V12 3.0 L
* BMW M12 inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
* BRM H16 3.0 L and V12 3.0 L
* Coventry Climax V8 3.0 L (modified FPE engine; one race in the Shannon F1 car)
* Ferrari V6 1.5 L Turbo, V12 3.0 L and Flat-12 3.0 L
* Ford V6 1.5 L Turbo and V8 3.0 L (derived from the 4.2 L Indy Car engine)
* Ford Cosworth DFV V8 3.0 L and DFY V8 3.0 L
* Hart inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
* Honda V12 3.0 L, V8 3.0 L air-cooled and V6 1.5 L Turbo
* Maserati V12 3.0 L
* Matra V12 3.0 L
* Motori Moderni V6 1.5 Turbo
* Repco V8 3.0 L
* Renault Gordini V8 (never raced) 3.0 L and Gordini V6 1.5 L Turbo
* Serenissima V8 3.0 L
* TAG-Porsche V6 1.5 L Turbo
* Tecno Flat-12 3.0 L
* Weslake V12 3.0 L
* Zakspeed inline-4 1.5 L Turbo

The power range was between 390 hp (290 kW) to 500 hp (370 kW), turbos 500 hp (370 kW) to 900 hp (670 kW) in race, in qualifying up to 1,500 hp (1,120 kW).

Y2K_o__o · 10-20-2010, 10:53 PM

old engine blocks can take HUGE power because at that time engineers didn't know much about cyclic loading / fatigue so they made it with a huge safety factor

nowadays all engine block are optimized to their limits ( minimize material while producing the same power ), there aren't much room for us to turbo it anymore

Leopold Stotch · 10-21-2010, 03:17 AM

does anyone know why they'd choose to use such small displacements with those turbos?

JoshuaWong · 10-21-2010, 04:48 AM

I remember there used to be an interview with those turbo era driver a while ago and they said they could break traction in the rear wheels going 150mph+ in 5th gear down the straights if they put their down suddenly. Such is the power...

1BADMR2 · 10-21-2010, 06:50 AM

mpr · 10-21-2010, 07:50 AM

Insane!!

honda guys out there. get a 100K mile b18 block in an open junk yard and piss all over it. slap a turbo. 1000+ hp!!

sonick · 10-21-2010, 07:51 AM

Pee > vtak

spyker · 10-21-2010, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpr

Insane!!

honda guys out there. get a 100K mile b18 block in an open junk yard and piss all over it. slap a turbo. 1000+ hp!!

This only applies to cast iron blocks,not aluminum blocks.

spyker · 10-21-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leopold Stotch

does anyone know why they'd choose to use such small displacements with those turbos?

Smaller displacement engines meant the teams could take advantage of the rules.Lighter car with small engine making big power = winning combination.

sonick · 10-21-2010, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leopold Stotch

does anyone know why they'd choose to use such small displacements with those turbos?

Videos said F1 regulations back then limited turbocharged engines to 1.5l, and naturally aspirated engines to 3.0l.

Phil@rise · 10-21-2010, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leopold Stotch

does anyone know why they'd choose to use such small displacements with those turbos?

Because the rules stipulated maximum of 1.5 liters if force fed and 3.0 liters if N/A.
I find i funny that BMW left the blocks outside to weather for a year and were rumoured to piss on em as well. Rolls Royce did the same thing for all their engines road going racing and aircraft.

Mugen EvOlutioN · 10-21-2010, 09:23 AM

tat is crazy

Leopold Stotch · 10-21-2010, 11:24 AM

lol after i wrote my post, i looked at all the engines Joshuawong posted and i was like, okay there's a pattern hahah.

Jackygor · 10-21-2010, 11:48 AM

The F1 video is fawken insane, sparks flying in your face in excess of 100 mph ftw!!

Redlines_Daily · 10-21-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoshuaWong

Here are list of other turbo engines from the monstor turbo era.

* Alfa Romeo V8 1.5 L Turbo, V8 3.0 L, Flat-12 3.0 L and V12 3.0 L
* BMW M12 inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
* BRM H16 3.0 L and V12 3.0 L
* Coventry Climax V8 3.0 L (modified FPE engine; one race in the Shannon F1 car)
* Ferrari V6 1.5 L Turbo, V12 3.0 L and Flat-12 3.0 L
* Ford V6 1.5 L Turbo and V8 3.0 L (derived from the 4.2 L Indy Car engine)
* Ford Cosworth DFV V8 3.0 L and DFY V8 3.0 L
* Hart inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
* Honda V12 3.0 L, V8 3.0 L air-cooled and V6 1.5 L Turbo
* Maserati V12 3.0 L
* Matra V12 3.0 L
* Motori Moderni V6 1.5 Turbo
* Repco V8 3.0 L
* Renault Gordini V8 (never raced) 3.0 L and Gordini V6 1.5 L Turbo
* Serenissima V8 3.0 L
* TAG-Porsche V6 1.5 L Turbo
* Tecno Flat-12 3.0 L
* Weslake V12 3.0 L
* Zakspeed inline-4 1.5 L Turbo

The power range was between 390 hp (290 kW) to 500 hp (370 kW), turbos 500 hp (370 kW) to 900 hp (670 kW) in race, in qualifying up to 1,500 hp (1,120 kW).

Can someone educate me a bit here..why would they make a 3.0L V12? Are there advantages to having the same displacement over more cylinders? Why not a 3.0L V8 or V6..seems to me that it would require less material and less weight. Or is there more reliability when there is less combustion per cylinder?

Jackygor · 10-21-2010, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy_888

Can someone educate me a bit here..why would they make a 3.0L V12? Are there advantages to having the same displacement over more cylinders? Why not a 3.0L V8 or V6..seems to me that it would require less material and less weight. Or is there more reliability when there is less combustion per cylinder?

From what I remember V12 is the best engine configuration in terms of balance.

sonick · 10-21-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackygor

From what I remember V12 is the best engine configuration in terms of balance.

V12 and I6 are the only two standard engines that have perfect primary and secondary harmonic balance -- i.e., the motions withstood by the engine and the crank, as well as the high order derivatives of those motions, are balanced.

On the other hand, An I4 has the greatest harmonic imbalance, and often require balance shafts and other tricks to keep from shaking the engine to pieces.