http://blog.so-net.ne.jp/_images/blog/sweet16works/1998295.jpg


http://blog.gtroc.com/dino/Honda-CH-213.jpg




Beauty, eh?

Those ITBs on top look amazing, just amazing.

Do you have any more information on this other then just a picture?

yeah, it's the Engine found in the Mclaren Honda..

You know the Honda that won F1..
Driven by Ayrton Senna RIP

Those ITBs on top look amazing, just amazing.

Do you have any more information on this other then just a picture?

650 HP at 11000 RPM.

-

Very cool. I'd love to rev that thing up:twisted:

nice .. seems like old engine .

Cut it in half, your'll see their blood :p

Hello, C-series.

Cheeky is right. You chop that in half and you've got the NSX engine.

Look how small that clutch/flywheel package is.

looks beautiful. I'd love to take that beauty on a track and rev it up. that'd be fun.

650 HP at 11000 RPM.

-
__________________

now, that's a lot of horspower!
that engine looks great, also very big.
nice find anyway.

Yeah, it's a beautiful engine. It was used in F1 cars in the 1990s, it was also very reliable too. But this engine is kinda umm, less modern than the ones used in F1 cars now. The V8 used in F1 cars today produce more power, yet it's smaller, has less cylinders and can rev up to 21,000rpm without a rev limiter.:)

I'm pretty sure the highest revving V8 in Formula One was a Cosworth motor that would rev to 20,002 RPM. ^^^

I think it was bench tested to get up to 22k rpm (I'm assuming that was a typo), but it was never actually used to its full extent in any official session.

This was obviously due to that team not wanting their engines to blow catastrophically during the race (which is quite funny, considering that the FW28 was an unreliable mess, with most of its failures due to events OTHER than the engine. Webber's exhaust problem whilst running an immensely competitive 3rd springs to mind :()

i love those ITB's! What's it's displacement?

At the time, FIA regulations stipulated a maximum displacement of 3.5L, with no restrictions on engine layout.

They should have had them rev up to like...22,000rpm and make 1200hp. That would be sick.

^Late 1980's, Williams qualified with a 1.3l turbocharged unit pushing 1500bhp. Now that's sick.

For the Honda, beautiful engine, beautiful performance.

1.3L? wow I was pretty sure they were at least 1.5L engines:eek:

^Late 1980's, Williams qualified with a 1.3l turbocharged unit pushing 1500bhp. Now that's sick.

For the Honda, beautiful engine, beautiful performance.

Woah. I remember reading about Benetton using a 1500bhp 1.5-litre turbocharged engine, but not Williams' 1.3-litre with 1500bhp! Man, that's TOTAL madness. 1154bhp (1153.8 to be more exact) per litre... Oh my lord, brb I'm going to be sick!

If that could be achieved in the '80's, then what can be achieved nowadays?!

A 4000bhp 1.3 sounds realistic. Not sure it'd be too reliable, though...

It might have been a 1.5l or a 1.6, it was a long time ago I read about that though, but still, that's a HELL of a lot of bhp per litre, it makes you crap your pants just about thinking about it.

The reason why it was achieved was because it was in qualifying trim, not race trim. A 1500bhp output from such a small displacement engine would be impossible to run for a whole race distance.

Regulations back then were so much more slick, hate to say it but 4000bhp nowadays, in race trim, with all these regulations, is pretty much impossible, but we can all dream! :)

It might have been a 1.5l or a 1.6, it was a long time ago I read about that though, but still, that's a HELL of a lot of bhp per litre, it makes you crap your pants just about thinking about it.

The reason why it was achieved was because it was in qualifying trim, not race trim. A 1500bhp output from such a small displacement engine would be impossible to run for a whole race distance.

Regulations back then were so much more slick, hate to say it but 4000bhp nowadays, in race trim, with all these regulations, is pretty much impossible, but we can all dream! :)

Haha, obviously it's impossible with regulations! Duhh :p.

I meant with no regulations! Twincharged 3.0 V10's... Now I LOVE the sound of that...

^Ah well, I'm sure with the right amount of time, resources and money, a 4000bhp 1.3l could be produced....only run a few laps of an F1 track though. :p

Woah. I remember reading about Benetton using a 1500bhp 1.5-litre turbocharged engine, but not Williams' 1.3-litre with 1500bhp! Man, that's TOTAL madness. 1154bhp (1153.8 to be more exact) per litre... Oh my lord, brb I'm going to be sick!

If that could be achieved in the '80's, then what can be achieved nowadays?!

A 4000bhp 1.3 sounds realistic. Not sure it'd be too reliable, though...
1154hp/L is more than a top fuel dragster. :eek:

1154hp/L is more than a top fuel dragster. :eek:

That's amazing...

Hey, what's the bhp/l of a fighter jet? Do they even have a designated displacement? :-k

'Cause I bet that's crazily high if they do... they have like 250,000bhp!

Fighter jet engines aren't measured in HP but in pounds thrust. And they dont have a displacement either. It doesnt even have cilinders.

And that 1500Hp configuration of F1 engines was used only for qualifcation, they'd drop the boost to give it around 1100-1200Hp for a race.

It might have been a 1.5l or a 1.6...

The lowest displacement allowed in an F1 engine was 1.5L. They ranged from V8's to in-line 4 during the Turbo era.

Also, as CarRocker mentioned, the output of 1500bhp was in qualifying only, but they cut back considerable during the race to about 900bhp. I'm guessing that was the absolute limit that the engines could take for a whole race.

Well, in that case the top fuel dragsters remain undefeated. I'm actually pretty sure they have a slight bit more than 8,000 hp.

Fighter jet engines aren't measured in HP but in pounds thrust. And they dont have a displacement either. It doesnt even have cilinders.

Yeah they are sometimes. I've seen bhp figures for fighter jets on many occasions! I know they don't have cylinders (do you think I'm stupid :p) but I was wondering if there's any kind of displacement that's designated to jet engines. A rotory engine doesn't have a cylinder, but that's got a displacement...

I know the Thrust SSC jet car had 100,000 hp....so I guess there is way to measure horsepower on jet engines...or at least convert thrust to horsepower.

I know the Thrust SSC jet car had 100,000 hp....so I guess there is way to measure horsepower on jet engines...or at least convert thrust to horsepower.

Yeah. Horsepower is a simple measurement; it's how many average horses it would take to make the same power. So for example, 60bhp would take 60 'average' horses (an 'average' horse does 33,000 foot-pounds of work per minute) to make the same power, and so on. Can't be all that hard to work it out for a jet engine, can it really? Brake horsepower (bhp) is the same concept, apart from how many 'average' horses it'd take to stop the vehicle in question from moving, and therefore again, make the same power (make the same amount of energy to balance both forces). Bhp/hp... Same thing.

EDIT: why did I just tell you something you probably already know? :|

Horsepower has nothing to do with horses. I highly doubt that a horse has only 1 horsepower. I have a 5.5Hp lawnmower and I don't think it would be physically "stronger" than a horse.

^The original definition of horsepower did have to dow with horses, as they were the main method of transportation before the automobile. Why do you think it's called horsepower?

To me recollection, frewin's definition is pretty much right.

As for jet engines, they produce power, or thrust, in this case, in pretty much the same way as the internal combustion engine (ICE) does. The air is compressed, a fuel is added, the mixture is combusted, and the exhaust goes out.

However, the structure of the engine is different. In an ICE, the air is compressed through the use of a moving piston, and the resulting spark causes the piston to move down, and then up, expelling the exhaust gasses. The movement of the piston ultimately causes the motion of the vehicle.

In a jet engine, the air is expelled into the engine via a large fan at the front. The air then goes through a number of compressor fans that compress the air. The passage in which the air travels in also gets narrower, further compressing the air. When the air gets to the combustion chamber, the air is sprayed with fuel, and a spark is introduced, causing combustion. The exhaust gases are expelled out the other end of the engine, and it is this motion of gas that causes forward thrust.

How? Well, in physics, Newton's 3rd law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, the outward expulsion of gases in turn pushes on the object that the engine is connected to, causing a forward motion.

Therefore, as you can see, there are no moving parts to cause a displacement, and as a result, jet engines do not have one. Instead, power is measured in pounds of thrust (lbs, or pund-force), or Newtons (N).

Hope that made sense :D

Horsepower has nothing to do with horses. I highly doubt that a horse has only 1 horsepower. I have a 5.5Hp lawnmower and I don't think it would be physically "stronger" than a horse.

Yes it does. It's how much word is done per mintute (how much energy is made and how fast it's made), compared to the 'average' horse, which can do an average of 33,000 foot-pounds of work per minute.

Physically strong, perhaps not; that's to do with torque. But if you're talking about the amount of work it can do (energy it can create) per minute, you'd be surprised.

^The original definition of horsepower did have to dow with horses, as they were the main method of transportation before the automobile. Why do you think it's called horsepower?

To me recollection, frewin's definition is pretty much right.

As for jet engines, they produce power, or thrust, in this case, in pretty much the same way as the internal combustion engine (ICE) does. The air is compressed, a fuel is added, the mixture is combusted, and the exhaust goes out.

However, the structure of the engine is different. In an ICE, the air is compressed through the use of a moving piston, and the resulting spark causes the piston to move down, and then up, expelling the exhaust gasses. The movement of the piston ultimately causes the motion of the vehicle.

In a jet engine, the air is expelled into the engine via a large fan at the front. The air then goes through a number of compressor fans that compress the air. The passage in which the air travels in also gets narrower, further compressing the air. When the air gets to the combustion chamber, the air is sprayed with fuel, and a spark is introduced, causing combustion. The exhaust gases are expelled out the other end of the engine, and it is this motion of gas that causes forward thrust.

How? Well, in physics, Newton's 3rd law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, the outward expulsion of gases in turn pushes on the object that the engine is connected to, causing a forward motion.

Therefore, as you can see, there are no moving parts to cause a displacement, and as a result, jet engines do not have one. Instead, power is measured in pounds of thrust (lbs, or pund-force), or Newtons (N).

Hope that made sense :D

Yep. I've forgot the man who created the unit horsepower, but it was in like the 18th century...

Oh right, I see. I'm sure it could be converted to horsepower, though? Also, like a piston-powered combustion engine is rated in cubic capacity (cc), what are jet engines measured in? :-k

Those ITBs on top look amazing, just amazing.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. Impressive pics. Very impressive.

Yes it does. It's how much word is done per mintute (how much energy is made and how fast it's made), compared to the 'average' horse, which can do an average of 33,000 foot-pounds of work per minute.

Physically strong, perhaps not; that's to do with torque. But if you're talking about the amount of work it can do (energy it can create) per minute, you'd be surprised.




Maybe you are right about the horsepower. I was sort of thinking about torque. I think as a rule, most animals have a lot more torque than horsepower. I mean, people can't really run that fast considering how strong our legs are.

Oh right, I see. I'm sure it could be converted to horsepower, though? Also, like a piston-powered combustion engine is rated in cubic capacity (cc), what are jet engines measured in? :-k

Well, you can and you can't. Because Thrust and Horsepower are allocated with different units (one being a stand alone force, the other being the relationship of a force and its velocity), there is no simple conversion factor that can be applied.

I think this website explains it well enough : http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0195.shtml

Jet engines aren't measured in anything. The reason why piston engines have a displacement/cubic capacity is because of the fact that you have a piston moving within a chamber in order to create power. This is important as the size of this chamber is a large factor in the characteristics of the engine.

In jet engines, there are no such systems (I.e. there are no pistons or moving objects that create a displacement (which is why it's called the displacement, as all the pistons piston displace/move a certain amount in the cylinders)), so they aren't measured in anything like that. The only thing that is universally measured is the output thrust.

The early '90s were great engine era for F1.

1992 Renault V10, perhaps the best V10 ever, at 760 HP.

1992 Honda V12: 700 HP.

and my favorite...

the 1995 Ferrari V12, last V12 ever in F1, and it was a joy to hear it scream..... Sadly, today's engines cannot even hold a candle to those outstanding engines, the 1995 Ferrari 412 V12 engine is the best of the best in terms of sound noise!

The early '90s were great engine era for F1.

1992 Renault V10, perhaps the best V10 ever, at 760 HP.

1992 Honda V12: 700 HP.

and my favorite...

the 1995 Ferrari V12, last V12 ever in F1, and it was a joy to hear it scream..... Sadly, today's engines cannot even hold a candle to those outstanding engines, the 1995 Ferrari 412 V12 engine is the best of the best in terms of sound noise!

Why's that? The last used 3.0 V10's (before the V8's were introduced) were pumping out 900+bhp...

I should have been more clearer.

At the time, 1992, it was the best of the best, along with that fantanstic Williams FW14B and 15C....

I think the engine for 1992 and 1993 won some 27 races. I will have to check on that.