Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

all the old land speed record holders had massive engines. i know one was 18L and i think another was 22L, and they were only putting out much less than 1000hp. there was the sunbeam that was the 18L one. it was a v12 putting out about 350hp. that's the main one i remember.

i also remember seeing something on a show years and years ago about some sports car in the 20's i think it was that was had a supercharger that used to kick in like a turbo and because the tyres were so skinny and crappy it would about spin the car around because it nearly doubled the power in a very short period of time. it kicked in at somewhat high rpm so you were travelling at speed when it kicked in.

i also have somewhere some info on an old bugatti or bentley (can't remember which but it started with B and was from the early 1900's) and it had a straight 16 engine.

I'd be interested to see how fast it would go on the salt flats.

It's got enough torque to pull a stonehenge megolith up a mountain.

Anyway it must be mad to drive because of the lack of grip, brakes, and total mechanicalness of it...that and the insane torque.

I'd be interested to see how fast it would go on the salt flats.

It's got enough torque to pull a stonehenge megolith up a mountain.

Anyway it must be mad to drive because of the lack of grip, brakes, and total mechanicalness of it...that and the insane torque.

top speed is quoted at 168mph. very low revs and high weight would slow it down a bit. i really don't think the torque would be too much of an issue though. sure it only has small tyres, but heavy weight over small tyres can actually increase the grip. plus i doubt the engines are that responsive. if you were to simply stop the accelerator i doubt it would simply fry the tyres like on a modern high powered car. also the gearing would be pretty tall (once you take into account tyre size).

Unfortunately, the article is wrong. It is not a V12, it's actually a straight 12cylinder.

If you look at the picture, there are 12 exhausts on the side of the motor. If it was a V12, then there would be only 6 exhausts on the side of the motor facing the camera.

:D

Unfortunately, the article is wrong. It is not a V12, it's actually a straight 12cylinder.

If you look at the picture, there are 12 exhausts on the side of the motor. If it was a V12, then there would be only 6 exhausts on the side of the motor facing the camera.

:D

Nope, its def a V12. The old packard boat engines have 24 exhaust pipes, 12 on each side. They also run in the opposite direction to road car engines (same as aircraft engines) so that lumbering behelmoth must have a primary gearbox hidden in it somewhere as well. Awesome engineering.

Packard-Bentley-7_1789468i.jpg

awesome vid of the road test - http://www.telegraph...ed-Bentley.html

Nope, its def a V12. The old packard boat engines have 24 exhaust pipes, 12 on each side. They also run in the opposite direction to road car engines (same as aircraft engines) so that lumbering behelmoth must have a primary gearbox hidden in it somewhere as well. Awesome engineering.

Packard-Bentley-7_1789468i.jpg

awesome vid of the road test - http://www.telegraph...ed-Bentley.html

nah it says that have the bently speed 6 rear end in it, reversed. so they probably have the diff (or at least the internals) in upside down to get it to run the other way.

and yeah, it says in the story that it has 24 exhaust pipes. second line of the second paragraph.

top speed is quoted at 168mph. very low revs and high weight would slow it down a bit. i really don't think the torque would be too much of an issue though. sure it only has small tyres, but heavy weight over small tyres can actually increase the grip. plus i doubt the engines are that responsive. if you were to simply stop the accelerator i doubt it would simply fry the tyres like on a modern high powered car. also the gearing would be pretty tall (once you take into account tyre size).

I'd imagine the top speed is limited by the effective final drive ratio rather than power.

No that I'd feel especially safe doing 200 mph in that car LOL.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...