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

    • Yes I can see how that would put you off HFM, especially with the price of good quality brake fluid. From what I understand it as you say the BM50 is the standard BMC for a R32 GTR, I must admit I would like to go far a Genuine Nissan BM57, but lack of cash prevents that at present. With the price being so close between the genuine BM50 and BM57 a BM57 New it seems a better choice as you gain that 1/16 bore size with the BM57, I would be interested in how much difference you feel with the BM57 fitted. I am going to take SteveL's advice in the short term and see how much actually comes out of that proportioning valve vent and save up for the Genuine Nissan part. Thanks for clarifying the HFM failure
    • Thanks mate. I just got the post inspection 1/2 done from state roads when the starter motor packed up, either that or the car alarm system is having trouble.  OEM part number 23300-AA112.
    • Hi, I though I was coming to an end in finding a replacement starter motor for a rb25de neo. I came across a starter motor from Taarks and a message below stating: Direct fit. 11 Tooth count. All below part numbers have been superseded to 11 teeth. Can some body shed some light on going from 8 teeth to 11 teeth apart from 36-month / 25,000 km warranty for passenger vehicles to 12 Month Warranty. Compatible with the following Nissan part numbers: 23300-20P00 23300-20P01 23300-20P05 23300-20P10 23300-20P11 23300-AA111 23300-AA112 23300-AA300 23300-08U10 23300-08U11 23300-08U15  
    • Low battery? Maybe check capacity? I know first-hand, on BMWs if your battery drops below 80% capacity, it starts causing strange issues.
    • 8.5 +37 = should fit rear, but I think it'll hit on front. What you want is low 30s/high 20's front, mid 30's rear. That 17" screenshot you posted looks good, I'd run it on my R32 (but that's long dead now). For tyre sizes, my rule of thumb is: 8': 235, 9": 255. But that's just my opinion. Nismo sizes: 18x8.5+35/18x9.5+38 is a good starting point.
×
×
  • Create New...