RE: German Supercar Aims For 2800hp
Discussion
luke g28 said:
Kazlet said:
Dont forget that the bizarre way Mazda seem to think they can rate their engine the 1.3Ltr actually sucks in and burns 3.9Ltr of air and fule every revolution of the rotor.
This means the "2.6Ltr" race motor is actually over 7.8Ltr which make the performance look 'unsuprising' which is probably why they like to 'suggest' its so much smaller than it really is.
Once you start adding turbos you can have any power you want...within reason obviously.
You cant really measure it that way either.This means the "2.6Ltr" race motor is actually over 7.8Ltr which make the performance look 'unsuprising' which is probably why they like to 'suggest' its so much smaller than it really is.
Once you start adding turbos you can have any power you want...within reason obviously.
Unless you want to quote engine size at a particular atmos pressure, RPM and BHP output. Its fairly obvious that the engine size will not change after a remap yet your car will likely use more air / fuel. Or by bolting a turbo on, you will not increase the engine size yet loads more air and fuel will be used.
The physical size of the engine will not change when the efficiency of the burn is changed.
IIRC mazda have filled one of their rotor chambers (?) with liquid and quoted that as the displacement, i.e. the volume of the engine.
You are confusing volumetric efficiency with capacity, one changes the other doesnt.
Mazda quote the volume of one chamber on each rotor they ignor the other two!!!
Its the same as only quoting the capacity of two cylinders on a V6.
JontyR said:
My evidence is based on the say of a company we work with confirming its existence. They were saying it was in its 3rd iteration, and thus far the testing is proving good!
I suppose I'll have to ask our Bosch engineer then whether they really are doing the ESP application then! And as for this so called testing.....I certainly haven't seen it at any of the industry proving grounds, and it's interesting that they've resorted to photoshopping a Ferrari GTO development car to look a little bit like the proposed design.Which company is it you work with out of interest?
marcosgt said:
luke g28 said:
Kazlet said:
Dont forget that the bizarre way Mazda seem to think they can rate their engine the 1.3Ltr actually sucks in and burns 3.9Ltr of air and fule every revolution of the rotor.
This means the "2.6Ltr" race motor is actually over 7.8Ltr which make the performance look 'unsuprising' which is probably why they like to 'suggest' its so much smaller than it really is.
Once you start adding turbos you can have any power you want...within reason obviously.
You cant really measure it that way either.This means the "2.6Ltr" race motor is actually over 7.8Ltr which make the performance look 'unsuprising' which is probably why they like to 'suggest' its so much smaller than it really is.
Once you start adding turbos you can have any power you want...within reason obviously.
Unless you want to quote engine size at a particular atmos pressure, RPM and BHP output. Its fairly obvious that the engine size will not change after a remap yet your car will likely use more air / fuel. Or by bolting a turbo on, you will not increase the engine size yet loads more air and fuel will be used.
IIRC mazda have filled one of their rotor chambers (?) with liquid and quoted that as the displacement, i.e. the volume of the engine.
Each rotor chamber is 650cc so the two rotor engine is 1300cc and the 4 raced at Le Mans was a 2600cc (or 5200cc in 'real' terms).
This project does smack of 'back of a keller bier map calculation' special though!
M
Robmarriott said:
actually on a remapped naturally aspirated car, unless it's a Mini One (when the throttle opens more to 100% not 60% or whatever it is), you won't be using more air. More fuel yes, but more air would be impossible unless the remap affected swept volume of the cylinders.
[edit] unless you know differently of course, in which case, feel free to enlighten me how an engine can suck in more air after a software change affecting injector pulse timing/duration
Why does it have to be naturally aspirated? Pretty sure I didnt state that? In which case up the boost and you up the air but you do not change the chamber size. You will also be using less air the higher your altitude yet your engine size will not change will it.[edit] unless you know differently of course, in which case, feel free to enlighten me how an engine can suck in more air after a software change affecting injector pulse timing/duration
Edited by Robmarriott on Tuesday 30th August 14:45
If you fit a bigger throttle body / intake pipe does your engine size change? If you fit a less restrictive exhaust does your engine size change?
Seriously?
cookie1600 said:
OK, everybody rest easy - it's just a marketing stunt to try and get someone to put some money in:
emissionslos.com: What return can investors expect?
Moritz Benner: In addition to a very high return on success,
oh yeah, niche low volume car manufacturing, investors always do so well*** out of those schemes.............. ;-)emissionslos.com: What return can investors expect?
Moritz Benner: In addition to a very high return on success,
- * assuming that the deffiniton of "well" is starting with a huge pile of cash and finishing with none, and often less than that ;-)
t_icon972.jpg'/>ArosaMike said:
Their press release claims they're getting Bosch Engineering to do their ESP application. This is indeed the correct company to do that job and it just so happens that I work with a number of the Bosch ESP development engineers so I shall fire an email to one of them tomorrow and ask the question as to whether there's any truth in this. I'm sure they'll be interested to know if their name is being linked to something if it's made up!
I'll report back!
I'll report back!
Please do. 
Olivera said:
According to their website it does 0-500 km/h (0-311mph) in less than 6.1 seconds.
I am laughing just as much as anyone else here at this load of tripe.Just one thing: A top fuel dragster can actually do that, so it's not beyond physics.
8000bhp on nitromethanol with mahoosive expanding rear tyres. The current digger record for 0-1000ft (they don't run quarter miles any more, because of safety bulls
t) is 3.77s with a trap speed of just over 310mph.Here's an example video - have you ever seen anything move like that before? I haven't! -
http://youtu.be/64BCcNyAvxU
C
oli777uk said:
I think we missed an important piece of err...information...
The reason for the galactic performance is due to the fact that the car is made out of material previously unknown to man and incredibly light. This must be true as the kerb weight is apparently 1.350 kilograms!
that's ze germans and the stupid way they transpose "." and "," when writing numbersThe reason for the galactic performance is due to the fact that the car is made out of material previously unknown to man and incredibly light. This must be true as the kerb weight is apparently 1.350 kilograms!
900T-R said:
Which is also true for the rest of the world that doesn't speak English as a first language...
proof you are wrong Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff