RE: German Supercar Aims For 2800hp

RE: German Supercar Aims For 2800hp

Author
Discussion

Robmarriott

2,641 posts

159 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
From their website -

Tyres Front/Rear
Pirelli PZero 325/20R21 | 400/15R22

what an odd size on the rear... I've never come across a road tyre which doesn't have a section width ending with a 5?


Du1point8

21,612 posts

193 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
wonder if its updated version of a rotary engine, but its NOT a rotary engine, like this one:

http://www.smith-power.com/r12

It has only 19 moving parts

http://www.performanceboats.com/pb-open-water/8235...

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/general-boating...

Maybe they found a weigh for it not to be 400kg in wieght

Rocksteadyeddie

7,971 posts

228 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
Crusoe said:
Already 4 rotor convertions for 1.3lr mazda that run over 1000bhp with big turbos, and the N/A Mazda race engines were making about 750bhp for 2.6l. Adding some turbos to the race spec engine could make the power they claim [though not get anywhere near putting the power to the road for the figures] they are after, though expect to stop at every garage you pass for fuel.

Four rotor wankel sound rather fantastic too.
http://vimeo.com/13278462
That sounds mental!

Maldini35

2,913 posts

189 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
Looks like somebody's 11 year old got busy on the keyboard in a 'bring your kids to work' day.


VR6 Turbo

2,227 posts

155 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
Web Design students Project. the website that is. the rest is his or her wee fantasy car.

anonymous-user

55 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
Like all of these Mickey Mouse projects, what they fail to grasp (usually to their ultimate cost) is that the "headline numbers" are not actually the difficult bit! Loads of power = easy, massive acceleration = easy, Huge top speed = easy. No, the really difficult bits are the much more mundane day to day things, likes doors that close properly, windscreen wipers that work, getting good cabin NVH, managing cabin HVAC, etc etc. And that's before you even get to stuff like crash performance, durability, or dealer network support etc etc.


The reason say a 911 GT3 is such a good car is mainly because it is a full working, practical and well engineered vehicle in the first place, the "performance" aspect is actually not hard to add once you have those first bits sorted.


Dazed & Confused

202 posts

205 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
I'm sure at least some fo the car will be doing 250mph after 4.8 seconds.

I'm thinking a rotor. Straight up. Through the bonnet.

Fresh_Clip

197 posts

195 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
Imagine the gearbox you're going to have to put behind a 2megawatt rotary! It will weigh as much as a small car itself.

Another thing too, the exhausts will have to be made of inconel all the way. The heat produced by this vapour car would melt anything else. Think about it, gasoline engines are roughly 18 to 20% efficient so the waste heat from this will be about 8MW or whatever that is in joules per second....

April 1st is either very late or very early.

Kazlet

278 posts

172 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Crusoe said:
Already 4 rotor convertions for 1.3lr mazda that run over 1000bhp with big turbos, and the N/A Mazda race engines were making about 750bhp for 2.6l. Adding some turbos to the race spec engine could make the power they claim [though not get anywhere near putting the power to the road for the figures] they are after, though expect to stop at every garage you pass for fuel.

Four rotor wankel sound rather fantastic too.
http://vimeo.com/13278462
That sounds mental!
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.

cookie1600

2,120 posts

162 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
spud989 said:
There's more chance of the Queen fellating Colonel Gaddafi in the Big Brother house than this happening.
So you know he's in there then? Is he one of Jedward?
What they don't tell you is, this is going to be front wheel drive........

Mr Gearchange

5,892 posts

207 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
The Article said:
Rotary Supercars also reckons on creating a 2800hp, 2580lb ft version with a 5.2-litre, quad-turbo eight-rotor engine. Performance for that? How about 0-62mph in 0.9secs and 0-250mph in 4.8secs?'

cookie1600

2,120 posts

162 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
Here we go, a bit more info from last year:



It will be offered in GT S, RS, RSR and N-Spec versions, all powered by a Mazda 13B MSP, high-performance engine with four rotors (4-Rotor rotary engine) and, depending on the model, a water-to-air intercooled turbo or biturbo system. Output ranges from 500 HP to 1200 HP for the high performance version. The engine is mated to a sequential 8-speed RSC R-SHIFT transmission controlled by a hydraulic shift system with shift times of 25-35 milliseconds.

Depending on the model, the body is of 80% glass fiber or carbon fiber and differs in details in the form and aerodynamics. The interior will get two 7" full-graphic-Diyplays, high-quality materials like carbon fiber, brushed aluminum and various types of leather

The RSC Raptor ™ GT S, RS, RSR and N-Spec does not have a conventional drive system as used in most of today’s super sports cars. He has a self-developed and heavily modified, based on parts of the Mazda 13B MSP, high-performance engine with four rotors (4-Rotor rotary engine) and, depending on the model, a water-to-air intercooled turbo or biturbo system. This engine is the heart of the RSC Raptor GT™ and gives him his very special temperament. The power output of a rotary engine uniformly grows with increasing rpm. The high-performance engine in the RSC Raptor GT™ has the redline set depending on the selected driving mode, up to 7,500 rpm or 9000 rpm. The fuel E85 is used, which is produced from rapeseed. By using this fuel to reduce the emissions by about 90% is feasible.

The sequential 8-speed RSC R-SHIFT transmission in the RSC Raptor GT™ is controlled by a hydraulic shift system with shift times of 25-35 milliseconds. Furthermore, each RSC Raptor GT™ has a carbon-aluminum drive shaft, and an electronically controlled rear axle differential.

The powertrain is controlled by an engine management system, specifically developed from Bosch Engineering GmbH for the RSC Raptor GT™, including a complete electronic system consisting of ESP, ABS, EBD, VAS, R-TRAC (traction control), R-DIFF (electronic differential) and a Launch Control. The RSC Raptor GT™ RSR and N-Spec also has an active suspension. All electronic systems can be easily operated via the buttons on the steering wheel.



Edited by cookie1600 on Tuesday 30th August 14:02

rpguk

4,465 posts

285 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
I'm always a bit disappointed when I see these stories crop up in PH. Do the editors carry out any filtering of the press releases or is it just a case of get as much content up regardless of quality?

y2blade

56,122 posts

216 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
shout KTC pure butter ghee

smile

cookie1600

2,120 posts

162 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all

Robmarriott

2,641 posts

159 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
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.
That's the equivalent (on the 2800bhp "5.2 litre" car) of a 360ish bhp 2 litre engine.

That's why wankel engines are so good at making big numbers, people don't use the correct maths!

scubadude

2,618 posts

198 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
Bonkers, at that power output other forms of propulsion would be far more sensible (gas turbine, pure jet or rocket) and only a thrust propelled car would do that performance on road tyres :-)

0-62 in 0.9sec.... you could literally loose your license on any road in a single second!

RudeDog

1,652 posts

175 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
Those performance figures on the website are just made up

0.9s to 100kmph
2.7s to 200kmph

fair enough, I can understand the second 100kmph taking longer than the first 100kmph, its like that with most cars but look at latter set of figures...

4.8s to 400kmph
6.1s to 500kmph
7.0s to 600kmph

so it takes 1.3s to go from 400 to 500kmph but only 0.9s to go from 500 to 600kmph.

I can't wait to see what Tom Ford thinks of it on Fifth Gear rolleyes

Rocksteadyeddie

7,971 posts

228 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
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.
thumbup I didn't know that. Explains why the fuel consumption is such garbage though.

ZeeTacoe

5,444 posts

223 months

Tuesday 30th August 2011
quotequote all
It makes you wonder how they are going to feed in enough apex seals per second for 2800hp.