RE: Cosworth's 1000hp 6.5-litre V12: PH Meets
Discussion
Robmarriott said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
In the Carfection video, I think the Head engineer says they took a 4 cylinder block? but just used 3 cylinders. Given its Cosworth I suspect they might have used that 4 cylinder engine they developed a while back for that Jag CX-75, the one that had like 500hp and a 10,000rpm red line?
I'm not sure it would have been as that was a 1.6 so the capacity doesn't add up unless they substantially re-engineered it for a test engine, a 3 cylinder version would have been 1.2 litres and would have made a V12 of 4.8 litres.Cosworth must have a 2.2 ish litre 4 cylinder with 330bhp or so (if it revs to 11k obviously) that nobody knows about...
morgs_ said:
Maldini35 said:
Mr-B said:
E65Ross said:
Mr-B said:
What a masterpiece! Probably one of the last of it's kind. What a swansong though.
I wonder if Merc are just a very tiny bit concerned that they opted to go with F1 technology (and crap sound) for their engine? Round 1 to AM.
I very much doubt they're concerned, aren't they all sold? I wonder if Merc are just a very tiny bit concerned that they opted to go with F1 technology (and crap sound) for their engine? Round 1 to AM.
Not sure many Merc Project One owners could physically climb into a Valkyrie.
Different strokes etc.
Both will be sensational.
Max_Torque said:
Good to see a bit of Marketing bolleux has crept in mind:
Another way to look at it is that the Cosworth engine is >50kg lighter and >400bhp up on the BMW S70/2 in the back of the McLaren F1 road car.media.astonmartin.com said:
The result is an engine that weighs just 206kg. By way of comparison, Cosworth’s 3.0 litre V10 F1TM engines (the last before weight limits were imposed by the FIA) weighed 97Kg. If scaled-up to 6.5 litres this pure race engine would weigh 210kg.
Gotta give the Marketers something to do eh..... ;-)Lambo FirstBlood said:
Not sure it’s as much as that. Isn’t it 1000 bhp including the electric assistance?
It’s no less impressive though.
It was dnyo'd at 1000hp (986bhp) in N/A form, the hybrid hardware has yet to be added. It would be something in the region of 1130bhp eventually, once the ERS kit is added (batteries from Rimac IIRC).It’s no less impressive though.
BVB said:
The 62000 mile durability is disappointing though. They should have aimed higher, LaFerrari. Not gone for the relative timebomb engine concept like the Mercedes Project One.
F140 in LaFerrari is approx 800hp at 9,000rpm.This creation from Cosworth is 1,000hp at 11,000+ rpm.
That's an enormous increase in component velocity. Centrifugal force alone increases with the square of speed. 9,000 to 11,000 rpm is almost a 50% increase in centrifugal force.
To achieve 62,000 miles is a monumental triumph in my books.
DuncB7 said:
To achieve 62,000 miles is a monumental triumph in my books.
The extremes of low weight, natural aspiration, high specific output and high revs make a 62,000 mile lifespan technically impressive, especially if it's going to travel between tracks in a lorry - but doesn't entirely make sense to me as a road car solution. I suppose that it needs to be road legal so that Arabs can drive it round London, but these kind of extremes make more sense to me in a Zonda R / FXX context.CraigyMc said:
Max_Torque said:
Good to see a bit of Marketing bolleux has crept in mind:
Another way to look at it is that the Cosworth engine is >50kg lighter and >400bhp up on the BMW S70/2 in the back of the McLaren F1 road car.media.astonmartin.com said:
The result is an engine that weighs just 206kg. By way of comparison, Cosworth’s 3.0 litre V10 F1TM engines (the last before weight limits were imposed by the FIA) weighed 97Kg. If scaled-up to 6.5 litres this pure race engine would weigh 210kg.
Gotta give the Marketers something to do eh..... ;-)1) based on a road car engine, and really, very little was modified. Even by the standards of the time it had conventional rotating components and decent, but conventional heads, and operated at sensible revs and bhp/litre
2) was designed the best part of 30 years ago now
For reference, a pukka V10 F1 engine, with an engine capacity of 3.0 litres made a peak of 943 bhp (highest i ever saw at just under 20krpm) and before most of the really trick materials got banned, weighed less than 85kg! This new engine is not even in the same league, although of course it does have some emissions compliance (how much no-one has actually said....) and is allegedly capable of a reasonable amount of miles before rebuild (although i note that here, what their accelerated durab test don't do is simulate a lot of short journeys, including the warm up phase, which can be the downfall of highly stressed engines. For example, a 150kmile production car engine will do a 180 hr HST (peak power continuous for 180 hrs) a 600 hr CDC (varied load and speeds) and a horrible load of really nasty tests like thermal shock, where the engine is chilled to -30degC, started, and immediately taken to WOT peak power and that is repeated till it breaks! It's very unlikely this new engine would pass that sort of abuse test (but their is a good argument that it shouldn't have too, as probably no one is going to do an "outside a hotel in Scandinavia overnight start then rag it" type affair)
E65Ross said:
fblm said:
Spiritual successor to the F1 shaping up rather nicely!
This is definitely NOT a spiritual successor to the McLaren F1. The F1 was a road car first and foremost, before a track car. This is a track car which can be used on the road.I have become immune to the seemingly weekly super/hyper car releases and have started to ignore them as irrelevant and boring.
So I only really stumbled into reading about this car and engine.
But it really seems like this will be some sort of F1, F40 watershed who's overall philosophy and performance will move things on to a new standard.
So I only really stumbled into reading about this car and engine.
But it really seems like this will be some sort of F1, F40 watershed who's overall philosophy and performance will move things on to a new standard.
NFC 85 Vette said:
tertius said:
Can anyone explain why moving the "cog driven camshafts ... to the rear of the engine rather than the front" will make a difference to the noise that they create?
It's not so much the noise they make directly (though there is some audible noise), it's more the vibration, that in close proximity to the rear of the cockpit tub, would transmit through it - while it's good to feel a connection to the engine, it's another thing to have the geardrive feel like it's chewing through the back of the cabin.ETA; it's likely a quirk of the packaging requirements imposed by a certain Mr. Newey. Genius he certainly is, but he likes to keep everything packaged so tightly for aero reasons - something that other manufacturers probably just allow more room behind the firewall for a regular camdrive setup to dissipate.
Edited by NFC 85 Vette on Thursday 13th December 09:55
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff