How long to cool down.
Discussion
unsprung said:
Very interesting.
Obviously such procedures are done in proper facilities with professional kit and all that. But I have to ask: Was it ever fun to do these things? Any amusing anecdotes?
I mean: a much younger me would have jumped at the chance to test an engine beyond all reasonable parameters.
Early prototypes of engines in particular can, and do, let themselves go in spectacular ways. Obviously such procedures are done in proper facilities with professional kit and all that. But I have to ask: Was it ever fun to do these things? Any amusing anecdotes?
I mean: a much younger me would have jumped at the chance to test an engine beyond all reasonable parameters.
The test cell had 2" thick plexiglass on the viewing window. I remember on one occasion a rod ended up embedded in this window. Pistons embedded in the ceiling were also reasonably common. A couple of times I had to hit the extinguisher buttons - on both occasions it was because fuel had leaked and ignited.
Rather than the bare engine itself, I'd say it was more common for the bolt-on parts to fail. Broken manifolds and studs were common (you wouldn't be surprised about this as they often glowed from the heat), as were pulleys/belts/chains disintegrating.
A couple of the engines I dealt with have a reputation for being 'conservatively' rated in terms of power, with plenty of people clutching printouts from chassis dynos showing amazing figures. I can tell you now that not a single one of these engines when I tested them produced anything exceeding 1% variation from the published figures. Who are you going to trust - the OEM's £3m AVL flywheel dyno or the tuner's backstreet chassis dyno?
legless said:
...
A couple of the engines I dealt with have a reputation for being 'conservatively' rated in terms of power, with plenty of people clutching printouts from chassis dynos showing amazing figures. I can tell you now that not a single one of these engines when I tested them produced anything exceeding 1% variation from the published figures. Who are you going to trust - the OEM's £3m AVL flywheel dyno or the tuner's backstreet chassis dyno?
Ever deal with any BMW turbo engines? I know the N54 was always said to be underrated significantly and it always felt quicker than 300hp given the weight it was lugging aroundA couple of the engines I dealt with have a reputation for being 'conservatively' rated in terms of power, with plenty of people clutching printouts from chassis dynos showing amazing figures. I can tell you now that not a single one of these engines when I tested them produced anything exceeding 1% variation from the published figures. Who are you going to trust - the OEM's £3m AVL flywheel dyno or the tuner's backstreet chassis dyno?
legless said:
Early prototypes of engines in particular can, and do, let themselves go in spectacular ways.
The test cell had 2" thick plexiglass on the viewing window. I remember on one occasion a rod ended up embedded in this window. Pistons embedded in the ceiling were also reasonably common. A couple of times I had to hit the extinguisher buttons - on both occasions it was because fuel had leaked and ignited.
Rather than the bare engine itself, I'd say it was more common for the bolt-on parts to fail. Broken manifolds and studs were common (you wouldn't be surprised about this as they often glowed from the heat), as were pulleys/belts/chains disintegrating.
A couple of the engines I dealt with have a reputation for being 'conservatively' rated in terms of power, with plenty of people clutching printouts from chassis dynos showing amazing figures. I can tell you now that not a single one of these engines when I tested them produced anything exceeding 1% variation from the published figures. Who are you going to trust - the OEM's £3m AVL flywheel dyno or the tuner's backstreet chassis dyno?
Outstanding!The test cell had 2" thick plexiglass on the viewing window. I remember on one occasion a rod ended up embedded in this window. Pistons embedded in the ceiling were also reasonably common. A couple of times I had to hit the extinguisher buttons - on both occasions it was because fuel had leaked and ignited.
Rather than the bare engine itself, I'd say it was more common for the bolt-on parts to fail. Broken manifolds and studs were common (you wouldn't be surprised about this as they often glowed from the heat), as were pulleys/belts/chains disintegrating.
A couple of the engines I dealt with have a reputation for being 'conservatively' rated in terms of power, with plenty of people clutching printouts from chassis dynos showing amazing figures. I can tell you now that not a single one of these engines when I tested them produced anything exceeding 1% variation from the published figures. Who are you going to trust - the OEM's £3m AVL flywheel dyno or the tuner's backstreet chassis dyno?
Reads like the introduction to a book, really. Imagine the physics involved when a rod goes into that thick, protective window or a piston is observed hanging from the ceiling.
Reminds me of the many failures experienced by rocket / space programmes in the 50s and 60s.
Also... We are reminded of the human tendency to concoct all sorts of alternative theories -- in this case about engine horsepower. We want so much to believe in good fortune or a certain kind of deceit. We may be modern humans, but our minds at times remain stubbornly bound by the primitive. Thank goodness for science!
Modern engines and modern oils are extremely impressive. I suspect that modest ragging when still cold has little impact, certainly compared to the past.
Tyres and brakes are probably the larger concern when cold.
Plus, most people razzing cars as alluded to above probably will be passing them on within three years so it’s never going to impact them.
Tyres and brakes are probably the larger concern when cold.
Plus, most people razzing cars as alluded to above probably will be passing them on within three years so it’s never going to impact them.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff