RE: Ultima GTR
Discussion
Be Careful I also serously looked into the Ultima and the quote that you could build from as little as £15,000 is "Disneyland" figures. I looked at the Ultima in 1996 and even then the 17 stage kit Which contains necessary specialist parts but not the engine, gearbox, etc came to £14,819 + VAT THEN. I spent many hours then working out the bare minimum and came up with a figure of over £30,000 for a very basic model. Hope this is of use.
Smeagol
"the engineering was so superior to that of the Ultima " .Just to kick-start this discussion again, but not to run down the GDT70, if the engineering is so good why did McLaren use the Ultima chassis to test the F1 engine. Couldn't be anything to do with being not dissimilar animals could it? I r m c !!
Edited by Eos Man on Wednesday 18th July 01:02
Could the Ultima GTR accelerate as fast as a formula one race car if we were to bring down the weight of the Ultima GTR from 2100 LBs. to 1600-1700 lbs?
I'm planning to use carbon fiber rims, and transaxle. The engine will be a small block made from aluminum forge heads, ceramic, and carbon fiber (keep weight from 250Lbs or lower).
Approximately 750-900 HP normally aspirated.
With that weight to HP ratio, can the car produce figures like, 0-60 = 2secs, 0-100 = 4 secs, and with a top speed of 255 MPH?
Wing Lee
quote:In theory 0-60 sub 2 sec 0-100 sub 4 sec Top speed dependant on gearing up to about 240mph This takes account of many variables, but is probably a bit optimistic for real world. Sparks
Could the Ultima GTR accelerate as fast as a formula one race car if we were to bring down the weight of the Ultima GTR from 2100 LBs. to 1600-1700 lbs? I'm planning to use carbon fiber rims, and transaxle. The engine will be a small block made from aluminum forge heads, ceramic, and carbon fiber (keep weight from 250Lbs or lower). Approximately 750-900 HP normally aspirated. With that weight to HP ratio, can the car produce figures like, 0-60 = 2secs, 0-100 = 4 secs, and with a top speed of 255 MPH? Wing Lee
**Approximately 750-900 HP normally aspirated.
With that weight to HP ratio, can the car produce figures like, 0-60 = 2secs, 0-100 = 4 secs, and with a top speed of 255 MPH? **
I assume by small block you mean a 6lt Chevy - (don't understand reference to carbon fibre in an engine!).
OK, they are running Restrictors, but in the PI GT race series, GT2 Marcos LM600s using these engines are producing around 550 bhp, so the power outputs you quote are unlikley.
0-60 in 2 seconds - not by a long way.
briano,
Depends on the tuning. F1 engines are 3 litre and push out 800hp+.
Some american racers can push out that sort of power, but you are talking *alot* of money and high revs (like F1).
As an example, the peugeot Mi16 (1.9 litre) engine can be tuned to ~300hp @ ~ 11000rpm.
I think he is optimistic (all my data come from an emulation program, that seems good for everyday cars. email me if you are interested in it.)
Sparks
Sparks,
are there any other recent engines develop in the 21st century that can rev up to 11000-15000 rpm with access hp of 400-550hp?
I've read up on the Peugot M16i engine. 1.6 liter engine produces 160 hp at 6500 rpm. That requires a lot of modification to produce 300 hp NA, and 11000 rpm, difference of 6500 rpm from stock.
quote:Onlooker, Try the sites below. The Mi16 is a 1.9, and would need serious cash to achieve, but it is theoretically possible. On the first link, Dave Andrews has a 2.0 Ford Pinto (4 cylinder) producing 240hp + http://hometown.aol.com/dvandrews/index.htm http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/mainmenu.htm Big horsepower cost money. Sparks Edited by Sparks on Thursday 20th September 11:10
Sparks, are there any other recent engines develop in the 21st century that can rev up to 11000-15000 rpm with access hp of 400-550hp? I've read up on the Peugot M16i engine. 1.6 liter engine produces 160 hp at 6500 rpm. That requires a lot of modification to produce 300 hp NA, and 11000 rpm, difference of 6500 rpm from stock.
I totally agree that it will basically be a race engine, but there was no indication that this wasn't acceptable.
Everything will need strengthening, and it will be a b*tch to drive at low revs.
Having said that, if Dave Andrews can get 240hp from a pinto for road use, bolt two together to get 480hp.
Even better just tune up a small block chevy/ford 500hp is not hugely expensive (I know of a cobra replica which has a ford V8 that was shipped to the U.K ready tuned to 500hp, which cost around £5-6K).
Sparks
Not a NASCAR expert so could be wrong but, I do not believe NASCAR engines run at anything approaching 11,000; surely they are just low tec, big lumps.
For the new (UK) ASCAR series to be run at Rockingham, the Chevy V8s are putting out 565 bhp. I'll go and investigate a NASCAR website but I do not believe these engines will run 800bhp, well not for more than 5 minutes!
Nor I do not see any correlation between these and the output of small high reving engines with low recipricols mass or F1 units.
I've just found a company willing to build a F1 engine for me for 75K. It's a 3 ltr. V10 engine, 2998cc, weighs 116KG, producing 730HP @ 15,250 RPM, and 251 lb. feet of torque.
Everyone has been telling me a engine like this will not last a day. So the question is, how could you make this engine to last awhile, used on a daily basis? The engine will be used lightly with low revs around 5000-6500 rpm each day. 15,250 rpm will most likely be used on the tracks.
Erm, to paraphrase that a little ... key thing is that an engine's torque ends up translated directly into the linear force pushing the car along the road. Force is directly proportional to acceleration (Newton 2nd or 3rd law of motion: Force = mass * acceleration). Low torque => low force => low acceleration. If you know how torque varies over the engine's rev range, then you know all there is to be known about the torque/power characteristics of that engine. Power is (just) proportional to torque * car's speed.
So, if you want to get off the line quickly, you need loads of torque at sensible revs. If you want to be able to accelerate hard at high speeds, then you need an engine that can still produce torque at high revs. If you want to look at it in other terms, the latter condition means the engine must have a high power output.
The Ultima GTR with the 116 KG F1 V10 engine will weigh around 1300-1400. Including the driver, it'll weigh around 1550. IS 251 Lb. Feet of torque and 730 hp enough to propell a 1500 lb car in under 3 seconds? The reason why I prefer having a F1 engine is because it's lighter than chevy engines, if I put in a souped up Chevy engine cranking out 700-800 hp, it'll weigh over 2000 lbs, not including the driver. Although the torque is much higher, isn't that's about the same ratio of a 251 lb feet. torque pushing a 1500 lb car including driver?
onlooker
Feeding details into the emulation program I have, making some assumptions (like fireblade gearing, 45/55 weight dist, your figures are correct, etc)
The car will be capable (in theory, not necessarily practive) a sub 3 sec 0-60 and a sub 5 sec 0-100 and sub 10 sec 1/4 mile.
It will probably be undrivable at road speeds and the life of an F1 engine (at race speed) is about 500 miles.
Why not just go for an ultra light weight (westie, caterham, fury or tiger) with a bike engine?
performance from the tiger is manic 0-60 tested by evo I think is 3.1 sec
Sparks
P.S you have 75K to spend on an engine?
Hi onlooker
If you double the mass (and therefore the weight) of the car, you need to double the torque in order to achieve the same acceleration. So if your car F1 powered car weighs 1500 with torque of 250, then you would need 2000/1500*250 = 333 lb/ft of torque for a car weighing 2000. If the Chevy lump produces more than that, then it will be quicker off the line.
Alright, I'm understanding more and more about torques and hp.
Recently, I've seen F1 figures posted 0-60 in 2 secs, and 0-100 in 4 secs. Are those figures false? If it's true, then there's another problem with the engine being reliable. And yes, I have $75 for the F1 engine. But if you people say I can get the same performance from a bike engine or a chevy engine for a much cheaper price then I minus well go with that.
I've always thought, a light weight car is always better than a heavier car. And since, a car being 1500 lbs packing so much hp, it would probably make a difference. But majority of the people here said torque is worth more than hp? And if you want quicker acceleration off the line and higher top speed, you need more torque?
Alright, so let's take a motorcycle engine for example. I think I've seen a Hayabusa Turbo engine producing 400 hp, cranks out 140 lb feet of torque. That obviously doesn't match the performance of a F1 but is of course reliable. So the question is, are there any motorcycle engine that could match the F1 engine in terms of performance? Or, are there a car engine as light and can produce the performance like a F1 engine?
onlooker,
Take a look at this.
http://www.zcars.org.uk/
it is a lotus 7 style car, with TWO Kawasaki ZX9 engines giving 300hp 150lb ft
0-60 (on slicks) 2.74sec
ultra light weight giving 600bhp per ton. Top end will be low as the aerodynamics are not great.
It gives you an idea of the possibilities.
I personally think you are better staying with a well tuned or blown small block V8.
Alternatively a 2240lb ultima with an 7.9 litre (480ci?)
engine (can-am racer engine) 870 hp 723lbft gives 2.2 0-60 4.5 0-100 9.5 1/4 mile
Why do you need so much performance?
Sparks
Edited by Sparks on Tuesday 25th September 15:24
Gassing Station | Ultima | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff