wat's he smokin?

ok this may be off topic... but read this http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bugatti.htm

and try to give a good reason why this guy makes these claims:

a 1000hp engine needs to put out 16 liters
it takes 4 turbos and 16 cylinders to put out that much power
a 16 liter engine would not be able to run more than 2000rpm
and since when is 250mph "as good as it gets"



on a website like www.howstuffworks.com i think people with slightly higher IQs than monkeys need to be doin the writing...

I believe he is smoking some homegrown Bugatti. :smokin:

:icon16:

He defines horsepower by only how much gas you burn? :eek7:

ok maybe u need 16 liters to have 1000hp at IDLE but come on, a 2.0 liter can have 1000hp with a single turbo

ok this may be off topic... but read this http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bugatti.htm

and try to give a good reason why this guy makes these claims:

a 1000hp engine needs to put out 16 liters
it takes 4 turbos and 16 cylinders to put out that much power
a 16 liter engine would not be able to run more than 2000rpm
and since when is 250mph "as good as it gets"



on a website like www.howstuffworks.com i think people with slightly higher IQs than monkeys need to be doin the writing...

its not a 16 liter engine its only a 8 liter the guy writing the article was saying that if it had a v-8 engine like a normal car then it would need to be a 16 liter engine and that it could only turn about 2000 rpm but since it has a w-16 engine and 4 turbos it's only a 8 liter engine. and 250 mph is as good as it gets for a car coming off the factory then only other car thats close to that is the McLarren which hits like 245 or myabe the supercar but i dont think even that can hit 250.

i know its not a 16l engine, he just said that it NEEDS to have 16 liters to put out 1000hp without the turbos, and thats complete bullshit. it doesnt even need 8 to put out that much with ONE turbo.

In the internal combustion engine power is created by burning gas. So would it be incorrect to define power by how much gas a motor can burn? His calculations are assuming that the motor was naturally aspirated.

Here are his calculations:

1 hp/hour = 2684975 joules, therefor 1000 hp/hour = 2684975000 joules

1 gallon of gasoline contains 132000000 joules of energy

2684975000/132000000 = 20.3407

Therefor, in order to create 1000 hp/hour, one would need to burn 20.3407 gallons of gasoline per hour.

At a stoiciometric ratio (14.7:1), the air needed would work out to 16 liters. Since he was assuming the motor is naturally aspirated, then the displacement of the motor would also need to be 16 liters (assuming 100% volumetric efficiency). Obviously these calculations are very rough, and I personally would not take them as much more than an example. The reason he said this was because he was trying to illustrate why Bugatti turbocharged the motor rather than make a naturally aspirated one.

If you start talking about a turbocharged motor, it completely changes it. Remember, a turbocharger compresses air, so more will fit into the cylinders. If a turbocharger is compressing air to half it's original volume, then it is effectively doubling the motors displacement. An 8 liter motor being fed air at half it's original volume is getting somewhere around the same amount of air a naturally aspirated 16 liter motor with 100% volumetric efficiency would.

In the internal combustion engine power is created by burning gas. So would it be incorrect to define power by how much gas a motor can burn? His calculations are assuming that the motor was naturally aspirated.

Here are his calculations:

1 hp/hour = 2684975 joules, therefor 1000 hp/hour = 2684975000 joules

1 gallon of gasoline contains 132000000 joules of energy

2684975000/132000000 = 20.3407

Therefor, in order to create 1000 hp/hour, one would need to burn 20.3407 gallons of gasoline per hour.

At a stoiciometric ratio (14.7:1), the air needed would work out to 16 liters. Since he was assuming the motor is naturally aspirated, then the displacement of the motor would also need to be 16 liters (assuming 100% volumetric efficiency). Obviously these calculations are very rough, and I personally would not take them as much more than an example. The reason he said this was because he was trying to illustrate why Bugatti turbocharged the motor rather than make a naturally aspirated one.

If you start talking about a turbocharged motor, it completely changes it. Remember, a turbocharger compresses air, so more will fit into the cylinders. If a turbocharger is compressing air to half it's original volume, then it is effectively doubling the motors displacement. An 8 liter motor being fed air at half it's original volume is getting somewhere around the same amount of air a naturally aspirated 16 liter motor with 100% volumetric efficiency would.

NA motors can never suck in 100% of the air to equal volume of the cylinder in time before the valves shut and the engine is ready to compress. (unless FI)

Thats why I say hes wrong. :p

I know that, but it is clear that for the sake of ease he was assuming a volumetric efficiency of 100%. There is no reason to complicate the equation for people who don't understand VE. Besides, in reality where the volumetric efficiency is significantly lower, that would mean that an even larger displacement motor would be needed, since each cylinder would not be entirely full.

then how do n/a engines with less than 8 liters make over 1000hp on pump gas?

1000hp on pump gas? I haven't seen one.