Wow. I saw pics of this when it was being built, but I never heard the results....until now. I've underlined the "wow" factor and notable tidbits. :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.
For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

The internals of this engine are a bit different than most automotive engines.
The top of the connecting rod is not attached directly to the piston. The top of the connecting rod attaches to a "crosshead" which rides in guide channels. A long piston rod then connects the crosshead to the piston.
I assume this is done so the the sideways forces produced by the connecting rod are absorbed by the crosshead and not by the piston. Those sideways forces are what makes the cylinders in an auto engine get oval-shaped over time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be interested to know the rod length, and how much difference in load the "crosshead" produced.

I can't believe it's built in JA... ;) Wonder if Gruppe-S can procure one?

S.

Interesting, but the crosshead design makes the package enormous. Also, a lot of moving mass. It'll never turn very fast.

hp/weight is pretty poor.

Ok, I'm done pissing on your cool link. ;)

But no shots of the compressors or turbines? Those would be hilarious! :)

So, what do you do with this engine? Cruise ship? Small power plant? Rip mountains out of the ground?

I can't believe it's built in JA... ;) Wonder if Gruppe-S can procure one?

S.

You haven't seen our stage 8 motor then I take it Steve :D

Mike

does it have vtec?

Interesting, but the crosshead design makes the package enormous. Also, a lot of moving mass. It'll never turn very fast.

hp/weight is pretty poor.

Ok, I'm done pissing on your cool link. ;)


:lol: Nah, it's okay. I work with Scientists...they rarely agree outside the world of mathematics ;)

How about this for you "HP per/CID is everything" folks:

Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm

I'd say that shoots that argument in the ass ;)

Mike: Order one up for me, willya mate?

S.

"The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version."

Ummm........will that clear my stock WRX hood?

it is fuel efficient in that it doesn't exceed 110rpms. I'm curious what a modern engine that *could* run at 100 rpms would consume fuel wise.

also its not a very efficient motor in terms of hp/litre, it only works out for .07hp/litre for the 14 cylider engine.

I think these would probably be used for battleship/air craft carriers that arent nuculear powered.

I can't believe it's built in JA... ;) Wonder if Gruppe-S can procure one?

S.

looks like it's being built in korea.. unless it's a korean speaking factory in japan -_-;
+1 for i want to see turbo!

That is the sexiest thing i've ever seen, holy crap dudes. I'd give anything to get to work on designing something like that. The efficiency is awesome too. I wonder what the valves look like, and how many intake valves it has. Locomotive diesels that are 2-strokes can have 4-6. That's bound to be a damn big turbo too. How much boost do you think they run? That's a really precise figure on the torque too, and i bet it didn't come from a dyno!

Edit: it's funny how they put the power takeoff in between cylinders 4 and 5 instead of the middle on that 10-cyl. Those are bound to be some hoss injectors too, i wonder if i could get some for my wrx...

looks like it's being built in korea.. unless it's a korean speaking factory in japan -_-;
+1 for i want to see turbo!

"The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken."

But I believe the kanji has similar meanings in both places ;)

S.

it is fuel efficient in that it doesn't exceed 110rpms. I'm curious what a modern engine that *could* run at 100 rpms would consume fuel wise.

also its not a very efficient motor in terms of hp/litre, it only works out for .07hp/litre for the 14 cylider engine.

I think these would probably be used for battleship/air craft carriers that arent nuculear powered.


It IS fuel efficient in every sense of the word. A BSFC of 0.278? Show me ANY ICE that can do that, and I'll be impressed with it, as well.

hp/litre efficiency? How about 3.6 ft/lbs per CI @ a BSFC of 0.278? It's a turbo diesel, remember.

Right. Container ships.

S.

Interesting, but the crosshead design makes the package enormous. Also, a lot of moving mass. It'll never turn very fast.

hp/weight is pretty poor.

Ok, I'm done pissing on your cool link. ;)

It is not designed to turn fast. The idea behind slow speed diesels is that they can be dircetly connected to the propeller without going through a reduction gear system

It is not designed to turn fast. The idea behind slow speed diesels is that they can be dircetly connected to the propeller without going through a reduction gear system

why can't the propeller just spin at 9,000 rpm? j/k ;) I'm sure 9,000 rpm given the radius of the prop works out to supersonic...

"The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken."

But I believe the kanji has similar meanings in both places ;)

S.
it's not kanji... posters in that picture are in Korean

I thought it was a practical joke at first by someone with uber pshop skils. That's just nutty.

Crank up the injectors add a FRICKIN gigamanasaurus sized turbo and you'll have one fast ship.... :lol: :eek:

I love stuff like that makes me appreciate the invention of the internal combustion engine.... :eek:

I would wonder what Rod knock or piston slap would sound like in that thing :confused: :huh: :D

And I thought my engine was $$$ to rebuild.....I would just shoot myself if I owned one of those boats that had that

I would wonder what Rod knock or piston slap would sound like in that thing :confused: :huh: :D



a sonic boom probably.... over and over and over and over... :lol: No need for det cans with this thing!

Crank up the injectors add a FRICKIN gigamanasaurus sized turbo and you'll have one fast ship.... :lol: :eek:

I love stuff like that makes me appreciate the invention of the internal combustion engine.... :eek:

I would wonder what Rod knock or piston slap would sound like in that thing :confused: :huh: :D

And I thought my engine was $$$ to rebuild.....I would just shoot myself if I owned one of those boats that had that

Shoot mang, that thing would probably run for a hundred years without needing a rebuild, it does a blistering 100rpm after all.

Okay never mind, I looked at the pictures harder and the gear in the middle of the crank is for driving the camshaft, not power. Seems like you could get some interesting torsional harmonics going in a 60 foot long crankshaft though, as was the case with porsche's flat 12s in their 917 racecars, the power came off a gear in the center of the crankshaft to reduce the torsional stresses.

How does one start a motor that size? The starter motor alone would probably need to be several thousand hp.

How does one start a motor that size? The starter motor alone would probably need to be several thousand hp.

It will probably have its own generator powering a huge motor. Air is out of the question in this case. I don't know if hydraulic is viable or not.

That is the sexiest thing i've ever seen, holy crap dudes. I'd give anything to get to work on designing something like that. The efficiency is awesome too. I wonder what the valves look like, and how many intake valves it has. Locomotive diesels that are 2-strokes can have 4-6. That's bound to be a damn big turbo too. How much boost do you think they run? That's a really precise figure on the torque too, and i bet it didn't come from a dyno!

Two strokes don't have intake valves. Only exhaust valves.

So, what do you do with this engine? Cruise ship? Small power plant? Rip mountains out of the ground?

Most likely a supertanker. They are afterall, the biggest ships in the world.

The biggest ships need the biggest engines.

also its not a very efficient motor in terms of hp/litre, it only works out for .07hp/litre for the 14 cylider engine.

TQ is what the engineers are after, not necessarily HP.

(Noob):When is Cobb going to come out with their reflash for this?
(Specialist):Why didn't they knife-edge the crank?
(Guru): :rolleyes:

Two strokes don't have intake valves. Only exhaust valves.

Blast, you're right. I was thinking about two stroke model engines, those have ports for both intake and exhaust and i got it mixed up. As far as starting goes, I think they use compressed air somehow or another in deisel locomotives that displace only a measly 700 cubic inches for each of the 16 cylinders.

i think fuji heavy should make a diesel boxer! hahahaha

Neat!

Oh my good god...

Does that really exist?????

:huh:

does it have vtec?


Hahhaha.

I can't believe it's built in JA... ;) Wonder if Gruppe-S can procure one?

S.

Maybe designed in Japan, but that's a Korean location.
Also, I'm a little leary of the 50% claim, unless they've tied a boiler into the exhaust and are using the steam for other purposes. The most efficient gas turbine is running just under 55% with a HRSG, and its spinning alot less mass than that thing.

looks like it's being built in korea.. unless it's a korean speaking factory in japan -_-;
+1 for i want to see turbo!

oops, missed this post. Makes two of us that are Korean literate.

Maybe designed in Japan, but that's a Korean location.
Also, I'm a little leary of the 50% claim, unless they've tied a boiler into the exhaust and are using the steam for other purposes. The most efficient gas turbine is running just under 55% with a HRSG, and its spinning alot less mass than that thing.

Those rods would be one heavy ass thing to move up and down.

Do they have to change the oil every 300 miles? I wonder how many quarts it takes?

We need cruise ship racing.

http://www.rankmyride.com/data/b/d/10077/.large/neon_srt4_motor.jpg>http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/rta96c_cyldeck.jpg

Cool link Steve. The Discovery channel or the History channel (cant remember which) had a special on large Container ships and the outlined the proccess of building one. The ship on the show had an engine similiar and produced 98,000 hp. Crazy. stuff.

Clark

i think fuji heavy should make a diesel boxer! hahahaha

IIRC, the old WWII submarine docked outside the museum in Pittsburg, PA has two vertically opposed diesels. i.e. two boxers mounted vertically.

I'm just running from memory on that. It's been ~10 years since I was aboard.

edit: I'm wrong. The USS Requin used two V16's.

Blast, you're right. I was thinking about two stroke model engines, those have ports for both intake and exhaust and i got it mixed up. As far as starting goes, I think they use compressed air somehow or another in deisel locomotives that displace only a measly 700 cubic inches for each of the 16 cylinders.

We're using dual electric starters on our equipment (60 liter V16). They're standard size diesel starters, just stacked on top of each other hooked to four 8D 1600cca batteries. There are plenty of motors big enough to start the bigass engine originally posted.

its not a very efficient motor in terms of hp/litre, it only works out for .07hp/litre for the 14 cylider engine.


No, you've got it wrong.

Its 7780 HP per cylinder, and each cylinder has a displacement of 1820 L

That's 4.2 HP/L. What's more impressive is the torque per displacement, which is 220 ft/lbs/L. :eek:

How about this for you "HP per/CID is everything" folks:

Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm

I'd say that shoots that argument in the ass ;)

S.

Well not for what hp/weight as you responded to.

.0237 hp/lb ;)

Imagine screwing up on the the build and you've got to tear it back down :lol:

That's just crazy!

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/48/rta96cbearings2vv.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

must be awesome working on something like that.

Am watching Super Ships on the Discovery channel. The engine was built in Denmark and was installed in the Shanghai Express which is currently the worlds largest container ship. It can cruise fully loaded at 30mph.

Wow that is pretty amazing. You see stuff like this on the History Channel and such but never really get to see one being made. Very Cool Link :cool:

Here is a similar engine: the MAN B&W K98MC-C

http://www.daros.se/images/image17.jpg
http://www.daros.se/technical/image17.htm

I simple call these things B.A.D. Engines: Big @ss Diesel Engines :)