Is 1000 WHP possibly and how?

[Homemade WRX]

Originally Posted by sponaugle

Hey, that's me!

The topic of 1000whp has been something we have been discussing for some time. Adding something like Alky injection only allows the engine to make the most of the available air, not create horsepower where additional air is not available.

With the H6 at 3.0L, there are two limiting factors that make 1000whp challenging. First, the longer stroke puts some limits on RPM (as does the VERY heavy variable lift buckets). The second is of course the amount of boost you would need.

As a rough calculation, 3.0Ls at 85% eff at 6500rpm at 40psi yeilds about 70 lbs/min of air. Using something around 10-11hp/lb/min of air gets you about 700hp.

If you jump the boost to 50psi, you are talking about 80lb/min, or a bit over 800hp.

You would then need a turbo that can flow that kind of air at those pressure ratios. A 40 couldn't do it, but a 42R could. You would be at the top of the PR map at 50psi, but still workable. If you then added a 200 shot of NOS, you would be in the right ballpark.

If you really wanted 1000hp with no NOS, you would need something on the order of 60psi at 7000 rpm, which would be very very hard to do on any normal turbo. Even looking at a GT60, there is not enough PR height.

If you could rev to 8000rpm at 45psi, you would be at 90+ lb/min, which might be tweakable to 1000hp.

If you could increase VE at high RPM to 92%, 8000 rpm at only 40psi would be close to 1000hp, and right on the GT42 map.

Just some food for thought. Even with a turbo, displacement makes a big difference.

Jeff

I love actually cramming the numbers and looking at the actual science side of things...but seeing the quick numbers you through down, I'm wondering what the displacement of that guys 2200 whp small block was...also what rpm he was turning and how many pounds he was running...

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[PA04STI]

LS-2 or LS-1 in a Gen 3 RX-7...

I would love that car....

Wait 50Gs....LS-7 (new Z06 engine code I think) with a Lingenfelter TT kit in a Gen 3 RX-7.

Matt

[Homemade WRX]

Originally Posted by PA04STI

LS-2 or LS-1 in a Gen 3 RX-7...

I would love that car....

Wait 50Gs....LS-7 (new Z06 engine code I think) with a Lingenfelter TT kit in a Gen 3 RX-7.

Matt

lingenfelter has been building all the C6's or the "lingenfelter corvettes" as NA (testing wise at least)...although I'm sure they have priced out FI ones though...

[InfamousDX]

Originally Posted by marylandecstasy

mm..k for jokes I had an idea..

http://www.turboneticsinc.com/turbo_thumper.htm

By the time this baby spooled up................ yeah, it wouldn't spool up. Ever.

106mm turbo... not too bad. Supras can do it... I'm sure that could eventually get spooled.

[bboy]

Originally Posted by InfamousDX

106mm turbo... not too bad. Supras can do it... I'm sure that could eventually get spooled.

You could spool with nitrous, but it would never be a track car. Earlier F1 cars managed these HP levels on small displacement, but they had a whole lot more head room for RPM.

[MarylandEcstasy]

Originally Posted by InfamousDX

106mm turbo... not too bad. Supras can do it... I'm sure that could eventually get spooled.

Are you serious? You had me then!

[GetSideways]

Originally Posted by PA04STI

LS-2 or LS-1 in a Gen 3 RX-7...

I would love that car....

Wait 50Gs....LS-7 (new Z06 engine code I think) with a Lingenfelter TT kit in a Gen 3 RX-7.

Matt

Just do an rx-7 4 rotor.....sounds like an f-16....

[doug*E*fresh]

twin turbo ls1 enough said or helion single turbo 03 cobra motor in a probe would be sweet

[Homemade WRX]

Originally Posted by GetSideways

Just do an rx-7 4 rotor.....sounds like an f-16....

no more like a blender...

[InfamousDX]

Originally Posted by Homemade WRX

no more like a blender...

i agree

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/...3D584C8FE5.htm'


This oen sounds ncie though.

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/...A5B216E68E.htm

[InfamousDX]

Originally Posted by bboy

You could spool with nitrous, but it would never be a track car. Earlier F1 cars managed these HP levels on small displacement, but they had a whole lot more head room for RPM.

actually yea.. it might be slightly big....
http://videos.streetfire.net/recentv...aa0463e4d5.htm

[babyblue22681]

Originally Posted by Homemade WRX

I love actually cramming the numbers and looking at the actual science side of things...but seeing the quick numbers you through down, I'm wondering what the displacement of that guys 2200 whp small block was...also what rpm he was turning and how many pounds he was running...

24 psi and im not really sure what the displacement was. from 3000 to 8000 he was above 1000 hp... with a roof of like 8800 rpm..

[wcbjr]

Originally Posted by InfamousDX

actually yea.. it might be slightly big....
http://videos.streetfire.net/recentv...aa0463e4d5.htm

That was the sound of the turbo? Friggin sick if it was.

[PDXTuning]

Originally Posted by bboy

You could spool with nitrous, but it would never be a track car. Earlier F1 cars managed these HP levels on small displacement, but they had a whole lot more head room for RPM.

In terms of HP, RPM and displacement are equal. There were 1.5L F1 motors back in the turbo days with 16000 rpm redlines, 1000hp, and 45+psi of boost.

If someone really wants 1000whp, they just need to decided which variable they want to push the most. Obviously the 8 cylinder guys often push the displacement, as a 8.0L Viper motor at 20psi could probably reach 1000hp, but at 120lb/min of air, you are talking about twin GT35Rs. On the flip side taking your 2.5L motor and reving it to 10,000 rpm at 50psi would be in the same power range, but you would need a 2.5L that can rev to 10k and handle 50psi.

Of course NOS changes all of this. Many many of the large HP drag cars are using NOS to get significant 'displacement' advantages, especially at lower rpms as the amount of NOS injected with a fixed pressure and nozzel size is a fixed volume at all RPMS, which means much more per cylinder at lower RPM.

Jeff

[Crazykev]

I'm throwing this in here just to see if this helps at all. My buddy held the 2.0L turbo no NOS record 3 years ago with a Talon that was running a T-88 if I remember correctly and he put down 966 WHP at Buschur Racing. I don't think Scott was running more than 46psi or so?

[2rexy]

1000 hp is obtainable with the B9 Tribeca motor, it's an H6.

[modaddict]

Originally Posted by 2rexy

1000 hp is obtainable with the B9 Tribeca motor, it's an H6.

[Homemade WRX]

Originally Posted by PDXTuning

In terms of HP, RPM and displacement are equal. There were 1.5L F1 motors back in the turbo days with 16000 rpm redlines, 1000hp, and 45+psi of boost.

yeah, the BMW's (4 cylinder same base engine as the 318)used to get to 1500hp in qualifying and would detune to 1200 hp for the races...the Renault's (have to take a pic of one across the street) put out a little less as a tt 1.5L v6...
regardless they also didn't run on gasoline...there is some fun chemistry with those motors...

I already know how I'd get the rev's and displacement...not using a 6 because of the lack of head developement...

[SloRice]

^^^bahahahaha!!!1!1!!!

[sponaugle]

Originally Posted by Crazykev

I'm throwing this in here just to see if this helps at all. My buddy held the 2.0L turbo no NOS record 3 years ago with a Talon that was running a T-88 if I remember correctly and he put down 966 WHP at Buschur Racing. I don't think Scott was running more than 46psi or so?

A T-88 is a large turbo indeed. As with the above examples, the critical variables that can make hp are all somewhat well know, with the excpetion of the efficiency and BSFC. Those are something that vary based on many many variables.

For example with a 2.0L motor at 10,000, if you could achieve 95% fill efficiency at 46psi or so you could get something in the 90-95 lb/min flow. With that kind of air, on the right kind of gas, I would expect you could get 900-1000hp, if not a bit more.

The amount of power you can get out of a lb of air would certainly be dependent on the fuel used. Using something like C16, I suspect the conversion might be as higher, perhaps something in the 12-13 hp/lb range. With more extreme fuels, this can be much higher of course.

Last, but not the least, All of these common claims are based on Chassis dyno numbers, which are less then consistant.

For example, if SAE corrections were turned on, 900whp can become 966 very quiuckly. As well, a small error in RPM setup (RPM reading slightly higher) can add 50hp very quickly at such high rpms.

Just food for thought of course.

If a customer wants 1000whp, he can get it. There isn't that much to the science. There is more to the reliablity part for sure.

Jeff

[sponaugle]

Originally Posted by Homemade WRX

I already know how I'd get the rev's and displacement...not using a 6 because of the lack of head developement...

Very true indeed. Cams are still a bit off, and headwork is being explored. This is a pretty new motor to the performance scene, and I suspect more power can be made cheaper elsewhere (2.5, 2.6, 2.8L H-4s, etc)

Jeff

[Jeremy@Cobb]

This is the block that would be of choice! Sleeved EZ30R







I wish I had pictures of our ported heads to show with the block and components.

[modaddict]

^^^^^^^^^^^^talk about an open deck!

[wldbllrdr]

1,000 hp. Buy a Mustang. P56 that is.

[InfamousDX]

Wow... now that's a new pic.