Hayabusa Engines in Car Classes

[dwarner]

However, with the H engine class the high HP non MC engines that fit are not that common and would be difficult and expensive for a low budget racer.

Valid point. If it wasn't for Jack D there would be no F.G.H ...Z engine classes for roadsters anyway.


DW

[desotoman]

DW

It's easy to see your point about MC engines in vintage classes.  However, with the H engine class the high HP non MC engines that fit are not that common and would be difficult and expensive for a low budget racer.

John

John,

De-stroked S2000 Honda motor would not be very expensive to build. Or course I guess it depends on what you call low budget. I was told you can pick these motors up for around $1500. (if you are really low budget you could run the motor on three cylinders) Some roadsters currently run them in the G engine class and have set many records at El Mirage. Thank God there is not an "I" engine class for roadsters. If we did I am sure we would be seeing the S2000 motor running with only two cylinders.

Tom G.

[JackD]

A state of the art S2000 project by Honda and a magazine failed to beat an obsolete Ford they thought would never hold up.
They must have confused the state of their art as it applies to Bonneville.

What can anybody tell us about the results from an 8-V-92 coupled to form a 16-V-92 ?
Think of HP as work performed over time if that will help.


Next, let's do a twin engined airplane and figure the effects one engine has on the other and what it means to the plane.

Take all the time you need.

[RichFox]

I thought horsepower was a mathematical result of comparing torque and rpm. Am I wrong? If you double the torque with out reducing the rpm, doesn't the horsepower have to double?

[ack]

jh
ack does use 2 chains... one on each side or the wheel.....hey by curiosity what 2 motors are ya gonna put together that will make a combined 1400hp? ya see i run a twin engined liner... each one of my motors makes 460 hp.. combined they make 787 hp... much to the disagreements of alot of "know it all's" on this board.... combining motors together DOES NOT DOUBLE HP... IT DOUBLES TORQUE... but does NOT double hp.... I HAVE proven this on the dyno. and your assumptions are wrong about chains. last year 2 of my 7 chains made it to the 5 mile marker.. of the 5 chains that "snapped" absolutely none of them "galled, seized or burned through a link" like you described...everyone who saw my chains were amazed at the condition they were in.... your on a steep learning curve... good luck.
kent

Hp =rpm x torque
           5,252

I don’t know what kind of dyno you have but my dyno tells me that if you double the torque at the same RPM you double the HP.  If it is at the same RPM and you are losing 133 HP that translates to 338,485 BTU’s.  Which part of the drive train melts first?  The six packs are for after the dyno run. 

[tortoise]

deleted (repetetive)

[JackD]

JUST FOR THE RECORD
We have a 3 way tie and the time difference only represents the relative typing skills that are not part of the exercise..
It is a good thing too, that makes it easier to split the 6 pack up fairly.
1 for each of them and 3 for Me.  LOL

" He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know"  (Abe Lincoln and His comment to Me about one of My Profs. when I was at school.)

[promachine]

If Kents peak torque was ,say @ 5000rpm, and his peak H.P. was at say 8000rpm, then the torque could double along with the H.P. @ 5000 but
with the extra drag and other issues one would expect the H.P. not to
double @ 8000 rpm. your right on Kent

[JackD]

In a twin engined setup, HP losses can be attributed to the methods used to connect them to the final drive and will vary with the setup.

"See above then return below."

[tortoise]

your right on Kent

If he'd said "On the setups I've tested, doubling motors does not double horsepower", I'd agree. But what he said was "doubling motors DOES NOT DOUBLE HP.... "PERIOD"

[RichFox]

If Kents peak torque was ,say @ 5000rpm, and his peak H.P. was at say 8000rpm, then the torque could double along with the H.P. @ 5000 but
with the extra drag and other issues one would expect the H.P. not to
double @ 8000 rpm. your right on Kent

So at 8000 drag and frictional losses add up to 87 Ft. pounds of torque, but at 5000 rpm they are nil? I'm not sure about that.

[Jonny Hotnuts]

ummmm..... nope jack!... my test were done as "in running condition" with all coupling chains in place... front motor only, 456hp to the rear wheels... then start and test rear motor only, 464hp to the rear wheels..... then run and test both motor 787.......all this was done with all coupling in place..... i know you guys claim "you got losses...".... bullshit.... doubling motors DOES NOT DOUBLE HP.... "PERIOD" I tested your theories..... it does not work.... but it does double torque 
kent

I would assume your test would show these results.....after all, you are running Kawasakis.

BTW:

dead right on the learning curve I have a lot to learn, it is just difficult as I assume I know everything.

&

Just kidding about the Kawa remark, your really tops in my book and I appreciate your insight.

[JackD]

[/quote] So at 8000 drag and frictional losses add up to 87 Ft. pounds of torque, but at 5000 rpm they are nil? I'm not sure about that.
[/quote]

In the words of that famous showman, P.T. Barnum, "No Cigar!"

[Jonny Hotnuts]

This is waaaaaaay off topic but:


I had this crazy idea once (when I was around 16) that a guy could get a 8 cylinder motor and run it as a 4 cylinder but use the unused side to act as a piston type supercharger to increase the air fuel intake charge into the 4 that WERE being used.
If I remember correctly a "charge" piston would take in and compress the fuel air as if it were a normal cylinder and at near TDC a valve would open and the compressed charge would go into the adjacent "working" cylinder at the bottom of the upstoke (of the compression stroke), providing the the cam timing would give enough duration to the intake valve to allow the charge in, this should near double the charge into the "working" cylinder.
I not sure if I actually ever came to the point of thinking it would work but now I'm starting to wonder.
I also dont know of any practical purpose for this if it did....just something to waste a bit of brain on.


All this talk of using just a few cylinders of the S2K motor made me think of it again.


-JH

 

[RichFox]

But your dead cylinders are the same size as your live cylinders. So your not going to pump any more air into the live cylinders then they would have sucked in anyway. So what's the point?