[Land-speed] Fw: Test

joseph lance jolylance at earthlink.net
Thu Oct 25 20:52:20 MDT 2007


Mike--I agree about the engine size factor, them model airplane engines are 
incredible.

But if we are talking about the 1-7 liter displacement range, top fuel 
dragsters are probably doing better than 1000 hp/liter but their mean time 
between overhauls is measured in seconds of running time.

The highest specific output engines running on the salt are maybe 700 
hp/liter with full-throttle mean time to failure rates measured in minutes ? 
(wild ass guesses)

I don't think 1000 hp/liter is an absolute upper limit either but it is 
probably close to the upper limit for present day big $ technology for a 
racing engine that can reliably survive the duty cycle of a 2-hour race (as 
in F1)--that's what I meant by "ultimate" ( a poor word choice on my part). 
I see 1000 hp/liter as just a temporary bench mark like 1 hp/cubic inch used 
to be for production engines.

Lance


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lackey" <mike_lackey at yahoo.com>
To: "land Speed List" <land-speed at autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Land-speed] Fw: Test


> What's the big deal about HP/L?  I'll betcha I could design a turbo engine 
> that produces 2000 HP/L...  (getting someone to build it is another 
> matter)
>
> HP/L isn't that meaningful unless you are only comparing very closely 
> sized engines.  For instance, I can go to a store by my house and pick up 
> a naturally aspirated engine that makes over 700 HP/L.  That's a stock 
> engine, nothing fancy.  And it's pretty close to what those F1 engines are 
> doing.  I wouldn't want to put it in my race car though as it's only .21 
> cubic inches.
>
> I'd agree that 1000 HP/L is the upper limit for 1.5L turbo engines 
> conforming to the F1 rules in the 1980's.  But I don't think it's an 
> absolute upper limit in general.
>
> Mike


More information about the Land-speed mailing list