![]() 09/20/2013 at 04:52 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
Here are some connecting rods. The one on top is the 1000hp one. Flippin' ridiculous. If someone can get 1000hp out of this engine without blowing it up every week then. . . then. . . I don't know what to say!
![]() 09/20/2013 at 05:03 |
|
I wonder how they quantify this as a "1000HP" connecting rod, especially since the rod bolts will probably go way before the rod itself will.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 05:05 |
|
Those look like ARP bolts, so maybe not.
I'm sure nobody has tested this claim on a BRZ yet, I don't even know of any 1000hp STi's. This is probably all an educated guess
![]() 09/20/2013 at 06:36 |
|
Those are Banks style offset
![]() 09/20/2013 at 07:06 |
|
It's silly to guarantee a certain amount of horsepower. When it comes to failing of connecting rods, it's the amount of torque you're trying to send through the crankshaft that determines the loads on the conrod.
438 N·m at 12k rpm = 1000 hp.
525 N·m at 10k rpm = 1000 hp.
800 N·m at 6560 rpm = 1000 hp.
Torque · conversionfactor · RPM = power. The conversion factor depends on if you use Newton Meter or Foot pound, and what flavor of power you want, HP, PS, kW, etc.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 07:10 |
|
That was my entire point. If it was a tensile strength or temperature rating, yeah, sure. HP ratings are silly.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 07:25 |
|
Don't forget your stress risers and Kt factors!
![]() 09/20/2013 at 08:20 |
|
*yawn*
Wake me up when they're aluminum.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 08:44 |
|
Actualy rpm will kill rods much faster than absolute torque from the engine, more so for the pistons. In reality the rpm * torque * weight of the rotating assembly is what dictates longevity. Lets see a 2L subaru cast 4 banger putting out 1000hp? Lifecycle will be counted in minutes not hours.
May I present this example?
![]() 09/20/2013 at 08:45 |
|
Also the block wont handle the power for long.... Hit reply too quick.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 09:47 |
|
Marketing.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 09:48 |
|
I read 100hp. I was like yea! ....disappointed.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 10:07 |
|
Funny to see "osmosis" in relation to a metal structure. There is no membrane to speak of, it's just oil seeping through microscopic cracks.
But that's beside the point. It's still silly to rate a conrod for a given amount of power without specifying how said power is made. RPM is still a variable. One that will make a lot of difference.
As far as power to be made, longevity aside, 19-eighties Formula 1 technology could get 1400+ hp from 1,5 liters, from a 4 cylinder production car engine block. (The BMW M10/M12 engine block.) So the claim isn't too far out there.
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/3167…
C
![]() 09/20/2013 at 10:28 |
|
Torque is actually not as great of a damaging factor as RPM generally when talking rods. Rods suffer greatest strain on the return stroke when they have to stop the piston traveling away from the crank. When traveling toward the crank the rod dissipates energy in a small circular motion around the crank, but the reverse is stopped in a virtually straight snapping motion. That is why turbo charging an engine doesn't usually break rods, the force increase is on the down stroke, not up, but increasing RPMs usually does result in broken rods/bearings.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 10:34 |
|
Seems plausible. People push 1000 HP from 2 liter turbo engines fairly regularly (if given enough money). Really it's usually not the destruction point of the engine that limits power as much as all the flow dynamics and general design limitations. If engines are designed for x air flow and y rpm, most of the design time is spent trying to work around that (reworking the head, changing valve sizes, matching cams, etc). Getting 1000 HP from twice the cylinders and twice as large of a cylinder head is twice as easy as doing it from one with half of everything... ignoring inherent design quirks of specific engine designs and basing it on generics.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 11:54 |
|
The crank case is porus, subaru is know for this.
Second F1 does not mean street cars can do it. There are 1000+hp 2L cars at the drag strip now, they are built out of iron block 3g63 mitsu engines. Even then their time on earth is counted, with most being stroked to 2.3L.... Let me just say this, after about 600hp, the whole equasion on making power goes up exponentially. Most people do not have the resources to make that kind of power out of such engines.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 12:01 |
|
Well I know getting 1000hp from an 2L is possible. Hell in the 80s BMW got 1500 from a 1.5L
It is just that, I can't see it being to reliable, hell F1 cars now with all the advanced engine designs and such, usually die after 2 or so weekends. . . yes they do rev to 17K, but you get my point.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 12:02 |
|
You are going to be asleep for a looooooooong time
![]() 09/20/2013 at 12:06 |
|
:(
![]() 09/20/2013 at 12:35 |
|
Do you have a link for more info on that engine? I'd love to read more about it
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:04 |
|
I do not have an links but if you google BMW M12 or BMW Megatron you should get good sources.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:33 |
|
Reliability is in the eye of the beholder. In the world of racing if it doesn't blow during the race, it's reliable (even if it's rebuilt every race). In my mind if an engine holds together for even a year or more with more than double the horse power it was designed for, it's very reliable.
If you have the money to build a 1000 HP 2 liter, you have the money to rebuild it...
![]() 09/20/2013 at 15:13 |
|
Why would you want them from aluminium? Sure, aluminium is lighter, but it's also weaker, so you'd need to increase the volume to compensate the loss in structural strength, so the weight loss isn't big. On the other hand, aluminium is much more susceptible to fatigue cracking. Not something you'd want in conrods.
No, if you want to go lighter, go for titanium. Not as light as aluminium, but a lot stronger and it is much more resistant to fatigue cracking.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 15:31 |
|
Billet connecting rods can be machined for strength and weight savings over steel, and titanium rods can't be machined after they are made (or not easily at least), plus the cost of custom titanium rods would be prohibitive while Manley makes custom aluminum rods for pretty much any application you can imagine. Off-the-shelf aluminum rods can support up to 10,000rpm & 3,000hp safely and offer immense rotational mass weight savings.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 16:58 |
|
This is true, but I would hate spending money on rebuilding my engine every year, even if I am a millionaire.
I think F1 has a rule where engines have to last a certain amount of races before getting a new one though. Don't quote me though, I don't follow F1 very well(although I do love the cars).
![]() 09/20/2013 at 17:06 |
|
It's simple, keep the power lower or over engineer. There's a reason the first mods I did to the new engine going in the Z were all fuel capacity and cooling related. Whenever I dive into internals at the first rebuild everything will be build for a lot more power than I ever plan on actually pushing from the engine.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 17:32 |
|
That is what I am thinking about as well. I am pretty sure I don't need an oil cooler, but what if. Same with a better radiator. People say overengineering makes a car boring, but look at the Ford GT! Gearbox meant for 1800 hp, ridiculously strong chassis. . . people seeem to love it.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 17:36 |
|
It all depends. If you turbo the car an oil cooler will be good to help offset all the extra heat from the turbo. If you are running an isolated oil system on a super charger, probably not so much. Everything is dependent on everything else.
My Z got an oil cooler with a thermostatic sandwich plate to help get the oil up to temp, but then keep it in check. I also went with a much larger and baffled oil pan with trap doors, oil filter relocation, significantly larger custom radiator, and over kill electric fan with a good shroud. This is all on the stock turbo now, but it is going in place for testing BEFORE it is critically needed for the new turbo system.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 17:55 |
|
Jeeeezzz you went all out. I am not thinking about doing that much. I am probably going to stay NA or in a few year a supercharger, so I may not need an oil cooler. I do want to do some track days, and the oil can get much hotter there, so I might get one just for that reason.