666 and engine NUTS

Discussion in 'Classic Mustang Specific Tech' started by WORTH, Nov 24, 2004.

  1. It's really not as complex as you would think, I drew it up and it isn't any more complicated that a dual overhead cam engine, and less complicated than most diesel setups.
  2. I guess I'd have to see it to figure it out.
  3. hey worth, do a search for napier nomad on google or yahoo and you'll find all kinds of info on "compound diesel engines" which is what that engine was, it had moving pistons and cylinders and it was a 2-stroke diesel (haha) see i told you were building one of those funky cool 2-stroke diesels, only this thing is turbocharged too, it was making something like 3500 HP :nice:
  4. :D Now , THAT'S a big block. :nice:
  5. Holy CRAP, Batman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :nice:
  6. The 14 cylinder version produces 109,000HP with 300 tons of crank at a blistering 102rpm. lol.

    BSFC is 0.278 though, that's REAL nice. You'd be lucky to get a performance smallblock to 0.5.


    Just goes to show, there's no replacement for displacement.
  7. That's friggin' unbelievable!!!
  8. Do I have the general jist of your idea worth????


    Attached Files:

  9. There is some leverage on the crank in a conventional engine, the piston's pin is slightly offset to one side to provide that little bit of thrust to get the motion started, but the motion is really only necssary when the engine is first started. The energy stored in the flywheel gives this motion after it's running.

  10. Yes i realize that, but do i have the general idea of what worth is getting at here????

  11. Yea, I know what he's thinking but instead of having thrust on the crank from the top of it's travel to the bottom, he's gonna have the thrust shortened considerably. He'd also have to have a faster burning fuel which translates to sharper thrust loads imposed on the crank and bearings, which means more stress on the whole thing. I don't see the advantage in that. Instead of a "push" on the crank, you'll have the eqivalent of someone "hammering" on it. Somewhat akin to the stesses that top-fuel motors are subject to. And we all know that they put out massive amounts of power, but have very short life spans. :shrug:
  12. I believe the top fuel guys run about a 7 to 1 compression ratio. I realize this is too pack in more fuel, but perhaps they have the angle thing figured out also?

  13. Yep , that is the idea.
  14. it's not the motion I'm after. What I'm after is firing the fuel when the leverage is better. Therefore producing more power with the same amount of fuel.
  15. Well I did a slight redesign to make it simpler to build, instead of moving the cylinder/head combination I am going to build a floating head with piston rings so the cylinder can remain in place. It will also make my moving weight less.

    I think I will build it out of a 4 hp briggs. that way I only have to make one cylinder work. Alot cheaper for a prototype.

    The other advantage is I have a benchmark to start with, so a simple dyno run will tell if there was an improvement or not, unless the sucker just blows up :D